We've never believed in silencing debate....

[truthisarevolutionaryact]

says the Scottish trans alliance ... in an article explaining why Meghan Murphy should not have been allowed to speak to the Scottish parliament. Apparently they believe in "honest constructive discussions" - as long as people use their allowed language, adhere to their beliefs and accept their false views of history and reality.

It's frightening how little self awareness they have.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-people-and-feminists-should-be-working-together-thdfslkz3?shareToken=734ba5639a43cba8820da78716b8ad76

Go Jacky thanks for making all of that crstal clear.

Taling of which, in the comments section under the Scottish TA piece, 1984 is so very bloody eloquent. I think I recognise the 'voice' (obviously won't link the 2 pseudonyms...) and can I say thank you too?

Aw shucks! Thank you all.

Jacky you should go on Mastermind!

Your knowledge of this is brilliant.
Thank you

Thanks RO.

Although, in all honesty I'm just reading carefully what GRA 2004 actually says and applying common sense to it. Each word has been carefully chosen to achieve a purpose.

This is interesting in the GRA:

"A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport."

So no wibbling about exact modifications, makes it clear that if they wish to, bodies can ignore acquired gender when it comes to sport. Sounds like a GOOD idea to me...............

If that's considered disrespectful, then tough shit.

Let's face it. In this context, disrespectful is just another word for which the meaning has been twisted beyond reasonable recognition. It's just a dog whistle for woman says something I don't like.

I have no intention of complying. I will not be "respectful" under these circumstances. I do not care if AWAs call me disrespectful. Not one teensy tiny bit.

@JackyHolyoake

I've bookmarked the thread. Thank you

I understand that. But that is where the leap to accepting others must begin.

I decided age 10 that I was an atheist, and have no use for a god. But I still refer to our village priest as ‘Reverend’, and, on the occasion I met the Pope on a State vist as ‘your holiness’. It is when you cross the line in imposing your personal beliefs on others who have a legitimate position in our society that you lose the standing to engage in respectable debate. It is no more acceptable to misgender a trans person than it is to use perjorative terms for persons of other races or religions or the disabled. Unless the gender-critical cannot find it in themselves to respect others by their behaviour in such common courtesies, then they will always be isolated. A leap of faith and behaviour is required to join the debate.

There's an excellent comment under the Times article which is worth repeating:
Service providers will still be able to exclude anyone whose behaviour poses a risk
That is not how safeguarding works and it's a key reason why women are concerned. Safeguarding is predicated on no-one being above suspicion and is why I, as a woman need to follow certain procedures, rules and have a DBS check to work with children and vulnerable adults, even though, statistically I pose a very low risk.
My lovely husband, my great sons, my gay friend and the kind man across the street who cross dresses pose no risk that I know of, but still they are not allowed into places where women should have a reasonable expectation of being women only. Here I would particularly point to places like prisons, domestic violence and homeless refuges, medical settings and anywhere where women are undressed. Single sex provision was fought for by women, and saying that all is required is a belief in one's inner gender identity to break down the boundaries that are there to protect our privacy, safety and dignity is a worrying sign that some men do not understand us and think these services exist solely to validate them.
This piece completely mis-represents Meghan Murphy's views.
Trans organisation could spend their time and considerable financial clout in ensuring services for transwomen suit the needs of transwoman. They do not: instead they tell women what to say, what to believe and to budge over.

Rinse and repeat........

It is when you cross the line in imposing your personal beliefs on others who have a legitimate position in our society that you lose the standing to engage in respectable debate.

You honestly don't see the irony and double standards you're applying here?

You're imposing your personal beliefs on me, as a woman, with a legitimate position in society.

I understand that. But that is where the leap to accepting others must begin.

What you are demanding here is total capitulation to your desires.

Sorry, but no!

And ... "no" means no.

There is no debate about boundaries females impose for their safety, wellbeing, privacy and dignity.

Sort out your own trans spaces. It is not our job to do this for you.

How would that be different to the position adopted by a certain regime in Germany in the 1930’s that black athletes were held to be sub-human and should not be competing against white athletes?

Oh Dear. Godwin's Law.

