Fws latest campaign

[Hoardasurass]

The lovely ladies at fws and sex matters are looking information about teams, leagues and competition's that are allowing men to play in women's sports

https://x.com/FWSSport/status/1841168440977211828

"If a single woman on the Feminism forum asks me not to post, I will stop posting."

I am another single woman and I ask you to stop posting on FWR. And echo others in that you do indeed 'lecture women', whether you intend to or not. That is the outcome.

And this:

"This is not the goddamn Olympics. People at a very low level are happily getting on playing badminton or football, no one is excluded, and FWS and SM are just stirring up hatred, because that's why they exist."

This above is an example of that 'lecturing' and it is misogynistic.

Male people can either play in with other male people or they can play in mixed sex team. Because even at grassroots level of sports, female people deserve to play fairly against only other female people if they choose. If they don't want to play against female people only, those female people too can play in mixed sex teams.

Your male dismissal of this is misogynistic. You have assumed that "People at a very low level are happily getting on playing badminton or football'. And we, who are women and who are involved in grassroots sports have been telling you for a very long time now, that it is a false assumption. Female people at grassroots are not 'happily getting on playing badminton or football', they are concerned about safety and fairness and you are dismissing them.

If 'most of them will just be volunteers running sports leagues...' then they will not be playing on women's teams or against women's teams, and nor will their involvement mean that an actual woman has lost a place in a team to a man.
So they would not meet the criteria FWS are seeking -- competing in the female category.

This is not the goddamn Olympics.

Such a stupid statement, where oh where do Olympic competitors come from? From playing the sport from a young age at grass roots level, if that level is closed to them by dint of males taking female places what is the end result going to be? It does not take the intelligence level of Einstein to work that out.

I hope the statement from said poster that they will not post here anymore is sincere as it will save us all from the having to read and spend time and energy debunking that level of nonsense to say nothing of the relentless misogyny on display.

OK. Happy to oblige.

Dear @DadJoke , please stop posting on thus forum board.
Go in peace

On the other hand it allows much debunking and counter-argument which I think is useful. It's almost like they are plants.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 TRAs and MRAs are the same men

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/a-guide-to-lawful-basis/lawful-basis-for-processing/special-category-data/#:~:text=Special%20category%20data%20is%20personal,not%20have%20to%20be%20linked.

The UK GDPR singles out some types of personal data as likely to be more sensitive, and gives them extra protection:

personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin;
personal data revealing political opinions;
personal data revealing religious or philosophical beliefs;
personal data revealing trade union membership;
genetic data;
biometric data (where used for identification purposes);
data concerning health;
data concerning a person’s sex life; and
data concerning a person’s sexual orientation.
In this guidance we refer to this as ‘special category data’.

Where is the evidence that the protected characteristics of "gender reassignment" (because as you know ChristinaApple, "trans" is not a protected characteristic), has special, sorry "extra data protection rules"?

In my example I would give the name of opponents team, the game, the date, and the location where the game was held.

I would then expect that Sex Matters would collate this and report back to the relevant women's volleyball federation, something like "in 2024, we have had reports of # number of games where it is believed that a man played in a women's game. Please could you review your policies, based on evidence from studies relevant to your sport?"

And then I would expect the women's volleyball federation to ensure their policies are clear that the women's league is for women, so adult human females, and that males are not included. That is what I would like to see in the vast majority of sports.

Men are of course welcome to play in the men's volleyball teams.

Thanks ChristinaApple for making me check GDPR rules, I learned something new today. Maybe you will learn that "trans" is not a protected characteristic in the UK.

Have you got anything from a reputable unbiased source without the hyperbole and bs waffle about a vulnerable group, when talking about the safest group in Scotland (no transfers transperson ever having been murdered in Scotland and are the least likely to be assaulted).
No I didn't think so

Well thanks for letting us know your plan.
As for how we find out if these men are men, why attend a match and take photos of the men in question no need for individual names when a picture says a thousand words

Indeed. And a reason why so many women coming across these threads become sex realists/gender critical/whatever you call it, in very short order. Excellent work, christinapple!

Sorry can't edit, should say Christinapple of course on both counts.

