Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

[Catiette]

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

of course, I really appreciate you taking the time to go through this video and break it down!

Hang on, so alleged 'Gender Critical' people say JK Rowling looks like a man and because of that you can never tell who might be a trans woman or not...

There is a photo doing the rounds on twitter at the moment...can you tell which are males and which are females here?

Correction Spooky, this person DID discuss males with DSDs in sports, but didn't know that they were discussing males with DSDs in sports. They talk about the Chinese Basketball team. Yes, it has been pointed out that this team likely had males with DSDs playing and that no one will probably know this for a very long time, if ever.

But this influencer has not done any research on this at all. There is plenty of research about male puberty and the irreversible benefits of that puberty. Done on trans people, done also on male people with reduced testosterone for other purposes too. Even the same research done by trans people have come out with the same conclusions.

Yet.... this influencer, has either not bothered to read or has dismissed all of this to continue with their points.

I have nearly finished formatting the Part two so I can read it properly. But the bits I have read is really full of dishonest misrepresentations.

This influencer has heavily relied on that dishonest redefining of what was the 'gender critical feminist' term to the new extreme trans activist to be just 'gender critical' to give even a modicum of credibility to their points. They are attributing beliefs to feminists that are simply bollocks, they simply don't stand to even the slightest of scrutiny. They use examples that don't seem to be from feminists but use them as a stick to beat feminists.

That is why they seem so convincing. They have been dishonest since the start and they use examples of people from a different movement really, just some of the end goals look the same superficially, to denounce feminists.

It has been interesting to read about the Pankhursts though. I don't know much about them and Sylvia sounds awesome and should be well read about.

In reading this, I understand that this is an influencer. They make their point as dramatically as they can so people find it 'entertaining', they also need people coming back. The reality is, this video is so full of holes it is just rubbish.

And the effects of that dehumanising that I mentioned early in the thread, it certainly comes to light with comments like this about the 'STINK' of gender-critical ideology in reference to shit in the earlier part of the statement:

"They're not even creative with their biological essentialism! Like, it is bog standard. Men are strong, predatory, prone to violence, sex-obsessed and always looking to subjugate women. And women are eternal victims, powerless, weak, maternal and non-violent. It's the “boys will be boys” excuse for sexual violence, but with extra steps! Those are kind of abstract, ideological ways in which gender criticalism is antithetical to feminism."

"And honestly, if their sh__ stayed in the abstract, I probably wouldn't be making this way too long video about it! But the STINK of gender-critical ideology can be smelled in ever-increasing areas of public life and policy. Remember I said that the roots in the anti-abortion Christian Conservative Right remain strong?"

And that first paragraph is mind blowing in stupidity.

Feminists are not biological essentialists. I did mention a simple example about this and washing dishes earlier in the thread. Feminist say that women and girls have unique needs due to their female bodies, but that this should never be used to limit their participation in life and have equal access to opportunities. Again, this person has taken something from a different group and is using it to describe feminists.

"Men are strong, predatory, prone to violence, sex-obsessed and always looking to subjugate women." This includes a truth, and then some negative generalisations. Men ARE stronger on average than women. This is a fact. Statistically men are a risk to women and children and this is also a fact, but it is a gross negative generalisation to say that ALL men are prone to violence, sex-obsessed and always looking to subjugate women.

Do you see how that distortion works. Slip in a known fact that can be generalised about , and then add the things that are not to try to disprove the first. It was done below for women as well.

"And women are eternal victims, powerless, weak, maternal and non-violent."

So, the reality is that SOME males are a risk to women and children. And that safeguarding protocols and policy is needed to ensure that women and children can be kept safe as much as possible. It will not always work. But the maximum number of women and children kept safe is all we can hope for at this time.

Is this influencer really trying to say that safeguarding should be thrown away? Because if you extrapolate out what I believe they mean, that is the outcome.

Either way, who is saying women are 'maternal'? Or non-violent? Or are powerless in all instances? But fuck , only a fool would say all women have power, and in all the aspects of their lives! Only a fool would say a woman in prison has power to reject a male cell mate or even just a male using the same shower facilities as her.

And really, that 'eternal victim' terminology is misogyny in action right there.

"Those are kind of abstract, ideological ways in which gender criticalism is antithetical to feminism."

