Girl abducted in Galashiels appears to have been held by transwoman

[ArabellaScott]

reduxx.info/scotland-crossdressing-butcher-arrested-in-case-of-missing-child/

Only source so far, but appears to be potentially corroborated by the Sun:

www.thesun.co.uk/news/21308457/cops-search-butchers-and-forensics-scour-for-evidence/

.........you are wrong. It is possible to change sex because the gender you have been assigned at birth may be wrong.........

No it isn't possible to change sex and people are not assigned a gender at birth.

And where does the sperm come from?

What a brave new world this LA service offers!!!

Sperm from a male presumably?
Egg fertilisation and carrying the fertilised egg within the female womg, sustaining the pregnancy then, as the Mother labour's and gives birth via the female body, the Mother who can then sustain the very life of the infant by feeding milk (from her female maternal breasts) produced exactly for that individual baby and to match its exact needs. A female who creates, grows, gives life to and can keep alive in infancy a baby.

Immutable FACTs. How does it work for the four balled, 2 cocked male "Lesbians"?

So you'll find these threads about how to protect women's rights from the encroachment and trampling of trans ideology. It would be a bit odd to expect a women's rights forum to not be.

If you find the protection of women's rights transphobic, then whatever. I find trans ideology quite spectacularly misogynistic, exclusionary, unkind and bigoted. YMMV.

Quite.

Wasn't the intention that it was all about cloning and gene splicing?

"Despite objections there will be technological advances which will allow anyone to have a baby, whether these will be ethical is another matter. Cloning has already been mentioned. Things that were impossible in the 70s and 80s are routine IVF now so I have confidence this will change."

Because some people think that humans manipulating genetic tissue that was not intended to produce new humans is real progress... despite the ethics of this action being well explored.

This is the exact same supreme confidence that we see people post about implanting uteruses in males and carrying an infant to full term and producing an infant that is healthy.

We are constantly assured this is just around the corner. Forgetting that at the moment and for decades it is simply not ethical to allow an embryo to survive past 21 days (iirc) outside of a fully functional uterus inside a woman. And not one scientist has worked out how to transplant a reproductive system with all the connections to female processing centres needs to produce the naturally produced substances needed to build a human.

Some people think this is progressive.

I always find it interesting how trans people with criminal records tend to change both first name and surname whereas non offending trans trend towards keeping their original surname.

Funny that.

"...................it's an echo chamber for hating trans people, but really for hating men.............."

Nope. It's a thread on a board which seeks to affirm the rights of women and girls not to have to accept men in their changing rooms and lavatories.

And as for hating men - nope. I am married to a man and have two sons. I do not hate any of them and all three are aghast at the sheer entitlement amply demonstrated by those transwomen and their supporters who are determined to fight their way into women's spaces. Literally, in some cases. Into women's prisons FFS - when they're sex offenders who have assaulted women and girls. These are the men I (and other posters) object to. Not all men. Just some of the transwomen. Some of them. The violent ones.

Transwomen are men. And some of them are aggressive sex offenders.

Indeed, Mrs Nigel - and very often, one name change isn't enough.

I looked back to see what awful transphobia Jemima had written.

So did I! If only the poster would actually engage with what I had written rather than a generic "you're so awful" type post I might be able to explain myself more clearly. Or they could present a counter argument for me to consider. But no, just the usual crap that gets thrown at women who dare to say "no".

Dare to say 'no' to what?

Because it's the response women are getting when they say 'no' to the desires and orders of male people that this entire board is about!

Are you talking about getting a negative response when you say 'no' to women about their desire to not have to undress in front of men against their consent? No to their right to be homosexual? No to safeguarding vulnerable women in prison?

Which no would you like women to embrace here?

Incidentally I just checked the past two pages on this thread, and can find lots of reasons and explanations of why women are ever so slightly cross about all this - a whole lot to engage with should anyone wish to.

Incidentally, you'll also find on this board that women generally have no problem at all with another woman being perfectly happy to strip in front of/ share a prison shower with/ have sex with/ go to the toilet with/ have intimate medical exams from male people of all genders and criminal histories. Your body, your choice. Have gender neutral spaces and go and enjoy yourself.

The issue is the attempt to compel non consenting women to do the above, who do not share the belief that a male person ever at any time becomes anything that they perceive differently from a male person.

Yep

Consent can’t be decided by a majority vote.
One no = a total veto.

I don't care if he's man / woman you don't kidnap a child. Thank goodness the little girl was found

@nilsmousehammer , I think you have misunderstood my position. I was accused by a different poster of saying something terrible, when all I've asked for is that all male people are subject to the same safeguarding rules as everyone else (eg no male people in women's prisons, regardless of how they identify).

The post you quoted was me having an annoyed moment at being told I've said something terrible, when the terrible thing appears to be saying "no" to some groups of male people being exempt from safeguarding rules.

Ah then I've misunderstood. Apologies. I entirely agree that no males at all should be exempted from safeguarding rules, or permitted special exceptions from them.

No worries, @nilsmousehammer . Tbf, I wasn't particularly clear.

Thank you so much for this excellent post.

@Pallisers

No problem!

Going back to the start of this thread, reports in the Scottish Daily Express about a Robyn Woof being arrested for assault at the frustrated attempt to screen the film Adult Human Female at Edinburgh University refer to....a "woman".

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/edinburgh-trans-activist-charged-after-29181804

Police Scotland said: “A 35-year-old woman has been charged in connection with an alleged assault which occurred at a demonstration in George Square, Edinburgh on Wednesday, December 14, 2022...”

Interesting.

So that one's a woman... until they are discovered to be a bully? So we'll have male, female, rapist, butcher, individual, and now bully. Have I kept up? I've a feeling I've left some out.

I believe you omitted oddity, pickle.

That's right. Oh and there's a pornographer, too.

Though he doesn't have to go to prison for his images of child abuse, so they're not needing to fret about 'her' gender.

What are you talking about?

I haven’t ‘just’ done anything. Last time I posed in this thread was lunchtime and it was about no meaning no.

Is it right wing to say no to men now? 🙃