TWAW

[Billi77]

Thought it might be an idea to start a thread for women who support TWAW. I understand ‘Feminism chat’ should also include us and give us our own space?

I don’t care who doesn’t mind. My rights are not theirs to give away. Men are not gatekeepers to women’s single sex spaces. Men do not get to force women to expose trauma, beliefs, or disability to beg for exceptions to mixed sex spaces. Men do not get to decide which reasons are valid for exception-you know the answer will be none.

You don't magically stop being a woman if trans women are accepted, I find that an utterly bizarre thought process.

The fact that you find it 'bizarre' is indicative on the confusion in your mind that enables you to believe TWAW.

I don’t care who doesn’t mind. My rights are not theirs to give away. Men are not gatekeepers to women’s single sex spaces. Men do not get to force women to expose trauma, beliefs, or disability to beg for exceptions to mixed sex spaces. Men do not get to decide which reasons are valid for exception-you know the answer will be none.

It's indicative of the complete disregard and lack of respect for women in our society. Imagine this happening to the rights of any other special interest group, that they aren't even supposed to raise their objections but must give up all their rights to the class of people holding the power with a smile?

It is chilling. It’s women are only people with rights when the rights don’t inconvenience men.

1970s - sex discrimination act
1990s - marital rape illegal
2020s - no right to a single sex changing room.

What happened? What’s next?

Placemarking .

Maybe if we could all be women together, we could move the debate along and come to some solutions?

We're not, though. Why lie about it? Why can't the starting point by an acknowledgement of reality and an attempt to set up third spaces for trans people where needed? No "solution" based on forcing the majority of women to lie through their teeth is ever going to work.

I was reminded in this article today and thought it was pertinent here.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/24/ioc-delays-new-transgender-guidelines-2020-olympics#click=t.co/kYRTXHZmEG" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/24/ioc-delays-new-transgender-guidelines-2020-olympics#click=t.co/kYRTXHZmEG

This is what happens when you ‘give up language’. So, apparently the IOC cannot now define woman to then clarify the rules for the Tokyo Olympics.

It really is impossible to give up a word when it has legal ramifications.

And the people who want the word woman to apply to them, also believe female applies to them.

So, where to you go from there?

Particularly when there are those who believe that they should not have to disclose their birth sex to a doctor for treatment. So deep is the delusion that ‘being kind’ endorses.

@Winesalot

I was reminded in this article today and thought it was pertinent here.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/24/ioc-delays-new-transgender-guidelines-2020-olympics#click=t.co/kYRTXHZmEG" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/24/ioc-delays-new-transgender-guidelines-2020-olympics#click=t.co/kYRTXHZmEG

This is what happens when you ‘give up language’. So, apparently the IOC cannot now define woman to then clarify the rules for the Tokyo Olympics.

It really is impossible to give up a word when it has legal ramifications.

And the people who want the word woman to apply to them, also believe female applies to them.

So, where to you go from there?

Particularly when there are those who believe that they should not have to disclose their birth sex to a doctor for treatment. So deep is the delusion that ‘being kind’ endorses.

This gets on my considerable tits.

'It's a sensitive and emotive issue.'

It becomes so when some of the main stakeholders throw a tantrum and start threatening suicide when they don't get what they want. That is what makes it sensitive.

Sorry. I've woken up grumpy and annoyed that we can't talk about this and no one wants to touch it with a pole of any length.

That is the extent of it maud.

When a word cannot be defined to progress discussions out of ‘being sensitive’ it means that the word has now lost legal meaning.

What an excellent thread. FWR is on fire this week. Obviously I agree with everyone else - there is no way of including TW, even linguistically, which doesn't exclude and disadvantage women. There is no compromise or solution where we can say that TWAW without disadvantaging women. And to the posters who seem to think that they best way forwards is therefore to try and include TW in whichever way provides the least disadvantage to women - No. We will not accept even the smallest increase in disadvantage or danger for women. If it harms any woman, anywhere, in any way to say TWAW, then no fucking deal. And as for "if we give them X maybe they'll let us keep Y", give me a fucking break. I'm not going to beg or bribe men to let me keep some of my rights. No ones taking our language, and no ones taking any of our other rights either. Women have said no, and that is the end of it.

If we omen called ourselves 'glargles' transactivists would be calling us 'cis-glargles' very swiftly. It's not about the language, it's about making us invisible.

@HH160bpm

I don’t care who doesn’t mind. My rights are not theirs to give away. Men are not gatekeepers to women’s single sex spaces. Men do not get to force women to expose trauma, beliefs, or disability to beg for exceptions to mixed sex spaces. Men do not get to decide which reasons are valid for exception-you know the answer will be none.

This.

Consent is not a democracy- if one woman says no, it’s a complete and total veto.

It doesn’t matter how many other women say yes.

No "solution" based on forcing the majority of women to lie through their teeth is ever going to work.

I have often wondered this; when the 'success' of your side requires the other side not just to appreciate that there are different viewpoints, but they must accept a lie as truth. It's flat-earthers.

I honestly think sport is going to be the thing that swings this in our direction eventually. There will be a point in time where every women’s sport will be dominated by trans women and the worldwide audience will sit there with this look on their faces 😮

I never know what to say to people who think the harm done to women unlike them is unworthy of their consideration.