And again, strip the gender critical feminism from the term, include all the people who are not even 'critical of gender' but considered to be 'aligned' with feminists in the term, and then turn around and falsely accuse feminists or women's rights campaigners who don't actually agree with that group that just got forced into the label.

Helle, as ever, in awe of your patience and thoroughness and depth of knowledge. Thanks.

Hang on, so alleged 'Gender Critical' people say JK Rowling looks like a man and because of that you can never tell who might be a trans woman or not...

I think we can file that one under "things that never happened".

Listening to influencers and on the one hand dismissing certain ideas as 'conspiracy theories' but readily accepting a load of unresearched tosh says a lot about how people find things out and fail to do their own research or use critical thinking.

I think this is one of the most depressing things for me with an education in media.

There's a clear skills deficit going on here.

I would not disagree that kids shouldn’t be sterilised. I was certain that’s not what was happening

Well you are wrong aren't you. Quite how you could be certain that's not what was happening when those children undergoing 'treatment' are being given a drug used to chemically castrate paedophiles and later having their reproductive removed I really don't know. What else would you call this?

I would not disagree that rapists shouldn’t be put in women’s prisons where they could victimise women. I would additionally think that rapists shouldn’t be put in men’s prisons where they could victimise other men. Prison rape is a real issue. I would think that this case just exposes flaws in our current justice system that need to be addressed, and I don’t think ‘just segregate the prisoners by sex’ really addresses it in any substantial way

So where do you suggest we put all these rapists? Rape in the male prison estate is a problem for the male prison estate to remedy. What is this flaw in our current justice system that seeks to imprison rapists?

Of course segregating prisoners by sex addresses the problem of women being raped by incarcerated rapists in prison.

In prision women are more vulnerable than other males because they are smaller, weaker, and have the additional risk of pregnancy.

Plus it's worth bearing in mind the vast difference in prison population, both by size and by crime.

'The majority (96%) of the prison population were male.
As at 30 June 2022, 4% of the prison population were female, this proportion has remained stable for the last 5 years.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2021/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2021

'Compared to males, a higher proportion of females reported: self-declared mental health problems, physical disability, having drug and alcohol problems, money worries and housing worries'

'In 2021, the number of individuals who self-harmed per 1,000 prisoners was 350 for females and 135 for males. The number of instances of self-harm per self-harming individual was over twice as high for females at 10.6.'

This one makes me fucking rage:

'In 2021, 75% of those prosecuted for TV licence evasion were female. This offence accounted for 18% of all female prosecutions.'

'Recording of sex
‘Sex’ can be considered to refer to whether someone is male or female based on their physiology, with ‘gender’ representing a social construct or sense of self that takes a wider range of forms.
Throughout this report we refer to sex rather than gender, because the binary classification better reflects how individuals are generally reported or managed through the CJS. For example, prisons are either male or female institutions, with prisoners normally placed based on their legally recognised gender.'

Last wee stat comparison (both taken from links above):

'As at 31 March 2020 there were 12,774 prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences, which represented 18% of the sentenced prison population'
...
'As at 30 June 2022, 4% of the prison population were female'

There are over four times as many sex offenders in prison as there are females in prison.

(96-99% % of sex offenders are male).

Ok. I am finished Part Two.

"So we usually talk about sex and gender, and gender is commonly understood to be about socially constructed characteristics, such as norms, roles, appearances and relations between different groups of people of different gender. How gender is understood varies from society to society and it can and does change over time."

So, this person, Mica, has just described gender as stereotypes. That is what they have done. And they have dishonestly described this view as 'commonly understood'. Well .... as we can see from this very thread - that is clearly false. There is no 'commonly understood' meaning.

"Oh! For those people, “gender ideology” is the phrase they use to describe anyone or thing which, in their minds, seeks to remove biological sex from its rightful position as The Most Important Thing™. Anti-gender movements have unfortunately, been a thing for a few decades now. What was originally a Catholic-led anti-abortion movement has morphed into way, way more than JUST that. These days, the anti-gender movement is closely focused on trans rights and has moved far beyond the realms of religious organizations."

And lovely to see that 'influencer drama' running through this. But again, this is bollocks. Feminists believe that in some instance, sex matters and should be prioritised ahead of gender when it does. Such as for female single sex spaces and situations when being female is key to a role or an opportunity because it is a service needed to be single sex. And males should have those single sex roles too. For instance, female medical examiners for rape victims.

