Strong words from feminists unhappy with trans exclusionary ideology..

[crispbuttyfan]

freedomnews.org.uk/its-spelt-sisterhood-not-cis-terhood-statement/

a little taster of the content, not my words....

"We are disgusted by the TERF techniques of bullying trans people and their friends and comrades. TERFs stand against a vulnerable minority by refusing their right to exist, using their dead names, doxxing them, smearing them online and in the press and waging a fear campaign, all whilst accusing trans women of being a possible legal and physical threat to cis women. These techniques are not consistent with their announced aim of getting legislation refused by parliament and belie the TERFs real agenda of intolerance.

We are sick and tired of TERF alarmism. There is no evidence that trans women are in any way a threat to cis women. To the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that TERFs feed the prejudice against trans women. The countries which introduced their own versions of GRA are not experiencing the problems the TERFs associate with allowing trans people to determine their own gender."

This thread provides a very good example of why women do not want men in women-only spaces.

Absolutely.

crisp I've had a quick scan through your posts on this thread. I can't spot one saying you believe that Tara Wolf was wrong to attack Maria and that you condemn violence against anyone. You clearly approve of the article as a whole but I'm not clear as to whether you agree with most of it but abhor the paragraphs about Tara's attack.

Normally people are quick to distance themselves from thugs. Why would we discuss any of the rest of the article when that section exists? It really shows up the signatories as being bad sorts.

Hopefully the list of signatories is so short because lots of people refused to put their names to apologism for violence.

Do you believe those paragraphs are deeply disturbing and wrong?

Do you condemn Tara's violence?

Do you condemn the apologism of the paragraphs about it?

Do you see why the presence of those paragraphs makes the rest of the article be considered even more dubious?

bowelofbabelfish

Wowzers... I don't know how I missed this post of yours... let me bump it and reply for you...

"with the mythical "condition" called autogynephilia (AGP) as a particular favourite)

AGP is a recognised and well researched condition. The gatekeeping process for a GRC accepts it exists and excludes for it. Are you saying the GRC process is medically inaccurate?

AGP exists - It’s accepted as being an entirely separate phenomenon from gender dysphoria, and is classed as a paraphilia. TRAs seem very opposed to this concept.

A person in the process of transition (ie who has gender dysphoria, not AGP) is protected under the GRA and equality act. The law offers them the same protections as a woman.

Nowhere on here have I seen any call to repeal the protections people with gender dysphoria already rightly have.

The point is that right now a GRC requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and an exclusion of AGP. A person with gender dysphoria in the process of transitioning is protected as they should be. Individuals with AGP should not be allowed in female spaces at all. Right now the GRC process excludes them.

The TRA lobby want this gatekeeping removed, because it differentiates between gender dysphoria and AGP. If it’s removed, the genuine dysphoric people will be less able to access the treatment they need and the AGP people will be allowed into female spaces at will.

Increased crime if areas become unisex is a myth? Well no. We are concerned on an evidential basis. Target in the USA have seen a doubling of voyeuristic and sexual crimes since their changing rooms became unisex, and areas without single sex or female only facilities do see much higher incidences of rape and assault.

So. AGP exists, is recognised by gender clinics and no one with AGP is supposed to get a GRC. Genuine trans women (with GD) should be protected and have access to treatment. Unisex toilets and areas result in increased voyeuristic crime, sexual assault and rape. AGP men should not be allowed in female spaces.

That about sums it up."

Agp is not, and has never been recognised or accepted as a diagnostic tool by any recognised medical institution in the world.

It was a disordered premise for gender diversity in a time when it was considered a disorder....... which it no longer is.

Ray blanchard who coined it and Bailey who brought it back to prominence have written about it, but it has never been accepted.

It is impossible to be diagnosed as AGP.
Not a single person in the UK has ever had an AGP diagnosis from a medical professional.

It has been dubunked time and again, and the medical establishment at this point in time considers gender dysphoria and gender identity as innate, thus throwing out disordered and transient expressions of gender dysphoria such as AGP and ROGD....
I know they are popular on here, but not in the actual real world.

runrabbit
I condemn the violence at hyde park, and that Maria was hit..... however a discussion further into events and the rest of the article would require good-faith which is clearly impossible on these boards, and the attitudes shown over the last 12 pages means I am not prepared to discuss that at this point.... as people seem determined to tell me what I actually think and what I believe..... there are NO good-faith discussions around trans people or trans supporting feminists on these mumsnet 'feminism' boards.

Learn how to quote on MN, Crisp. Or your posts are unintelligible.

LightofaSilveryMoon - This thread provides a very good example of why women do not want men in women-only spaces.

