To think that, under the threat of "Let the war begin", there should be specific laws against male's entering female private spaces (and vice versa)

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

After being told they will not be allowed to enter female toilets, changing rooms, clubs and other private sexed spaces, men have vowed to "fight" or be arrested “multiple times”

https://archive.ph/tdkd0

"Let the war begin. Fingers crossed. You need to fight for all of us globally. It’s a war."

I think it is reasonable to have a specific crime for this sort of violation of rights and privacy, rather than Outraging public decency, Voyeurism, Exposure/ indecent exposure.

It seems clear that without firm dealing with, men are going to violate these spaces again and again.

Mmm word salad for dinner again? Ooh I don't know, I'm still pretty stuffed from the massive word salad you served us earlier.

"bio-psychological state"

This is a great example of how you deliberately ambiguously phrase things. It is meant to convey the larger idea of something extremely profound but really it is just a euphemism for being a live breathing and thinking human being.

None of us are stupid Tandora, although you keep treating us as though we are. We can read and understand simple English language when it isn't deliberately mangled and twisted as you are prone to do to it.

If the quoted phrase above actually means something other than... well a description for the living and conscious state of being in humans, how about you attempt to explain exactly what you mean when you use it.

I am expecting you to come back with either nothing, or more salad - please no, I'll burst if I have another bite! 😂

It’s not reality.

Yet to readers it comes across as the opposite. I understand it's difficult to discuss when you seem to be the only person trying to make the arguments you are making, so I don't want to come across as harsh, but your posts generally just don't make sense. They appear to be an exercise in evasion. Confident assertions aren't convincing if they're not backed up with reasoning and/or evidence.

It's timeywhimey.

Of course it's reality.

I’m really not trying to be ambiguous , I’m trying to explain it as simply as I can. Those words have meanings.

Every time you hear something unfamiliar - you think you can dismiss it by calling it a “word salad”. I see this a lot on mumsnet .

Yes you are.

That does make sense, because how we experience pain is genuinely complex and we don’t entirely know how some painkillers work.

From the cursory google I did, there's no good evidence why anyone should treat PLP with painkillers! Sometimes medics make poor decisions that aren't based on evidence.

Yet to readers it comes across as the opposite..but your posts generally just don't make sense.

Im not sure the evidence entirely supports that. If that were the case I suspect people wouldn’t spend so long and work so hard at trying to undermine me. When I read posts that are simply incoherent I tend to just ignore them .

I understand that some of what I say might not be perfectly expressed, sound ambiguous or overly complex. It’s actually a really complex topic and not easy to explain in simple/ brief terms. But I do my best and I think on the whole i do a pretty good job at it.

Most of the “feedback” I receive I well understand isn’t a reflection of me, but rather the deeply intrenched beliefs / prejudices that people have already formed on this subject and the resistance to having those contradicted/ challenged.

No im not 🤷🏼‍♀️

I read an article recently about someone who suffered with phantom limb pain and one of the treatments was to stand in front of a mirror looking at the missing limb when experiencing pain. I think it's an attempt to get the brain to recognise that there is no limb.

Also @ArabellaScott I really appreciate the softer tone you have taken in this thread, feels like I am speaking to a human for a change which is nice.

I’m starting to realise that understanding on this topic is unlikely to be achieved through intellectual argument- it’s just too confusing for people. I think human connection / empathy is going to be the only way. I’m not going to be the best person to foster that, hence probably a waste of time being here at all . Sigh.

Some scientific stuff you can read online says the following.

Excessive or Insufficient Detail:
Liars may overcompensate with unnecessary details to try and convince you or, conversely, provide too little detail, making their story suspicious.

And

When truth-telling witnesses describe what they saw and are asked: “Is there anything else?” more details are revealed. But when liars are asked to go beyond their prepared stories, few to no other details are offered.

Researchers quoted in the American Psychological Association (APA) refer to these people as “liars who deceive by omission,” who, when asked to answer questions or provide more details, typically offer less than those telling the truth. This can be quantified through transcripts of phone calls, witness statements, or noticed by an absence of descriptive words in a conversation.

Another way researchers verify the truth is by asking people to tell events backward. Truth-tellers will stick to the same story while offering more details, while liars often get tripped up and create a different story while not adding detail to the original.

On the flip side, researchers from Harvard Business School determined that liars trying to deceive stretch the truth with too many words. Since such a liar may make up things as they go, they may also tend to add excessive detail to convince themselves or others of what they are saying. They may also embellish with words that a person telling the truth wouldn’t think of adding.

Fascinating stuff isn't it?

Ha ha! Nope!

I actually enjoy learning new things, it's one of the things about life I find most enjoyable, so having my prior knowledge and beliefs challenged is usually welcome.

Of course I am human, so I haven't always responded in an immediately positive way when I have been proved wrong, but I am always open to changing my previously held beliefs if shown evidence that I am wrong, and have changed my position on other matters before after discussion with people.

I am not prejudiced (or bigoted or phobic) at all, along with many GC people I was pretty liberal before the TRAs started crossing boundaries.

I'm not going to give a timeline of my involvement in this subject, but I don't think I'm ignorant either.

Thank you for showcasing another aspect of your discursive style, when you have no tenable position to defend because your ideology is built on a foundation of quicksand, you can shout that people are too stupid, too prejudiced, too ignorant, bigoted, phobic, closed minded you think too much, understand too well, and won't do what I tell you.

Fill your boots, you'll excuse me for not being bothered.

After all you do our work for us, you're a veteran of Operation Let Them Speak and we appreciate your contribution to the cause

Do you? I must have missed that. 🤔

really?!

Doctors at the British Medical Association (BMA) have condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex, dubbing it “biologically nonsensical” and “scientifically illiterate”.

The union branch representing resident doctors – made up of around 50,000 medics previously known as junior doctors - passed a motion on Saturday criticising the judgement, which ruled that trans women are not legally women under the Equalities Act.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trans-gender-supreme-court-ruling-bma-doctors-b2741304.html

I’m not a liar 🤷🏼‍♀️. Might be advisable to play the ball not the player.

Yes this is an excellent statement and compatible with what I have been trying to explain on this and other threads.

I would encourage posters to make themselves aware of how to spot the truth online.

There's plenty to Google.

I have already made my point about substance and was given a two line rebuttal compared to the pages of word salad waffle when you were controlling the narrative.

I will let everyone make their own judgement.

I’m not shouting or being rude. I’m simply calling it as it is. I understand you disagree .

I will let everyone make their own judgement

I support this and of course they will.

So a nothing reply it is then.

Yes you are trying to be ambiguous.

Yes those words have meanings, and I am able to understand those words.

Actually what I did was ask for you to further explain your meaning of the phrase "bio-psychological state" as shown by this quote from me
"If the quoted phrase above actually means something other than... well a description for the living and conscious state of being in humans, how about you attempt to explain exactly what you mean when you use it."

Are you refusing to further elucidate? Could that refusal and obfuscation be because you can't explain what you mean? Could that be because it's just meaningless fluff? I think so!

Odd isn't it?

Nothing replies when asked probing questions.

There is no substance. Just waffle.

Yet to readers it comes across as the opposite..but your posts generally just don't make sense.

Im not sure the evidence entirely supports that. If that were the case I suspect people wouldn’t spend so long and work so hard at trying to undermine me.

No it's because we don't like to see dangerous misinformation and propaganda spread by posters like you.