I do not believe in gender identity.

[SernieBanders]

There are two sexes: male and female. Occasionally, that matters.

There is no such thing as an innate gender identity—no internal essence that makes someone more inclined to wear dresses and sip wine, or football boots and down pints. Those are cultural stereotypes, not proof of some mystical gendered soul.

The idea of gender identity is sexist, misogynistic, and regressive. It reinforces outdated norms instead of challenging them. Women do not need an inner feeling of womanhood to be women. Men do not need a gender identity to be men. Sex is real. Stereotypes are not.

I hope with the flurry of cultural changes, legal challenges, scientific findings and executive orders in the last ~12 months, more people feel able to stand up and be counted, and say - No More.

I find your dismissal of rape and the impact of pregnancy surprising.

For most women, these are serious issues.

Good God. So if a woman or girl gets flashed at in the street, she simply has to avert the eye. And the offender goes unpunished and unreported. Then goes on to probably commit even more serious crimes. BRILLIANT! Or does this woman think this rule only applies in women's changing rooms? I'd love to know.

And why is sending an unsolicited dick pic criminal offence but an unsolicited dick in a female changing room is ok if the owner says he’s a woman?

How does that make sense?

It's undoing years of painstaking work of women attempting to counter sex crime. We made some gains with the 'upskirting' bill and general understanding of paraphilias as often a red flag/precursor to more serious crimes. And recent moves to descrive 'gender based violence' did promise to perhaps reveal the issues, which are endemic, and reveal Male Violence Against Women and Girls as the crisis that it is.

But perhaps an even larger problem is that society has rolled back women's ability to state their discomfort at, for example, having a young male in the changing room with them.

A woman in Scotland faces dismissal for having challenged a male in her changing room.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/16/nurse-challenged-trans-nhs-doctor-threatened-with-sack-fife/

Girls are banned from their sport for questioning whether males can play against them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2025/01/28/second-teenage-footballer-banned-transgender-opponents-men/

A woman prisoner faces trial for 'using he and him pronouns' about a convicted murderer she was imprisoned with.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14308551/Convicted-killers-embroiled-transphobic-hate-row-left-prisoner-feeling-suicidal-court-hears.html

We've all seen the women sacked for speaking up.

And I think this is what's had the most damaging impact, to be honest. It's not the added risks and dangers, although they are serious. It's the chilling effect, the hounding of women who dare to speak out, the fear of saying the wrong thing, the silencing of women and girls.

How can we think about challenging sexism if we aren't allowed to talk about sex?

I agree completely. It makes no sense whatsoever. By that token, really, a man should be able to get out of a criminal conviction for sending an unsolicited dick pic simply by claiming that he is a woman! Wonder how that would work out in a court hearing. 🤔

What do we say to our daughters about strange men in women's spaces?

'Well, maybe he feels like a woman on the inside, so you can't question him'.
'Maybe he's had plastic surgery, you can't raise the alarm.'
'Better to stay silent and be kind than speak up and risk upsetting him'.

When Magdalen Berns said 'I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar', she wasn't just talking about being honest for the sake of it.

Women need to be able to speak honestly about our experiences, risks, threats, fear, and worries, in order to preserve our safety, privacy and dignity. Women speaking up and speaking out has always been hard, society has always tried to silence women in order to stop men feeling uncomfortable. Way back to the time of the scold's bridle and the witch prickers.

And so here we are whanging on long past the time where we might have hoped to be doing something more useful with our lives, having to repeat the most basic facts of life and the same statistics, over and over, because humans being what they are, men will always be a threat to women, and as we age and become mothers, the fight becomes not just for ourselves but for our daughters.

And that's why we won't wheesht.

Soon sending dick pics won’t be an offense because the recipient can’t possibly know the gender of the person sending it…

@ArabellaScott was just thinking about that French rapist and gang rape facilitator, M. Pelicot. He got caught upskirting, didn’t he? I couldn’t watch the trial indepth, but am 100% that the accused were all men, with penises. I wonder at which point she was allowed to feel their rapes were the worst thing that ever happened to her - when she discovered her husband had been raping her, or that 1, 2, 21, 51, more men had all raped her. Or maybe she doesn;t think it was the worst thing, after all, as certain PPs suggest. After all. She’s alive. The STIs were treatable. She didn’t get pregnant…

Perhaps certain PP’s can advise how many rapes a woman has to undergo and by how many men before they feel she is allowed to feel this was the worst thing that had ever happened to her. Am also pretty sure the penetrative nature of the abuse, its reliance on the attackers being penis-havers, was on a par with any other form of violence. But that’s just me. A woman. What the fuck do I know?

He did get caught upskirting.

And it is not the strong argument that JHound thinks it is to ponder whether rape is the worst thing to happen to a girl or a woman in an effort to censure people from discussing the exclusion of all male people.

But if I remember correctly, this is also a poster who dismisses any non-consent issues if someone asks for a female doctor and then is treated by a male doctor but the female patient is unaware that they have just been treated by a male doctor. In other words, this is a person who believes that if someone is successfully deceived in accepting a person of the opposite sex to which they asked only to be treated by, then job done. That person has been well treated and have no complaints.