A prediction:

Dadjoke, as promised and as a man of his word regretfully cedes the field. But not to worry... a few days later another poster - Jokesfromadad who is completely different but has a surprisingly similar posting smile emerges to take his place to bring moderate, compassionate logical male reasoning to the cesspit that is the FWR board.

So, let's see. Male people who respect female people and don't put female people's safety, their ability to access fair competition ahead of their own are 'vulnerable'?

And which group is 'marginalising' which group?

A men's rights activist would consider the male people in the above scenario as being the group who are 'marginalised'. This is why extreme transgender rights activists are so determined to force usage of the words 'women' for these male people.

Because using 'woman' for any male person who is accessing female sporting events as a 'female' distracts some people from the reality of the situation. It evokes an emotional response.

I reckon you’ve called it there

How can you say for certain what someone's biological sex is from a photo? Especially if taken from at least a short distance, presuming it will be taken from the spectator seats?

Are you going to go into "transvestigation" mode and show measurements of their body shape and angles?

Oh this old chestnut again. Because, believe it or not, Christina, it's extremely easy to tell. At a glance. The vast majority of TW do not remotely "pass".

Spotting what sex people are is one of the first cognitions we develop in life. It's so easy that even small children can do it. Animals, with even greater sensitivity, can do it without any difficulty whatsoever. Adult women also tend to be extremely good at spotting males, which we have to do, for our own safety. It's usually glaringly obvious, I'm afraid. Yes, even if a woman doesn't overtly stare at you or say anything. Even if she panders to you. (Usually, the women who do that are doing that BECAUSE they know all too well what sex you actually are and believe it's their "job" to look after you).

It's also a constant and tedious refrain by fantasist TRAs that we couldn't possibly tell. Often based on the lie that if a woman doesn't say so (for instance, when she's in a supposedly single sex space with a TW in there) she both "hasn't noticed which means the TW must pass" and "is totally fine with the TW being there." Both these assumptions are false. I sincerely wish men who id'd as trans would just admit the truth to themselves becaue mostly, no, they don't pass. Your actual sex is obvious. Neither do most of us "gender critical" feminists (women who don't believe in "pink" sex stereotypes about womanhood ) mistake women, regardless of their level of so-called "femininity", for men. Another myth that is often bandied about.

Because, unlike gender ideologists and, WE don't see "femaleness" or "womanhood" as being anything to do with the limited male-eye view of "femininity" so beloved by TRAs and other patriarchal misogynists.

Keep going, as I said earlier, excellent work.

Hi @Christinapple I see that you are active on this thread again. Did I miss where you told us which Act of Parliament makes revealing the fact that someone is trans an illegal act?

Does anyone remember the TV show You Bet!? Contestants would bet that they could do stuff like identifying The Bill cast members just from seeing any small part of their face. If it ever made (another) comeback I'd be up for a bet that I could correctly identify the sex of any adult just by looking at them for say 5s

😂😂😂

BTW, here is just one example of a great many as to how "known" and fundamental it is scientifically that facial recognition of which sex people are is incredibly easy to spot. From the abstract of one particular study on facial recognition:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923004001017

"Human faces are ecologically-salient stimuli. Face sex is particularly relevant for human interactions and face gender (here they mean it interchangeably with "sex" ) recognition is an extremely efficient cognitive process that is acquired early during childhood."

"The human face presents a clear sexual dimorphism 7., 10., 11., 18., 19.. Face gender (sex) recognition is an extremely efficient and fast cognitive process [6]. Even when images are cropped to remove all cultural cues to gendersuch as hairstyle and make-up, gender (sex) classification is correct in almost 100% of the cases in adult subjects [6], whereas 7-years-old children already reach 80% accuracy in the same task [21]. These data clearly indicate that biological cues in facial anatomy are sufficient for a very efficient gender (sex) recognition and this ability is acquired early during childhood."

(Note as an aside also WHY it is really important to distinguish between "gender" and "sex" here and why I really wish people like the scientists who wrote this paper wouldn't use the word "gender" interchangeably with the word "sex". It is clear from the rest of their language they are talking about biological sex only, but using the term "gender" in science allows for obfuscation and misrepresentation by transactivists and the great many "allies" who are not scientifically aware.)

I'm a woman on this board and I'm asking you not to post.

Beautifully put.👌🏼

Is that a promise?

OK @Christinapple I guess that there is no such Act and you were talking as usual out of your fundament.