AIBU to think that MNers are excessively hateful towards trans people?

[Wordsmithery]

I accept that there are huge areas to be addressed when it comes to trans/non-trans rights: toilets and changing rooms, sporting events, prison accommodation, to name but a few. Government has a lot of work to do, listening to people's genuine concerns and drafting laws that protect everyone. And of course biological men masquerading as trans to prey on women are scum.
However, reading some of the many MN threads on trans people, it feels like there is a terrifying level of vitriol at the right of trans people to even exist. I emphasise, this is not about toilets/safe spaces etc. It's about Will's right to identify as Jill, or vice versa. Why does it really matter so much to us - are we scared of people being different? Are MNers failing to speak out because they're terrified of being shot down in flames? How is it hurting any of us if someone chooses to identify as their non-birth gender (beyond the caveats in my first paragraph)? What is the opinion of MNers with children or siblings or best friends who announce they are trans ?
Asking because I'm alarmed by the lack of trans allies (or even trans tolerators) on this forum. And I'm even more alarmed that there may be a reassuring number of trans allies on here but we never hear from them because they know what response they'll get.
No hate please. We seem to have enough of that already.

Well if you are not a misogynistic woman hater you would stop defending males destroying females boundaries and you would actually defend females. For once.

It's not about your total lack of awareness that others think differently.
Don't both to answer because you can't accept being wrong about anything including geography.
I bet you write in green ink too.

Literal LOL at the flailing desperation of some posters.

Oh, so now it's England only. Because womens rights don't matter outside of England? Scotland is in the UK. In case you didn't know.

And Scotland, under the SNP have had to put up with so much crap.

Those 71% of posters, they see through the utter nonsense that’s been posted on this thread, without one single argument that doesn’t rest on misinformation, lies, insults, smears or emotional blackmail that men can become women. They aren’t buying it. Like most people don’t.

Eh?!

Womens rights are not 'anti-trans', @HonestAquaMember , unless you are admitting what we already know: to be pro trans is anti women, if being pro women is anti trans.

I've been accused of many things, but never of writing in green ink! 😂

Are womens rights limited to one country?

Face it, they simply don't want any answer. If there are cases in England, then they'll still find something wrong with it. It's childish and disingenuous to say 'give me evidence but...OH! only for this country'. No, they don't get to make demands.

I dropped geography at GCSE. At least I know what a woman is though.

As I said, no one is buying it, outside the echo chambers where everyone thinks (or pretends to) that some men are women.

Can you be "excessively hateful" towards paedophiles? The thread directly below this on one my list is about a serial paedophile who dressed in women's clothing to carry out attacks.

How does one distinguish in the moment between a predator and a man who just wants to wear a dress?

With the use of 'green ink', the poster seems to be expressing the view that you send letters to the Editor written in the way that Agatha Christie describes letters written by old ladies in her books - overwritten, heavily underlined and full of initials.

It might have landed better if that post itself was 1. better written and 2. made any sort of sense. I'm surprised there wasn't multiple exclamation marks at the end, to be honest.

You don't get to make demands.

Scotland is in the UK. And is affected by the SC judgement.

What about supporting and respecting females and thinking we females deserve to live in peace?

That's right, it's not about females rights, is it. Because it's a mens rights movement. The fact you won't say a word to defend the oppressed sex, says it all.

The Supreme Court judgment was brought by For Women Scotland about Scottish law originally. The Equality Act 2010 is law in both Scotland and England so it was involved at the high levels as it progressed through the courts, as the Scottish government said they were adhering to the EA. Hope that helps the geography fans.

Is this genuinely all the arguments people have to defend the idea that the only difference between men and women is a feeling and sex is never relevant?

Come on, where's the thing that will persuade the woman on the Clapham omnibus that you have a point? Give it your best shot. What makes someone (male or female) a woman, in your view?

Surely it would help trans people to know this too - what people would consider in order to perceive someone as a woman, if it's not the sex of their body?

Exactly! We’ve been asking this on here for years.

Just lie 'cis' and 'heteronormative'. 🙄

Oh, but when we complain they just say "all words are made up" and "language evolves".

Well quite.

The main reason the GRR bill was stopped under Section 35. was because it went against the UK wide EQA2010 legislation.

And as pointed out, it hasn’t convinced the woman on the Clapham omnibus, because it’s unfair and absurd.

Don't you dare call me a genderist.
I belive in female and male.
You madam are a nasty piece of work who hijacks every thread with the word trans in it.
Go and read an atlas.

Karen White

The in prison sexual assaults were committed in which part of the UK?

Scotland is bound by the same Equality Act as England.

Human rights are universal.