It builds a picture though of the depths that people will go to support a group of male people to access female people and their single sex spaces. They will dismiss cases of non-consensual acts and they will attempt to portray others discussing the issues as being either obsessively focused on genitals (where else have we seen this?) or trying to distract that the discussion being had is irrelevant in some way and should be focused on the issues that the poster believes to have higher priority.

Either way, some posters will spend an inordinate amount of time censuring other's posts with limited actual engagement or contribution. But it must make them feel good.

the penis is usually attached to a person with much more strength and explosive physical power than woman have.

So along with the penis comes the physical ability to assault, control and restrain a woman.

Of course the majority of men don't actually need to cause women actual phyical harm, and yet women still largely modify their behaviour as the threat of male violence, in a world that pretty much revolves around mens power, strength and sex drive, is enough for women to be wary, seek to minimise dangers.

Yes, Robin.

And of course, that strength and explosive physical power, indeed that huge difference in grip strength is barely diminished in a male with that penis and testes removed.

I suspect that is why some posters cannot answer the question of

What is the difference between a male person who elects to have their penis and testicles removed based on their philosophical belief in their identity or a male person who has their penis and testicles removed due to injury or disease.

Why should one get access to single sex spaces for female people and the other doesn't?

It is remarkable, isn't it? That some people want to draw the line at some point where a person has surgery, but it makes no difference in the final outcome when you look at it closely. So, that line is effectively meaningless.

Added to which I would suggest that a man seeking access to women's spaces is in itself a red flag. That is breaching a boundary.

So the crucial aspect isn't so much whether a man retains his penis or not, but more whether or not he seeks to access a space that he is, by definition, excluded from.

This cannot be said enough.

I doubt that Dr Upton is forcing this issue to visually see naked bodies. But there is very little doubt that Upton is forcing Upton’s presence in that Fife changing room to have power over the female people in it.

Just like Upton will present as a female doctor to a patient requesting a same sex doctor as a sign of Upton’s power over female people and their perception over Upton. Just like the NHS is now putting a nurse through a grueling process for ‘misgendering’ by referring to Upton as a ‘man’.

These are about power.

So why does anyone think removing body parts changes that particular aspect of a male declaring their gender identity should allow them into female single sex spaces? It is flawed thinking.

There is exhibitionism as well as voyeurism to consider as reasons for men to wish to access women's spaces.

But yes, at root, it's about power. Coercion. Abuse.

Dr Upton is a good example of the unequal way that men and women are treated - and which sex feels more entitled.

Upton knew, because Peggie told him openly, that he was causing her distress.

He continued to use the women's changing room. Why? Because he claims he would be distressed to use the men's.

His distress matters. Peggie's apparently doesn't.

Why is that?

All roads lead to ACCESS - accessing women & girls. Again and again.

If NHS Fife had a changing room that was labelled "WOMEN ONLY" and men with a trans identity were given access, but the women didn't change in there but changed down the hall in a cupboard marked "Room 101" , the men with a trans identity would want to access & change in Room 101.

We often hear TRA's argue the greatest threat to women are the c*s men they live with. Why is that? Its ACCESS!!! Those are the women and children bad men have access to and can intimidate in private. Plus they are futher protected by no one believing the women & children & a police & legal system that routinely fails those women & children.

We have some single sex spaces in public places and this is to LIMIT men's ACCESS to women and girls in these spaces.

We know mixed sex spaces see increase in harrassament and assaults on women and girls plus more hidden cameras etc. Why? its ACCESS! A mixed sex space gives man access to women & girls, access to privately hide a camera in a shared toilet cubicle.

This is why TRA's don't want 3rd spaces which lots of people suggest as a compromised solution - no access to women & no validation from being able to access the space with those women.

"His distress matters. Peggie's apparently doesn't."

Exactly!!

Like "Be Kind" - be kind to who?

Who do you actually think you are being kind to when you lie about material sex, or when you lie & say TWAW, or when you let a man into female space?

Do the "Be kinders" stop and think about who else they might need to consider and "be kind" to?

Why is "Be Kind" a one way street to men doing whatever the fuck they want & women being demonised for seeing a man with her own eyes?

Women are obviously the ones who are exhorted to be Kind.

Men are the ones we are supposed to be Kind to.

There is no way anyone is directing Be Kind instructions to Dr Upton. He is to be the recipient, not the giver, of kindness.

Human men aren't wolves. Simples! There are other forms of safeguarding than segregation.

For some sports, women are better. We are all different! Also elite sport makes a tiny part of my life whilst being defined by my gender is a much bigger part of my life.

Can you point to what form of safeguarding would keep a woman in a prison cell safe from Tiffany Scott?

Scott was approved for women's prison in Scotland. I'll.find an article for you if you haven't heard of him.

No, you are wrong. 99% of sports men have bodily advantage.
It may not affect you but it has affected others.

Here you go.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-68442073

Please describe your safeguarding solution to sharing a cell with Tiffany.

You know men out perform women 99% of the time because the have a huge physical advantage.

How can you answer this with “for some sports women are better” ? That’s a crazy answer and you know it.

@JeannetteBlue

so you seem to support mixed sex sport!

I see your views and they’re not kind.

you’re just a wind up merchant, right? You don’t actually mean any of this.