Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Thread gallery
11
Seethlaw · 31/12/2025 10:58

MooPointCowsOpinion · 31/12/2025 01:01

I think I could use a quote of yours @Greyskybluesky ”But please don't use that case of male violence to pressure women into accepting men into their spaces.”

and say

Please don’t pressure women into excluding trans women from their spaces.

I want to be trans inclusive and the recent court case is forcing my hand to have to be sneaky about something I am not ashamed of - I have trans women as friends and spend time with them in female only spaces. I have trans men as friends and they are unhappy and scared, now of angry women as well as angry men.

All for what? People in favour of forcing same sex spaces based on genitalia seem really unhappy despite saying they’ve “won”?

I don’t get the end goal? Reduce rapes? Reduce male entitlement? Decrease toxic masculinity? I can see a million ways to actually progress that goal that this line does not achieve. That man is already hitting his next partner. That judge is sitting on several cases a day and making women wish they were dead rather than continue to go through the family court process. You could be doing so much more for women than this.

Join HASSL. They have great merch (bonus) and actually address women’s safety issues in a way that is making a difference.

I have trans men as friends and they are unhappy and scared, now of angry women as well as angry men.

Most of the trans men I know are not scared of men. We deliberately use their toilets! We wouldn't do that if we were so scared. As for being scared of women: why on Earth?? What is there to be scared of?

All for what?

For the privacy, dignity and safety of women - you know, the very reasons why same-sex spaces exist in the first place?

I don’t get the end goal?

Reaffirming that women are a category that exists, with its specific needs, among which are women-only spaces and services. If you argue that transwomen are also women, then the very categories of men and women don't exist anymore, since anyone from one category can declare themselves to belong to the other category at any point.

So either you believe that women are a category that exists, separate from men, with their own specific needs, or you believe that there's no such thing as men and women in the first place. It's really that simple.

Boiledbeetle · 31/12/2025 11:38

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 31/12/2025 10:53

I'm not sure that flogging is an adequate punishment for a creature with an exoskeleton. I think force feeding you Tunnocks for a week would teach you a lesson.

Show quote history

<Hands whip back, takes delivery of 1000 Tunnock's Tea Cakes>

I'll accept my revised punishment without so much as a whimper, mainly as my mouth will be stuffed with Tea Cakes.

Let my punishment begin.

SidewaysOtter · 31/12/2025 11:44

Helleofabore · 31/12/2025 10:22

Yes. There does seem to be far too many women who will take the enforcer role as we can see from the poster here.

I can’t imagine any woman with strong personal boundaries using terms like ‘cunt checks’ to defend male inclusion into female single sex spaces.

Mind you, we had that one poster a while ago who assured us that there was no way we could tell the difference between her male friends cavity sewn into his groin and a female vagina. Some women really are that determined to ignore reality to prioritise their male friends or their own ideological thinking.

Show quote history

Shades of Aunt Lydia. Except Aunt Lydia turned out to be working against the regime (apologies for The Testaments spoiler!) so they aren’t even a traitorous Aunt.

As for the thinking, it’s the sunk cost fallacy. You’ve got to keep going/believing otherwise you’d have to accept you were wrong in the first place and face up to the harm you did on the way.

As for Moo, I suspect they’re actually female and are a fully paid-up subscriber to the Non-Binary Niece/Not My Nigel mindset.

1984Now · 31/12/2025 11:45

MooPointCowsOpinion · 31/12/2025 00:10

I think this is more of the practical conversations we should be having :) if we class trans women as men, and then want to include them in a predominantly female space, we probably do have to offer the space out to cis men. Yucky. Not appealing at all.
i think it makes more logical sense to class trans women as women, and maintain women only spaces that can then exclude cis men. These spaces can exclude problematic individuals as well, say a woman who makes every session weird by maniacally screaming about checking for cunts in an otherwise civilised setting, as well as any trans women who make it weird. A claus based on biological sex is hard to enforce and I don’t have a cheek swapping kit on me day to day, both sexes have breast tissue, trans men don’t always have penises I can check for, can’t go by hair length some women rock a cute pixie cut… a clause based on being able to remove members based on expecting them to be female (inclusive) and follow basic decorum seems to make more logical sense.