And again, 'Catholic-led anti-abortion movement' is constantly being said to actually support 'gender' roles. This is also a very broad generalisation and is just very lazy. But, if a large group of people support 'gendered' roles in society, in what way are the 'gender critical' as per the label and how it is being used in this video?

"These days, the anti-gender movement is closely focused on trans rights and has moved far beyond the realms of religious organizations."

No. Feminists have been talking about the impact of ideological thinking about trans people to allow them access to women and girls' sex based rights first I believe. This statement of Mica's has not been referenced so I doubt it is anything but a 'feeling' from them.

"Modern self-declared gender-critical people include most of the Far, Alt, Religious and Conservative Right, as well as public figures such as JK Rowling, TV writer Graham Linehan, MP Rosie Duffield, Olympian Sharon Davies, and I think on last count, about 89% of Guardian columnists."

So Mica has just tied Joanne Rowling, Graham Lineham and Labour MP Rosie Duffield to being Far, Alt, Religious and Conservative Right with this lazy sentence. I don't know what Graham or Sharron's politics are, I know Graham is left wing politically, but Joanne Rowling is known for her support of the Labour party and Rosie is a Labour MP.

And yet, Mica ties this all together with 'biological essentialism'. Because Mica doesn't understand feminism or what people supporting the feminist position believe. Mica repeats the definition of Biological essentialism yet uses falsehoods to tie feminists to biological essentialism.

To be clear Mica pulls at least two groups together under falsehoods, uses the label for feminists to describe the entire group, but then attributes one of the other groups beliefs to feminists! Can't get much more dishonest than that. But to be fair, Mica didn't do it first, but they have certainly swallowed that fucked up distortion and they are perpetuating it.

The video really just continues as I have already covered some of it. This though was interesting:

"The other main tactic to recruit LGB people, is to manipulate them into believing there is an epidemic of straight people co-opting the slur “queer” and that gender-critical activists are fighting against this. These posts would be screenshots of people saying things like, “as a polysexual, I have the right to call myself queer”. “What's a polysexual?” I’d ask in the comments. They'd all have mostly different answers, things like “straight people who aren't even gay enough to be bi” or “straight people who want to seem cool” of course, had I calmly thought to myself for a moment, I’d probably have come to a different conclusion, but I wasn't calm. I felt like my heart had been racing for months, my skin was on fire."

"How dare they? How dare you take that word from me? I was a queer, I knew what being queer was! It was discrimination, it was pain, it was living in a world where just walking alone at night meant that I was fair game. I had no idea what this “polysexual” person had been through, but I was still absolutely certain, it wasn't enough on its own, in my books, to reclaim the slur."

So... this is confusing, but I assume that Mica has defined themselves as 'queer'. Hence the reaction. Yet .... Mica seems to have little understanding of the lives led by the LGB people who were directly involved in fighting for their rights to not be discriminated against. Those who have publicly stated that 'queer' is STILL a slur and that using it is offensive to them.

More importantly though, with the first part of that sentence about recruiting LGB people, Mica shows their very deep ignorance, perhaps it is deliberate, of who feminists are in the UK in particular, but elsewhere too. Just how large the % of lesbians are feminists and are some of the very first feminists to be stating that there are conflicts between the males seeking access to women's rights and women and girls' sex based rights.

It really is pretty clear that Mica does not know what they think they know and is regurgitating falsehood after falsehood.

Sorry Spooky this is not aimed at you, but this entire video really was dishonest, overly dramatic with it - and in the end referenced TWO MALE PEOPLE discussing feminism as being authorities on FEMINISM. A self described media influencer, and a man who battered a fox to death with a bat and posted on twitter about it, complete with reference to him wearing his wife's kimono when he did it!

I mean, this is a person who said in the video:

"And if you haven't noticed, I also happen to be a bit British, and if you're also a bit British, then chances are you're being fed a gender-critical narrative…all day every day!"

Blimey.... a bit British, eh? ....

Mica, has positioned themselves as some how an authority on feminism but is simply a very dishonest person who has not done the research for themselves outside what has been fed to Mica from a steady stream of bollocks. They have done this for financial gain and to improve their reputation in the group they are appealing to. Which is absolutely fine, but one should question anything that people like this do and check the information presented.

The transcript is 16 pages long. I have no idea how to make a 16 page transcript available on MN. But I will keep it handy for next time we see this video.

