Women's rights general conversations - Thread 2

[Kucingsparkles]

Continuation of Thread 1

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

Well it doesn't matter what you say, of course. I was as reliably transexual as everyone else. Ten minutes of your life, etc...

Just be glad they can't deliver drugs over the Internet. Question your gender, they have to 'affirm' you. If your arm was within reach they'd have a needle in you on your next visit.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4726257-nick-timothy-in-the-telegraph-on-the-grr

Assuming it doesn't go up in a puff of smoke this thread is currently saying the thing that we usually can't say. Repeatedly.

😁

If it wasn't for the fact that it'd make this a TTAAT, we could probably run a sweepstake to see how long before that one gets zapped.

I'm so tired of this insanity. That said I recently bought three books on the subject. I'd already read Trans which is a great book. The kindness was astonishing and if any TRA had bothered to read it they'd have seen that. Asking TRAs to read it would be as pointless as asking a Catholic to read a satanic bible. Never going to happen.

I thought the small grey option for men only was terrific. It really sums up their world view, in an unwitting way. The utter insignificant dullness of the straight woman, like your mum used to be, before she found out that she was a gay man and selected...

Oh.

Expose about transactivists and how they fully groomed the Scottish government:

wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood

That was a disturbing read.

Going back to our discussion yesterday, I found this excellent analysis on the "LRM is an arse" thread:

NecessaryScene · Today 06:40

There's never any unconnected dots, is there? It's all there. Always.

This does seem to happen a lot, doesn't it?

But if you think about it, it shouldn't be surprising.

When a political/philosophical position is correct, fair, etc, then a lot of the people supporting it will be doing so because it's correct, fair etc. If you look at the people who support, say, gravity or public healthcare, you're going to get a healthy mix of people.

When it's as extremely incorrect and unfair as this one, then nobody will be doing so because it's correct or fair. They can only be drawn to it out of character defects or bad motivation. At best it's lack of critical thinking or authoritarian follower personality. But then there are all the darker options that it enables. You're going to get a whole bunch of bad types swimming in a sea of people not paying attention. And the people not paying attention are not going to be the most vocal, so the visible faces will have a strong likelihood of being bad types.

Now, the TRA anger at "TERFs" etc is a DARVO of that - an insistence that everyone opposing them is doing so out of character defects or bad motivation. But they've skipped the bit where they should have demonstrated their side was self-evidently the correct and fair one. It's begging the question: Why is your side right? Because the only people who oppose us are evil? Why are they evil? Because they're opposing the right side.

Although you can say something about our character - our position is correct and fair (IMO), so you've got a whole bunch of people there because of that, like gravity, but there's also a filter so that you're tending to get a cluster of personality types (arguably defects) - pedantry, anti-socialness, disagreeability - basically all the things that make you more likely to stop and notice and say something when something people are going along with isn't right.

Interesting question is, will MN still delete posts with those 3 letters when it's been so clearly laid out in a mainstream newspaper? It would be a bit hard to justify unless they also diligently delete any posts which (without mentioning the 3 letters) simply link to that article. And then you'd have to justify what is wrong with linking to a mainstream newspaper, etc.

Not saying a Special Reason couldn't be constructed, of course...

That was a disturbing read.

Isn't it.

From that article, I found this very appropriate.

Yes, definitely. I'd not come across that term before.

I've not read the article yet, but from the photo below - I think the same type of phenomenon is pretty well known in companies and other institutions so hardly surprising it applies to politics too.

Just read the Wings Over Scotland piece. Bloody hell. As the Americans say, your tax dollars at work. It's shameful from the SNP and Greens.

Just looked at the MN guidance on speech here:

"Will you consider deleting posts that associate transgender people with autogynephila (AGP)?

This is something we'd look at on a case by case basis, though we'll definitely delete posts which generalise."

Difficult for MN, I can understand, but not allowing discussion of a term in the courts and the press looks ... what?

Article from the Graun on World Athletics:

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/jan/23/world-athletics-transgender-regulations-see-scientific-rigour-give-way-to-a-fudge

pedantry, anti-socialness, disagreeability - basically all the things that make you more likely to stop and notice and say something when something people are going along with isn't right

Defects? Those are my best qualities!

Not, perhaps, my most popular ones.

Well, I'm an antisocial pedant, but I just can't agree with this!

I knew just from the headline that that was going to be Sean Ingle.

He's not pulling any punches, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that in the Guardian.

I couldn't find a single report of the decapitating terfs thing in the Guardian. I may have missed it but I'm pretty sure they'd be all over it like a hot snot if it was any other group being targeted in that way.

Is the Guardian starting to wake up a bit, as the Times appears to be? I wonder what their focus groups are telling them. At any rate, it's got a long way to go, as Steph says.

I'd like to add to my post above, they would be right to be all over that kind of threat against any group for any reason. It's absolutely wrong. But the blindness to violence against women among those on the left wing makes me extremely angry.