And again for the people in the back who didn't see it the first time! It really is one of those moments where you just stand there in awe at the fact that the person isn't even trying to disguise their selfishness.

Due to a let's say colorful youth I've shared public toilets with men on quite a few occasions. As a teen and twentysomething I was sometimes the woman bringing a male friend in there with me myself. Thing is, a. those were men we all knew, b. if anyone objected they would have been kicked out, and c. a club where everyone is at a 3 degrees of separation at most level if not society. I've also changed in the same room as gay male friends and been fine with that. Does any of that mean that males are fine to be in women's toilets and changing rooms in general? Oh hell no! Does my comfort level determine what all women are to be forced to live with? No, it does not, because other women matter just as much as I do. If even one of us says no, it's a no.

Prolefeed, you're amazing and I'm glad that at least those girls have you to try to intervene on their behalf sometimes. It sucks that you have to be sneaky about it.

It’s a bit like offering someone a sweet from a bag. Expected behaviour is that the person being offered takes one or two and says thank you. It’s not expected to have the whole bag ripped out your hand while being screamed at to apologise for having sweets and forced to agree they belonged to the other person all along.

And then they call the police on you for stealing their sweets, and the police take them seriously because they're more vulnerable than you you know.

When a word cannot be defined to progress discussions out of ‘being sensitive’ it means that the word has now lost legal meaning.

And to take that to the next logical step:

The group originally classified by that word have now lost the protection and clarity afforded to them by the word, so legally are vulnerable and in limbo

because of the sensitivity needed to the invaders in their invading

because the invaders demanded that the classification of that group be twisted out of being definable so that they could own the classification.

There isn't any way to make this sound like inclusive or respectful behaviour on the part of the invaders, to make it look as if the invaders give one shiny toss for what their actions do to the rights and protections of the original group and ensuring their presence does not negatively affect them, or to make this look like a good thing in any way for the original indigenous group.

It's possible to believe that a debate about women's spaces is valid, but using Karen White as an argument contributes to violence against trans women

Yesterday I was a bit busy, so I am coming back to this today.

Karen White was just ONE person. They are used because hopefully whatever the directive was at the time quickly got revised so no more loopholes. If you truly believe this was a one off, I am surprised that you have not read of the many transwomen who are assaulting women and children. As one particular study has shown, male pattern behaviour is almost as high in transwomen as in natal males.

If you have not come across it yet, this is a start.

transcrimeuk.com/2020-convictions/

There is a thread here that also tracks some:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread?pg=1

Most of the debate from women who post regularly on this board relate to the fact that you simply cannot tell who is this supposed 'real' transgender person and who is using it to gain access to abuse. Even the dailymail wrote about the infiltration of males using LGBT organisations to legitimise their own agenda of abuse.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466899/Paedophiles-rebrand-minor-attracted-persons-chilling-online-propaganda-drive.html

The argument is used regularly that there are already laws around assault and rape so why are women so worried about losing their safe spaces. My ready answer to that is, when prosecution of sex crimes against women are so very very low, why do males and women who support them, wish to place women and children in a position of even greater risk. The current laws are obviously inadequate for protecting us as they are!

So, yes. We mention Karen White. But White is what happens when safeguarding measures fail.

And safeguarding measures are not infallible it seems.....

Part of what the TWAW crowd are asking for is for women to love those colonizing us. Hate to break this to you, peeps, but colonized people always resent the people who colonize them and want their space back. If they are too afraid of the colonizers to say so that is the exact opposite of a moral victory.

It's possible to believe that a debate about women's spaces is valid, but using Karen White as an argument contributes to violence against trans women

See, Wines is nicer than me. I just read that as "this argument is proving to be too effective, so I'm going to try to shame you out of using it".

Sorry, I cut off my last point, so I will have at it again.

as an argument contributes to violence against trans women

I have rarely seen the Karen White example addressed by the transcommunity except to say 'they were not trans'. Surely, if what you say is true and it contributes to the violence against transwomen, the community should be doing EVERYTHING to address the situation. Including, producing accurate statistics and studies to prove that either
a) they were not trans (impossible due to us having to believe that anyone who says they are a woman, is a woman) and
b) male pattern violence against women is not higher than women against women violence by those born a women.

All I see is more sloganeering and emotive pleas for being kind.

Yes. The history of colonising indigenous groups (and removing and educating their children in the coloniser's language and values and laws to prevent unhelpful and regressive non colonialist beliefs being propagated by the indigenous culture) never ends well for the indigenous. There's generally a lot of misery, oppression, anger, poverty, destruction and inequality, and about sixty years too late, a public apology.

What baffles me is that the woke are currently pulling down statues of oppressors who were lost, at the time, in the fog of their own wokeness and righteousness. Such as about how the indigenous populations were too stupid to understand what was good for them and in need of forcing to progress and do what was right. That they didn't feel things as much as the colonialists being less advanced and not really properly human so it was ok to treat them much worse and without compassion. That harsh punishment for protests and non conformity was justifiable in making the civilised world the colonials wanted.

The modern woke are the modern equivalent. Doing the same thing.