Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from this thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532352-the-liminality-of-sex-perception-sex-based-spaces-and-bodily-autonomy?page=39

For argument sake, I understand Blaire White to be a woman. This is independent of the knowledge she chose to only undergo cosmetic facial surgeries and breast augmentation, while retaining everything else.
I think I remember reading that she politically aligns 'right' and is politically vocal about being a male, living as a trans woman. I'm not 100% sure, though. It's not a way that I could understand living, but it is financially lucrative in her case.

There is a person who declares themselves to be male.

That person chooses to live presenting as a female.

In spite of their self declaration as a male, complete with male genitals, you understand that they are a woman.

And you ascribe their understanding of themselves being male, at least partly, to financial motives.

This is either monumentally arrogant or monumentally stupid thinking, or possibly both. Or perhaps you just like playing with a largely female forum and seeing how many feathers you can ruffle.

One thing is for sure, and that is that I don't think anything you write on this subject from now on is going to be of any value to read.

What do you think 'objectively ' means?

Dictionary definition.

objectively

To do or view something objectively means to base your thoughts, decisions, or observations strictly on measurable facts and observable evidence, without being influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or biases.

Strictly measurable facts say that you carry a Y chromosome and are male, a man.

Dressing or acting as a woman is not "observable evidence" because any man could choose to do that without wanting to claim to have become a woman.

You use the words Objectively and Subjectively deliberately the wrong way round because that's 'trans'.

If I say something that is agreeable to the FWR hive mind, I am told I am reasonable. When I do not, I return to the status of curious toy or arch enemy.

This is your am dram again.

Not curious toy. Not enemy. Just a man.

That's it.

Sadly, I believe that some of us have been saying that since February. For a while all we got was ‘that is your belief’ type answers.

It has been fingers in the ear saying ‘I can’t hear you’ type interaction now on many fronts since February. I don’t believe I have seen any poster post anything that hasn’t been covered or said in essence over the past few weeks.

Rinse and repeat

According to your beliefs.

House!

According to reality.

You never left Kansas Toto.

There was no cultural concern about 'single sex provisions' until gender critical people decided to focus on removing trans women from women's spaces. Women were not 'worse off' or in need of 'protection from men' until that point, only afterward.

Of course there was, that's why they were there when the doctors told men to use them to see if they could 'pass'. Not considering that women might not want it or might not want to be punched in the face when asking one to leave.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Doctors never told men to use 'them' to see if they could 'pass.'

Your beliefs are weird.

This is just more of your contempt for female people. It really is showing through.

And again, you show you don’t understand safeguarding or consent. This time in regards from a legitimate and illegitimate discrimination aspect.

i know I have personally posted about this to you before.

Sex segregation is legitimate discrimination. And that also revolves around safeguarding and consent.

Excluding female people from a female single sex provision on the basis of beliefs is ILLEGITIMATE DISCRIMINATION. Therefore it is not lawful. Consent doesn’t apply to other users that are legitimately within the category boundaries of segregation.

It really isn’t that hard to understand. But by all means, continue because everytime that you post this kind of contempt for female people, new people reading understand more. About your motivations and about why your posts are flawed.

Aye right.

Yes they did, it was part of the whole 'living as a woman' advice along with long hair, skirts, make up and tilty heads.

Genuine question.

You keep saying "that is your belief" as if it somehow settles things.

But outside our heads and our own beliefs, we all live in the same material world.

So if two people or two groups have contradictory beliefs, for example your belief that being a "woman" is based on something other than sex and therefore you can be and indeed are a "woman", and the belief of many other people throughout society and as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the EA that "woman" together with "girl" simply means the female half of humanity as it has for hundreds of years before, or perhaps the belief that the phone muggers have that my phone is better taken by them than owned by me vs mine that it is not, what do you think society should do about these conflicting beliefs?

The only thing doctors did for trans people (both trans men and trans women) who didn't 'pass' was give them what was called a 'carry letter'. I don't know the exact wording because I never had one, but I believe it explained that the 'carrier' was transsexual and were required to use the provisions of the sex they were presenting as part of the process of transition.

Are you fucking serious?

”Women were not 'worse off' or in need of 'protection from men' until that point”

At what point do you think sex segregation for publicly provided toilets, changing rooms etc started? They have been implemented for decades at least. Because female people …

needed protection from male people!

In the UK? Because women needed to piss and shit when out of the home and only men had such provisions at the time.

ETA: And men viciously protected these provisions from women

Why do think they made separate facilities then? Why didn't women just use the existing men's facilities? This was over a hundred years ago - there must have been a reason.

Edit: and it absolutely wasn't because men objected.

And why did they make the provisions separate in the first place?

I swear this thread is illuminating.

Your literal presence as you perceive it may well be antithetical to gender critical beliefs. But your perception of yourself appears to depend on the ability to change sex, which is to change one's history.

There was no cultural concern about 'single sex provisions' until gender critical people decided to focus on removing trans women from women's spaces. Women were not 'worse off' or in need of 'protection from men' until that point, only afterward.

Why were 'single sex provisions' made in the first place? They have been around for well over a hundred years long before male transexuals first existed.

There’s no way anyone reading what the op writes would perceive them to be anything but male, even if they didn’t declare their trans status.