KJK is standing against Lloyd Russell-Mole in the General Election

[BoreOfWhabylon]

https://www.youtube.com/live/vHudcvW0bSQ?si=kj-pX6z_ioL6l3nj

I can’t see this is pointless. It’s about single sex spaces and the things you list are fundamental.

Oh..Kay...

I'm not happy with men in womens spaces you might not be. And I'm sure you've stated on other threads you aren't happy with men, even the transwomen ones, in other areas of women only importance , prisons, sports etc that's why your stance on transwomen in toilets stood out.

Even if your reasoning to yourself is because it's just to hard to police (It's not by the way, there is currently nothing to stop any woman in a public toilet loudly exclaiming to the other women in there that there is currently a man in there and you'd like him to leave other than women being conditioned to just shut up and accept it).

HOWEVER when you say you don't have a problem with transwomen in women's toilets (and i can't be arsed going back a page to check the exact wording its hard enough trying to type with a cat trying to suffocate me as it is) that to most of us on here equates to Adam is happy for men to enter women's toilets. i'm sorry that might not please you but It just does!

The second you start qualifying which groups of men you personally don't have a problem with you are yourself a) saying yes to all men coming in, and b) indicating that you are happy for all men to come in (because how the hell do you tell the difference?) C) accepting self ID because you don't know whether the man who you think is a transwoman and therefore OK to let in according to you is actually a transwoman man or just a man man. Your stance actually helps muddy the water.

So I do take it at face value. I don't try and parse every word to work out the hidden inner meaning and working of your mind as to what you actually meant by your words that seemingly say something other than what everybody else thinks they mean.

When it comes to men entering women's toilets anything but no I don't want men in women's toilets equates to I'm happy with men in women's toilets. Trying to divide men into groups of acceptable men types allowed in and unacceptable men types not allowed in is pointless. Men are men.

You've said you don't have a problem with transwomen using women's toilets therefore you are happy for men to use women's toilets.

I thought you were GC

Literal 'you' not royal 'you' this time.

Arf at the royal you and the not royal you being deployed at will. We are amused.

It's my recollection that not only did Adam think it was pointless policing toilets so therefore, what's the point in trying? But also that other 'social' groups fell into a similar category. Ie there had to be risk for it to be justified.

Specifically, in that particular case, a knitting group.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Adam, but did you not say that women in a knitting group should not be able to kick out a man, even if they thought he was AGP?

Another thread hijacked.

Shall we league chart for how quickly this happens, how often it is the same poster, and which threads.

What could have been an interesting discussion about having a women's party, pitfalls, strategies, every one is bogged down in the same cycle of posts.

The ultimate goal can only be to make FWR so boring that fewer and fewer join in.

That's what happens when posters keep trying to negotiate with hijackers. It's bad strategy, because they're actually just derailers and have no power, and could and should be ignored.

That's what happens when posters keep trying to negotiate with hijackers. It's bad strategy, because they're actually just derailers and have no power, and could and should be ignored.

Absolutely - shame each thread cant have this at the head of eage page.

I seem to recall that knitting group discussion too.

Yep. I recall the discussion when it first happened. And the point remained that that was what was said and nothing explained further really changed the statement from the original interpretation.

Certain posters have some cheek, coming out with ad homs, deliberate contrariness and hoarse aggression, as standard, so that most readers will sigh and eyeroll every time they pipe up, then they whine when people take their words to mean what people normally mean by them. They should be flattered that anyone listened the first time, let alone go to the lengths to read back through threads and quote them.

The following phrases are pretty much synonymous in most people’s minds.

‘Happy to’.
’Don’t mind’.
‘I’m easy either way’.
‘Doesn’t bother me’, and of course the most petulant
‘I don’t care’.

You made me laugh. I immediately thought of Paula Vennels being questioned by Jason Beer. ‘Those words that I wrote, don’t really mean that at all‘(paraphrased). Weasel patter, but the mask slips every now and then.

Adam complains about their posts being misinterpreted or taken out of context, but also (deliberately?) misinterprets what KJK has said (e.g. comments about Farage).

Seems to think that their own posts are completely clear while failing to understand what anyone else is saying. There was another poster doing that recently, or is this the same one?

I am very much looking forward to KJK getting on the campaign trail. She is some woman, right enough.
Stone. Cold. Legend.

You're not allowed to criticise some posters on here as your post will be deleted for (I can only assume) being a personal attack).

Meanwhile a goady gif about burning money is allowed to stand.

We shall see.

No personal attack. People remind me of other people. My Mother in Law Irritates me. As does Adam. It happens.

My Mother in Law is also an excellent cook and keeps her house as neat as a pin. (She used to teach domestic science.) She almost certainly thinks I am a sloven and don't look after her son properly, and may well have a point. She spoils her grandchildren and they love her. We are all different. Adam too will have strengths. Debating just isn't one of them.

Agreed Needmoresleep.

I had a post deleted on this thread for mentioning that another poster was constantly bothered by how other people spend their money. IN MY OPINION, they often come across sneery and superior about it. But someone reported it and it was deleted.

It is a bit rich of you guys to claim I'm derailing when I've said I'm not interested discussing toilets and have basically been responding to posters challenging me.

It's almost like you don't want to discuss KJK, what she said and her chances in the GE.

Or maybe trying to get this thread to go the way of the last.

I see the latest polling shows Labour's lead is increasing- 47 to 20. I think people are sick of divisive, polarised, nasty debates. Can't see KJK making any impact at all.

Not related to that pp but probably a good idea for many things tbh

One of the interesting things about KJK is her party is entirely funded by small donations, overwhelmingly from women. No other party is like that

Talking of which, the PoW needs donations!

Here is a link to the PoW website, it’s very easy to become a member or donate from the front page