@Helleofabore, I second Arabella in huge thanks for working through the video transcript! Would it be possible to post a link to it in this thread as well as access via "Breaking It Down"?

Anyone reading along, another exhortation to read "Invisible Women". It really opened my eyes. Of many, two things that hit me hard:

1. Women's dramatically higher vulnerability to significant injury in car accidents, simply because cars are designed for a man's body as default (I mean, how could that even be legal? how?!)

2. Musical instruments, such as the piano, being "man-size" as default (and, far more tellingly, continuing to be so, despite, "Invisible Women" tells us, campaigns attempting to normalise equivalents for women).

(And note how fundamental the word "women" is to communicating these disparities).

I've deliberately chosen two starkly contrasting examples, one inevitably having led, over time, to women dying, or being maimed or disabled, and the other limiting their opportunities, to highlight how wide-ranging and pervasive this is. And in a world that continues, in large part, to accept the first, no wonder the second could sound ridiculous in comparison!

But it isn't ridiculous.

I loved playing my chosen instrument; it would have meant the world to me to get the full flush, right up to Grade 8 (although Diploma was always out of my league!). But my strength (for any of you familiar with Associated Board exams) was always the "Section C" piece - the jazzy, creative one with flowy arpeggios. I excelled at these, and used them to make up marks lost elsewhere. But these just simply stopped being accessible to me from about Grade 6 onwards because of the size of my hands. And it was infuriating. And I had this vague sense that it was my fault. And I still regret not having gained that rarified Grade 8. Still!

It honestly isn't insignificant that my sex impacted on me in this way.

It isn't insignificant that Alexa ignores my every third command, intangibly adding to my stress levels every single day. I feel the need to add a laughing emoji there, but why should I? It's actually infuriating at times.

It isn't insignificant that I, fairly regularly, find I can't open a jar / reach an item on a shelf / use a hotel room peephole; that, for me, finding a car in which I can reach the pedals is an absolute nightmare...

I'm not saying we should have a full range of alternative sizes for everything to accommodate petite individuals like me! But I am saying that, if man wasn't the default, my life would be made immeasurably easier in an infinity of ways that do add up to something really quite significant.

That I feel absurd even now in saying this is, I think, that pesky socialisation again. And a (potentially socialisation-driven!) few paragraphs to close, but also included for cynical readers who may be rolling their eyes at my self-indulgent sense of victimhood this point...

I do understand that there are many complex reasons for the male default, including all kinds of practical and financial considerations; the need, for example, to find a balance between catering for the majority who are more likely to use DIY hardware while not excluding others having the choice of doing so etc.

So, as with a number of other issues I've mentioned above, I'd say that, for me, it's actually not so much the existence of the issue itself that "gets me", with all its complex context, as the fact that it remains unseen - invisible - and is often perceived as absurd even to highlight or discuss in a society that, in telling contrast, is working so hard (at long last!) to draw attention to and resist "micro-aggressions" against other groups and in other contexts. There's a telling inconsistency there, to my mind.

@SpookyFBI "I rewatched it and in the beginning I did think she was saying an awful lot about gender critical people without offering up any evidence. "

This is called 'proof by strong assertion' it is a recognised logical fallacy (but a very widespread one) so it is good to learn to recognise it so you can watch out for it in future.

But then later in the video she did show screenshots of social media messages about a mother paying her daughter to shave her legs,

There are two errors of logic going on here, the first is false generalisation effectively what I was talking about earlier with the set of people who are not Christians including both Genghis Khan and Mahatma Gandhi. It is quite quite wrong to imagine that all of the people who don't accept or agree with trans ideology are therefore 'gender critical' and agree with each other about anything else or that they are disagreeing for the same reasons. For what it's worth gender critical means critical as in critical thinking not critical as in my mother in law is very critical of my parenting (she isn't my mil is awesome).

The second logical fallacy worth noting is the strawman fallacy - I want my daughter to shave her legs and or look pretty is a very weak (mis)representation of what it is that gender critical people are talking about objecting to and asking questions about.

All a screenshot of a mother paying a daughter to shave her legs proves is that that particular mother felt significant social pressure that her daughter should do that. For me shaving your legs sits firmly in the category of sexist bollocks no-one should be pressured to do, but the reality is we live in a world where there is a lot of sexist bullshit and people (including mums) are under pressure to meet certain (sexist) standards.

or tweets from people claiming that women like Segourney Weaver or JK Rowling or the various female athletes who look ‘masculine’ must be trans women.

