Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
BernardBlacksMolluscs · 27/04/2025 10:01

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:20

And women are still being forced to fight this with their hands tied behind their backs if they mention realities, facts and evidence that make men look bad such as the heavy intertwined sexual components of all this. Women are only allowed to battle at all if they engage in the pretence there's nothing more than innocent dysphoria at play. Even pronouns aren't fought as fiercely as that particular shield.

Agree

in my opinion for all men role playing as women sexual gratification is at least a partial motivator. Any post saying that here would usually be deleted and I’m not 100% sure this one will stand.

It seems to be unsayable in naice circles but it doesn’t make it less true though. We used to understand and admit that men pretend to be women because it turns them on.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 27/04/2025 10:01

TheOtherRaven · 27/04/2025 09:15

Quoting this again as it is such a solid point, it was absolutely cynical, intentional, a hostile take over, an act of deliberate colonisation. Intended to be done quietly without public understanding to avoid women being protected or able to resist. And in the full belief that women's interests, privacy and even their safety was absolutely worthless, the only purpose they had was in how men could use them.

Women have been harmed by men doing this. It has taken YEARS to overturn this to stop the harm to women, while men threatened to rape them and kill them, doxxed them, blocked them from services, had them arrested, women have managed to fight through despite a profoundly misogynist state that would much have preferred to go on enabling men to harm them while women were gagged from resisting or complaining about it.

I have no sympathy to spare for sadness that the access to continuing this harm has finally been thwarted. Absolutely none. I could search through and find examples of the posts that made it very clear the person who wants sympathy and apology now for women having finally managed to get their existing bloody rights in law to work against men has been and is fully invested in this trampling of women and their rights in order to be able to use them for their own agenda.

It's a huge victory for women, this was a David and Goliath fight all the way - it still is - but the fucking tragedy of it is that all they did was force the state to admit to their existing legal rights. That's it. That's all.

They have the right to get undressed without having to put up with a man who wants to be there with them regardless of how they feel. They have the right to meet other lesbians without men who want to use them in their lesbian fantasies and disrupt their groups.

They can meet other women and talk about issues such as life threatening and disabling illness that only affects women, without being blown apart by men who want to shout a lot of political crap at them about how women talking about their biology and claiming the reality of their health disaster being women only, invalidates them and <insert male rage, threats and awful behaviour here>. Groups have been destroyed that women needed, by men who didn't care about anything but controlling and using the word woman.

I could go on and on, about the woman who was multiply raped and so badly injured that she may never have children, by a man who was in her locked mental health ward having self IDd there, and was then put in a womens prison where he chalked up a few more women victims to entertain himself while awaiting trial.

About the women who lost all access to toilets, gyms, changing rooms, public spaces, because men didn't care if women had nothing and couldn't pee at all so long as THEY could be where they wanted. The women in tears being laughed at in a rape crisis service as they tried to explain the distress they felt at men in the groups and buildings, and told that the price of help was to pretend for a man. And subordinate themselves as they had to subordinate themselves to the man who abused them.

And a man dares to tell those women how very sad they've made him by managing to prove they have the right to say no?

Thank you for the proof, yet again, of WHY women need rock solid protections from men in law to be able to function in society and be permitted anything at all, even basic safety, never mind equality. And the reminder of why women should STILL be bloody raging that this was ever allowed never mind so enabled against them by agencies and services like the police and government who they should have been able to trust.

Edited

The advantage of the whining, self centred posts from tone deaf transactivists is that in response we see so many powerful, incisive posts that centre women - just like this one. 👏👏👏

Datun · 27/04/2025 10:02

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 09:56

You are not excluding all women who are opposite sex attracted though.

Couldn't you just call them heterosexual?

CrocsNotDocs · 27/04/2025 10:04

Couldn’t lesbian groups just make them single-sex? Surely there aren’t many straight women who would impose themselves on a lesbian group? Seems that is the domain of fetish driven men.

Datun · 27/04/2025 10:07

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/04/2025 10:00

I reckon we've got about another 10 months of meltdown and wilful misrepresentation before clarity is finally restored. It is going to take some time for everything to settle into its new place.........a lot of people have invested a lot of emotional energy in propping up this construct and trying to deter challanges to it. The most concerning thing is people in the highest places and those most influential have been captured by it........and many who have trans identifying children and so may have been complicit, won't now want to suggest to them that, in fact, there are limits and boundaries.