If my local WI wants to be more inclusive than your local WI, I don’t see why a judge should get to dictate how inclusive we want to be. It feels like both sides hate being forced to follow an ideology they don’t believe in, and we are all used to having more choice and freedom than this in this country.

Show quote history

If anyone wants clear evidence of men and their thinking in this toxic ideology, present this post as Exhibit Number One against TIMs.
Silly Moo would like to think he has us fooled he's a woman, but poison like this could only come out of the mouth of a man.

JamieCannister · 31/12/2025 12:18

Seethlaw · 30/12/2025 19:35

"She warned that due to trans women being defined as biologically male by the Supreme Court ruling, to abide by equality laws the so-called sisterhood meetings would have to be opened up to men also. But she added: “As long as you’re keeping the business of it as women’s issues — so you know you’re still having a talk about ‘love your vulva’ and all of these sorts of things — my husband would find that he did not want to attend any sort of meeting like that whatsoever.”"

I think she will find that "love your vulva" is a transphobic topic to tackle around non-op transwomen.

Jesus H, surely there can't be more than 3 women in the UK who are so insane that they'd attend a TIM-inclusive "love your vulva" talk in order to include a man who they know has no idea what it is like to have a female body?

Why on EARTH does she think that good, honest, decent men wouldn't show their support for women by attending a male-inclusive talk for women before, with fake confusion, asking the TIM present why on earth they'd both attended something so obviously not designed for people with male bodies, and how leaving such things to the women might be better?

Seethlaw · 31/12/2025 12:22

(I know @MooPointCowsOpinion won't come back to this thread, but I'm bored :P )

if we class trans women as men, and then want to include them in a predominantly female space, we probably do have to offer the space out to cis men. Yucky. Not appealing at all.

It's not a matter of it being yucky or unappealing. It's not about feelings. It's about the concrete, factual needs for women to have women-only spaces at some points and for some things. Either you believe that those needs exist or you don't, but either way, it's not about feelings.

i think it makes more logical sense to class trans women as women, and maintain women only spaces that can then exclude cis men.

How would you propose to do that? How do you include transwomen and exclude men? On what practical basis? The only difference between a transwoman and a man is that one said, "I'm a woman". That's it; that's literally the only difference. I imagine you could have a mandatory declaration, for every person who comes through the door at a WI's meeting, to state, "I'm a woman." Of course, nothing would stop an ill-intentioned man from saying so.

A claus based on biological sex is hard to enforce

On the contrary: ask once and for all, "What sex were you observed to be at birth?" and that's it. Of course, ill-intentioned men could still lie, but they could then be challenged: they could be asked to produce an ID, for example, which would definitely settle the matter. No such possibility with, "I am a woman," which in practice doesn't mean anything if you think transwomen are women.

a clause based on being able to remove members based on expecting them to be female (inclusive) and follow basic decorum seems to make more logical sense.

How do you propose to remove members? On what practical basis? Would you remove a transwoman who insisted on talking about her penis? Would you keep a lying man who conducted himself perfectly properly beyond lying to get in? What criteria would you apply to keep the former yet somehow kick the latter out?

If my local WI wants to be more inclusive than your local WI, I don’t see why a judge should get to dictate how inclusive we want to be.

It's not about the judge. It's about the WI having declared itself a charity for women only, thus exclusive towards men. That is where the problem lies. The judge merely pointed out the obvious: women are adult human females. It was the WI which chose to restrict themselves to that category, and now they must follow through. They have legal ways to change their status, but until they do, they are the ones who decided to be exclusive towards male human beings, and you agreed to it when you became a member.

It feels like both sides hate being forced to follow an ideology they don’t believe in

The only one following an ideology here is you. GC women follow biology, which isn't an ideology to be believed or not, but simply a collection of facts.

we are all used to having more choice and freedom than this in this country.

Restricting one person's freedom to protect another person's rights is what the law is about. "Men can't get into women-only spaces" is a necessary restriction on men's freedom, in order to protect women's rights.

Seethlaw · 31/12/2025 12:32

JamieCannister · 31/12/2025 12:18

Jesus H, surely there can't be more than 3 women in the UK who are so insane that they'd attend a TIM-inclusive "love your vulva" talk in order to include a man who they know has no idea what it is like to have a female body?

