Republican Congresswoman bring forward Bill to ban transwomen from female facilities in Congress

[Hoardasurass]

The quoted comments from the congresswoman are brilliant

First trans member lawmaker blasts GOP after bill blocks bathroom use https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14098953/nancy-mace-trans-lawmaker-bathroom-capitol-hill-sarah-mcbride.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

I have not policed or corrected anyone here using terms I find offensive such as "transwoman" or "TIMs", so while I apologize for having offended you, I will not change the language I use. It is a simple latin term, and not a slur. I refer to myself as a cis woman. My DD also does.

I appreciate you explaining, as it made absolutely no sense to me.

Sorry Pink but I still don't understand why you believe that American girls not having rights in Mexico and other countries south of the border is relevant to not allowing men in female only spaces in the USA.Welcome to Gboard clipboard, any text that you copy will be saved here.Use the edit icon to pin, add or delete clips.

Sorry don't know what happened there. Oops!

I say this every time I see someone calling transgenderists leftwingers! It drives me mad. As you point out, it’s the opposite of leftwing.

You might well do so, that is your choice. Refer to yourself as whatever you want - however using the term generally is not within the rules that govern this particular area of MN.
Here, on this forum, there are certain words that have been deemed offensive (to either “side” of the gender divide), and as such are not to be used. It works both ways, to keep discussions “in the spirit”…

I was discussing canadian nieces and their american-based cousins.

Mace is a part of a large movement who is actively taking away rights from women and girls.

She will use this success to further her goals to take away rights from natal women and girls. I would have much less issue if she were a democrat and not part of the party that scuttled Row v Wade.

I am breaking a rule, pls by all means point out which TOS or rule I am violating. I have no problem not using a latin term if it's in the site rules.

I was discussing canadian nieces and their american-based cousins.

Still completely confused. Why would Canadian citizens visiting the USA feel unsafe and/ or discriminated against, because men aren't allowed in female only spaces in the USA ?

https://www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

Is making up bogus definitions a hobby for you and your pals? Unserious means not serious.

You are resorting to threats because you won't answer a question:
can you explain how you protect women and girls by encouraging these predatory men to use women only spaces?

This is not libel. This question isn't damaging to your reputation. It is asking you to explain how you protect women and girls by encouraging predatory men to use women only spaces. That is all. You could easily respond and give an explanation about how you balance safeguarding with this desire to uphold gender identity.

Instead you've gone off the deep end for no reason.

If you were going to scream libel, I think you possibly could make a case with another post. But not the one you decided to do it with.

Which only leads me to the conclusion that you'd reached a point in the conversation where you couldn't give a reasonable answer so decided to blow up the conversation instead by throwing accusations around (rather than reporting it to MN which you could have done, because MNHQ will delete libelous posts or posts that personally attack).

Either way the way this has now played out gives a particular impression that, by your own making, isn't particularly positive.

Well done.

“Girls” take selfies in “bathrooms”.

Well I never.

So basically you don't like her because she's a republican and therefore even if she does a single thing right you will oppose it because she's a republican.

This is following a 'you are either with us or against us' narrative which is a known propaganda technique.

It is a false dilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when, in fact, there could be many.

False dilemmas often have the form of treating two contraries, which may both be false, as contradictories, of which one is necessarily true. Various inferential schemes are associated with false dilemmas, for example, the constructive dilemma, the destructive dilemma or the disjunctive syllogism. False dilemmas are usually discussed in terms of deductive arguments, but they can also occur as defeasible arguments.

The human liability to commit false dilemmas may be due to the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements, which is to some extent already built into human language. This may also be connected to the tendency to insist on clear distinction while denying the vagueness of many common expressions.

And

Explanation and avoidance
Part of understanding fallacies involves going beyond logic to empirical psychology in order to explain why there is a tendency to commit or fall for the fallacy in question. In the case of the false dilemma, the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements may play an important role. This tendency is to some extent built into human language, which is full of pairs of opposites. This type of simplification is sometimes necessary to make decisions when there is not enough time to get a more detailed perspective.

In order to avoid false dilemmas, the agent should become aware of additional options besides the prearranged alternatives. Critical thinking and creativity may be necessary to see through the false dichotomy and to discover new alternatives

We are quite big on critical thinking here.

Good. Read this paragraph from MN. In fact, read the rest of them while you're at it,

That said, it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’. Likewise, many feminists are affronted by the term ‘cis’ and ‘terf’, so using these terms will make civil debate less likely. As we’ve said, context is everything – but our moderation team will most likely delete these expressions if we feel they're being used in a deliberately inflammatory way.

www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

. I would have much less issue if she were a democrat and not part of the party that scuttled Row v Wade.

So, if she were a Democrat and not campaigning against Roe V Wade, you would support her in the exclusion of men from female only spaces?

PinkChesnut · Today 08:29

Asking a question of how I am protecting women by encouraging predatory men to enter women's spaces is saying I am encouraging predatory men to enter women's spaces.

A large number of transw are predatory men, who act in disgusting ways in women's toilets and changing rooms. The internet is full of images and videos of this. There have been cases of sexual assaults in the news, by transw on girls and women.

You fully support them accessing women's toilets and changing rooms.

Could you please explain, how are you not encouraging them?

You walked into the party like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror, as you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed that they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner and

You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you

You're so vain (you're so vain)
I bet you think this song is about you
Don't you, don't you?

You had me several years ago when I was still quite naive
Well you said that we made such a pretty pair and that you would never leave
But you gave away the things you loved
And one of them was me
I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee, clouds in my coffee and
You're so vain

You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain, you're so vain
I bet you think this song is about you
Don't you don't you, don't you?

I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee, clouds in my coffee and

You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain (you're so vain)
I bet you think this song is about you
Don't you don't you

Well I hear you went up to Saratoga
And your horse naturally won
Then you flew your lear jet up to Nova Scotia
To see the total eclipse of the sun

Well you're where you should be all the time
And when you're not, you're with some underworld spy
Or the wife of a close friend, wife of a close friend and

You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain (so vain)
I bet you think this song is about you
Don't you don't you, don't you, don't you now

You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain
Probably think this song about you
You're so vain

Good spot.

That wording is always an interesting observation.

Yep. Telling, isn’t it?

This. The only 'girls' I know who take selfies in toilets are males pretending to be girls.

Their (porn addled) fantasy of what a girl is never bears the slightest comparison to reality.

What have I said which is libel?

Don’t worry, PinkChesnut can’t afford to sue:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5214280-5214280-more-canadian-madness?reply=139999219&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

The libel accusation started before you posted OldCrone.

I find the initial post it was used in response to fascinating. It makes no sense but for it to be a mechanism to distract and blow up the thread rather than answer the question asked.

You think that men who say they are women should be allowed to go into women's toilets.

@UtopiaPlanitia in a post at 01:32 quoted a man who had tweeted exactly why this is a problem. I quoted some of that post:

We started seeing videos of men masturbating in women's bathrooms, started seeing SM posts of very obviously non-dysphoric men taking "trophy hunting" pictures of themselves triumphantly posting pictures of themselves in women's bathrooms, smugly bragging about their new access to these spaces, and gloating about the fact the actual women whom these spaces were created for couldn't do a thing about it.

If you support the right of any man who says he's a woman to go into women-only spaces, you are encouraging predatory men to pretend to be transgender so that they can go into women-only spaces.

You have said that you think any man who says he's a woman should be allowed in women-only spaces. Therefore you are encouraging these predatory men.