Genuinely willing to discuss in good faith

[beachcitygirl]

Hello.

This is a thread for those who are uncomfortable with black and white and less than civil discourse around self id.

I welcome those with different views but I don't on this thread welcome those who only want to state their firm settled opinion without nuance or discussion that self id is absolutely wrong.

It's my view that there is no point in discussion if mind firmly made up.
I'll respect your legal right to that view but there's not much point chatting about it and pissing each other off.

There are plenty threads of gc women hoping to create more gc women and that's fine.

I'd like this to be a different space. A place for anyone with genuine questions, discussion points and where we all try to be civil and attempt to answer each other in good faith. Anyone who is unsure, let's talk:

My views are that trans women should be treated in every aspect as women and they are our natural allies against misogyny and the patriarchy and that women are more than their biology.

Oh I've been educated.

Just perhaps not in the way the OP intended.

To your last paragraph. Addressed to

Genuine Women.

I’m one. A genuine WOMAN. I’ve a cervix, breasts, womb, chromosomes. All genuine. Is there any other kind.

What do you mean by ‘genuine’ women?

You started this thread. But you, who asked for discussion, only wants discussions on your terms, you dismiss, before you began, any of us with whom you disagreed, and Amy of us who engaged, you refused to reply to. Instead you wrote us a self justifying diatribe.

No one is shutting you up, it's just that you don't have anything useful to say.

Yep. This thread in one sentence. All we've got is some incoherent declarations rambled at us which aren't beyond primary school level education.

Give us some credit instead of insulting our intelligence!

That deserves a gif 😁

Holy fuck.

'cornered rat'? Did you actually just say that, and you're tone policing women on here?

Fuck this, I'm out.

I don't think you have been snapped at by anyone. You have been asked to provide further detail on your assertion that trans women should be treated as women in all circumstances. If people are to genuinely engage, then understanding where you are coming from forms part of that engagement.

My question would be around health care. If TW are to be treated as women in all circumstances, should they be invited for cervical smear tests and should TM be invited for prostate tests? If not, why not?

And that is a metaphysical question. Worth an answer.

See ya tomorrow.

You've made 8 posts yet all you did is accuse others of acting in bad faith starting from the very first comment.

You are not being genuine. You refuse to define terms for arguments sake. You refuse to answer the difficult questions and dismiss them as "rude" and "transphobic".

You are doing everything EXCEPT having a good discussion. It's ridiculous and you're tiresome.

You want to have a good faith discussion, answer me why should I believe a man can be a woman and why should I not worry that that man will behave like a man?

My line in the sand is people using dehumanising insults. I can put up with a fair amount of insults, but calling people rats? Nah. That's utterly unacceptable.

Thanks @RoseslnTheHospital Trying to do so. But these views were reached over months of talk. I've made a start, back tomorrow. Goodnight x

Day one in the condescending thread house and OP is already insulting the other house members.

OP we aren't going to sit here like good little girls waiting for your next Fucking post. Get over yourself. You started this thread. If you didn't have the time to dedicate to it you shouldn't have bothered.

I reported the post calling a poster a bigot and a rat.

The law, in the UK, hasn't changed. There is still a requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, "living in your acquired gender" for a period of time etc but because it's deemed intrusive to ask for a GRC what it actually means in practice is allowing any male, who says they identify as a woman, into female spaces.

Lobby groups such as Stonewall have persuaded lots of employers and organisations that applying single sex exceptions is discriminatory. At Scotland Rape Crisis they advertised for a female CEO using the "genuine occupational requirement" provision in the EA 2010 but then appointed a male, without a GRC, anyway. These are just a few of the ways in which practice has changed even though the law hasn't.

The current law creates a "legal fiction", which I supported once upon a time but now I cannot see a way back to protecting single sex spaces without revoking the GRA and I do not believe it is in anyone's interests to enshrine lies in law.

I won't hold my breath.

That's yet another post, which is managing to say precisely nothing and there's certainly no good faith going on.

I think we should have a count on how many posts you can make which actually focus on the subject and the concerns women have and have an actual 'shock horror' counter argument that has more depth than 'well i believe' and 'be nice'.

You know the practical shite about safeguarding, balancing equality issues, trauma based concerns, religious concerns, health based differences, physicality issues which aren't associated with health (eg the world being designed for the male sized body and male strengths) and how do you tell the difference between chancers and 'real' trans.

I think we are probably broadsheet level in terms of level of debate, so we'd appreciate that rather than read, write Inc level.

@beachcitygirl OK enough! It wasn't cherry pie it was cherry cake because I don't like lemon drizzle. No ulterior meaning.

You've got issues. Don't take them out on us.

'months of talking'

I bow to your infinite wisdom there then.

I'll ban lemon drizzle cake when I seize power.

No @beachcitygirl you are the one being truly vikevile on this thread.

Specifically what has been said on this thread that is transphobic?
Please quote the precise post.
I must have missed it.

If you want to have a good faith discussion you don't start off with dismissing everyone who's name you don't like by assuming their intentions are bad because that is not having good faith at all.

What is vile is your constant insults. You have no idea what a good faith discussion looks like.

Some epic gaslighting, it really always is women shut up

I will follow you as your serf.

Look, calling people vile isn't going to help. Just ignore posters you don't want to engage with and engage with those you do. That's the way to shape your own thread. And also, start a thread when you know you've got enough time to respond, or be clear up front if you won't be able to respond for a couple of hours.