Why can't these men just accept women said no?

[sleepypea]

I have been looking at some of the trans subreddits where obviously the Supreme court ruling is a big topic. Titles of threads include things like "Please IGNORE the EHRC guidance at work" "The supreme court’s just proved the proof that the U.K. is complicit in a Trans genocide" and various other threads on protests and how to fight the ruling, amend the act and so on. All so males can get access to women's single sex spaces.

Why is it that they can't accept that women said no? Why is it literal genocide to say sorry but you have to use the spaces designated for your own sex. They aren't facing any discrimination that they aren't protected by law from they just have to use their own male spaces now but somehow that is ground for some of them to be talking about trying to claim asylum overseas.

Do they really truly believe they are in the right here or do they just no care about what actual women want?

I just feel like they will not give up trying to transgress women's spaces, they are totally obsessed with access to women's changing rooms, refuges, sports, toilets and the women in them.

I've read quite a few men in the past argue that rape as a concept or crime should be abolished. Because men have a natural need to have sex and women should not have the right to deny them their right. That women gatekeeping sex is a modern thing and it was better in the middle ages or prehistoric era even when men could just grab any woman they wanted.

They were probably what we know as incels today. Or punters. Or maybe they were regular guys who do manage to get women to have sex with them. Who knows, but that mindset terrifies me.

The relationship between the beliefs and values of the incel movement and the GI political lobby has always been an interesting one.

Tbf, I think refusing to accept the opinions of others is a failing on both sides of this debate.

@MrsSkylerWhite Do you care to elaborate on that?

Why can't these men accept women said no?

Have your choice
1, They are men who think the are the boss.

2, It's not about what they were or where they pee, it's about getting a kick out of making women uncomfortable. Or worse.

3, They are big weans having a tantrum!

@GreenFriedTomato I once read comment online, on youtube I think where a man stated that a man experiencing rejection from a woman was actually a kind or reverse rape, he actually called it that "reverse rape" and in his view it was worse than actual rape because at least when a woman is raped she gets to have sex and knows that someone wants her. I mean seriously?

There are men out their who think like this!

Well, neither “side” is particularly sympathetic to the thoughts and opinions of the other.

I would give up discussing it with them. The ones who are tantruming like toddlers have nothing that we as women need to hear or fix for them.

The legal decision is in. Cope with it.

Which opinion would you like me, as a woman, to accept?

That I should not have sex based rights?

I plan to go on failing thanks.

In this matter personal "opinion" is neither here nor there, all women have asked for is to their single sex spaces and sex based rights to be just that and for that to be clarified in law, which has happened.

I’m a biological woman. I can sympathise with the feelings of both.

I may sympathise with a man having deep sincere beliefs that my sex based rights are an infringement of his identity and freedoms. Frankly it varies from male people of all ages who hold different varied beliefs, and for example I have no sympathy at all with men like Isla Bryson.

But sympathy does not translate to enablement.

It's seismic. The whole trans movement relies on the fact that you can never say a tw is really a man, the minute someone with any authority comes along and says that ( as in the SC ruling) the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. Being forced into the gents is the worst fear come true for these people not because as they say, they fear male violence, that's a ruse- but because it means they actually are men.

The whole thing is a lie of epic proportions and relies on the delusion being maintained for its survival

It is unfortunate that some people experience dysphoria which makes their lives difficult but in no other case are people asked to give up their rights and jeopardise their safety to accommodate the delusions of another group.

I

I think you’re confusing opinions with facts. It’s a fact that people can’t change sex, that sex is immutable and binary, and that gender identity is a meaningless, social construct.

Women have always been told to believe things that aren’t true by men, eg we’re stupid or hysterical, that we are inferior to them, that they know better than us about everything. None of that is true, and this nonsense is just one more example of them wanting us to believe an outright lie.

We have biological facts and the law on our side, they have ‘feelz’, it’s a No Thank You from me.

Some women.

Surprising as it may be, you, nor JKR, do NOT speak for everyone.

You can show all the sympathy you like, but we shouldn’t be making laws that are to the detriment of 51% of the population, based on how a tiny minority of men feel in their heads.

No one has said they do speak for everyone.

If you disagree with the SC decision, I’d like to understand why.

A transwoman doctor has said, on record, that he’d treat a woman who’d asked for a female HCP. The law now prevents this. I think that is correct, what do you think & why?

If being transgender is so innate as they claim, why do they need external validation? They are absolutely furious with women saying no.

Your opinion is just that though an opinion and not really pertinent, if you are happy to indulge in the fantasy that transwomen are women that's fine, that is up to you but its simply not true, its a delusion, a lie and a dangerous one at that. Legally these men have no business being in women's spaces or sports and the law has now clarified that. Most women wanted this clarification which is based in fact, not gender woo and the typical be kind or else rhetoric commonly directed at women and they and welcome the fact that we can now lawfully object to males in our single sex spaces.

I read someone earlier describing them as having a transtrum. Seems to sum it up well.

I came to believe years ago that there is no such thing as 'women's liberation', there is just wave after wave of different forms of sexism attacking us in different ways. In my lifetime there have been a few points where it seemed we had 'arrived', only to find that in no time, we were back under the cosh.
An example is the backlash against the advances made by the women's movement in the 1970s and 80s.

The trans movement has been an absolute gift for 'the patriarchy'. It has enabled all those liberal men who had to pretend to support women's rights to revert to type and campaign against them instead, while still claiming to be on the right side of history. Saying no to women, but yes to men who say they are women.

Seriously - if you were asked to design a way in which 'progressive' men could go back to hating women, but keep the outward appearance of caring deeply about 'the most marginalised in society', you couldn't do better than the trans movement, could you?

The world is not flat, but there are people who believe it is, but we don't censor people who say the Earth is round because we're worried about the flat Earthers who will find it offensive.

Because they are aggressive, narcissistic, misogynistic pricks who don't give a damn about women, all they care about is themselves and what they want. The vulnerable little flowers who just want to pee is a lie.