Why on EARTH does she think that good, honest, decent men wouldn't show their support for women by attending a male-inclusive talk for women before, with fake confusion, asking the TIM present why on earth they'd both attended something so obviously not designed for people with male bodies, and how leaving such things to the women might be better?

Show quote history

Yeah, she doesn't seem to have much imagination when it comes to how people might behave - which of course is part of the reason why she doesn't see what the trouble might be with allowing seemingly quiet and harmless transwomen in in the first place.

Mind you, now that I re-read it, I'm also irked by the fact that she seems to see nothing wrong with immensely restricting the spectrum of what women can discuss, simply in order to keep men out. "Just talk about things that don't interest/concern them and they won't come." Erm, what about all those other topics which appeal to women, but might also appeal to men? Are women not supposed to discuss them anymore, in order to keep the men out? Wouldn't it make more sense to, oh, I don't know, keep the men out first, and then discuss whatever you want among women only!? No, of course not. As usual, it's women who have to make themselves small in order to accomodate men. Grr.

nicepotoftea · 31/12/2025 12:33

Seethlaw · 31/12/2025 12:22

(I know @MooPointCowsOpinion won't come back to this thread, but I'm bored :P )

if we class trans women as men, and then want to include them in a predominantly female space, we probably do have to offer the space out to cis men. Yucky. Not appealing at all.

It's not a matter of it being yucky or unappealing. It's not about feelings. It's about the concrete, factual needs for women to have women-only spaces at some points and for some things. Either you believe that those needs exist or you don't, but either way, it's not about feelings.

i think it makes more logical sense to class trans women as women, and maintain women only spaces that can then exclude cis men.

How would you propose to do that? How do you include transwomen and exclude men? On what practical basis? The only difference between a transwoman and a man is that one said, "I'm a woman". That's it; that's literally the only difference. I imagine you could have a mandatory declaration, for every person who comes through the door at a WI's meeting, to state, "I'm a woman." Of course, nothing would stop an ill-intentioned man from saying so.

A claus based on biological sex is hard to enforce

On the contrary: ask once and for all, "What sex were you observed to be at birth?" and that's it. Of course, ill-intentioned men could still lie, but they could then be challenged: they could be asked to produce an ID, for example, which would definitely settle the matter. No such possibility with, "I am a woman," which in practice doesn't mean anything if you think transwomen are women.

a clause based on being able to remove members based on expecting them to be female (inclusive) and follow basic decorum seems to make more logical sense.

How do you propose to remove members? On what practical basis? Would you remove a transwoman who insisted on talking about her penis? Would you keep a lying man who conducted himself perfectly properly beyond lying to get in? What criteria would you apply to keep the former yet somehow kick the latter out?

If my local WI wants to be more inclusive than your local WI, I don’t see why a judge should get to dictate how inclusive we want to be.

It's not about the judge. It's about the WI having declared itself a charity for women only, thus exclusive towards men. That is where the problem lies. The judge merely pointed out the obvious: women are adult human females. It was the WI which chose to restrict themselves to that category, and now they must follow through. They have legal ways to change their status, but until they do, they are the ones who decided to be exclusive towards male human beings, and you agreed to it when you became a member.

It feels like both sides hate being forced to follow an ideology they don’t believe in

The only one following an ideology here is you. GC women follow biology, which isn't an ideology to be believed or not, but simply a collection of facts.

we are all used to having more choice and freedom than this in this country.

Restricting one person's freedom to protect another person's rights is what the law is about. "Men can't get into women-only spaces" is a necessary restriction on men's freedom, in order to protect women's rights.

"Men can't get into women-only spaces" is a necessary restriction on men's freedom, in order to protect women's rights.

And the rule that you can't discriminate against people on the basis of sex by having arbitrary restrictions that only apply to one sex protects everyone's rights.

The reason the WI and Girl Guides had to change their policies is that they couldn't find any legal argument to support them, and the reason for that is that they were fundamentally based on sexist concepts of masculinity and femininity.

Shortshriftandlethal · 31/12/2025 12:37

MooPointCowsOpinion · 30/12/2025 20:14

This is exactly the mindset that has women like you keen to strip search other women to check their genitals. A movement that decreases women’s rights hiding as a movement protecting them, standard. Now any woman or girl can be forced into a strip search when just trying to go to the toilet, join a club, join a sport - yay! That makes us safer from men!

