Men who say they are women

[Shedmistress]

Men who say they are women and then also say 'I don't like men in women's spaces'.

They totally understand that the men that are in women's spaces, are them, right?

They must know that.

We know they know that.

They know that we know they know that.

They know full well that the reason 'nobody has ever challenged me' is because women don't want a punch in the face. Or to face years of a tribunal because the man who says he is a woman went crying to the manager.

They say they are victims of the patricarchy, but they ARE the patriarchy. They know this. Because they are men.

This whole 'needing to use female spaces' comes from the doctors who would only sign off on a surgery if the men had duped people into allowing them to use female spaces, and to which we refer back to the above points of nobody wanting to challenge them. Not because of the potential for male violence, just for the exploitation of females who don't want to be punched.

I find it fascinating, i really do, the delusion to which we are all supposed to dance around and the deletions when women just say no. Or when women refer to their own situations having come across these men and the inferences that 'we've never met one, so how would we even tell'. For me it is the personal experiences that made me as hard line as I am.

Narcissim.

My material reality for more than 3/4 of my life is identified as female by everyone but sex realists. I don't need your validation, I have a life.

That's just bonkers, female is a sex and if you're not identified as female by the 'sex realists' then you're not really a female. It's not about they're validation it's about you not really being female, it's there in the words you used yourself.

The only way genderists can make the claim that people born male are "women" is to change the meaning of the word "woman".

However, that's just a word. It doesn't change the reality that around half the human race is born female and a male person is not part of that group.

So, when these male people say they are "women", it doesn't mean they are the same as the female half of humanity at all. It just means they use the word "woman" in a different way.

And in choosing to use a different meaning of "woman" from the meaning under which "women"'s history of oppression and exploitation was lived, and because of which "women"'s spaces, rights and protections were created, they cannot then morally or logically claim they have right to any of these things.

It is nothing more than a con trick based on changing what the word woman means now to include them,.then saying this gives them rights based on what woman meant then.

All you need to do to demolish the facade of honesty and good faith is to ask why, if "women" aren't necessarily born physically female, is it not ok for there to be separate protections and rights and language for the half of humanity who are born female and live with the consequences of that all our lives?

Then watch the dissembling and flapping and rage as they try to justify the unjustifiable.

I'm still baffled by someone using "realist" as some sort of insult. It's like a flat earther calling someone who believes that the Earth is sphere a "shape realist" thinking this proves their point. It's bizarre.

Nowadays if I see anything that says 'all women' I know it has nothing to do with women at all. What's worse is the cheerleaders for this calamity are mostly women, real women. 🤬

The converse position is ‘sex denialism’.

Which is gender ideology in a nutshell.

The only way genderists can make the claim that people born male are "women" is to change the meaning of the word "woman".

They haven't even managed to do that, though!

In the decade or so I've been questioning this, they've done half a job - "no, it doesn't mean female" - but not managed to work out how to articulate what "woman" does mean in a way that doesn't glaringly highlight their sexism.

I have no idea what it is that a genderist believes distinguishes men from women of it's not being male or female.

I thought at one point that 'people who are female, except those who strongly wish not to be, and additionally male people who strongly wish to be' might be a good rule of thumb, but no, we have to all have "gender identities" which are separate from "sex" and don't relate to the body or appearance.

It is evidence the rest of the world considers its focus on all women and genuine issues affecting women and girls

I agree that probably quite a lot of people in the world think that the UN should focus on all humans, regardless of sex, and genuine issues affecting all people regardless of sex, yes, although I would argue that that's not really a "focus".

It is utterly bizarre!
And he agrees with us:

My material reality for more than 3/4 of my life is identified as female by everyone but sex realists.

That phrase did actually make me laugh out loud

🤣🤣🤣

Can you really say that with a straight face?!!

ETA: I was going to apologise and say I was being unkind, but, nah, fuck it.

I thought that. 'Sex realists' = very nearly everybody, including big subsets too polite, or too intimidated, to point out the fucking obvious (aka most of the 75% described).

It's like the 'transpassing' subreddit. Full of very very obvious men saying they've been 'clocked' or 'misgendered' lately and wanting (and getting) reassurance that they pass.

