To say that just because someone is opposed to " Trans Acceptance Without Exception" it doesn't mean that they are GC or Feminist.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

And it's important to understand the difference?

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Radical Feminist POV. Gender is abstract. A societal construct that can be accepted, rejected or adapted throughout life. Gender is different to biological sex which is scientifically binary and immutable so Gender is not really important and not a stable basis for law.

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Feminist POV. Gender might have a biological component. Fine with gender ideology long as biological women's rights, security and single sex spaces are safe with no encroachment from males.

Some oppose Trans Activism because it goes against their religious beliefs. It does not make them GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because they believe in stereotypical gender roles. Men should be men and women should be women. This is not GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because of misogyny. They hate women. They hate men pretending to be women because it debases men. This is not GC or feminist.

Am i being Unreasonable to say that just because someone is opposed to TRA "acceptance without exception", it doesnt mean they are Gender Critical or feminists. And we need to understand the difference.

Ok, bye then.

You do know there are constituencies where neither Labour nor Tory stand don't you? How is my criticism of the Tories hectoring you?[

It's a shame you won't continue this conversation.

I wonder if anyone else can explain how it helps vulnerable trans women to lie by telling them they are not male. To sometimes even lie about this on official documentation such as passports and driving licences by putting the sex marker as female. But then say they are not really female and they can't enter women's single sex spaces and sports?

I would have thought that this would be more confusing and hurtful than telling the truth from the outset and to the extent that some trans people are known to have mental health problems I would have thought that lying in this way would do more harm than good.

I have NC for this.

The behaviour of a certain group of posters on this thread - many of whom I've had great conversations with previously - has been appalling.

The ganging up, yes it's mob behaviour, towards individual posters you don't agree with is disgusting. The constant haranguing, needling, badgering them. The sealioning and twisting their words rather than engaging properly. The refusal to be basically civil. The passive aggressive attacks and outright aggression and swearing at them. Talking over them like they're not on the thread. The framing of this as "robust discussion" but when it's dished back at them it's "abusive".

And yes I have NC for this because I know my name will be marked now by this particular group of head girls, and I will never be able to have a civil discussion again without the gang descending and bullying me off the thread.

I actually didn't know that. I can't find any information about that doing a quick internet search but I'd imagine it's fairly rare?

I live in a non battle ground seat. The Labour party don't even bother campaigning here but they do stand a candidate.

It's not rare. Neither party stand in Northern Ireland where I live.

I was going to ask if you lived in Scotland or Northern Ireland earlier in my last post.

Thanks, that makes sense.

"It's this kind of obsessive drilling down I find weird in these 'discussions'."

Is it the drilling down that upsets you and others? Or is the fact that people do it and shows that what posters post is not quite the truth when you then look at the whole context with more information that is the issue? That the opinion has been based on superficial information and is just that, opinion not fact. Is it ok when posters who you support do it?

I ask these questions because this seems to be yet more of those hypocritical double standards.

Surely if people are going to disagree about something, it is worth discovering just what they are disagreeing about and whether it is a true representation of the facts that people are then in disagreement with?

What a transwoman wants and how they want to be referred to does not create truth. It’s a preference, can be considered a courtesy, but doesn’t infer it’s a fact.

The sex of a transwoman is male, by definition, whatever they may prefer to be the case.

I suspect that Suzanne Moore might have had a worthy claim of victimisation within her employment, which would then have given her grounds for 'constructive dismissal'.

Having a place of work where so many of your own colleagues raised this letter as a response to your work being published is creating a directly hostile workplace. Here is the letter:

As employees across the Guardian, we are deeply distressed by the resignation of another trans colleague in the UK, the third in less than a year.

We feel it is critical that the Guardian do more to become a safe and welcoming workplace for trans and non-binary people.

We are also disappointed in the Guardian’s repeated decision to publish anti-trans views. We are proud to work at a newspaper which supports human rights and gives voice to people underrepresented in the media. But the pattern of publishing transphobic content has interfered with our work and cemented our reputation as a publication hostile to trans rights and trans employees.

We strongly support trans equality and want to see the Guardian live up to its values and do the same.

We look forward to working with Guardian leadership to address these pressing concerns, and request a response by 11 March.

Below is a list of 338 of Guardian employees globally who signed this letter at the time of writing.

So, it is not quite correct to state that these people have 'different beliefs' to Suzanne Moore.

What would be more accurate is that it was them who displayed a totalitarian approach to what was published in the mainstream media outlet where they worked. It is them coercing their employer to stop publishing anything they, the signatories, disagreed with.

Doesn't this fit the definition of totalitarian in style? I would consider it most definitely authoritarian.

And yet in discussions about the needs of female people being prioritised when sex matters, the discussion needs to exclude male people. When discussing the collective needs of a group, the needs of each individual cannot be prioritised. Besides which, there are many male trans people who accept the fact that they are male and respect that in discussions about the needs of female people that people are correctly sexed.

I suggest that all this name calling, telling people that they are transphobic, and intolerant, comes from prioritising what we have been told is a very small sub-group of those male trans people.

Or, are now to treat male trans people as a homogenous group?

