This is a good thread about female trans allies

[Doyoumind]

twitter.com/overpow_erin_g/status/1156003798898241543?s=19

Thoughtful insights into how some women get drawn into the wrong side of the debate.

And before you jump on me it's the derailment and obtuse nature of your posts which is tedious and boring. I'm not even commenting on Minnie's post. Perhaps I will comment on Minnie's thread.

Neither was define feminism then relevant to the thread if we have to rigidly stick to the thread all the time.

The feminism question arose following on from debate between several posters who had already been engaging in the thread.

I really am going to sleep now. Goodnight.

There are so many threads on this forum that make people looking in from the outside think 'blimey, you lot should look in a mirror' and this is another classic. You talk about abuse, but women who disagree with you are dismissed as lacking, dumb, naïve handmaidens. And now we see the absolute poison of one of your own accusing a radfem she's fallen out with of faking her cancer. Anyone on here who says this wouldn't cause the biggest feeding frenzy there'd ever been on here if it was a trans person or ally making the accusation is an absolute liar.

Venice seems to have been busy doing some housekeeping (aka deleting her posts). Too bad they've been saved for posterity.

OP I’m late returning to this, but the discussion was interesting. It was good to have Jenn join for a bit and share her views, I think this medium (longer text) can make engagement easier than on Twitter.

I want a world where all women who want and need them (the Canadian beauticians, women in prison) have sex based protections.

Trans and NB people should be legally protected too, without removing sex-based protections as has happened in Canada.

This is the bottom line to me, but sometimes it seems to get obscured by all the philosophical discussion (although that can be very interesting)

What's that link, looks spam nobody click on it people

It's totally spam, it's appeared all over.

I reported it.. Roses I got a bit lost with all the to-and-fro. What is your position on my last post - do you agree? Or do you think sex based protections should be replaced with only gender-based ones?

If the latter, I can see no way to prevent JY scenarios happening.

And I don’t think anyone, on any side of this, wants to facilitate scenarios like that.

Spam alert regarding the "Brain" post

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_night_watch/3653221-nasty-one

as anyone yet explained how there feminism allows them to put down other woman who don't have the same view as them in this thread, or attack other woman who actually do hold the same view as them because they have fallen out with them?

Oh god. This thread really has been hi jacked by some tedious little people. One unpleasant post triggers 30 page attempt to undermine the discussion and those engaging in it. Well, I guess it’s all they’ve got, so they’re making the most of it.

They do it on every thread they're on. It's sort of the opposite of the Midas touch.

For example, I experienced domestic abuse and at one point was told I might need to go in a refuge to be safe. The unfairness of that hit me so strongly, that I, the victim, was expected to go and hide whilst the abuser must be allowed to roam free.

@AnotherAdultHumanFemale I’ve read this through three times, it’s so obvious yet I’ve never considered it before. And we wonder why women find it so hard to “ltb”.

I hope things are brighter for you now

Yeah, everything they touch turns to shit.

Just in case anyone else is confused, as I was, I looked at the offending post and found it repeated with a bit of clarification for the benefit of Roses at Tue 30-Jul-19 19:37:35.

The post that follows it suggests to me that Roses wasn't interested in why the poster had wrote it, but mainly in admonishing her for it.

Obviously, I could have my interpretation wrong. People do that sometimes.

I'm a long time lurker here 👋 Have been watching this thread with interest.

I'm probably off with my view of this and apologies for the clunky sentencing compared to the posts usually to be found here.

But making judgments about people you disagree with is a fairly normal human trait, is it not? I don't particularly agree with some of it, but someone who aligns themselves say, with racism when they are black, it's going to make you wonder?

This to me, and I think to a lot of people, is similar. GC people see how dangerous and misogynistic TRA ideology can be to women, including those who support it. IME it's as clear as day. And I genuinely get disappointed when people try to defend it, because I want to hear a rational, reasonable side of this debate and to see it another way, but it just never happens. People believe in something with blind faith and expect the rest of the world to believe it too or be subject to threats and exclusion. This has happened multiple times in history before, I don't know why people haven't learned from it. But when the very people the ideology will harm are supporting it, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they obviously don't see what's happening.

Mhysa, you've put what I thought in a much better way.

Families argue and disagree and it's certainly not nice nor purposeful to name call, and one would hope it's only the kids that do so.

It hasn't got anything to do with feminism as a wider picture for political, social and structural change.

I don't think men are scrutinised as much for their name calling in politics.

Mhysa

Not clumsy at all and absolutely right.

great post MhysaMhysa, you should unlurk more often!

I know what you mean with being disappointed with the way people who try to defend genderism interact with us. the question dodging, the angry, baseless accusations

because I WANT them to have thought it through. I want there to be something senseible behind all this. that's why I'm so bloody obsessive about trying to find out how they define 'woman' since their so sure my definition is wrong.

except they haven't thought it through. they can't give convincing, logical explanations. they can't talk about this without getting angry (due, I guess to the pain of the cognitive dissonance). They think a sentence like Trans women are women because womanhood is not determined by biology answers the question 'How are transwomen women?'. It's so disappointing, every, every time.

GC people see how dangerous and misogynistic TRA ideology can be to women, including those who support it. IME it's as clear as day.

Great. Then it should be easy to argue on substance and not resort to using sexist stereotypes to attack women who disagree.

I'm just gobsmacked that there's a bunch of people on a feminist thread agreeing that young women are so easily led, obsessed with appearance, insecure, and will do anything to fit in. Without any evidence. I mean, where does this come from - some great well of internalized misogyny?

Gollum! That's it. I knew it reminded me of something. It's like a Gollum but with Those Words. Hugging them. Lip smackingly delighted with them.

Stroking them whilst feverishly formulating all the ways they can be leveraged against women.

They're so precioussss.

Well said Mhysa. I've been constantly scratching my head ever since I observed the loyalty of (mostly young) women to TRAs, upholding an ideology that not only contradicts not just science but the evidence of our own eyes (TWAW) but one that will cause harm to their sisters. It's beyond belief. And yet here on this very thread they dare to call us misogynists.