Yes. TRAs should keep posting. The vast majority of people have eyes and can read.

crispy
You posted a goady letter on the feminist board. That is not demonstrating good faith.
You have been asked, politely and repeatedly, for your opinion.
You word your condemnation very carefully with passive language so as not to malign the convicted perpetrator, classic male abuser language - you will be called on it here.
Maria wasn't just 'hit', there wasn't just 'violence at Hyde park'. Tara Wood hit her, Tara Wood was violent in Hyde park.

I confess, when I see a wall of text from a TRA or MRA I totally ignore. To be fair I ignore most of their diatribe anyway. Yes, I know I should debunk it, but sometimes you see a load of crap and just sigh.

ALittleBitofVitrio

lol, good-faith? maybe you should read that back. amazing.

This might explain some of the confusions.
psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-38120-004

Meh, this is all part of ‘the rules of debate’... this is the flounce part the ‘well after pages and pages of not answering and being goady I’ve decided you don’t deserve to know my view because you are all big meanies’....

Crisp was never going to outright say it. Hence posting the letter with the qualifier ‘not my words’....

I condemn the violence at hyde park, and that Maria was hit. That sounds like a no then!

You condemn "the violence" but have previously made more of someone kicking in self defence than the aggressor punching the victim in the face. When you use the passive "Maria was hit" rather than the active "Tara punched Maria" you remove the aggressor from the equation.

Again, it is a tactic often seen in abusive relationships - "Tom beats Mary" becomes "Mary is beaten by Tom", becomes "Mary is beaten" until "Mary is a battered woman" and Tom is nowhere to be seen. (Obviously you can replace Tom with any other name and Mary with, eg Maria)

Gynophilic MtF transsexuals are almost always autogynophilic.

Androphilic MtF transsexual trnd not to have autogynophilia.

So all those 'lesbian' transsexuals should not have received GRCs?

what do I think of the article? The whole of the article aside from hyde park which I already said was unhelpful

Can you describe why you think the stuff about hyde park was unhelpful? I think that stuff was unhelpful because it was not true. It was libellous, victim blaming and inflamatory.

Why do you think it was 'unhelpful'?

I think it has more merit and more based in reality than the general output and views of trans people generally on these 'feminism' boards.

Which bits specifically did you think had 'more merit'?

Which bits specifically were 'more based in reality', in your opinion?

What is your working definition of 'reality'?

I am not interested in a pile on. Crispy has refused repeated requests and I think their refusal should be respected.

I do have one thing to say. People have given you the benefit of the doubt for months, Crispy. This thread erases all doubt about your intentions here. I have nothing more to say to you.
I have reported your personal attacks, lies, and gaslighting, and the mods seem to think your style of verbal abuse is acceptable on MN.
Enough.

I condemn the violence at hyde park, and that Maria was hit.....

Thank you.

This has come the best part of a year too late but thank you for saying that violence against women is not acceptable. Please tell your transactivist mates. Let us know how that goes.

however a discussion further into events and the rest of the article would require good-faith which is clearly impossible on these boards

Nobody who is here in good faith could write 'however...' after a condemnation of violence against women. 'However' in these circumstances is invariably misogynistic.

We see you.

Maria's account of the trial.

These TRA have endless time to waste ours. It's a war of attrition. And they have the man hours to wage it.

Yes few seem to be in gainful employment do they?

But we have the brains and the argument and the ability to control our temper.

We have maturity.

Can you explain this? I don't think I get it

Basically what everyone else said. There is no point arguing - beyond stating your point one time - with a narc or an adherent of a narc ideology. They accuse others of their own behaviour. And they can't hear what you say because they aren't talking to you. They're talking to themselves. That thing about the narc seeing their own dirty face in the mirror then cleaning the mirror (not their face) is spot on.

These TRA have endless time to waste ours.

This is the defining feature of FWR right now.

The best thing to do in response is only respond to each other.

Yes LanceClegg Amazing how often certain posters (those promoting misogyny, violence against women and the erasure of the class of women) are given so much head space by posters on here. Disingenuous posts, outright lies and gaslighting, but they still get responded to. Ignore them.

thebewilderness
your link proves nothing..... there are thousands of studies around these topics saying various things, only a handful of articles are written on agp by a handful of people who use it for notoriety.

It is still not accepted anywhere as a legitimate diagnosis or a theory with merit.

It's decades old, to believe it you have to both .....ignore every other paper and study written since and be determined to use a quackery pejorative to discuss trans people.

I know it is absolutely worshipped by those with an anti trans bias, but it is still true that no recognised medical establishment acknowledges it because it is nonsense.

I know I'm flogging a dead horse on here, because it is used as a recruiting tool by transphobes.....but when you have to rely on things like AGP it shows up the total lack of of actual facts to support your views, and the determination to denigrate trans women.

MyRelationshipIsWeird

you can continue to respin anything you like, as everyone has constantly done to everything I have posted throughout this thread, it is still nonsensical to try and tell me what I actually think, and more than a bit gaslighty.