Show quote history

How ludicrous!

Anyway, you don't need to "strip search" someone to know that they are male in 99% of cases.

Have you seriously no empathy or fellow feeling for women at all?

Cailleach1 · 31/12/2025 12:53

OldCrone · 31/12/2025 00:43

Can you explain what the difference is between a "transwoman" and a "cis man"?

Show quote history

Is it not more a ‘transwoman’ man’ and a ‘cis’ man. They are just men. The first being men who try to claim (a fiction) they are not men. The other men who do not try to deny that they are men.

NeverOneBiscuit · 31/12/2025 13:04

SidewaysOtter · 31/12/2025 11:44

Shades of Aunt Lydia. Except Aunt Lydia turned out to be working against the regime (apologies for The Testaments spoiler!) so they aren’t even a traitorous Aunt.

As for the thinking, it’s the sunk cost fallacy. You’ve got to keep going/believing otherwise you’d have to accept you were wrong in the first place and face up to the harm you did on the way.

As for Moo, I suspect they’re actually female and are a fully paid-up subscriber to the Non-Binary Niece/Not My Nigel mindset.

Show quote history

As to the sunken costs fallacy. Helen Joyce at Sex Matters made a similar point in an interview, a couple of years ago I think.

She said that this movement will keep going because of the parents who ‘transed’ their children. To do otherwise would be to accept the unacceptable, that they had been complicit in harming their own child.

I’m paraphrasing, but she said that these parents were writing their children a cheque that couldn’t be cashed ie they would never be the opposite sex & society could not be forced to see them as such.

She said that she herself was a ‘standing reproach’ to these parents, as she refused to go along with the lie.

I think she’s completely right. My friend rushed headlong into helping socially transition her bereaved, autistic anxious daughter. Now an adult she’s on cross sex hormones. There’s been a quiet murmur about surgery.

We know the long term effects of years of testosterone on a female body. When she starts to suffer vaginal atrophy, has the inevitable hysterectomy & enters menopause in her 20s/30s I’m sure my friend will still be flag waving. Probably complaining that she wasn’t allowed puberty blockers. She will never back down, she’s utterly captured.

KaleidoscopeSmile · 31/12/2025 13:13

MooPointCowsOpinion · 31/12/2025 00:10

I think this is more of the practical conversations we should be having :) if we class trans women as men, and then want to include them in a predominantly female space, we probably do have to offer the space out to cis men. Yucky. Not appealing at all.
i think it makes more logical sense to class trans women as women, and maintain women only spaces that can then exclude cis men. These spaces can exclude problematic individuals as well, say a woman who makes every session weird by maniacally screaming about checking for cunts in an otherwise civilised setting, as well as any trans women who make it weird. A claus based on biological sex is hard to enforce and I don’t have a cheek swapping kit on me day to day, both sexes have breast tissue, trans men don’t always have penises I can check for, can’t go by hair length some women rock a cute pixie cut… a clause based on being able to remove members based on expecting them to be female (inclusive) and follow basic decorum seems to make more logical sense.

If my local WI wants to be more inclusive than your local WI, I don’t see why a judge should get to dictate how inclusive we want to be. It feels like both sides hate being forced to follow an ideology they don’t believe in, and we are all used to having more choice and freedom than this in this country.

Show quote history

"i think it makes more logical sense to class trans women as women, and maintain women only spaces that can then exclude cis men."

No shit. No-one's thought of this before. You're a stone cold brain-box

eatfigs · 31/12/2025 13:43

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that a woman quite high up in the WI has a TIM husband and that's part of the reason why there's been such a push for these males to be included. Am I misremembering or is there something to this?

Oldandgreyer · 31/12/2025 13:44

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 31/12/2025 02:51

I could assemble a similar collage of images with skeletons or skulls.

I did an course about creating faces from skulls - Forensic Facial Reconstruction,

It was fun!

ProudWomanXX · 31/12/2025 13:49

eatfigs · 31/12/2025 13:43

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that a woman quite high up in the WI has a TIM husband and that's part of the reason why there's been such a push for these males to be included. Am I misremembering or is there something to this?

That would be "Petra" whose wife was high up in one of the regional areas, he was the one who was on the cover of the WI magazine, when NFWI first let TiM in.

