Gender again. Sorry!

[fozy tornip]

OK..
Any more depositions before I sum up?

 

[Ian H]

That's how it works apparently, Ian. Agree with one thing vaguely, you agree with everything. Because loosely affiliated groups of individuals like feminists are actually just one huge hive mind, you see.

I bet you like motorways, don't you? Thought so. Just like Hitler.

Well... I can't see anyone other than you saying that. But whatever.

 

[matticus]

OK..
Any more depositions before I sum up?

Your Honour, we have received new information about the background and associations of several witnesses presented by the other side.
If we could start with pages 7, 24 and 148 of the document pack we have shared this morning ...

 

[AuroraSaab]

Looks like Aurora has been trawling the Daily Mail from 2 years ago, and twitter from 5 years ago.

Desperate, desperate stuff

There are literally thousands of posts like that on social media. And plenty of photos from the people you presumably support trying to intimidate women at demos and meetings.

When I post stuff like this though, you say they are outliers. Yet your insinuation throughout this thread is that every gender critical feminist is allied with every right wing politician going because they might have vaguely the same view on one issue.

Trying to tar feminists with the far right brush is all you've got because whether it's prisons, sports, single sex spaces, or even sex education for kids, policies based on gender ideology don't stand up to rational analysis.

 

[multitool]

Yes, I forgot. Two groups saying identical things, but one group are fascists and the other have "legitimate concerns" and are "just asking questions".

Same intended outcome.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Well... I can't see anyone other than you saying that. But whatever.

Yes, I forgot. Two groups saying identical things, but one group are fascists and the other gave "legitimate concerns" and are "just asking questions".

Care to comment Ian?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, I forgot. Two groups saying identical things, but one group are fascists and the other gave "legitimate concerns" and are "just asking questions".

Same intended outcome.

At least you're being honest now that 'guilt by association' is your game plan. Yet when I give you the official stats on transwomen offending you accuse me of demonising a whole demographic even though, unsurprisingly, they offend at the same rate as other men and therefore pose the same risk. You could at least be consistent with your position.

 

[Ian H]

Care to comment Ian?

'Two groups' is not remotely the same as 'everyone'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The two groups being aligned seem to be 'an Italian far right politician' (ie one individual) and 'gender critical feminists' (ie hundreds of thousands of women with various views). Which does rather seem to be a desperate attempt at guilt by association.

And of course the desired outcome of this is that women can't talk about their rights because there's a chance that the Right wing might also take up the same issues for their own reasons.

 

[newfhouse]

And of course the desired outcome of this is that women can't talk about their rights because there's a chance that the Right wing might also take up the same issues for their own reasons.

Might it be better to avoid marching side by side with people that are actively undermining the advancement of those rights?

 

[classic33]

These are the rules, Classic. As set by your mate. If you even vaguely agree with somebody on one issue, you agree with them on everything.

If an Italian politician is an 'ally of gender critical feminism' (I've no idea if they are but we'll have to take his word for it I expect), then all gender critical feminists must also want to stop gay couples registering their children.

The logical end of this is that if you think transwomen are women, you personally must agree with every crappy thing transactivists say, including dodgy political views and violent threats.

It might be a bit unfortunate that you find yourself lumped together with people who want to rape and murder J K Rowling, but that's how guilt by association works, I'm afraid.

Using your own "rules" then

I presume you mean Lia Thomas? They have a retained male advantage that a reduction in testosterone does not reduce by much. It is unfair to allow them to compete in the female category.

The proposal in some sports has been to have a protected Women's category for biological women only, plus an Open category that basically anyone can enter, including exceptionally good biological women. Transwomen would enter this category but (presumably) be recorded as entering it as women. This preserves the fairness of the female category whilst not making transwomen compete as men. I think this is a good solution.

I want a protected Woman's category because women would have no chance if there was one category (the Open category), in most sports anyway, because they would be competing against men and transwomen who have unfair advantage.

I would guess that transmen not on testosterone could compete in either category - the one that reflects their biology or the one that reflects their sense of self. That seems fair.

I agree that Barbie Khardashian is a very sad and harrowing case. Possibly earlier psychiatric intervention might have prevented the events that led to their imprisonment. But it didn't so we have to deal with BK as they are now; a disturbed, violent, adult male housed amongst women.

Difficult as their life has been, women prisoners are not human shields for males with psychiatric issues, however sad their life as a child was. Your argument that they had a difficult childhood could apply to half the men in the prison system - all of whom are successfully accommodated within the male estate.

I don't care how Barbie Khardashian looks. Yes, they are obviously a very disturbed individual but would you prefer they were moved to a psychiatric hospital? It would have to be a women's ward. I find that idea very unappealing.

Means, by your definition at least, that you agree with everything I've said.

There's more that you have agreed to/with, but I'll let you search that out. Not all are still available though.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Using your own "rules" then

Hey Classic dude, here's a clue - they aren't really the rules. They're just the rules that the Tool applies to the posts of others when he's trying to channel Jowwy

 

[AuroraSaab]

Might it be better to avoid marching side by side with people that are actively undermining the advancement of those rights?

You also seem to be of the view that all gender critical feminists are one homogeneous group, a hive mind, with neither different strands of thought nor individual views. Sounds like you don't see feminist women as individuals either, they're all just lumped together, and whenever one of them does something you don't like the rest of them are responsible. There's no unified UK feminist group; it's not a registered political party with elected leaders. There's nobody in charge.

Who's marching side by side with people that are undermining women's rights? One group of gender critical women or all of them? And the rest should shut up because one group does?

It's funny that the Left go nuts when a specific individual like Corbyn is smeared with an association with terrorism on the basis of an interpretation of stuff he's done but happily use the same tactics with regard to smearing the whole gender critical movement on the basis of stuff they haven't.

Calling out left wing gender batsh*ttery does not mean you approve of right wing batsh*ttery, gender related or not. Not sure why you find that so hard to grasp.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Using your own "rules" then

Means, by your definition at least, that you agree with everything I've said.

There's more that you have agreed to/with, but I'll let you search that out. Not all are still available though.

Yesterday Barbie Khardashian was given another 5 and a half years. All to be served in Limerick women's prison, you'll be pleased to hear.

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-la...-and-a-half-years-for-threats-to-kill-mother/

I won't be searching out any of the interactions between you and I. They were amongst the most surreal and nonsensical back and forths I've had the misfortune to encounter. And on a thread that has people saying women can have penises and men should be in women's prisons, that's really saying something.

 

[newfhouse]

You also seem to be of the view that all gender critical feminists are one homogeneous group, a hive mind, with neither different strands of thought nor individual views. Sounds like you don't see feminist women as individuals either, they're all just lumped together, and whenever one of them does something you don't like the rest of them are responsible.

That isn’t what I have said at all. What makes you think that is my view? You’re wrong. Even this tiny insignificant fringe of the internet has several feminist women disagreeing with each other, so how anyone could believe that they are all of one mind is beyond me.

Who's marching side by side with people that are undermining women's rights? One group of gender critical women or all of them? And the rest should shut up because one group does?

Some of them, as I said. I simply wondered if the broader interests of those that do may be better served by keeping clear water between themselves and the right wing / religious nutters. Nobody is being asked or told to shut up, at least by me.