Supporting the Community

[GegenFanatiker]

A petition is currently circling on relevant social media sites which is worth making yourselves aware of:

Link www.change.org/p/not-in-our-name-women-in-support-of-the-trans-community?recruiter=56582827&recruited_by_id=9cfad6e0-a9e2-0130-024a-00221964dac8

Now, I'm not usually a fan of petitions that people sign to make themselves feel better rather than actually acting. In this case action is speaking up publicly and vocally as cis women to let people know that we don't agree with the active discrimination and exclusion of trans, non-binary and gender-diverse people that is currently being enacted in our name.

The blatant misdirection and weaponisation of fear aimed squarely at the trans community does nothing to support women's rights. The labelling of this anti-trans rhetoric as feminism is disgusting.
Feminism is fighting for politicians to address the systemic issues that actually endanger women rather than redirecting that violence at other women (in this case trans women). Feminism is not whipping up a moral panic directed at people just trying to live their lives while ignoring the epidemic of male violence that claims women's lives.

I strongly recommend taking a few minutes to read the petition's stated aims fully, and reflecting on your personal attitude toward them, before commenting.

I would but I’m already an Arsenal supporter.

Parklife!!!!

"The blatant misdirection and weaponisation of fear aimed squarely at the trans community does nothing to support women's rights. The labelling of this anti-trans rhetoric as feminism is disgusting."

"Feminism is fighting for politicians to address the systemic issues that actually endanger women rather than redirecting that violence at other women (in this case trans women). Feminism is not whipping up a moral panic directed at people just trying to live their lives while ignoring the epidemic of male violence that claims women's lives."

Feminism is actually about liberating female people from sex based oppression. And demonising female people for stating that they need and want services and opportunities that exclude all male people, is not an act of feminism. That is an act of misogyny.

Where do suddenly all those German user names come from?

I'll sign it when there's a petition by the TQ+++ condemning all the hateful rhetoric around cunty women not wanting to share some spaces with men who pretend they are cunty women.👍

It seems we need a reminder that no male person can ever experience life as any type of woman. They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman. And there is no way that any male person can even be 'socially' accepted as a 'woman', because even then they are not 'women'. They remain a male person with a philosopical belief about their own identity.
Even when they 'act' like a woman, those male people are acting as they believe a 'woman' should act. Which is fucking misogynistic!

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way.
Even when they have extreme body modifications, it is to be their own concept of what a female looks like to them. It is not what a female is.

How can it be?

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life). It really doesn't matter though. Their motivation is irrelevant to the outcome. And I consider the outcome can only be described as misogyny.

Which is that they will always be just a male who believes they are something they are objectively not.

How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

The logic cannot be any different than that I am afraid. Yet we are told that unless we use the language demanded by these male people, we are lacking intelligence and indeed, education. And we are to be shamed for our disrespect.
And that those male people have to be made comfortable in society by allowing them access to female single sex spaces. Because apparently, 99% of them are completely 'harmless' because they have not been reported in the public sphere as having harmed a woman or girl.

Cis women. ODFOD

Transwomen are not other women, they are not women at all, they are male. And you know that, as the only qualification for being a transwoman is to have been born male.

So it's a hard no from me.

? Aren't there rules around posting petitions on the boards?

"The blatant misdirection and weaponisation of fear aimed squarely at the trans community does nothing to support women's rights. The labelling of this anti-trans rhetoric as feminism is disgusting."

The labelling of this (as) anti-trans rhetoric as feminism is disgusting.

Fixed it for you OP.

Anti-suffragist women also signed a petition in 1907 claiming women should not have the vote. There will always be women that do not prioritise their own rights.

cisgender

No thank you. Not my belief system, not interested.

the anti-suffragists got almost double the number of signatures as this petition and did not have the assistance of social media.

thankfully times have moved on and women care about women’s rights in 2025

Gosh.... and cis women too!

One significant issue with ‘cis’ is that its very usage forcibly categorises someone into having a philosophical belief that they may or may not have. It is very problematic for those who do not have a ‘gender identity’.

In fact, to extrapolate it out : if ‘cis’ excludes those who do not ‘identify as having a gender aligned with the sex they were born’ then the trans gender community would be fucking huge.

Because it would include everyone who doesn’t believe in gender identities at all. Not through deliberately self-categorisation as ‘agender’ but simply through rejection of anything to do with that philosophical belief that is the foundation for gender identity and the theories that shape those identities.

Because, the only commonality with all those claiming a transgender identity is philosophical belief. Not a medical 'problem' according to transgender people and academics and medical professionals who are transgender and shaping public awareness. No scientific and robustly established material facts.

So only philosophical belief.

And I would be pleased to know just what other philosophical belief should be given the power to shape a whole populations language to the extent that we are seeing these language changes being demanded?

If someone who was religious called me a non-believer, I cannot dispute that. Because it reflects my reality. I don’t believe in their religion so in their religion centred language that is what I am. It could be considered neutral in that respect. It doesn’t change my belief.

