Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

[WandaWomblesaurus]

https://twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1764345843178512414?s=48

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html

Venice Allan

Yes. As ever, disruptive men suck all the energy and make themselves the focus.

Enough derailing.

This is the crux of the matter, really. They have made their choice, and chosen to exclude many women in favour of including some men.

We will see how it goes. It's very unfair on the women who can no longer use the pond. And I bloody well hope the signage is very clear that it's a mixed sex space.

DadJoke · Today 11:14

That doesn’t stop them conflating “women” with gender critical women in most cases.

I'm sorry, but words seem to mean something different to you.

I am shocked that this is still the prevalent view among women.

It comes down to a basic belief that males are of higher value and precedence than females, and females have a birth right to sacrifice to provide penis portions.

It's your basic, ugly sexism. On a binary, sexed basis.

Which makes an absolute farce of pretending anyone has any belief that the men in question are women.

@DadJoke I don't know why you are here or feel your point of view is warranted?

I'm disagreeing with you and other gender critical people on this forum. You don't appear to have an issue with the men who agree with you.

Gender critical people think trans woman are not women, trans rights supporters say they are. As the former, you will not use the word "women" to refer to trans women. As the latter I will.

If you want any debate at all on this subject on this forum, then it's best to accept that each group will use different meanings for the same word.

The only way to police this is to exclude people who think trans woman are woman., or have a moderation policy which prevents this (which is pretty much the same thing) It's an option, but then you'd have an echo chamber, Perhaps that's what you want? It's also entirely reasonable for mumsnet to confine this forum to women. But they have not.

That's because @DadJoke hasn't got a definition for "woman", so it can mean anything. Or nothing. And often both in the same sentence.

Gender critical people think trans woman are not women

<Ahem>

Gender critical people KNOW that transwomen are not women.

Otherwise they would be women. Not transwomen.

Like my biology teacher would doubtless have said "The answer's in the question"

If you want any debate at all on this subject on this forum, then it's best to accept that each group will use different meanings for the same word.

If we all have different meanings for the same word, then there can, by definition, be no debate.

That is why we are trying to get definitions from people like yourself for such words as "woman, "girl" and "lesbian".

Your definitions (if you have any) are so far from what those words mean that we seem to be discussing different topics. And if our definitions of "woman" are different, then there shouldn't be any room for debate, because OBVIOUSLY transwomen won't be acceptable in female spaces, because we are not talking about our definition of "woman" at all. We are talking about entirely different things.

If you are using the word "rabbit" where we would use the word "stoat", then obviously there is a conflict of interest - we don't want your transrabbit (stoat) in the same warren as our rabbits, which are entirely different creatures.

In fact, to avoid confusion you would be best to name them something that doesn't mention "rabbit" at all. "Stoats" perhaps.

Edited in the eternal battle with autocarrot

Emotionalsupportviper · Today 12:47

That's because DadJoke hasn't got a definition for "woman", so it can mean anything. Or nothing. And often both in the same sentence.

Ah, got you. A Dumpty of the Humptiest variety.

There really are only so many times and ways to stand in the middle of a feminist forum and repeat that nice, decent women subordinate themselves to men before it becomes tedious.

And obviously stands out as misogynistic.

This is a very good tweet in the same vein as Barracker's famous pronouns essay:

https://x.com/babybeginner/status/1733005509857534401?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Think language isn’t important?

Let’s talk about trans rabbits.

Imagine calling a tiger a trans rabbit. How much slower would you react to a trans rabbit than you’d react to a tiger? How would it dull your movement?

Now it might be a very nice trans rabbit. It might be fed. It’s possible it is tired. You might have nothing to fear.

If a trans rabbit came into a village what would you think of it? If the trans rabbit was playing in the field behind children what image does it put in your head? Are you thinking of a big cat with stripes or have you already forgotten just a smidge what we said a trans rabbit is?

Now imagine you have to fight with the people who support trans rabbit rights. They talk all day long about trans rabbits. And that’s the only language they use. This is dementing. It dements people. It stops you from visualizing what we are speaking about. We need language.

