Daughter in early 20s lonely due to GC views

[Currentquandry]

My daughter is in her early twenties. She is GC and is struggling because so few of her peers have similar opinions. She is very lonely because of this. Are there any online groups she could join to give her a sense of community? She is also ND. Thank you in advance for your advice…

If the poll has been done properly with correct market research methodology by an independent professional polling organisation in the UK, it should not be dismissed as easily as you say. If you have the information, share it. If you cannot defend it, then it makes sense that there may be a valid issue with the data or the methodology.

There are plenty of us with experience here to go through it on the thread so let’s go through it together.

Quite. I'm all ears and eyes - happy to help.

I'm not asking what you will do. I don't think you know. You cant even accept that real actual biological women have different but equally valid opinions to you. You arent at the stage of imagining what you will do, I'm just preparing you that it could happen, at any time. We could have a real referendum and it might not come out the way you expect. It won't mean that Susan next door isnt a real woman because she voted for trans women in female changing rooms and you should get your head around that.

Sure. It is not likely to be overturned without some significant scientific finding, but again believe that all you want. So can every other law if you want to use that philosophy to defend your position.

However, we are dealing with the here and now and what the law says now.

Ive said why there is no point linking them. You'll use the no true scotsman fallacy to try and disprove it

If there were evidence to support your argument you could provide the links just as I have previously. The fact that you cannot tells us all that they don't exist & you are arguing in bad faith.

Maybe they don't see them as men do your question makes no sense. To them it would like pointing at my dog and asking why I would get a cat. So there is no prioritising of men because they believe TWAW.

Trying to ask a leading question where you imply a woman is pandering to men because she disagrees with you is the type of tactic the least bright of us use. It isn't something feminism would promote because it suggests women who do not follow a status quo or dominant mindset are stupid.

I get that it is tempting when a topic makes you angry or a person not agreeing with you makes you frustrated, but in civilised company, it makes you look really vile.

That's a very patronising response to @Shortshriftandlethal's perfectly reasonable and coherent post.

You may wish to review your numerous lengthy and at time incoherent posts all over this thread before trying to put down a poster with such inaccurate, self important pomposity?

Just a thought.

Treating other women poorly because they have a different opinion on this or any matter isn't going to change anyone's mind on the issue.

True. You being rude to me because I’ve pointed out that your analogies don’t work is not going to change my mind.

Out of interest, why did the presence of a white woman make the BAME women feel ‘unsafe’ as per your previous claim?

Are you using a different meaning of ‘safe’?

No because it's not the point I am making. All studies show a sizeable percentage of women think TWAW. There arent reputable studies of any kind that show like 99% of women disagree that TWAW.

I am not going to explain racism to you. Ask someone else why someone from a dominant, oppressing demographic might make someone from a minority oppressed demographic feel unsafe.

Try 'that just what the law currently says' as a defence in any other case and the judge would probably just say 'Well, quite' and apply the law as it currently is.

While laws can be overturned, the legislation in question was very recently - April 2025 - analysed and upheld by the highest court in the UK, so it seems unlikely that they would dramatically change their mind in such a short space of time.

BTW I can't find it now but you said upthread that I didn't understand and you had to explain something to me, and you were right: I didn't grasp what you were saying, I think my perception was clouded by some of your earlier posts which seemed to jump to negative conclusions about people with GC views being obsessed or nobby-no-mates or something...

I'm sorry, I was slow to grasp your meaning.

While I'm here, can I add that I would always be/have always been respectful of a space that Black women wished to be solely theirs. No problem with that. It wouldn't be fair to demand for myself something that I wouldn't willingly agree to for other people.

All my posts have been very clear. I understand that some of the concepts have been complex but that's life for you..

It doesn’t matter how they see them, the law and reality says they are men. I only care about a difference of opinion if that opinion threatens my hard won rights. And if they can’t even back up why they are happy to promote the erosion of those rights, it makes it even worse. If that makes me vile, so be it. I’d rather be me than them. When this madness is all over (and it will be), I can look myself in the eye knowing I put women and girls first.

Fab! All these women determined to allow males into single sex spaces can take their 'valid' opinions into openly campaigning for change - we'll see what happens!

The law remains the law now though. And it remains that males cannot use female single sex spaces.

(I'm not sure why you're accusing me of thinking such women are 'not real women'. I think they're wrong and I am allowed to think so. I don't think that they're 'not real women'. I just think they have a poor grasp of the EQA2010 and show a worrying lack of empathy towards vulnerable women. You disagree).

