TRA Trolls - can we just say NO?

[BlueEyedBogWitch]

A full thread of NO’s might be more powerful than trying to reason with someone who is not interested in reason.

Just one ‘NO’ each, until they get bored and go away. Every time.

After all, it sums up our arguments very succinctly.

Well that's bloody rude for someone who cherrypicks isolated quotes from posts and then claims not to understand the plainly worded questions therein.

No, it's a psychological problem with no material basis and not something which we should reorganise society to accommodate, not when it demands such sacrifices from others.

Yes, I guess that’s probably it 😂

She was bloody rude to me.

I don't care. You have been dodging my questions for several hundred posts. Care to answer them now, or is this another dodge?

You'll be told that's manipulative language, I was.

I also also surprised to hear that by mentioning AGP I was sexualising transwomen when several have said they have it.

I can only conclude Tandora has some fantasy idea of poor oppressed people that bears no resemblance to the truth. And is prepared to weaponise people's trauma to prove her point. I doubt she has ever ventured near the transwidow threads, which are very sad reading.

I don't care

I've no doubt 😂

I'm glad you find this amusing. Your lack of empathy has been very obvious throughout.

Once again: should female SA survivors have to share a space with males who blag their way in on the pretext of female genderfeelz?

Yes I do find it amusing when people express outrage at me being rude to a poster.
Yet, when I point out that my rudeness was only in response to hers, they declare that they "don't care!" if she was rude.

How would you prefer me to react to that to properly demonstrate that I am a good little woman with appropriate amounts of empathy for all you more important woman who have been through so much more than I could ever possible imagine (despite also being a woman).

The simple fact is that no trans-identifying male CAN ever have that experience, because he belongs irrevocably to the sex which supplies the small gamete to fertilise the large gamete to create a baby. Of course he has his own experience, as do we all, but what he can never have is the experience of being born, growing up and living as an adult in a female body, which all that implies, including the need for some spaces and services and almost all sports to be single-sex.

This here is a belief system.

You're not a woman. I think you've demonstrated that very clearly.

Well that's about as accurate and evidenced based as the rest of your opinions. 😊

The smirking emoji is exactly what I'd expect from someone who refuses to say that SA survivors are entitled to a female-only space that is actually female only.

Could I ask a question, Tandora? It's great to have someone engaging so closely who may be able to address it. I think it got lost in the other lengthy thread of recent days, but it's very pertinent here, and is the same question very many posters are keen to have an answer to.

I use numbers in the following so it's easy to respond to / refute etc. I'm genuinely interested to hear your response.

Do you accept the following premises (while excusing my phrasing if you find it offensive)? My understanding from reading maybe a third of a long thread is that you do.

1. Do transwomen exist with recognisably male physical features? Y/N
2. Do women exist who are so traumatised that they may find even the presence of a close male relative in an enclosed space almost unendurable? Y/N
3. Is the response of the female above to perceiving male features in enclosed spaces (eg. a visiting uncle, a transwoman in a public toilet) bigotry? Y/N
4. Is this female's response therefore a moral failing that she needs to overcome or "reframe"? (Y/N)
5. Must this female, while unable to risk encounters with male physical features in enclosed spaces, restrict her movement accordingly? Y/N

Again (genuine) thanks for replying.

By definition, an adherent to gender ideology has a belief in alternative reality where anything that jars that reality is ignored, vanished or shunned. The reality separates all people into two groups: the served and the servers. The servers have no other role or personhood. Reprocity is an unreasonable demand. It's not a healthy place to live.

But each to their own, it's no problem. So long as it does not end in a situation where any group are left without accessible resources. Even the de personed servers, and that's the problem. Leaving them alone and letting their spaces exist jars that alternative reality; it's an endless reminder. I get it. I have some empathy. But no, it can't be allowed to remove other people's equality and access, even if that jarring is unpleasant. Other people have equal rights and feelings and lives too that are just as important.

No. That is reality. Sadly for trans identified males, they can’t change that. Any luck with those papers yet? Or could you not find any? Maybe they just identify as peer reviewed published research

I'm one of those who were radicalised by the marvellous women on the FWR board. I came here back in 2018 when the Tories were considering amending the GRA and had opened a public consultation. I learned so much so fast and here I still am.

😪

I reckon Tan and Howes are more alike than we can possibly imagine. Two peas in a particularly disturbing pod.

As a field of medicine/ psychology the concept of transness has existed about the same length of time as Autism has. About 100 years or so.

And you'll know what changed with the concept of 'transness' around 2016 or so, right?

Previously it generally meant 'wishing to be seen as the opposite sex', or 'wishing to be the opposite sex'.

And then what 'trans' and 'transgender' both meant has changed. It is the current definition - that someone literally is a man or a woman because of a statement or thought or feeling, and a man or woman meaning 'a person of either sex with an undescribed aspect' - that has caused the recent level of pushback.

See maybe what saved me is I already knew a lot about trans people / being trans before that political argument / proposed policy reform and joining mumsnet.

I was a radical feminist too. If I had never studied this issue extensively in the real world, maybe the same would have happene.

SionnachRuadh now I understand tandora's starting point I will answer for her. She can correct if she wishes but not without actually addressing your question.

Tandora thinks having a female brain-sex means that transwomen are female and therefore will naturally exist in female spaces. As male bodies are a natural hazard of female single-sex spaces, women who are too traumatised to share spaces with male bodies, like male SA victims who are too traumatised to share spaces with male bodies, will have to stay home or find single user alternatives.

This means that, yes, Tandora thinks that the men's desire to have the definition of sex changed from body-sex to brain-sex in order to include them outweighs the women's needs for spaces free of male bodies.

Tandora would prefer this to be phrased in more vague, hedging, multi-dimensional terms.

(This is my conclusion based on Tandora's stated views, not my own. See my earlier posts for why I think the starting point is mistaken).

This is the most excellent comment that perfectly sums up the post-modern nothing-is-real-it's-all-a-belief-so-therefore-men-are-women twaddle that is gender identity theory.

A radical feminist who doesn't have a word to describe adult human females