As an example, labelling me ‘cis’ is not neutral. It falsely categorises my beliefs and is not a neutral act at all. Calling me ‘cis’ coercively forces me to believe in gender identity and the theories that are foundational to them.

That is not forgetting that in recent years it has also become clear that the term ‘cis woman’ has been used to incorporate male people with differences of sex development. Those who have masculinised using the testosterone their bodies produces from testes.

I believe that happened because of that other problematic phrase ‘assigned female at birth’ . It is problematic because it too was unsuccessfully repurposed in another false attempt to support a philosophical belief as being something more than just belief.

The term cis woman was said to mean ‘a person assigned female at birth who identified as the gender they were born’ or ‘identified as a woman’. It is quite interesting really as you see the not subtle political manoeuvring in these artificial word changes.

Either way, it was a scientific term that has been wrongly repurposed. It was never meant to describe human belief systems and it fails dismally in that role.

'I strongly recommend taking a few minutes to read the petition's stated aims fully, and reflecting on your personal attitude toward them, before commenting.'

I strongly recommend taking a few minutes to think about why you posted this tripe on a feminism board.

And since it is timely with all the discussion about Khelif. Here is another reason why cis is a meaningless word.

The term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.

There is no word left for female people.

Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:
1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:
Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^
Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

HTH

It's almost as if we haven't been discussing every single point TRAs ever made or could make for about 10 years now at least.

There is no concerted attack on / discrimination against / exclusion of trans, non-binary or gender-diverse people taking place.

Instead there is:

• a re-balancing of society's understanding of reality and truth back to a more honest and open position.
• protection of the vulnerable and oppressed female part of the population
• protection of single-sex spaces to be reserved for those who are actually of those sexes.
• straightening out and correction of policies and processes which have been applied incorrectly and bringing them in line with the law which has been around for over 15 years.
• protection of children from being mutilated and abused by those who have an agenda

Nothing has changed for those who feel that they are 'trans'

• they still remain the sex they were born - which has always been the case
• they still have access to toilets as they always have (those that are for their birth sex)
• they still have access to single-sex spaces as they always have (those that are for their birth sex)
• they still have access to medical services (in fact statistically more so than many)
• there is a growing encouragement to support them in understanding and treating the underlying mental health issues
• there is a growing encouragement to find ways in which they can feel truly themselves without having to undergo devastating hormone supplements / surgery

Where there is an objection and resistance is:

• where people use 'trans' as an excuse to bully
• where people demand rights beyond those they have, and at the cost to others
• where people make threats of violence and even death
• where lies are being propagated (about basic biology, through to lies about the law etc.)
• where truth and law is denied and as a result people's lives and jobs are threatened

So, I think it is a totally inappropriate petition - it is based on inaccuracies and misconceptions, so should not be supported...

e.g. The real threat to women has never been trans women seeking to live their lives with dignity. Tell that to the women who have men parading through their changing rooms and toilets / rape support centres or breast-feeding groups - demanding access because they are women (clue - they are not!)

Quite so. The idea that this post is suddenly going to make people change their mind in the face of reality and basic biology is incredibly arrogant.

I am not even sure how a petition got through MN links checker?

Have they removed the link checker that used to block change.org petitions? Oh.... I see... that glitch before was MN moving it from the feminism board to where it should be listed.

Thanks OP for providing us the opportunity to put up links and points of discussion for those who take " a few minutes to read the petition's stated aims fully, and reflecting on your personal attitude toward them, before commenting."

That was really very kind of you.

The sole biological qualification to be a trans woman is to be male.

Every time I have asked someone to define what it means for a male to identify as a woman, or feel like a woman, what comes back is either sexist stereotypes, or a metaphysical belief with no basis in material reality.

I respect trans people's beliefs in the same way I respect a religious person's rights to their beliefs. They can hold those beliefs as strongly as they like but I don't share their faith. They deserve protections for employment, housing, access to services etc as a protected characteristic, in balance with other people's rights in our society where there are conflicts.

The demands of trans people to women's single sex provisions over the last few decades has resulted in a direct conflict of rights in many cases. And unfortunately, many trans people were misled by activists such as Stonewall into thinking they had a right to access single sex spaces of the sex they were not.

We have said for years that there should be BOTH single sex AND trans-inclusive services, spaces, etc. Third spaces, whatever you want to call them. Give people choices. But you can't have single sex spaces if there is someone of the opposite sex included, as it then is no longer single sex.

The petition says:

"Cisgender men who abuse their power are the real threat

We witness the devastating impact of anti-trans rhetoric, aimed predominantly at trans women, that masquerades as feminism while advancing nothing but harm. We see politicians weaponising fear to avoid addressing the systemic issues that actually endanger women. We watch media outlets generate moral panic for profit while ignoring the epidemic of male violence that claims women's lives:

• One woman is killed by a man every three days in the UK (Femicide Census, 2023)
• 1.7 million women were impacted by domestic violence in 2023 (ONS, 2023)
• 98% of perpetrators of sexual offences are men (Cambridge Rape Crisis Centre, 2023)"

This is not quite correct. You see, it is MALE PEOPLE who are the 'real threat'. All male people.

