Women's rights general conversations - Thread 3

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 2.

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 "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

That's really shit, I've been following that.

<heads to thread>

As multiple posters pointed out on the thread, (1) it's not defamation if it's true (2) they can't call the police for a civil matter like defamation (3) WhatsApp isn't even social media.

TRSOH strike again with their glorious combination of belligerent ignorance and rage-filled righteousness. It's almost like it's a feature, not a bug.

I've been participating in that one. The school are utter shits.

This is an absolute disgrace. Welsh ministers lobbying the Welsh Rugby Union not to follow WRU's evidence-based policy on transwomen in women's rugby. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-64825491

Also the ridiculous gotcha of "why is the policy different for transmen and transwomen?" Just how thick are these (sadly, female) politicians?

Yet again very, very stupid women throwing other women into harms way.

Rugby is notoriously unsafe, as it is. And surely they know by now that slightly lowered testosterone will not remove the differences between men and women.

Welsh ministers wrote to the Welsh Rugby Union expressing "concern" about its ban on transgender women competing in female-only games. Their letter stated "inclusion" should be the "starting point" for decisions on transgender people's participation in any part of society.

Blithering idiots, for a start, it's not inclusive, because it automatically excludes a woman or a girl from the team. Second, the inevitable injuries inflicted on the female players will further exclude them.

These politicians should be required to sit through a presentation explaining exactly why transw shouldn't be competing in women's rugby and if they still insist that they should, God help us.

I just can't understand how women are so involved in pushing this stuff. You would imagine they would be fully aware of the difference in strength and physical power between men and women. I can understand how men might not be, but women? How can they not see it? Why are they so careless about women's welfare?

And why are so many elected people using their time to push this stuff? Like that councillor Danny whatever their name is, do they honestly think that people vote for them and pay them for this?

I just can't understand how women are so involved in pushing this stuff.

Aunt Lydia-types? Holier-than-thous getting off on their own righteousness? Pick-me-not-like-other-girls dick-panderers? BeeeeeeeeeKinds?

I can understand that in some contexts, but how can you volunteer other women for actual physical harm and exclusion on those pretexts? Surely there's a limit?

Probably more #BeCool than #BeKind.

"I'm unprejudiced and inclusive and modern, me. I tick all the boxes."

Of course, it doesn't stand up to a moment's examination...

Aunt Lydia doesn't seem to have a limit (I know she's hopefully fictional). If there's a limit, I think it is a moveable set of goalposts, mainly dependent on how hurt the feelings of men would be, which it itself moveable based on how righteous those men can be deemed.

This is probably a good thread to post this, about the Vagina Museum:

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11816341/Vagina-Museum-sparks-outrage-woke-gender-neutral-crash-course-ovarian-cancer.html

Vagina Museum sparks outrage with woke gender-neutral 'crash course' on ovarian cancer - which states 'most people' who get disease are women

Surely this sort of museum should be educating people, of both sexes? I don't know of a single male human, who's had ovarian cancer, in the 400,000 years that modern humans have been here.

Well I'm relieved to hear that most people who get it are women rather than all. My odds just dropped!

While most people who get ovarian cancer are women, it can affect anyone with ovaries, including trans men, non-binary people and intersex people who have ovaries.'

It is physical, biological bodies that are affected not social ‘gendered’ states. Transmen and people with DSDs who have ovaries are females, and are girls and women.

They could at the very least least say “ ovarian cancer can affect all humans with female bodies”.

They could at the very least least say “ ovarian cancer can affect all humans with female bodies”.

Well, yeah, but isn't even that conceding too much?

Give 'em an inch...

If being a woman just means having feminine feelings inside the head, then obviously ovarian cancer can't be directly related to that! Indeed, no health conditions can, unless there are mental disorders relating to beliefs in femininity.

In the gender identity theology 'woman ' is not a material thing at all, so ovarian cancer just happens mostly to women for reasons having nothing to do with identifying as one. Indeed, we can no longer understand that correlation at all!