Edited

Yes, you're going to get a lot of performative clips online of men melting down at the coal face - entrances to changing rooms, toilets etc.

I hope the whole focus shifts from women telling men they can't do it, to service providers telling men they can't do it. And if it carries on, the police. And after that, massive fines for the men.

loads of men are going to thoroughly enjoy taking one for the team, but they won't if they get fined thousands of pounds.

Lalgarh · 27/04/2025 10:07

SunnieShine · 27/04/2025 09:53

"Mixed sex" toilets.

Recent experience from 2 locations in ThatLondon.

The Kiln Theatre (fka Tricycle theatre) in Brent has 2 sets of loos with no "people" logos at all (🚻) just the symbol for female combined with male (⚥ ) with a little notice that "we welcome people of all genders to use toilets of their identity". This does presume ppl using these toilets would know what the symbols would mean. I used the ladies, well I think I did as there were no urinals I could see.

At Frameless exhibition there Were seperate female and male toilets but these were all full so most ppl were having to use the mixed toilets (again, no people symbols, just a sort of squiggle to denote 2 opposing faces) and queue.

CautiousLurker01 · 27/04/2025 10:10

What annoys me is that the narrative is ‘oh look what these nasty bigoted women have done to take away our rights’ instead of: what a waste of 15 years!! 15 years during which money has been misspent and women have been vilified, when that cash could have been spent on providing safe, 3rd spaces for trans IDing persons in businesses and workplaces, when mixed-sex open categories in sports could have been set up, promoted, funded with attractive prize funds that celebrated trans athletes, when schools could have been given funds to create loos/changing rooms facilities that protected the legally required same-sex spaces but enabled them to sensitively provide for any confused and gender questioning (or even just extremely body conscious) pupils, when funds could have been diverted to fully inclusive DEI programmes that promote understanding of people of all races/ethnicities/disabilities/sexual orientations, rather than centring just one form of diversity. All because of stonewall law and Mermaids.

But no, they’re not shouting about that, are they? Let’s just keep berating the women.

Merrymouse · 27/04/2025 10:11

Hoydenish · 27/04/2025 09:56

A propos of nothing, I have a teeny bit of schadenfreude at the Scottish Government and Nicola Sturgeon who were the architects not only of their own downfall but of collapsing the house of cards. I know it took many years from deciding that a board made up of 50/50 men and men who tell us they are women was perfectly balanced male to female but yeah, here we are, with an astonishing cascade of unintended consequences.

It’s ironic isn’t it.

The SNP’s desire to clearly differentiate U.K. and Scottish government policy has repeatedly thrown a spotlight on this issue, which perhaps is not in line with the strategy outlined in the Denton advice?

spannasaurus · 27/04/2025 10:15

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 09:56

You are not excluding all women who are opposite sex attracted though.

If bisexuals are excluded from the same sex attracted group on the basis that they are not exclusively same sex attracted then they must also be excluded from the opposite sex attracted group as they are not exclusively opposite sex attracted.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 10:15

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 09:58

No, the only people excluded are men and women who are not same sex attracted.
Doesn’t that work?

I think that on a strict reading of the legislation, it doesn't, because you are including two groups of people with different sexual orientations and excluding only one.

A bit like having an association for Muslims, Sikhs and Jews which excludes Christians.

In reality I think we can all see the logic for a group for people who are same sex attracted and people who are both sexes attracted. I'm just a bit worried that ultra strict interpretation does seem to be the order of the day and the TQ+ seem to be in the mood to play silly buggers.

If anyone does make some sort of challenge on this basis I hope the judge can find a legal way to justify "gay plus bi but not straight" in a way that doesn't open the floodgates to "women plus trans women but not men".

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:21

SameyMcNameChange · 27/04/2025 09:54

Yes, but they do share the characteristic of being women. Which allows the exclusion of all men.

For the next step (the exclusion of exclusively heterosexual women) it doesn’t matter that lesbian and bi are not the same sexual orientation. It matters that the entire group of people being excluded share the same sexual orientation (opposite sex attracted) AND that that exclusion is a proportionate means of obtaining a legitimate aim.

That’s not how the provisions about associations work. Schedule 16 paragraph 1 provides: “An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.“ Section 101 says that associations cannot discriminate when they decide who to admit as members.

