Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

[impossibletoday]

Giggle v Tickle
Friday 15th May
2pm AEST
Live streamed

https://x.com/i/status/2053669311504642197

Germany

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/germanys-self-determination-act-one-year-on/

Canada

https://fairplayforwomen.com/examples/

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/03/10/whats-current-two-women-kicked-shelter-voicing-concerns-sharing-room-trans-identified-male/

Like has happened in the UK mainstream media are silenced on reporting on these issues due to laws that dictate that men who want to be women must indeed be considered women.

Imagine if a new law was issued that said all horses were now cows. And then you had years of long stories about cow racing and cow jumping et from the press. Pictures of cows doing dressage, except they were all long horses. If it was illegal to point out that it was indeed actually a horse and it was horse racing - you’d not actually get real information and the level of self censoring would be huge.

2+2 = 5

It’s not a trans issue. It’s a human rights issue. Women’s rights have been non existent and when we made momentum men came along to attempt to remove them.

If women includes men who for whatever reason say they are women jt makes a nonsense of the classification. And therefore totaly wipes out women’s rights.

That is truly chilling and sign of the oppressive misogynistic and controlling world few some people are living under.

ETA I missed the last bit. Any male in a female only intimate single sex space is automatically a predator. By default.

Because social, political, and economic hierarchies like class structures, racial stratification & patriarchy systematically favour those at the top while disenfranchising marginalised groups where unequal protection & resource distribution eventuate…& we are seeing that in real time with trans people as they aren't considered to be deserving of acknowledgment let alone equal rights due to hierarchal structures.

Gender critical advocates like the Patriarchy consider biological essentialism as the tippy top of their structures that clearly has disadvantaged implications on those without.

Hierarchal structural disadvantage is not the same as making practical compromises because rights conflict. The problem eventuates when false concerns about rights are able to be easily weaponised against the bottom of the hierarchy…because they are at the bottom.

Using a single, isolated or rare experience to draw a sweeping conclusion about an entire population, group, or system isn't a valid argument.

Yeah yeah yeah, you did a word salad humanities course.

Men who say they are women and who get special rights to do what they want and go where they want ARE the patriarchy.

Which is why real feminists say no.

'word salad' = my brain hurts if oversimplifications don't happen

Firstly, why do you think a male is not a threat to womens safety, just because he wears a dress?

Secondly, as prison data shows that transwomen sexually offend 5 times higher than other males, and these cases show, transwomen are an extreme threat to women.

Ben Elton once was asked why it was he married an Australian rather than a British woman & his reply was British women in his experience were obsessed by class structure so that was one of the reasons.

Ooh, the Ben Elton argument, why not bring out the big guns, point them the wrong way and neglect to load them.

There is nothing 'isolated' or 'rare' about male violence against females. Centuries/millennia of history of how men treat women demonstrates this. Rape, Domestic Violence demonstrates this. The patriarchy and womens oppression demonstrates this. Pretending males are not a threat as a whole, is disingenuous and batshit crazy.

Oh what a joke! You talk about colonisation, and can't see what is right smack bang in front of you: MALE COLONISATION OF FEMALE SPACES. Colonisation of our spaces, our identity, and our language. Cultural appropriation. And you actively want this.

You really don't seem to know much about what's gone on in the UK. Vast swathes of the establishment signed up to Stonewall and similar organisations and were fed misinformation which over-privileged trans "rights" at the expense of women's rights in law. Women had to go to the courts to re-assert the facts, and much of the establishment is still dragging its heels over a year later. So enough with the "disadvantaged minority"; they had the ear of power for many years and made ample use of it.

AI AI O

Getting so close there with colonisation… keep going…

Uh huh, there's thing call a 'trans man'.

Your point being?

Uh huh, transmen are FEMALE, and as such....no threat to us. 🙄

So, your point is?

That no matter how inconvenient the existence of trans men are to the gender critical movement they prove transgenderism isn't about male domination….hence their 'inconvenience'.

You have zero point at all, and I think you know it. Trans men aren't taking away female only spaces or rights. They aren't getting us redefined. Transwomen are, hence it is about male domination.