People are allowed to complain about things they find objectionable. Gender Critical beliefs are WORIADS though, so complaint should be respectful.
Jo Phoenix was hounded out of her job. Not one of her former colleagues checked in with her to see if she was ok.

I find the inhumanity of that shocking. When I work with people who are sensitive to certain issues, I check in with them to see if they are ok. Jewish and Palestinian colleagues for example. Whatever my opinion, I am concerned for their well being. If there was a discussion about this at work, I’d check in with the mums of trans teens.

On this thread I’ve seen people being interrogated about their beliefs by both ‘sides’ if you like- though there is more than one side. One of the things I like here is that no one is immune to being analysed. I have been thoroughly dismantled on more than one occasion. And that’s ok- it isn’t personal. Though it may feel that way if you lash out in response to criticism.

The complete opposite of what has happened, but thanks.

The gaslighting, misrepresentations and cry bullying by some people who want to pigeonhole women who don't adhere to their particular notions of political purity as furthering a right wing agenda is extraordinary.

We've been called all manner of things on this thread. At the very least there has been name calling on both sides. I would say the people mentioned above have gone further, but that's the thing about perspectives, we don't all see things in the same way.

On FWR there is definitely a "political purity" camp and there are plenty of people whose views I don't share. But this petty sniping and running to subreddits to slag people off like teenagers is ridiculous.

MTF trans people are male. They always have been male, and they always will be. It is not possible to change sex, and this belief, in line with scientific reality, is consequently protected under English law. The people some call "trans women" are a subset of the male sex, not the female sex.

I notice that again ‘swearing’ had been mentioned as being somehow an offense aimed at someone in particular.

I swear at no one in particular. There are a few people who come to mind that women shouldn’t swear in their posts. I would suggest that any person who believes that a person who says fuck in their posts is ‘aiming it at someone’ has their own set of prejudices and biases.

If people find the word fuck offensive when used in a post, then I suggest MN is not a fucking comfortable place for them to be.

You can say 'stop hounding me'.

But Suzanne Moore resigning in whichever way she wants, and mentioning the actual over 300 colleagues who have bullied her is an 'unhinged rant'?

And this isn't double standards?

TooBigForMyBoots
I will criticise and hammer any government that erodes women's rights.
I haven't told any lies!

I think you've told several lies on this thread OP:

Your Jamie Wallis anecdote was clearly a fabrication/lie - you didn't return when I challenged you.

Also, you claimed that at no point had Johnson or Sunak 'given a biological or legal definition that could be shown to exclude men'. I was on a thread with you two weeks ago when I posted the same Sunak link (Sunak says 100% of women do not have a penis) - on that occasion you claimed that Sunak didn't really believe what he was saying/he was told to say it.

Sorry

There are a few people who come to mind who tell us that women shouldn’t swear in their posts.

So much hyperbole: 'attacked'; 'bullied'; 'ripped apart'; 'slashed to pieces'; 'mob'. All because posts are disagreed with and robustly challenged. It's utterly ridiculous that any challenge to what's being said is described in such emotive terms.

Yes, I completely agree.

owing to the acts of parliament enacted by Labour that allowed men to be legal women

Just spotted this case from 2009 - did the Labour government lodge an appeal?

[Trans] prisoner wins right to be in female prison

Lawyers for the 27-year-old inmate, who is still at the preoperative stage, described her as a “woman trapped inside a man’s body” and argued keeping her among men was preventing her from having a full sex change.

The killer, known as “A”, is currently serving life for the manslaughter of a boyfriend and the attempted rape of a female shop assistant, both committed while she was man.

Although born a man, she had been undergoing the process of gender reassignment, and in 2006 was granted a certificate under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which required her to be recognised as a woman "for all purposes".

Deputy Judge David Elvin QC, sitting at London's High Court, quashed Mr Straw's decision to continue detaining "A" in a male prison saying it breached her right to a private and family life [under] the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said: "It follows that, so long as the claimant remains within the male prison estate, she is unable to progress towards the surgery which is her objective."

She was originally convicted of manslaughter in 2001 and jailed for five years after smothering her boyfriend with a pillow and strangling him with a pair of tights.

Less than a week after her release on licence two years later, "A" attacked a shop assistant, forcing her into a back room, tied her up with a suspender belt and tried to rape her.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6138325/Transsexual-prisoner-wins-right-to-be-in-female-prison.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transsexual-killer-wins-battle-to-serve-life-sentence-in-a-womens-jail-k770cd2n9bt

I'm not sure, but that male was invited to the House of Lords by a Labour peer to talk about their experiences in prison as an MTF trans person. Karen Jones tried to rape a female shop assistant by gagging her with a lemon and overpowering her and later blamed it on "gender dysphoria". The only reason the rape didn't succeed was "Karen"'s inability to get it up, IIRC.

OMFG.

Was this individual in a woman's prison?

Yes, I'm pretty sure, after the appeal mentioned by @Clavinova that that was the case.

I remember there was a thread in FWR when Lord Patel invited Jones to the HoL, and at one point his office offered to speak with a woman here who was querying it, and @Datun was also going to go to support her, but they never did seem to manage to fix a date for it