You can set up an association for people who share a protected characteristic, and you don’t have to show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to exclude people who are not part of that group.

However, you cannot set up an association for people who share a protected characteristic and then admit people who don’t share that characteristic, but continue to refuse to admit others.

Merrymouse · 27/04/2025 10:22

Lalgarh · 27/04/2025 10:07

Recent experience from 2 locations in ThatLondon.

The Kiln Theatre (fka Tricycle theatre) in Brent has 2 sets of loos with no "people" logos at all (🚻) just the symbol for female combined with male (⚥ ) with a little notice that "we welcome people of all genders to use toilets of their identity". This does presume ppl using these toilets would know what the symbols would mean. I used the ladies, well I think I did as there were no urinals I could see.

At Frameless exhibition there Were seperate female and male toilets but these were all full so most ppl were having to use the mixed toilets (again, no people symbols, just a sort of squiggle to denote 2 opposing faces) and queue.

Happy to be corrected but I think this is where the advice is unclear.

If single sex provision must be sex based, but you can’t exclude trans people who can’t use either sex based facility, the simple answer is mixed sex toilets.

However it’s possible that mixed sex cubicles discriminate against women, so what do you do if you only have cubicles and an accessible loo?

Should anyone now use the accessible loo?

Perhaps they will clarify this in later versions.

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:25

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:21

That’s not how the provisions about associations work. Schedule 16 paragraph 1 provides: “An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.“ Section 101 says that associations cannot discriminate when they decide who to admit as members.

You can set up an association for people who share a protected characteristic, and you don’t have to show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to exclude people who are not part of that group.

However, you cannot set up an association for people who share a protected characteristic and then admit people who don’t share that characteristic, but continue to refuse to admit others.

Why wouldn’t bisexual women share the characteristic of same sex attraction with lesbians, just because it’s not absolute?

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:26

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 10:15

I think that on a strict reading of the legislation, it doesn't, because you are including two groups of people with different sexual orientations and excluding only one.

A bit like having an association for Muslims, Sikhs and Jews which excludes Christians.

In reality I think we can all see the logic for a group for people who are same sex attracted and people who are both sexes attracted. I'm just a bit worried that ultra strict interpretation does seem to be the order of the day and the TQ+ seem to be in the mood to play silly buggers.

If anyone does make some sort of challenge on this basis I hope the judge can find a legal way to justify "gay plus bi but not straight" in a way that doesn't open the floodgates to "women plus trans women but not men".

Cards on the table, I think it is a terrible interference with the right of free association of LGBT people to say we cannot set up associations which are for all LGBT people. All of the LGBT groups I am a part of operate in this way.

If the EHRC are going to interpret the provisions about associations in this strict way, then they have to be consistent, and that means no LGB groups either.

SionnachRuadh · 27/04/2025 10:27

Peregrina · 27/04/2025 08:56

I have just got up and caught up.

Two points from the above - now that driving licences need a photo there is no real reason to say whether someone is M or F - the photo tells you. Transwomen do not pass as women and the photo will usually show that.

About the knitting group - I belong to a similar craft group, which at the moment is all women, but there is nothing to say in our rules that a man can't join. I think if a man who wanted to pursue or learn our craft wanted to join we would accept him. I would suspect that if a TW joined we would quietly melt away and start meeting in smaller groups in each other's houses. Why distinguish? For me, the feeling that I am being parodied by someone, and doubt as to the motives. Are you here to learn the craft or are you here to convince yourself you are a woman?

I think the motivation is the key thing.

I've been involved on and off for many years in a hobby that's overwhelmingly female. Sometimes I join a group. I've never known a group that was explicitly women only, but quite often they're women only by default. Sometimes men join, and those are men who are genuinely interested in the hobby and don't mind being in a mostly female space.

If a TW joined, I think the question would be - is this person here because they're interested in the hobby, or is it some kind of performance aiming at validation?

(I did once meet a TW who was a serious expert in the hobby, and who was so interesting when talking about it that after a minute or two I pretty much forgot they were trans. The other type also exists of course.)

Generally I've found the divide is between (mostly) older women who want to talk about the hobby and (mostly) younger women with exotic hair colours who spend a lot of time declaring their pronouns and talking about "queering" the hobby.

