Trans Ideology - a real life debate

[Forester1]

So something that is far too rare - a proper debate

For me positions can be summarised as:

Mark Glenening - free speech paramount - and shouldnt have compelled speech
Helen Joyce - Single sex spaces are needed - males need to keep out - however they identify
Freda Wallace - Me, me, me, my sex life, me
Peter Tatchell - Akin to fight for gay rights, black rights. I don’t see any issues. Be kind.

Me too.

how have we got to this? That women are grateful for not actually being physically threatened

You reminded me of Iris Child's I Will Not Say It

what if I am in your space?
would you say it to my face?

what if all the legal courts
say I can be in your sports?

what if laws are made for me
stopping you from stopping me?

what if a panel all agreed
gave me the paper I said I need?

https://irischild.blogspot.com/2018/09/i-will-not-say-it-tran-i-am.html

we have been giving Alpha both barrels

Far from it. I always wonder what level of discourse people are involved in when they make assertions like that.

@forgotmyusername1 As was pointed out in the Style and Beauty thread, there is a particular enjoyment that men get when they weave their words to make agreeable statements so that women reply back and say they feel sorry for them. I hope I am allowed to say that much about that thread (within MN rules) because it was deleted so you can’t see it for yourself. I think the Style and Beauty thread made it much more obvious as there were more unsuspecting women there.

I hate being so personal about anyone in a post but people need to link up words with actions. Remember Alpha says he will use the female toilets even though he has said he is a large (6ft tall and wide) man that he must know he will not pass.

Alpha - I would respect you if you used the men’s because (see my last post) your actions of using the women’s is having a direct impact (on proposed toilet design law) on the safety of people I love to go about their daily life. Put more vulnerable people first for the time it takes you to go to the loo.

I think the Style and Beauty thread made it much more obvious as there were more unsuspecting women there.

Saw that trending. Should have guessed.

Some of us who have been here for years remember all this on the Hayton threads. Hayton also being someone who is able to communicate without screaming threats, obscenities and abuse, but still demonstrated their internal belief that they'd listened nicely to women, and their executive decision as the male in the situation was that women's issues weren't really valid or important and that Hayton would be using their spaces as the right thing for Hayton. And oh well to the women that excluded, and oh well to the even greater numbers of women harmed by opening the door to all the other males. It didn't matter because women don't matter like men do.

Which said it all really. It always says it all.

I remember Datun making a comment at the time which has always stuck with me - those talking about this nicely and without abuse are merely negotiating as to exactly where they will place their boot on your neck.

I can't take credit for it. But, like you, when I first heard it, the lightbulb was blinding.

I can't take credit for it. But, like you, when I first heard it, the lightbulb was blinding.

I've never been able to locate it (possibly among the 'disappeared threads' of which there are far too many) but I've never forgotten a thread with Barrack, Donkeyskin, Datun, R0wantrees (I may not be remembering this correctly) etc. in which it was revealed that we've been so blinded it's not a matter of removing scales from your eyes, it's scales upon scales upon scales.

Very powerful.

I think this is very accurate. The action has always felt like an exercise to see just how far women who are being nice can be pushed so that the fall back position for some male people can be worked out.

Ah, those women are awesome. Compared to many, I'm late to the party.

It's why I say I've acquired late onset feminism 😁

It's highly contagious.

It's not 'both barrels' to say 'no' to men.

Nor to say a male is a man.

Women are not obliged to state falsehoods, soothe hurt feelings, chant mantras or apologise for saying 'no'.

Yep it’s not extreme, it’s not violent nor threatening. Unlike some of the response to it.

We don’t consent. It’s a no.

Absolutely.

When this was first talked about on the TV, or radio, you would have panels of men, or men interviewing other men, all of them pontificating on exactly which of women's rights we could keep, and which we had to forgo.

Very much like the panel with Helen Joyce the other night. It's women's rights that are being decided, and she was one woman amongst four men.

It's got fuck nothing to do with these men.

And yet it demonstrates, again, the belief that women's rights are something in the gift of men to give or withhold or adapt at will. That women's resources belong to men, and men might be nice and decide to permit women some use of them up to and until the point where men want them.

It's why the boot on the neck analogy is so powerful. The unspoken assumption is that the boot will be on your neck, and your willingness to lie down beneath it is taken for granted, but naice men will chat with you a bit about its exact position. And they will expect you to be grateful for this exceptional consideration on their part.

You know, as opposed to bloody furious.

Being aware of men's feelings, being ready to appease, soothe, distract and smooth are all sensible and reasonable strategies for women to have in everyday life.

In many situations, women need to keep themselves safe, and avoiding conflict with someone who is larger, stronger, and far, far more likely to commit violence and/or assault is a very adaptive-evolution type of behaviour.

So all of these responses are well practised to women, we've learned them very well. And often they are useful.

But it's also good for women to recognise what they are doing and why.

Giving Alpha both barrels would probably be in contravention of talk guidelines.

Responses are so far from both barrels they don't amount to a loose handful of table salt.

(cf references to rocksalt in US (including Kill Bill) or bean bags - there are devices that use table salt)

I think in these contexts, failing to tell someone how lovely they are is counted as 'both barrels'.

Continuing to point out unwanted issues is probably also under that heading.

Much mention of how very sad it is when other people's needs, feelings, boundaries and equality are pointed out.

And zero interest in the sadness and actual harm to women.

But women continuing to point this out is 'unkind'? This is as batty as the whole 'but wives should do all the birthday and mothers' day card buying because you can't expect a man to remember that kind of stuff' thing you see on other boards here. Possession of a vagina does not confer a degree of emotional armour and responsibility that those with penises are spared. However much some of those with penises would like this to be the care.

Lol

As I thought experiment, I just wrote down exactly what I would actually like to say (not directed at alpha, specifically).

There is no way I could say it, even about a hypothetical person, without HQ wanting to ban me. I would be falling foul of the guidelines to be civil.

Because it isn't fucking civil!!!

When you're being told that legitimate feelings of fury, contempt and disgust can't be expressed, because men can report you for being uncivil to them, you know exactly what you're dealing with.

When you're being told that legitimate feelings of fury, contempt and disgust can't be expressed, because men can report you for being uncivil to them, you know exactly what you're dealing with.

This.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone can read posts that we have seen lately on MN and say confidently that ‘nothing to see here, no fetishising being done. This is another type of male and not one of ‘those’ male people.’ I understand that there are some who will nuance the fuck out of something to make themselves feel comfortable.

@AlphaTransWoman
Sorry if you've answered this already. I've come to this thread late and not read it all but you seem to be one of the first ever good faith engagers with the women of FWR.

I have a hypothetical question for you. I know a lot of hyptheticals can be deliberately constructed in bad faith so I'm going to try and be as fair as possible.

You're out in a public place having a nice day. You need to go for a pee. As you get close to the door of the women's toilet a woman is also approaching presumably for the same purpose. She seems slightly suprised that the two of you are heading for the same door. She asks you politely if the two of you could use the women's room seperately because it makes her uncomfortable. One waits outside while the other does their business. She offers to let you go first. She's polite, hasn't made a big fuss, no one else has noticed. What would you do?

@lechiffre55
Thank you for your question. It's worth noting that I would only intend to use the women's toilet if there wasn't a unisex alternative available.

In that situation, I would be delighted and grateful that this lady has identified a mutually acceptable solution, given her perfectly understandable discomfort. So I would accept her offer with thanks.

How nice to hear (again) that you will only exclude women from their own facility when you find your own needs have not been catered for.

If you want to see male supremacism, there it is.

Those women you've just excluded don't have an available alternative, do they? At all.