Dude, if people are spotting you're male, you by definition don't pass.

Just bizarre.

It is like the person Helle quoted earlier calling women 'Gennys'. Yes dude, we are Genuine, thanks for the affirmation. I feel finally seen.

People who think sex exists think that person is male, and people who believe in gender identity think that person is female but could equally be a man or a woman (as men are female too)...

Ok...?!

It's that quote 'How many legs does a dog have if we call tails legs?’ Its only four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Tails can't do things legs can.

Calling men women doesn't change the classification of humans. If we need a group of women, a group of men isn't going to help. Even if they all look like women and have had a GRC for sometime.

I understand that people want to abandon sex as a classification, replacing it with gender. But sex is a very important classification and gender isn't. It doesn't help that in order to include all of the men who want to be women as the same gender as women, the definition of gender becomes so wide its farcical.

Last night was just another example of the reliance of forcibly changing female people’s language to suit men’s purposes.

And just another example of the oppression that comes with that.

Even to the point where we are to be shamed into prioritisation. It comes across that male people expect female people to allow oppression because there are bigger priorities when those lower priorities involve us allowing them to forcibly change our language, dictate our priorities and allow them access to anything ‘woman’ that they want to access.

Mental isn't it?

But the TRAs are pretty much the same as flat earthers in their denial of reality, so it stacks.

Yes that’s the fragrant, gentle vulnerable marginalised soul. Shame on me for not wanting to share any spaces with him.

Agree - it's like these men think we should shrink back gasping at the horror of being called a term which indicates that we are aware of reality and are not making ourselves look like numpties by insisting that the whole world fall in with agreeing with made up shit.

I've just been on twitter and spotted a post being shared which said that taking hormones made then female.

I then looked at the account in full. There was a number of different posts since then but there was then a comment about how many new followers they'd had since this one had gone viral.

It says a lot.

"I'd have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those pesky meddling sex realists!"

I did have to laugh at the argument proffered upthread that despite there being legislation stating that single sex services are for the use of the sex stated and that this is explicitly not on self id basis that there should be further legislation to make it even clearer to men deliberately ignoring this and accessing services that they are not entitled to access because a poster's pal, deliberately violating women's safety and dignity, just won't be told no.

I mean, do we need to start having personal legislation for everyone in the country so they can't plead that, somehow, it doesn't apply to them?

'Dave from number 35 Main Street, Little Township, you are prohibited from playing loud music out your windows at 5am even if it's been 'a fucking amazing night and the lads just want to keep the party going!' as it makes you a shitbag.'

Bigger priorities is all about belittling the issues women have and saying women should stop complaining and just get on with things. It's an erasure of sex based problems.

This is straight out of incelism. This is exactly what incelism seeks to do.

De-legitimise and silence the voices of women.

Women shouldn't talk about birth trauma and poor maternity care - they should just be grateful they have a live child.
Women shouldn't talk about sexual harassment - they should just be grateful they are attractive enough to be getting attention.
Women shouldn't talk about oppression of women in Afghanistan because there's bigger problems in Gaza and Iran.
We shouldn't make a fuss about sex based protection because it's a niche subject that political parties don't think should be given so much attention and that is only cared about by a minority and the cost of living is something that's more of a priority for most voters...

Basically get to the back of the queue and know your place. 14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

Making things gender neutral does a lot of the same too because it prevents discussion because you cant accurately describe the problem. Cos Default Human is male. Transwomen actually have nothing to lose in the complete erasure of women's services if they aren't permitted to access them because they remain the default body and don't experience these sex based problems and that is a lot of the argument we make - they don't have the experience so they don't understand the problem.

They see toilets as places to pee or to have girly chats and nothing more. They see the female form as purely visual and cosmetic. They don't understand the physical threats we perceive. Etc etc.

It's incelism. We are seeing incelism on this thread.

'Progressive misogyny' is the fatal flaw of the modern Left.

The issue is that the legislation we have puts the onus on the service provider or employer, rather than the individual.

I want the individuals prosecuted, which is difficult under our current laws.

Yes, it shouldn't be needed, but these individuals don't understand the word 'no'.