Inside Europe’s billion-dollar anti-gender movement

[BeeSouriante]

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/inside-europes-billioneuro-antigender-movement

Figured that this would be more appropriate in here rather than the anti-trans forum. It's all kinda scary, particularly with Reform burgeoning and Labour larping as diet Reform.

Maybe want to work on how you're coming across, in that case.

I think it can be reasonably argued that you categorising women who want female single sex provisions to remain just for female people ‘anti-trans’ is sneering.

It sadly does mean that we have to keep saying the exact same thing over and over Brefugee.

I recommend the cut and paste version. I know it is annoying for some, but I have resorted to it for prison stats, and for why cis is meaningless and the fallacy behind the ‘lived experience’ type posts. Because I was typing out the same thing all the time and figured it was just easier to cut and paste and then move into deeper discussion.

It is very inconvenient that some male people with transgender identities use male toilets without issue.

I always wonder though why some can and others can’t .

Maybe BeeS will tell us.

I mean nearly all posts on here are just ranting about 0.5% of the the population so how else would you categorise it?

Sorry if I miss posts, the notifications on here are not great and I'm trying my best.

I posted a question on a thread that you might have missed.

You speak about how people with transgender identities deserve privacy. Does that include people with transgender identities not disclosing their sex to a sex partner?

O dear, Bee, we are not 'ranting', we are upset our facilities and sports have all been made mixed sex when it is illegal to do so. We are upset for the female prisoners who were locked up with male prisoners. We are furious with our children being told they are trans because they like certain things, by schools and peers (personal experience). We are furious that lesbians are being pressured to add male people to their dating pool.

It is not about you, it is about us. And that is the one thing you do not want to understand

Women are just over 50% of the population.

This post is typically misogynistic.

This board is discussing the very negative impact on female people's lives made by that the 0.5% that you mention.

Isn't it rather stark when you see that just that small proportion of male people can make such a negative impact to female people's lives? That just that number of male people in our female single sex spaces, our refuges, our prisons, our hospital wards, presenting as female in roles that are designated as being for female people, our sports make such a magnitude of negative impact.

And that feminists who felt they had been able to make headway to achieve equality after millennia of negative sexist discrimination based on us having bodies that were formed around the production of large gametes (regardless of whether those gametes were produced or not) have had to divert attention to address these negative impacts of such a small group of male people. Rather than, of course, continue to address the still ongoing oppression from all male people.

But you seem to not be able to understand the negative impact that male people who demand to be included in single sex provisions make. You wish to minimise and dismiss it. So, I am not surprised that you cannot understand that by calling female people prioritising the needs of female people 'anti-trans' you are logically acknowledging that you are therefore 'anti-woman/girl'.

In that case are you comfortable with your 'anti-woman/girl' position?

Are you comfortable being one of those 0.5% who has actively and negatively impacted the progression of female people?

Yes. One male murderer in a womens prison can have significant impact on dozens of women.

One male in a women's changing room can affect all the female staff.

One male in a women's race can affect many women.

The smallness of numbers is something often commented on. Numbers are growing. And every male using womens services and spaces can impact on many women.

"Does that mean we have to keep going in and saying that it is not anti-trans to be pro-woman? and that if that is what TRA s believe"

I mean, feminists don't just talk about trans people..in fact they rarely talk about trans people, but on here all you do is talk about trans people..that's why we call you anti-trans.

You have no idea what we talk about because you appear unable to listen or hear what women say.

The thing is, we know that there are male people with transgender identities who do actively support the needs of female people and who will exclude themselves from female people's single sex provisions. And also female people with transgender identities still also need single sex provisions.

So, when you falsely describe boards as 'anti-trans', it seems you are missing the huge % of people with transgender identities that are not being discussed when we discuss the impact of the small % of male people who demand inclusion into female single sex spaces. Perhaps instead of 'anti-trans', you need to be more precise.

Can I suggest 'anti-the-concept-of-male-people-demanding-access-to-female-single-sex-provisions'?

Sure, it is not a short soundbite. But it is more accurate.

Bee has just recently rocked up on here to tell us all what we think and how awful we are. Seems to take great pleasure in being able to fling insults at women.

MRAs are ten a penny. We've heard it all before and smears and false accusations don't actually have much effect, beyond demonstrating once again that males who claim to be women often seem to be motivated by a deep seated antipathy towards women.

But if this is actually supposed to be winning hearts and minds, then I suggest the strategy needs some thought.

You obviously hang out with a different sort of feminist if they 'rarely talk about trans people'. Or they don't discuss it with you around. Did you consider this?

