If you avoid the feminist section then at least read this article

[RedthroatedCaracara]

because all females need to be aware of this

And there's no need to have an attack of the vapours because it's a Daily Mail link. For all their multitude of shortcomings, the Mail at least have the guts to publish articles that stand up for women and girls.

I understood that loud and clear, Quaggars

I also think there can be a bit of a double standard in that some posters refuse to engage at all with anything which doesn't correlate with their existing views, but expect people who aren't GC to read, assimilate and - at times, it seems like - write a thesis-level rebuttal of any GC material in order to present a challenge... which may not be engaged with by some posters, because it doesn't correlate with their existing views.

@snekkes

I understood that loud and clear, Quaggars

I also think there can be a bit of a double standard in that some posters refuse to engage at all with anything which doesn't correlate with their existing views, but expect people who aren't GC to read, assimilate and - at times, it seems like - write a thesis-level rebuttal of any GC material in order to present a challenge... which may not be engaged with by some posters, because it doesn't correlate with their existing views.

Expecting an argument better than 'a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' is not 'expecting thesis-level rebuttal'.

In fact, just an answer to questions such as:
What is a woman?
What is a transwoman?
At what objective point does someone born male actually become a woman?

Would be quite nice to be honest.

Asking for receipts is of course reasonable.

Dismissing large amounts of evidence, such as the parliamentary debates around the maternity bill, or what happened in Scotland around the Lamont amendment, with 'See, didn't happen!' - that's not reasonable. It ignores the huge amount of work that women did to push back and ensure it didn't happen. It assumes we won't have to do it all over again the next time something is slipped into proposed legislation that would harm us.

Dismissing posters' experiences of what's happening in their workplaces, health services or in various women's, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding groups with, 'You're wrong, I found a screenshot!' - that's not reasonable. It assumes there is no problem until the very last accurate reference to women or mothers has been erased. It assumes posters are just making it up.

To do this again and again and again in quick succession, page after page, over a period of two days - that's really not reasonable.

PP suggested to that poster that they could just browse through threads on FWR and find plenty of examples. That's a good suggestion. Just on the current first page there are the following examples of the mangling of language:

• a teacher telling 9 year olds that boys can be girls

• Home Office replacing sex with gender, and gender reassignment with gender identity, in their Equality Objectives statement

• article in the BMJ advocating that clinicians record gender identity and stop recording sex

• a female student who said 'women have vaginas' is cleared after a two month long investigation into whether her comments were offensive and discriminatory

• Government of Guernsey inviting 'anyone with a cervix' for screening

• a campaign to stop the police in Scotland recording rapists as women if that's what they say they are

• a school equality policy that replaces sex with gender, gender reassignment with gender identity or reassignment, and sexual orientation with sexual identity and orientation

My intention was not at all to engage in emotional blackmail and I am sorry if some posters got that impression. (but thank you everyone for your kind wishes )

I could have made up something less emotive I suppose:

'the only reason I indulged your unreasonable demands is because it served as a useful distraction from ... clearing out the loft? doing my tax return? writing a really dull report for work? removing a dead badger from the shed?'

Nobody on any 'side' should be expected to write a thesis-level argument or rebuttal but there's a lot of middle ground between that and 'didn't happen because random screenshot'.

This is all quite dull though.

What do posters think about what Public Health Wales are doing?

Do people agree that if PHW are #100 in the workplace equality index, then #1-99 are likely to have done at least as much? Does anybody have time to go through some of them and check? (I don't, I really do have a boring report to write now!)

Is this starting to look widespread to anyone else?

Do people agree that if PHW are #100 in the workplace equality index, then #1-99 are likely to have done at least as much? Does anybody have time to go through some of them and check? (I don't, I really do have a boring report to write now!)

I 100% agree with this. It is perfect, logical sense.

So boggled at reading stuff like this.
Honestly, call everything transphobic, call everyone GC if that's your preferred insult, and this, that you have written, is your problem, Medium writer, if this is where you are with your interaction with the world, really, this is your problem.

link.medium.com/r7JAnfPAXgb

Regarding the quest to find something that refers to prostate-owners aimed at men, I've foun-

No I haven't. This is Teen Vogue, so aimed at girls and it refers to Prostate Owners and Non-Prostate Owners.

That's right! Women and girls are now being referred to by bodyparts they don't even have. We are simply non-men.

www.teenvogue.com/story/anal-sex-what-you-need-to-know

Expecting an argument better than 'a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' is not 'expecting thesis-level rebuttal'.

Indeed.

And I have never seen any TRA or ally up to and including Judith Butler ever produce a convincing "rebuttal" of the basic GC argument, thesis-level or otherwise. But try me.