How is using a particular pronoun any different from Zyclon-B?

It's a Toughie.

It is when you cross the line in imposing your personal beliefs on others who have a legitimate position in our society that you lose the standing to engage in respectable debate

the irony.....irony meter rising...can't keep the needle down....

!!

sorry, my irony meter exploded.

A leap of faith and behaviour is required to join the debate.

Debate on my terms or not at all, how very totalitarian of you.

A leap of faith and behaviour is required to join the debate

we're debating just fine here without acceding to your terms......

Unless the gender-critical cannot find it in themselves to respect others by their behaviour in such common courtesies, then they will always be isolated. A leap of faith and behaviour is required to join the debate.

Unless autogynephilic males cannot find it in themselves to respect women and girls by their behaviour in such common courtesies as acknowledging and honouring the boundaries they set for themselves, then they will always be isolated. No leap of faith is required but a behavioural leap is required to join any debate.

Except there is no debate about the boundaries set by and for children and women. These boundaries are what they are and are reinforced in law.

I decided age 10 that I was an atheist, and have no use for a god. But I still refer to our village priest as ‘Reverend’, and, on the occasion I met the Pope on a State vist as ‘your holiness’. It is when you cross the line in imposing your personal beliefs on others who have a legitimate position in our society that you lose the standing to engage in respectable debate.

Im not religious
I have worked alongside many clergy within the community.

I've called them by their first name, just as they called me by mine.
It was based on mutual respect.

The imposition would be if they insisted their beliefs were imposed on me not visa versa.

RobinMoiraWhite Your pomposity is rather striking

It is when you cross the line in imposing your personal beliefs on others who have a legitimate position in our society that you lose the standing to engage in respectable debate

Your personal belief appears to be in the existence of 'gender' as an important concept. I am a non-believer in gender, and I think it would be better for all of us if this concept was abolished. You have no right to impose your personal belief in gender on me, a gender 'atheist'. I have a legitimate position in society as an adult female human who doesn't believe in gender or genderism.

Unless the gender-critical cannot find it in themselves to respect others by their behaviour in such common courtesies, then they will always be isolated. A leap of faith and behaviour is required to join the debate.

Unless the gender-critical cannot find it in themselves to respect others by their behaviour in such common courtesies, then they will always be isolated. A leap of faith and behaviour is required to join the debate.

Firstly, the gender critical aren’t ‘isolated’. You’d very much like us to be, but the majority of the population is actually gender critical. Secondly, you do not set the rules for when others can join in public debates around legislation and rights. We aren’t required to ‘have faith’ in anything or anyone in order to speak. How dare you. We don’t need to amend our behaviour either, we’re not the ones punching people at meetings or issuing bomb threats.

Respectful debate means respecting others right to opinion, freedom of thought and speech. It does not mean respecting whatever opinion they hold, nor agreeing to change language to adhere to others beliefs. Stop telling us what to do and how to speak.

To call someone by their correct honorific title is not to speak a falsehood.

Demanding use of pronouns that are blatantly false is to demand that everyone else lie and comply with the autogynephilic desire to use us as toys in their fantasy.

Again, No means No!

RobinMoiraWhite Your pomposity is rather striking

But Robin's met the Pope R0wantrees. Show some respect!

RobinMoiraWhite using a pejorative term about anyone is wrong - stating that person born with a penis was and always will be a man - is a logical and reasonable statement. Hurt feelings do not mean an insult has been given. You keep using race as an analogy it doesn’t work. More accurate is the anorexic who believes they are fat - being told they are thin - Or telling a Christian that God is a figment of their imagination. Having a belief or saying the magic spell - I am a woman - neither makes it true Nor anyone who doesn’t believe you - Bad - Nasty - Malicious or a criminal

Reverend, Your Holiness, Your Honour, Your Majesty, Your Highness, Lord, Lady, Doctor are all titles based on profession or position.

Woman is not.

I am not a woman due to an article of faith or belief, I am one by dint of cold, hard facts.

Your complete lack of respect for women and girls who have a legitimate position in society is astounding, though unsurprising, RobinMariaWhite.