There are no trans rabbits. They are not a separate species. We cannot speak of trans animals. There are rabbits and tigers.

It is exhausting all day long to ask why are you afraid of a trans rabbit? Just because one trans rabbit acted poorly doesn’t mean all other trans rabbits are bad.

We speak of our safety and are told it is absurd to fear a trans rabbit.

Again. Do you even remember which animal we are talking about? How tired are you of flipping the word in your head? Do you think of a trans rabbit as a nicer, sweeter, more fluffy tiger? Is it the same thing? Have you tamed it just a bit in your head? Have you decided it is not a rabbit but not exactly a tiger either? If so, you have been tricked. Do you see how easy it is? In just a few paragraphs, you have created a new species. Have just a bit of your defenses been dulled?

I’ve only written a short essay here. For a few minutes you’ve thought about trans rabbits. Now try it for years. It messes with your brain.

And if newspapers spoke of rabbits and kept using rabbit references then how would you know what they were talking about if they said four rabbits were spotted in your village. Should you watch your vegetable garden or get a shotgun?

Language matters. Do not dement yourself. There is no such thing as a trans rabbit. If even for one second you thought of a trans rabbit as a separate species, you’ve seen how fast your brain gets tricked.

This is one tweet.

Dadjoke has failed to provide a definition of woman which allows him to say categorically that thanswomen are in fact women, and why he will contnue to use the word woman of them.
It is certainly not a definition based in biology.
Conceived by an x sperm meeting an x ovum. Nope.
Gestated in such a way that all the male parts are resorbed. Nope, and they've got them to prove it.
Socialised as a girl child to give way to males. Nope, no girl charcteristcs, except possibly Mean Girl ones. And I'm not sure about the femaleness of those. The most effective boy bullies used those in my experience.
Gone through female puberty. Nope, though cosplay at it. Period starts in double Biology. I don't think so.
And so on.
THEY ARE NOT WOMEN. THEY WANT TO SWIM WITH THEM? TOUGH. GET REAL AND IN THE MIXED POOL. There are women there who consent to their presence.
If they were women they would understand why some women, real women, cannot consent, and would respect that while one woman does not consent, a place is not open to them.
Any arguing against that is rape argument, since Dadjoke brings Brighton into it.
They are not, in any shape or form, women.

Dadjoke has never to my knowledge articulated his definition of woman in any way other than "anyone who wants to be one".

That's a coincidence that both I and the author of the tweet* used transrabbit examples (I hadn't seen that tweet before).

I only chose "rabbit" as an example because so many of the men involved in this . . . movement . . . are absolute STOATS, and I wanted a contrasting creature (that stoats prey upon).

*and put is much more clearly than I did

I've also got my own trans rabbit analogy.

Ereshkigal · 24/01/2019 21:58

Words mean things.

Cat:

1	Felis Catus
2	"Dogs" which use a flap in the door
3	"Rabbits" which use a litter tray

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/3488731-The-logic-of-non-binary-gender-fluid?reply=84403763&utmmcampaign=reply&utmmedium=share

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3488731-The-logic-of-non-binary-gender-fluid?flipped=1

I keep hearing a line from Porgy nad Bess. "A woman is a sometime thing." As in sometime he may tell us.....But to him, they are obviously not weasily distinguished.

to him, they are obviously not weasily distinguished.
😂

Even though the are stoatally different.

Very droll!

Well let's be honest, it's basically 'any male who wants to be called one' and 'the female service humans'. There's a lot of verbal figleafs draped over the nasty bits, but that's what it actually means.

With on going bafflement that apparently some women are not embracing this and going along with it.

Can't think why. 🙄 Nice women service human and are grateful, obvs.

A friend and I (for reasons lost in the mists of drink time) quote this to each other frequently, but our version is 'A weasel is weasily recognised, but a stoat is stoatally different.'

Bang on. Human beings cannot change sex. Someone 'legally female' remain what they are and ever will be - male.

A pseudo religion, insisting that we lie about these obvious realities in order to benefit males, needs laughed at, heartily.

Can women use the mens pond? Or only ladie buoys?

@crockofshite you are so going to get deleted though