I'm just really glad that, with groups under 25, you still have freedom of association and don't have to worry about the legal implications of who gets to join. You can just hang out with people you like, and forget to invite the ones who are annoying or inappropriate.

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:29

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:26

Cards on the table, I think it is a terrible interference with the right of free association of LGBT people to say we cannot set up associations which are for all LGBT people. All of the LGBT groups I am a part of operate in this way.

If the EHRC are going to interpret the provisions about associations in this strict way, then they have to be consistent, and that means no LGB groups either.

Why are you so keen to keep the T attached to LGB provisions?
Trans is not a sexual orientation.

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:31

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:25

Why wouldn’t bisexual women share the characteristic of same sex attraction with lesbians, just because it’s not absolute?

We covered that a couple of pages back, the definitions of sexual orientations in the EA don’t work that way.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 27/04/2025 10:31

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:25

Why wouldn’t bisexual women share the characteristic of same sex attraction with lesbians, just because it’s not absolute?

I agree. The EA2010 references sexual orientation as opposite sex attracted, same sex attracted or both sex attracted. It does not state exclusively same sex attracted.

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:34

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:31

We covered that a couple of pages back, the definitions of sexual orientations in the EA don’t work that way.

Are you sure?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 10:34

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:26

Cards on the table, I think it is a terrible interference with the right of free association of LGBT people to say we cannot set up associations which are for all LGBT people. All of the LGBT groups I am a part of operate in this way.

If the EHRC are going to interpret the provisions about associations in this strict way, then they have to be consistent, and that means no LGB groups either.

I agree that LGBT groups should be allowed to exist, even if the T is an unrelated characteristic. But even if a strict reading of the legislation makes this unlawful, in practice they can make their groups open to "cisgender" heterosexual allies, and the problem is solved. Nobody else is going to be remotely interested in joining their associations, and if someone does join in order to cause trouble they can be kicked out for behavioural reasons.

I'd be interested to know whether you are aware of anyone ever having challenged the rights of LGBT associations to exist.

As far as I am aware, it is only LGBT associations which collectively and unsuccessfully challenged the right of an LGB association to exist.

If anyone is going to nitpick about this I would fully expect LGBT associations to be the aggressors and not the victims, as they were before.

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:36

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:29

Why are you so keen to keep the T attached to LGB provisions?
Trans is not a sexual orientation.

True, but I think sexuality and gender identity (and particularly same sex attraction and gender non-conformity) are inextricably connected.

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:39

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 10:34

I agree that LGBT groups should be allowed to exist, even if the T is an unrelated characteristic. But even if a strict reading of the legislation makes this unlawful, in practice they can make their groups open to "cisgender" heterosexual allies, and the problem is solved. Nobody else is going to be remotely interested in joining their associations, and if someone does join in order to cause trouble they can be kicked out for behavioural reasons.

I'd be interested to know whether you are aware of anyone ever having challenged the rights of LGBT associations to exist.

As far as I am aware, it is only LGBT associations which collectively and unsuccessfully challenged the right of an LGB association to exist.

If anyone is going to nitpick about this I would fully expect LGBT associations to be the aggressors and not the victims, as they were before.

I take your point that this is unlikely to be a problem in practice. But then why has the EHRC gone out of its way to say (without having yet consulted) that lesbian groups are not allowed to admit trans women?

I wouldn’t be surprised if people now start bringing legal challenges again any lesbian groups that continue to choose to admit trans women.

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:39

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:36

True, but I think sexuality and gender identity (and particularly same sex attraction and gender non-conformity) are inextricably connected.

I can’t wrap my head around that.
Possibly because I don’t believe gender identity is even a thing 🤷🏻‍♀️

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:41

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:39

I can’t wrap my head around that.
Possibly because I don’t believe gender identity is even a thing 🤷🏻‍♀️

I’m using gender identity in a wide sense which includes gender presentation. You can’t deny that there are a higher proportion of lesbians and gay men than straight people who don’t conform to traditional gender norms?

KilkennyCats · 27/04/2025 10:43

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 10:41

I’m using gender identity in a wide sense which includes gender presentation. You can’t deny that there are a higher proportion of lesbians and gay men than straight people who don’t conform to traditional gender norms?

They can dress and present how they like, I still don’t believe in “gender identity” as a concept.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.