Women's rights general conversations - Thread 5

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 4.

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).

Hello new thread!

Thanks, Kuc! Hello new thread!

5 already! So much talking! So much to talk about!

Placemarking! Hello 👋

We're launching our staff women's network this week, and already have 3 projects to work on.

Thanks Kuci. Good luck Bint, I hope you all have fun and become terrifying.

Place marking here!

Excellent, Bint!

Feminism is back on the drop down. Christmas has both gone and come early.

Thank you for the new thread.

Miss! Miss! I'm at the back, can you tick me off the register?

<Peers disapprovingly over glasses>

Hello shiny new thread. So nice of @Kucinghitam to create you.

Quick update on the Haldane Case

FWS are appealing the judicial review decision by Lady Haldane in the Outer House Court of Session which ruled that the protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a person’s sex as recognised in law, and not biological sex.

They now have less than 9 days to raise another £12,000.

If anyone has an urge to do a little digging 😀 check out the tweet below from For Women Scotland

https://twitter.com/ForWomenScot/status/1651614049941987329?s=19

As you were
X

A timely bump for FWS, @Boiledbeetle 🏆

I've thrown a packet of seeds into that pot.

Can I join? I often miss threads over here and then have to read up loads.

The more the merrier, @tourdefrance

I've also thrown in a contribution.

Hello shiny new thread and thank you, @Kucinghitam .

I've been reading about Nancy Kelly today and the whole let men play women's rugby farrago. Obviously, none of this is new although Stonewall going front and angry centre on some bloke being kicked out of women's rugby is a bit on the almost new side. I read a piece about the research done by French Rugby into whether it was safe for men to play women's rugby and after proper research, they decided it really wasn't. World rugby followed suit following that research which, of course, Stonewall either denies has happened or poo-poo. And finally, I get to my not at all original thoughts. There are no women trying to play men's sports. These trans-identifying women are often on testosterone but still, they're not trying to play men's sports. The reason is obvious. They could be the best female player in the world and they wouldn't be good enough to play in a men's professional team or at a men's professional level. Stonewall and the TRAs are only interested in men and the reason they won't get behind trans-identifying women when it comes to sport is that it would blow the whole shitstorm apart, because they know that women, no matter how much testosterone they take, won't have the body type, the musculature, to compete. We know that's true, they know that's true, so the pretence that men who take testosterone blockers or HRT or whatever they take to allow them to take part in women's sport enter on a level playing field is horseshit.

It's not a human right to be allowed to take part in sports. I'm a weakling but maybe if they let me compete against 5 year olds I'd have a shot at winning. If I said I identified as a 5 year old who in their right mind would let me play with actual tiny children?! So, yeah, my unoriginal thoughts for the day.

That's not going anywhere, though, is it? As I understood it, both rugby codes are clear on no men playing against women, obviously rightly so.

Has there been a result on the rowing vote yet?

A very thoughtful conversation going on here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4807808-the-ideological-capture-of-psychotherapy?

Re: the rugby thing, I have two thoughts:
(1) How fascinating that this sport and this individual is the hill that Stonewall have chosen to die on. You'd think they could have picked a less obviously dangerous sport, or at least a less alarming mascot. But I suppose it's the ultimate in "costly signalling" in the scramble to the top of TRSOH Oppression Olympics...
(2) Bring. It. On.

Quick update just gone over £30K! Just £10K left to go.😁

A couple of random snippets from Twitter this morning. First one:

"The PSNI has left Stonewall’s controversial ‘diversity champions’ scheme, just weeks after being awarded ‘employer of the year’ by the lobby group."

https://twitter.com/dt_ni/status/1658951641108709379?s=20

Then this one tickled me, an Actual Scientist claiming that "White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes" with hilarious results. Gametes get an outing, but I liked this cuttlefish retort.

https://twitter.com/KingBobIIV/status/1659088137551851524?s=20

Poor TRSOHer is suffering a Pile-On, Hateful Comments and Abuse? (Definitions of those terms may vary).

Speaking of actual definitions, when did this new feature of readers being able to add a dose of reality context appear on Twatter?