People can and do criticise women based on their appearance, this is not a new thing. Why would you think the person saying that should be considered gender critical rather than sexist a-hole? I mean that's like the very opposite of what we're about. JK Rowling has come in for a massive amount of abuse for standing up for women but I assure you it's not people like me sending tweets like that.

I’ve seen the idea here that people can just tell a trans woman from a biological woman

There is mounting evidence that how women recognise someone is a man is not particularly closely aligned with how men recognise someone is a woman. This would perhaps go some distance in possibly explaining why some Transwomen and their friends are so confident that they are 'passing' and yet many women instantly recognise the biological reality.

Remember that by the currently demanded social rules a transwoman is any man / male person (I'd use better words but remember there are no acceptable biology words) who says they have the gender identity of woman. They are campaigning for no bars tests or 'gatekeeping' of any kind and in many places have won that as a principle. The question is therefore not so much why would you think that someone wouldn't be able to tell transwomen from women but why people assume that one can necessarily tell a transwoman from a man.

but it seems these gender critical women are not able to.

I personally believe that the people calling JKR a transwoman were neither sincere in that belief, or gender critical.

She also talked about some very butch women facing harassment when they try to enter female spaces,

Hmm and what do you think is happening in people's minds in that situation? What is actually meant by harassment in this context?
Why did the situation arise?
How could it be resolved?

I would remind you that a masculine women are men and should be treated as men is absolutely not 'our' side of the debate, quite the contrary.

What was originally a Catholic-led anti-abortion movement

Where did she get this nonsense from? The first people I was aware talking about these issues were feminists. Leftie feminists, many of them lesbians.

the anti-gender movement

I suppose this phrase/label may contain a kernel of truth, in that most feminists have been engaged in trying to break down gender stereotypes for a very long time. Who would call it 'anti gender'? Seems an odd, and negative, phrase to use.

Otherwise, from what you post there Helle, this woman appears to be either making some staggeringly inaccurate assumptions or is actively and deliberately trying to misrepresent women involved in these issues.

One final thing. This video mentions the now famous 'Maybe you carry' quote.

Here is the full transcript from video Kellie Jay made that is now portrayed as the "men with guns should use women's toilets" video .

"...and men? for once, I'm talking to you. I'm talking about you Dads who maybe 'carry' I think that's something that you say? I'm so down with the American lingo! Maybe you carry, maybe you don't. Maybe you consider yourself a protector of women. Maybe you're that sort of man. Maybe you have a daughter, or a Mother, or a wife. Maybe you have a sister. Maybe you just have some friends. Maybe you just think that women are human and you don't need any absolute connection with them to feel compelled to protect us."

"I think you should start using Women's toilets, men. Because you have every right to self identify. Clearly; don't do it and upset women and girls that are already in there, but just make a point of doing it. And maybe make the women feel ok about you doing it. If, you know, if you come out and you frighten someone. But it's about time you started using Women's toilets and saying that you identify as a woman, if stopped. And I think that's how you're gonna have to... that's one of the many ways that you are going to have to combat the insanity of self-ID Even if it's not called self-ID, that's pretty much what you have, now, in the United States. And that's how you men are gonna help."

It is yet another extreme bad faith interpretation that was actually started by the extreme trans activists, let's remember that.

Now, do I agree with her calling for men to use the women's toilets. No. But I can see what she is trying to achieve here.

And it is NOT for man with guns to specifically enter women's toilets.... with their guns!

It is making the point about those men who seek to protect their family members by carrying guns as one way they do that, can choose to simply use the same tactic of ‘self-ID’ to enter the female toilets and not only show society how ridiculous self-ID is, but to go in with their families because now no male can be kept out.

Do I agree that any male over 8 enters a female toilet? No. And her call to action that males do this was not appropriate. But it is important to be honest about what was said in context.

"Maybe you carry, maybe you don't."

Or can people not read the 'maybe you don't'.