For anyone who wants to know what should be considered for evaluating risk of this sub group of males to show that they have a risk level not less than any other male in the UK of committing sex crime, have a read through the statistics for males who have transgender identities who commit sex crimes in the UK
Firstly, This was a question answered earlier this year:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-16/20298.

Question from Rebecca Paul (MP Reigate): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2023-2024, published on 28 November 2024, how many of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female were convicted of a sexual offence.

Answer from Sir Richard Dakin (MP Scunthorpe): 23 December 2024
Of the 245 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as male (i.e. those who now identify as women, non-binary or gender-fluid) on 31 March 2024, 151 were convicted of a sexual offence. This includes both contact and non-contact sexual offences. Offence data was not available for 1 individual.

Of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female on 31 March 2024, the number convicted of a sexual offence is five or fewer. We do not provide exact data for such small sample sizes as it risks identification of individuals. This approach is in line with our standards on data disclosure.

To put this into perspective with what we already knew from FOI information. I posted the information to a regular poster from FWR on another thread, who did not acknowledge the information at all, so it seems sticking the info here is appropriate:

Here is data from the MoJ

Here is an FOI request from 30 April 2024

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/populationoftransgenderoffend/response/2641337/attach/html/7/FOI%20240322022%20Annex%20A.xlsx.html

Up to the 31st March 2023, the MoJ stated that of the 88 male transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.

The breakdown was
48 rapes,
0 attempted rapes,
10 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
13 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
0 indecent assault or gross indecency
6 sexual activity with a child under 16
0 other

77 listed here.... BUT there is a total of 88 in the total so there is 11 crimes not noted.

Possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child has not been recorded in this FOI.

However, there is are further discrepancies in the data of the following when you look at TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE.

1 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity
3 rapes
2 sexual activity with a child under 16
3 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,

This equals 9 additional... however the sum for TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE is 99.

Therefore 2 more sex crimes have been hidden from this data.

There were 203 males who were declared as transgender in the prison at the time.

There were 24 NB who were not segregated into male and female. What is key here, is that THIS IS NON-GRC HOLDERS. And we all know that males holding GRCs have increased and they are excluded from this data. NO female people with transgender identities were sentenced to a principal sexual offence. There were 41 female people with transgender identities in UK prisons at that time.

As a comparison, I have stats that say as of April 2019 that the general male MoJ data for male sex offenders was just 16.8% of the male prison population.
And there were 3.3% of female people in UK prisons were sex offenders.

I will leave you to do your own sums. But... even using the figure of 88/203 is 43.3%. (And that doesn't include making or possessing indecent photographs of a child remember.)

By the way this exercise was done in 2021. And I checked this data myself from the data source and it was correct at the time. So, it will give some back ground to the above.

The ones that say that in the March/April 2021 data collection period, the MoJ stated that of the 97 transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.
The breakdown was

40 rapes,
8 attempted rapes,
31 possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child,
32 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
20 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
10 indecent assault or gross indecency
9 sexual activity with a child under 16
27 other

The 97 sex offender transgender prisons collected 177 sentences between them.

And that according to that FOI 197 prisoners are transgender.

This is why NO SUB GROUP OF MALE PEOPLE SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM RISK ASSESSMENT. This group of male people still retain the same male pattern of committing sex and violent crime, at ANY STAGE OF TRANSITION.

So... this petition just swapped from being UK focused, to pulling in global statistics to try to support its claims. That is rather dishonest, isn't it?

The UK is one of the the safest places in the world for transgender people. Less than 1 murder per year. It is thankfully very rare. And yet, this petition says:

"Globally, trans+ people face staggering rates of violence - particularly trans women of colour. Data showsthat in 2024 the number of trans people reported murdered surpassed 5,000, since monitoring began in 2008. Reported rates of self-harm and suicide are rife. This should horrify any society that claims to value human life. Trans people are denied healthcare, housing, and employment. They are vilified for existing while we - cisgender women - face our greatest threats from men who face no such scrutiny."

This also 'weaponises', to use the creator's terminology, suicide.

Thankfully, a review of suicide numbers has been done in a few countries. And there is no increased risk of suicide for people with transgender identities compared to those people with the same co-morbidities that they also have been diagnosed with. Yes, they are at risk, but not greater than those with the same co-morbid health conditions.

It is important to understand this misused statistic.

I believe that Chase Strangio clarified that suicides within the group of people who have transgender identities are rare, in court for the US v. Skrmetti case before Christmas.

Suicidality is high and spreading misinformation about completed suicides in a specific group is not a response that likely lowers that suicidality, is it?

Strangio also admitted that there was currently no evidence that gender affirming treatment lowered suicide numbers.

“Strangio said: “What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we’re talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don’t necessarily have completed suicides within them.”
“
However, there are multiple studies, long-term longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in—in suicidality . . .” “

https://www.city-journal.org/article/aclu-attorney-confesses-transgender-suicide-claim-is-a-myth

So, when reading this petition, please look further than this petition for information .

I had a look, OP, but it's for "cisgender women" and I am absolutely not one of those. You'll find very few of them here. Know your audience.