Yes you're right. Some laws are unlikely to change due to their foundation. Like killing someone without provocation. Others are more subject to change with societal attitudes. Like when you kill a coercive husband.

No because it's not the point I am making. All studies show a sizeable percentage of women think TWAW. There arent reputable studies of any kind that show like 99% of women disagree that TWAW.

Just as I thought. These studies don't exist & it's a lie to claim otherwise.

Treating other women poorly because they have a different opinion on this or any matter isn't going to change anyone's mind on the issue.

How exactly are women who hold the opinion that TWAW being treated poorly?

True. There were even women who didn’t want women to have the vote. Can you imagine. I thought we’d moved on from those days but handmaids gotta handmaid I guess

You can think they are wrong for how theyve interpreted information that is related to the subject, but it doesnt mean they haven't consumed or understood it. It just means they have reached a different conclusion based on the information. Which again, you can think is the wrong opinion to have.

😂
There've been a few seething posters on here in recent years sneering and trying to look down on others, trying to pretend that posters just don't understand these oh so complex issues of men insisting on access to women and girls undressing.

There's so often a level of pent up fury and emotional incontinence as their real thoughts about women come pouring out.

It's quite the spectacle.

I've been treated poorly here because people assumed I thought TWAW

No. There is not and I doubt there ever will be.

But again, how is that relevant when the law supporting safeguarding is clear about sex category being the basis of single sex segregation, and that current law being the defining one which is based on legitimate discrimination. It cannot be overturned in any publicly accessible single sex provision, despite some claims that majority should be able to do this.

The polling is actually relevant only for forming the discussion around legislation of the government which also looks at other aspects of the decision making as well, and to counter the constant falsehoods about the majority of people in the UK supporting male inclusion in female single provision.

But if you have the UK data, please present it because it is obviously something very new that we haven’t seen and many of us here like to keep up to date with such information. I re-evaluate my thinking with each new set of data that I look at. I am sure others here do too.

if you make a claim, let’s see the data supporting that claim.

I dont think you dont understand the topic. That isnt the issue. I can accept that two people can consume and understand the same information and have different opinions about it. Even if I disagreed with you, I wouldn't think it's because you don't know enough.

the law will eventually state, clearly, one way or the other, that trans people either are or are not their chosen sex and people who have a problem with that decision will be left to deal with their feelings.

The law in the UK already does this, in the Equality Act. As confirmed in the Supreme Court almost a year ago, it says very clearly that trans people are not their chosen sex, but are in fact their birth sex. Even if they have a GRC.

But it doesn't just tell them to deal with their feelings. It provides the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, meaning that a male who identifies as a girl/woman (or a female who identifies as a boy/man) should be treated no less favourably than one who doesn't. This means that trans people are protected both under sex discrimination law (e.g. a transman has the same protections as other females re maternity and abortion) and gender reassignment.

What it doesn't do is allow them to use facilities, services or sports (that meet the legal criteria to be designated as single-sex) for the opposite sex.

It really is that simple.

You may hold an opinion that this is unfair to transwomen and transmen. This opinion is equally as valid as those who have the opposite opinion if it is based on facts. If it is not based on facts, if it actually ignores them, it's as valid as an opinion that the earth is flat.

Some key facts here, already stated by PPs and summarised as bullets:

• nobody can change sex
• everyone is one sex or the other. Nobody is in-between the sexes, including people with DSDs
• the law allows for spaces, sports and services to be single-sex, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (such an aim could be women's safety)
• the law recognises sex as birth-sex only
• statistically, males represent heightened risk to females (irrespective of the clothes they wear), more so in some circumstances than others e.g. risk of assault when in a state of partial undress. This means that there are circumstances where it is proportionate and legitimate to keep all males out of female spaces
• if one male is permitted into a space that has been designated as a women's single-sex space either a) that space needs to be reclassified as mixed-sex (so that all males can enter) or b) the male needs to be told to leave

If you read these facts and still have the opinion that TW should be allowed into women's spaces (but other males should be kept out), its status as being "valid" is a tough one to justify. Put bluntly, my opinion is that your opinion is no more valid than fiat earth theory.

If they have reached a conclusion that the FWS judgment did not clearly state that references to sex, woman, man in the EA referred to biological sex then their conclusions are incorrect. That's not a difference of opinion that's not understanding a legal judgment