What feminist doesn't acknowledge the negative impact on female progression with the inclusion of male people in female single sex provisions? The impact is very wide.

Maybe the feminists you speak to are those who have a single focus which doesn't cover : female single sex spaces, female single sex services, female health provisions, female sports, female employment needs and opportunities, female educational needs and opportunities, and a whole range of other areas male inclusion as if they were 'female' negatively impacts. In which case, that is fine. There is a great need for some single focus feminists as they really do add to the over all outcomes. But it would be invalid to consider them as being the norm.

In my area (medical publications), one transwoman could seriously affect the medical statistics for a hundred women.

So, we have to fanny around adding disclaimer after unclear disclaimer about how the researchers did or did not collect the possible range of gender identity (possibly in reviews going back 50 years) or define "man" and "woman" by karyotype.

And someone will still get it wrong and accidentally double the number by just changing "3% of women" to "3% of people"; or try to write round the issue by saying "those who menstruate" in a paper entirely about pregnancy, where frankly menstruation would be unusual and worrying.

I fear that ten years of otherwise decent research will be useless if no-one can tell what was meant.

hellooooooo bee do you know what this boatd is called?? Yes that’s right sex and gender! It’s the board on MN designated ti talk about issues around sex and gender snd thanks to men like you stomping all over women’s spaces cos special lady feelings or some other nonsense, we have to talk about trans issues a lot cos TRA have zero boundaries or consideration for actual women

other boards are available eg the menopause board when you slagged us off yesterday for not talking about the menopause cos you couldn’t be arsed to do thr nano second research that it would take to see there is a board fir that

Are you saying that we're not feminists because we're concerned about the erosion of female rights by a group of men? Make it make sense.

And do bore off with the 'ranting'. As @Helleofabore observed, having to deal with the trans issue has distracted feminists from working on the many other issues that still affect women as a sex class. Of course we're pissed off. But what I see here is reasoned discussion, not 'ranting'.

I do love having my concerns belittled. It makes me feel so... female!

yes.

However, the posters who do this, cannot recognise that when they post with the type of engagement we have seen here by this male poster, they really do convince those reading along to look further to establish what is actually happening. And when those reading along see that male people tend to post misogynistic points of view and double down on those points of view, they start to understand with greater depth the issues being discussed here.

It certainly isn't a stretch to think that those readers can see the Men's Rights Activist cross over.

The more male posters with transgender identities post their misinformed and intensely narrow view points, the more readers see the live demonstration of the misogyny that is at the foundation of the demands. And then they understand that these demands are being made by a group of male people with a particular philosophical belief that doesn't reflect material reality.

Indeed. There is nothing new in having our concerns dismissed as rants by a male person.

One huge problem 'gender', particularly gender self identification, and so, sorry, trans people, causes for women is that it makes it impossible to collect data on the issues that are important to women.

Pay, health care, employment, access to services, housing provision, crime statistics (as victims and perpetrators).

Those all used to be collected and recorded by sex, and that meant that if there were inequities they could be identified and addressed.

But sex has been replaced by 'gender' which is not the same thing. No information on any of those things can be collected any more. Which means human beings suffer. And although that exposes boys and men (see the way young males often do badly in the school system) as well, in a lot cases women have been served badly by existing systems. But there is no up-to-date information on that. It is now ALL anecdotal, and planners and providers will feel confident in dismissing it on that account.

Sex has to be reintroduced. People who want to present in a way not currently associated with their birth sex in their home country should be free to do so (because gender is makey-uppy shit designed to oppress people and make money for advertisers). Single sex spaces should be single sex. Mentally ill people should be helped. People should be able to choose what sex they want their partners to be (and be fully informed).

Sex matters.

Feminists discuss the impacts of male behaviour all the time.

Whether they are ones who say they are women or not.

That's the point. You wouldn't ever understand this what with your behaviour being part of the issue.

Yes, there is nothing quite like posters demonising a board for discussing the topic that the board was set up for and not discussing other issues that are covered on other boards.

That always shows just how informed posters are, and how much research and thought they put into their posts. And hey, never fucking mind that the board was forced because some people decided that they lacked the impulse control to scroll past threads they didn't want to interact with. The board was split because a group of people demanded that MN be curated to suit their own personal preferences.

Thus also proving the authoritarian and totalitarian nature of the group of posters who demanded / campaigned hard for this to happen.

Maybe we’d listen to what you were saying if you used a softer nicer tone. Have you tried smiling more?

Remember the good old days when men would shout 'feminazis' at us all day and all night? They've just dropped the 'femi' bit, now.