It's odd that genderists don't realise how the identity concept 'woman' vanishes if we pretend that the gender rules and roles are not developed for the two sexes (with negative consequences for women in most societies). Why would we ask in official forms how feminine or masculine someone feels? What need is there for that information at all?

Their whole edifice depends crucially on most people just seeing their gender as their sex so that a small minority can define their identities against that background. A parasitic relationship between definitions.

Bolloxology elsewhere on the internet today strengthens my resolve to call women, women (and men, men) particularly, but not exclusively, in medical situations. This nonsense could kill people.

I was just thinking the same thing, reading these last few posts - although in my head I had settled on male/ female. The petition that is going around to ask for confirmation that the EA means biological male / female when referring to "sex" is part of this. But it could easily be a wider government instruction to the NHS, civil services, education department, LAs, etc.

So Gender Woo carries on being what it is, for now, but the line in the sand to allow clarity is that when a piece of health messaging (or any official thing) specifically means and relates to biology, Male and Female mean what they mean.

If some online dictionary comes up with weird/ circular definitions, it doesn't matter - the UK Government means biological Male and biological Female.

BeeeeeeeeeKinds?

In my latest toe in the water over the Woo being fed to my kids in school, I had a brief email exchange with someone in local education this week who replied to one of my emails with something like "luckily we find kids do tend to treat each other with kindness".

I actually put "be kind" in my reply - asking whether this person was confident that e.g. a primary school age girl, in the circumstances we were discussing, would have the confidence to challenge a situation which made her feel uncomfortable or would just feel obliged to "be kind" if that's what she was being taught/ socialised to do. There was a bit of backtracking.

'Be kind' is one of those things where I know that I've missed years of patient Mumsnet unpacking, but it reminds me of all the young women down the years who have been molested and assaulted because they were taught to 'be polite' and 'be respectful'. Respect and politeness and kindness are all good things, but awful traps for the unwary.

Yes, absolutely. I think being kind is great if mutual but when it's dampening yourself and your instincts down to appease someone else, it's very dangerous.

I subscribed to the Vagina Museum's newsletters and was interested in giving support but very quickly the newsletters became full of absolute gender bollocks and I unsubscribed and wanted nothing more to do with them. It's a Vagina Museum, FFS. If that can't be about women then what on earth is the f-ing point!

Anyway, I see they are currently homeless, long may that remain the case because they are worth fuck all to women and girls who don't need to be gaslit into thinking that men have vaginas too.

Exactly. I think (several threads ago) I linked to a thread in AIBU/Chat about what a young girl should do if she was alone on a bus and a man came and sat next to her. There was a general theme of (even in the 2020s!) women fearing to appear impolite by getting up and moving to another seat.

This really struck a chord with me, because that sort of thing has happened to me (back when I was young, not now that I'm an evil middle-aged bigot hag). Y'know, a man deliberately sitting next to me in an empty Tube carriage and sometimes striking up conversation.

Anyway, on that thread, most MNers (because we're all evil middle-aged bigot hags who have seen it all before) were pretty clear that what a girl should do is firmly get up and move to the front of the bus near the driver. And also ring somebody if necessary, because there's that additional fear of "What if they follow you off the bus?"

But there are also always those few BeeeeeeKinds who want to remind female humans that they are partially-sentient support bipeds, and what if the poor guy was just lonely or whatever.

Unless are at least on chatting terms with someone, sitting next to them on a sparsely occupied bus contravenes the inbuilt British horror of physical proximity to another human and should provoke immediate suspicion of the sitter 😉

I'm an 'evil middle aged bigot hag' and I still haven't managed to completely avoid the random men who sit opposite in an otherwise empty tube carriage, or who walk along a relatively quiet train platform just as the train pulls in, so they can get on at the same door as me. I do move, just to see if they'll follow. Some do.