Girl Guides and the SC judgement

[Timefordrama]

It was the Girl Guides' trans policies which first opened my eyes to the nonsense. I've just checked their website and they are still saying that trans girls can use girls' toilets and changing rooms, and share accommodation with whoever they want. There's no indication that the policies are gong to be reviewed in the light of the SC judgement. Anyone know any more about this?

user08101988
“Thank you for letting me know you are slow. Biology lesson: "Men who self identify as women" are women. The evidence is clear too. Trans women who have had investigative brain scans show that their brains are basically identical to that of a woman (with slight variation because we are all different). If it isn't the brain, then what is it? Are you reducing that validity of women down to if they have a vagina? If so, that is extremely regressive to society. If you can find evidence to disprove that, I would be impressed.”

I think you will find that the brain scan studies have been shown to be poor in methodology because the one that gets linked to here most often had included outlier results for male people to make the range not meaningful, and they did not control for same sex attraction in male people which tends to impact the range grouping as well.

The point though remained that the group of male people with transgender identities did not fit in the range of female scan results. They only ‘approached’ it which could be also due to sexual orientation.

The only way to be a woman is to be a human born with a body formation that is based around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether that body has ever or will ever produce those gametes. A person born with a body formed around the production of small gametes is not female and therefore is not a girl or a woman.

This was his post on the other thread, which includes the study that doesn't say what he wants it to say:

user08101988 · Today 12:42
So, trans women are women. I have the evidence too. This is a study done by the NIH looking into the neuro-anatomy of 24 trans women pre-hormone therapy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/
There are also currently a total of 92 sex offenders who are trans women (this is 0.000135% of the population btw).
CNN did research into bathroom issues in the USA comparing states with inclusive laws vs. bans for trans women. They called various police departments and asked for crime data to do with trans people in the bathrooms that correspond with their perceived gender in both types of state. The conclusion showed that the inclusive law states had significantly lower instances of sexual assault in bathrooms as a whole. In the inclusive law states, many police departments reported 0 crimes.

It's funny really. By posting on the LGBT parents/children thread, he's actually exposed the flaws in his argument and his self entitlement to even more people.

As a pp said, he's now getting ripped to shreds by two sets of Mumsnetters.

Yes, there are a whole host of people whose usernames i don't recognise from this section all handing him his arse on a plate.

Delightful!

Yes, very interesting to see all the unfamiliar usernames. I wish he had done an AIBU

And now I’m surprisingly invested in whether or not Harry’s gay. Never even thought about him before 😅

He may as well have done. It's top of trending, so if his hope was to find a quiet board that would be in his favour he fucked that up.

He seems to have vanished. Unsurprisingly.

Achieved satisfaction quickly perhaps🙄

<Shudders>

Or mum called him for lunch.

I do adore it when TRAs post scientific papers as some sort of gotcha without having read them. Or having misunderstood them completely. And then get ripped to shreds by people with actual science qualifications. Or the ability to read.

That was one of the things that stood out to me when I first started reading this board a few years ago - that posters DID read the links and DID comb through the quoted papers and DID pick apart the statistics and information. With knowledge and expertise!

I love the way the evidence is examined. It was (and is) a rare thing on social media, where most people spend about 3 seconds reading a post, if that.

My DH asks why I spend so much time on MN. My answer is that it is full to the rafters with some of the cleverest, most articulate, well-read women I have ever come across - all in one place. What is there not to love?!

Totally, and who can parse it for those of us who are much more of a humanities bent, without being sneery. We all know more about SRY etc than we did, for example. It's very educational, in a good way.

And let's not forget the patience!

Not me, but some posters have the patience of a 😇

Is this some weird duplicate thread of the "Trans women are women thread?" I'm getting confused.

I do, however, have the patience of an angle! 😁😇

It was derailed by the male op of that thread, who was advised to start another one.

He started on this one. Then started the other, then disappeared

Yeah. BB, there is so much misinformation in that it is remarkable.

but you know .... the way the posts are set out does seem that we have seen that very recently. The misinformation just plopped all in one post and never evidenced and it is the same points.

this feels like a repeat.

And I missed the other thread due to work...

I love how women everywhere here appear to have honed their arguments and just reached a conclusion. It's not just FWR.

There's far less of the - if they've had the surgery, or maybe toilets but not sport, and much more of the fuck off, you wankers. And if you really want to know why, here's all my reasons.

Logic, statistics, studies, but at the end of the day it's because we said so.

Courage calls, and all that. And it really bloody has.

a) "Men who self identify as women" are also known as trans women or, even simpler, women. Since GG is for "all girls" (quote from their website) that includes ALL WOMEN.

"Men who self identify as women" are not known as women, except to a teeny-tiny minority. The rest of us known them as transwomen, trans-identified men, or more plainly, as men.

Incidentally, my friend calls her hens her "girls". Should GG accept hens as members, do you think?

b). It is also well documented that trans women do not pose a threat to cis women in women-only spaces.

Bollocks. It is well-known that they do pose a risk, and also that risk is not the only factor - we can have women-only spaces for privacy, for dignity, or just because we want to.

c) If you are going to say "What if they are men and just want to look at little girls in a sexual way?" then should we prohibit lesbians or bisexual women from volunteering

Never in my long life has a lesbian or a bisexual woman verbally abused me, sexually harassed me, or posed any other kind of threat to me.

Same. I have never had to take a minute of my (perhaps equally long) life thinking about the potential risk that a woman - straight/lesbian/bisexual/any - poses to me sexually.

Men, on the other hand...

Obtuse?

I think you'll find it's haggii...

<gavel>

Well I've decided haggis is actually from the 3rd declension, like civis.

So the plural is hagges.

Which sounds like the bunch of witches we are.