The very fact you mention transmen and how we don't talk about them, is actually proof that the issue is males and male domination. Not 'transgenderism' - and never has been. You actually prove our point!

Oh God he's doing the Transman Gotcha now. I didn't realise he was this new to it. He really should read the SC ruling, it's only about half as long as his posts and it actually makes sense.

No one finds transmen “inconvenient” or denies they exist (in that we understand that there are women who think they are men).
They don’t “disprove” anything any more than the existence of a few female CEOs disproves that business at the executive level is dominated by men.
It is true that “gender critical” individuals are concerned that young women who feel distressed by their bodies - as young women always have done, for good reasons - have increasingly been using transgender identities to escape this distress, to the significant detriment of their physical and mental health. This is extremely concerning.
It’s also true that transmen put themselves at risk when they access men’s spaces. The recent horrific rape of a young woman on a male mental health ward is an example of that. Transwomen, of course, are a risk to women in what are supposed to be single sec spaces, and there is plenty of evidence of their crimes. Women, however they identify, are at risk from men.

“Because social, political, and economic hierarchies like class structures, racial stratification & patriarchy systematically favour those at the top while disenfranchising marginalised groups where unequal protection & resource distribution eventuate…& we are seeing that in real time with trans people as they aren't considered to be deserving of acknowledgment let alone equal rights due to hierarchal structures.”

Because social, political, and economic hierarchies like class structures, racial stratification & patriarchy systematically favour those at the top while disenfranchising marginalised groups where unequal protection & resource distribution eventuate…& we are seeing that in real time with trans female people as they aren't considered to be deserving of acknowledgment let alone equal rights due to hierarchal structures.

All this framing of colonisation and patriarchy seems to miss out that it was feminists who first started to raise the alarm about the safeguarding issues for female people as being negatively impacted by allowing male inclusion. Even Germaine Greer was highlighting this as an issue a long time ago. I also know that there were women’s groups deeply concerned about the change in the Act in 2013.

When women in Australia are being fined for using accurate language to identify a person’s sex category and are shown political advertisements on their media such as the ‘the unsaid says a lot’, having political terms such as ‘anti-trans’ used in national media, the messaging is chilling. They stay silent.

Then their silence is used as a means to dismiss the issue as being not of interest, of being a cultural import, and so on. That is an abuse tactic.

So this discussion about hierarchical structures being used to remove safeguarding measures for female people now just contributes to that abuse.

It is a form of DARVO to remove the safeguarding measures available to female people, to remove the words and means they need to define themselves and to then shame them into remaining silent, then claim no complaints means that it is not an significant issue and that any complaints are now due to outside cultural influences and that if it really was an issue, women would be discussing it.

This pattern is classic DARVO tactics.

The issue around the access for female people who have chosen to take testosterone to make extreme modifications to their body is one that is still based in safeguarding. It is all part of the same argument that is legitimate and valid.

Male body cues can cause distress to some female people. There are also some female people who will not be able to correctly identify a female person’s sex category if they have chosen to take testosterone. Often those female people without the ability to correctly identify another female person’s sex due to effects of testosterone to make cosmetic changes are very vulnerable. Therefore those female people’s needs have to be considered too.

Just a reminder that some female people who have made the decision to change their appearance with testosterone have already come to the board to tell us that they understand the issue. They have come up with solutions so that they don’t cause female people distress. They also don’t want to use female single sex provisions for their own reasons and they don’t use male single sex provisions.

The political leveraging of the needs of female people with transgender identities by those who demand male people over the age of 8-10 years old should access female single sex spaces is nothing new.

Any alternative measures that suggest female people should use other provisions if needed is still part of safeguarding female people.

There is something disconnected in believing that female people who have transgender identities somehow remove the inherent misogyny from the actions of the group of male people with transgender identities. If anything, listening to the accounts of so many female people with transgender identities about how appallingly they are treated by male people with transgender identities reinforces that inherent misogyny.

A lot of women assume a transgender identity to try to escape misogyny and sexist stereotypes (it probably isn't conscious). An extreme form of "not like other girls".

Protest today outside the Australian High Commission https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5530898-london-protest-in-solidarity-with-sall-grover-on-23-may?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share