Within 2 years, "Petra" then got onto the membership committee of the National Federation.

PermanentTemporary · 31/12/2025 13:54

Reminds me rather of the time that I found that there appeared to be a transwoman on the Patients committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I can’t be 100% sure and they don’t publish the committee names any more but I was pretty sure at the time. It is amazing, still, how men always get these key positions in women’s organisations.

1984Now · 31/12/2025 13:59

KaleidoscopeSmile · 31/12/2025 13:13

"i think it makes more logical sense to class trans women as women, and maintain women only spaces that can then exclude cis men."

No shit. No-one's thought of this before. You're a stone cold brain-box

Show quote history

Brain like Swiss cheese, where simple activities are maintained, but anything more falls out of the holes, let alone critical thinking.
More seriously, we know these posters are click bait in human form, and the worst kind, men actively enjoying riling up women, and all of us who value intelligent discourse and hate it when we're presented with misogynist terminology.
All I can say to people on here, is that this is the death rattle stage of the ideology, the days when the horizon was uniformly dark are over, the law is homing into view.
Today, The Times reports that the new head of ECHR is saying that their guidance, formulated for months now, has been rigorously legally checked wrt the SC ruling, all that's needed is Phillipson (and by extension, Sir Keir "I will without fail follow the law of the land, all else is far right anarchy" Starmer) to get on with it ASAP.
The inevitable cannot be stopped for much longer.
The death rattle is apparent from the ramblings of Silly Moo, with all this talk of "genital police", the law will have to be broken etc etc.
Dear friend, it's not 2016 anymore, where even JK Rowling and Lionel Schriver, no shrinking violets they, kept their mouths shut.
It's not 2020/21, where the Omnicause propelled aggressive trans ideology as a cultural litmus test for fealty.
It's not even 2024 anymore, where men talked wildly about breastfeeding their babies, men at the Olympics were officially allowed to beat women to global audiences.
No, it's 2025, where Cass is the official advice going forward, and the SC ruling passes the 9 year olds intelligence test, as unambiguous and straightforward as it could be.
Sure, idiots like the woman pushing the WI to go all touchy feely inclusive "sisterhood" concept may put her arm around Silly Moo, but the reality on the ground is only becoming more focussed and more unavoidable.
The death rattle looks wholly scary, but I think we'll find it's the likes of Silly Moo and his acolytes that have most to be worried about, despite the optics seemingly still on their side.

Hoppinggreen · 31/12/2025 14:08

Sneaking around, inspecting genitals and killing people
Its not GC Feminists that are into those things

1984Now · 31/12/2025 14:09

Hoppinggreen · 31/12/2025 14:08

Sneaking around, inspecting genitals and killing people
Its not GC Feminists that are into those things

It's as if the more they implore us they're women, the more they show us they're men, and the worst kind of men to boot.
A natural companion to "If you see a TERF, f***g punch her in the face!"

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 31/12/2025 14:10

JamieCannister · 31/12/2025 12:18

Jesus H, surely there can't be more than 3 women in the UK who are so insane that they'd attend a TIM-inclusive "love your vulva" talk in order to include a man who they know has no idea what it is like to have a female body?

Why on EARTH does she think that good, honest, decent men wouldn't show their support for women by attending a male-inclusive talk for women before, with fake confusion, asking the TIM present why on earth they'd both attended something so obviously not designed for people with male bodies, and how leaving such things to the women might be better?

Show quote history

Sadly an entire group of them set up a museum which was heavily focused on brainwashing people into agreeing that a vagina is a principally male thing. And male people obviously have the main and best ones.

Hoppinggreen · 31/12/2025 14:30

1984Now · 31/12/2025 14:09

It's as if the more they implore us they're women, the more they show us they're men, and the worst kind of men to boot.
A natural companion to "If you see a TERF, f***g punch her in the face!"

Edited
Show quote history

I remember seeing one online TW "mantrum" where he was claiming that people tell him he's a woman all the time.
Funnily enough in over 40 years of actually being a woman nobody has felt the need to tell me that and I have never felt the need to hear it

ProudWomanXX · 31/12/2025 14:44

The "love your vulva" thing was actually one of the five choices offered for members to pick one cause to support for the next year. It focussed on self checking for cancer and raising awareness of vulval cancers.