___

Now this is what Mica said:

"If they're performing their traditional role as Protectors of Women & Children™ then that's permissible, in fact vehemently encouraged by gender criticals! Including by inviting armed men into women's toilets…"

"I’m talking about you dads, who maybe carry, I think that's what you say, I’m so down with the American lingo! Maybe you carry, maybe you don't, maybe you consider yourself a protector of women, maybe you're that sort of man, if you have a daughter or a mother or a wife, maybe you have a sister, maybe you just have some friends, maybe you just think women are human and you don't need any absolute connection with them to PROTECT US, I think you should start using women's toilets, men! "

"Literally armed men on the toilet doors, making sure you've got the right genitals for entry, or of course, you know, they could just hang around in there…with their guns…keeping an eye on things… You know, in case anything creepy happened! This is the future GCs want."

By removing the second paragraph, Mica can paint a very dishonest picture that distorts what was said. Mica has just as rambling a style that Kellie Jay has, it really is a bad faith interpretation of what was said.

I suppose 'Leftie feminists, many of them lesbians.' and 'catholic anti-abortion' populations may possibly have some overlap, come to think of it. But they seem likely to be largely different groups with different priorities. I don't personally know any catholic anti abortion lefty feminists.

This is the future GCs want.

Just noting, again, the tendency to dehumanise 'GCs'.

dehumanising language is one of my triggers. I admit that I tend to react when I see/hear/read it. Whenever it crops up I am wary, because I think it's an indication that the person using it has likely crossed a line where they are failing to see other people as human beings. And from evidence of the past, this can be a very unhealthy place to be.

Some terrifyingly batshit TRA stuff on here about people who disagree with them

I think it would have been a thread that would perhaps have been less personal if Spooky had posted this first. I have seen a great deal of what gets posted here from time to time covered in this video. It is an hour and 20 ish long.

There is sooooo much in here that shows the misrepresentation that we so often see.

And I was not surprised at the end to see Montgomery being lauded in the video as being a wonderful strong feminist voice...

In fact, it very much explained a great deal.

Just a quick note to say, now that we're close to the coveted 1000 again -

I'd love to see this debate continue, and definitely will keep reading and posting at intervals if it does.

I'm going to leave starting another thread to someone else, though, if you - I mean, anyone - chooses to do so. I want to be able to have a good think about everything posted on any thread I start (still a novelty for me in any case!) and keep getting desperately behind on this one! I also don't want to put any pressure on anyone to keep going if they feel this debate's run its course. (And I can't think of a cool title that continues to riff on keeping the (good) faith. 🤔)

Fingers-crossed from me things'll keep going, and, if not, see you all on other threads! 👋

Quick point - it’s not clear from the transcript, but the part about being queer was a different person speaking. And then there was another section where they overlayed a gender critical person (real or imagined) saying similar things about trans women claiming the word woman to what the queer person (I can’t remember their name) said about polysexuals claiming queer. That might have been confusing from just reading the transcript.

also the part about JK Rowling, one tweet showed a picture of her but it was a bit fuzzy and difficult to tell it was her, and claimed she was a trans woman, and then the second one was agreeing and pointing out features that made her ‘obviously’ a man. I think the first post was not from a gender critical person but was set up as a gotcha and the second person was supposedly a gender critical person taking the bait.

Catiette absolutely agree re: instruments!

I play the piano accordion and thankfully, the accordion world has long recognised that female bodies need accordions to suit their size.
My accordion is what used to be called a ‘ladies model’ but in more recent years has been described by manufacturers as a compact model (because some chaps prefer them too and we don’t want to make the chaps feel bad by selling them something with ‘lady’ in the name 🙄).
The key width is narrower (17-18mm instead of 22mm) allowing for a larger number of keys to fit into smaller sized case. Ladies/compact models are also lighter.

No way on earth could I manage the concert size accordion that my teacher plays, I don’t even have the wing span to operate the bellows comfortably.

Here’s the same dude with 2 ladies models and 2 standard models, all are 120/41 (120 buttons and 41 keys) but the overall size/weight of the instrument is significantly different.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?page=38&reply=125944920

I have posted the full transcript. I have not perfected the formatting, frankly I lost the will to live.

Spooky wherever possible, I suggest that Twitter, youtube videos, 'influencers' and self styled commentators require vigorous fact checking. Ask questions, look for sources. Look for reliable stats and data, evidence, studies, and then interrogate those studies.

These endless loops of anonymous Twitter accounts accusing each other of what-the-hell-ever are just noise, really. They always require checks and corroboration.