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…

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

In what way have you been treated poorly?

You haven’t been treated poorly. You’ve been asked questions. And believe it or not, I appreciate the ones you’ve answered. I just think you are wrong on a lot of them.

Of course they exist. Some people cited them here.

Flat earthers and evolution deniers have all the same rights to their opinions as everyone else.

But laws require more than random 'opinion'.

Various comments about my character based on the assumption that I think TWAW.

Genitals don't have to be on display to make people very uncomfortable or in fear. Sandie Peggie had every reason to object to the presence of a man in her changing room, though it would be unusual for people changing into or out of uniform to strip naked. "Obsession with genitals" is a straw man and genitals are brought up in these discussions about women's spaces far more by trans people and their allies than by the rest of us. Just who is obsessed? Certainly those who get them surgically altered.

As for your last condescending sentence, playing my musical instruments doesn't affect the reasons for single sex spaces, and if they are single sex spaces they cannot have anyone of the other sex in them. As soon as someone of the other sex enters, the space is mixed sex. That is not just an opinion.

Of course they exist. Some people cited them here.

Attempting to justify your lie with more lies is a very poor tactic. You cannot provide links because these studies supporting your view do not exist.

What comments?

You're right, sometimes they formally poll all of us for our formal opinion on a matter.

How have you been treated poorly?

I'm not going through 30 pages to find them. I believe some were deleted as I tried to respond to one and got a prompt saying it no longer exists.

It isnt a lie. I'm just not playing that game with people who have no interest in accepting new information. I have parents to do that with.

It isnt a lie. I'm just not playing that game with people who have no interest in accepting new information. I have parents to do that with.

It's a lie. You have been called out & are just doubling down on the claim that there are studies that show a majority of women think TWAW or want transwomen i.e. men in female single sex spaces.

Yes there are. I know that makes you angry but there are. Lots and lots of women sre fully supportive of TW in female spaces and are currently campaigning to overthrow the ruling. You have to deal with that reality. Their voice will be deemed as important as yours because it is on this issue.

I am not going to explain racism to you.

Why not? You really want to borrow this woman’s equipment, have her set it up, break it down and look after it during the event but on the other hand her very presence makes you feel so unsafe you can’t have her involved in the meetings. You also want her to contribute to the event but won’t give her any thanks or credit.

Ask someone else why someone from a dominant, oppressing demographic might make someone from a minority oppressed demographic feel unsafe.

This isn’t making any sense. Are you suggesting that in existing as a white person she is automatically a racist? Despite her expressed desire to help out a BAME organisation? Does she know how you feel about her?

It isnt a BAME organisation..it was an event by a feminist/female led organisation (men can be members) for BAME women at risk of DV.

In fairness, I thought that until I read Gloved's later posts more carefully. My perception had been, I confess, clouded by her attitude at the beginning of the thread where she assumed that somebody who is GC is abrasive/obsessed/entrenched/a crashing bore.

The discussion moved on over many more pages, so I only apologised recently, I hope Gloved doesn't feel too badly treated, people have disagreed vehemently but offensively I hope.

So I admit misread Gloved, but the fact remains that I disagree with her in lots of ways about the UK laws re sex/gender - I'm surprised that somebody who rightly calls other posters out for misunderstanding her posts can find the Supreme Court ruling 'murky' or confusing.

You do realise you are speaking to other women on here though, don't you? If so, why aim it by quoting that poster? Who has said they're not a man (and neither am I.)
I honestly don't see that poster showing any "fury" in their posts at all, they've come across as pretty fair throughout.

Yes there are. I know that makes you angry but there are. Lots and lots of women sre fully supportive of TW in female spaces and are currently campaigning to overthrow the ruling.

I'm not angry. I'm just laughing at your pathetic lies attempting to support your argument. The overwhelming majority of women think that transwomen i.e. men should not be allowed in female single sex spaces. If you think that is ever going to change you are deluded.

And if she is racist, based on previous logic, her opinion is valid.

Sorry, are you talking about the polling data that I linked to?

Have you superficially interpreted the data based on the question that asked ambiguously about ‘supporting identities’? Because if that is the case, I am happy to walk you through exactly where the superficiality of that question is blown away in the same polling set.

When specific questions are asked where respondents have to answer a direct probing of that support, it is very convincingly reversed when it comes to what and where that support covers.

Single sex provisions currently are supported by the majority of people in the UK as fully excluding male people.

I suggest if you have data that supports a different interpretation of that, you need to link it and discuss it.

The recent SC Judgement in full. Always better to go direct to source than via a third party, or social media.

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf

I won't change my wording using the edit button, but I'm going to change some poorly chosen words on my part. I said:

• 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

The following would probably have been a better way to describe this fact:

• 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 create a single-sex space (for females)

Once the space has been designated single-sex it remains as such. Every member of the opposite sex is excluded.

This clarity is important when thinking about a "case by case basis". The case by case basis is applicable to the space, not the people using it. There are plenty of examples of MPs muddling this up. Some undoubtedly through ignorance, others perhaps through careful word play.

It's just an attempt to slight one's character based on the assumption that they believe TWAW. It all comes back down to "if you disagree with me, you must be a horrible person".

It's like.a child arguing that their favourite cartoon is the best and any kid that disagrees is a poopy head (or an adult in disguise!).

Well firstly, it doesnt mean that places cant have trans inclusive policies. Secondly, the issue around how this will be practically policed hasn't been addressed. It seems like something they said to shut people up one way or the other, but there are limited ways to enforce.