Gender again. Sorry!

[mudsticks]

At least maintain the context otherwise you are doing an Aurora.

It's no laughable proposition. The people who kept Britain's poor away from the vote were not those without the vote themselves - this is too bloody obvious. The people who kept Britain's poor away from the vote were those with the vote - mainly men but including some women who met the qualifying conditions. During the period 1832 to 1918 women had lost the vote, but some (I don't know the number) of the blue stocking women campaigned to make it so.

The general assertions made by AS that women had never had rights to property and never had the vote before 1928 is flat out wrong and not mere pedantry on my part. Men need not shoulder the blame for this when so few of them had the right to vote themselves.

Domestic violence is outside the purview of the EqA 2010, so why does this keep being raised in connection with the rights of trans people cemented by the GRA 2004? It's a distraction intending to provoke an emotive response rather than a worthy or valid argument. I'd call it an emotional oppression of men today and I think it shameful.

The ongoing levels of DV (both ways) in this country is a national disgrace and it is thoroughly wrong to suggest that it is being downplayed on this thread. It is worthy of a discussion on its own terms, but this has been attempted before as I recall. The problem is not related to trans rights. If I'm wrong then that needs to be spelt out as I'm not seeing it.

I wasn't talking about DV particularly in this context.
But calling talking about it an 'emotional oppression of men'

You what??

I was talking about violence that is done to women, by men, outside of the home.

This real risk of violence, and the fear of it, isn't 'imagined' or exaggerated, it what keeps many women from living fully fulfilled, and active lives.

It's why many women are so keen to retain their safe spaces.

As a highly priveleged (in many ways) woman myself, it really makes no (or not many) odds to me (personally). who accesses those spaces hitherto reserved only for women.

But I recognise that privelege of mine, I'm unlikely to end up in a highly vulnerable position, I can afford to be everso liberal and cool about it all.

But I've stil got enough empathy, and memory to know what it feels like to not be a 'priveleged' woman, who would really appreciate having woman only spaces.

Anyway, I'm back from work, and shall now have a beer.
So no more posts from me for now..

Thems the roolz 😇

 

[monkers]

To suggest that poor women throughout history haven't generally had a sh*ttier time of it than poor men, simply because a small number of women in society were well off, is indeed laughable.

Except for the fact that I haven't said exactly that. Do try to pay attention. Perhaps I should move you to the front of the class.

 

[monkers]

Except for the fact that I haven't said exactly that. Do try to pay attention. Perhaps I should move you to the front of the class.

Maybe get a job as miner and compare that with scrubbing gussets? Men and women had an incredibly rough time during those periods of history. They were likely a lot tougher and grittier than my generation - they needed to be to survive.

 

[newfhouse]

Even in this thread we only seem to be able to acknowledge two groups.

Are you sure?

 

[monkers]

But calling talking about it an 'emotional oppression of men'

Indeed, why should decent non-violent men have to read post after post of men being aggressive bullies. We all know that some are, but we also know that the vast majority are not.

Most violence against women is DV. Whether violence against men or women is committed by men or women, inside or outside of the home, it is not within the purview of the GRA or EqA, so what does it have to do with trans rights? Why does it have to be repeated on pretty much every thread?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Maybe get a job as miner and compare that with scrubbing gussets? Men and women had an incredibly rough time during those periods of history. They were likely a lot tougher and grittier than my generation - they needed to be to survive.

Life has always been grim for the poor, male or female. A poor man could probably walk home from work in the dark on his own without fear of getting raped though. Everything he owned didn't become the property of his spouse when he married. He didn't have to have one pregnancy after another until his body gave up. He could get a girl pregnant and not face the social consequences or be sent to a mother and baby home or face forced adoption. Or have to risk an abortion. He could rape his wife and it wouldn't be a crime until 1992.

Lots of women had the economic oppression and the oppression because of their sex on top of it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Most violence against women is DV. Whether violence against men or women is committed by men or women, inside or outside of the home, it is not within the purview of the GRA or EqA, so what does it have to do with trans rights? Why does it have to be repeated on pretty much every thread?

Which one is it mostly though? Which sex is responsible for the vast majority of violence, whether it's against men or women?

It has to do with women's rights. Women's right to be away from men, in certain situations and certain times, for their own safety, dignity, and privacy. And it doesn't matter one jot how those men identify.

 

[monkers]

Life has always been grim for the poor, male or female. A poor man could probably walk home from work in the dark on his own without fear of getting raped though. Everything he owned didn't become the property of his spouse when he married. He didn't have to have one pregnancy after another until his body gave up. He could get a girl pregnant and not face the social consequences or be sent to a mother and baby home or face forced adoption. Or have to risk an abortion. He could rape his wife and it wouldn't be a crime until 1992.

Lots of women had the economic oppression and the oppression because of their sex on top of it.

Right now you've made your list of women's hard won rights, what does have any of this to do with the GRA 2004 or otherwise how are trans rights diluting any of that under the EqA?

You see, it doesn't. It's a plea to victimhood that doesn't pass muster.

The problem facing all people today but especially women is that despite all the tough talking rhetoric

Which one is it mostly though? Which sex is responsible for the vast majority of violence, whether it's against men or women?

It has to do with women's rights. Women's right to be away from men, in certain situations and certain times, for their own safety, dignity, and privacy. And it doesn't matter one jot how those men identify.

Where are these women's rights written down in law? I'd like to familiarise myself with them.

 

[monkers]

Life has always been grim for the poor, male or female. A poor man could probably walk home from work in the dark on his own without fear of getting raped though. Everything he owned didn't become the property of his spouse when he married. He didn't have to have one pregnancy after another until his body gave up. He could get a girl pregnant and not face the social consequences or be sent to a mother and baby home or face forced adoption. Or have to risk an abortion. He could rape his wife and it wouldn't be a crime until 1992.

Lots of women had the economic oppression and the oppression because of their sex on top of it.

Right now you've made your list of women's hard won rights, what does have any of this to do with the GRA 2004 or otherwise how are trans rights diluting any of that under the EqA?

You see, it doesn't. It's a plea to victimhood that doesn't pass muster because not all men are oppressors, and not all women feel oppressed by men - I don't.

The problem facing all people today but especially women is that despite all the tough talking rhetoric the political failures continue.

 

[winjim]

LOL. If I was doing Women's Rights Activism and Nazis showed up in ever increasing and emboldened numbers, I'd probably stop what I was doing and have a think. Unless I'd actually invited them, of course.

While we're on a Nazi theme, I think you'll enjoy this thread if you haven't seen it already.


View: https://twitter.com/rebeccamakkai/status/1591553110157180935?t=UwgW-R_5G74keDMXxLd0_w&s=19

 

[monkers]

While we're on a Nazi theme, I think you'll enjoy this thread if you haven't seen it already.


View: https://twitter.com/rebeccamakkai/status/1591553110157180935?t=UwgW-R_5G74keDMXxLd0_w&s=19

There's some delicious irony in that. I'm also very happy that putting together the names of two of the USA's most influential transphobes, ie Trump and Musk together translate as Fart Smell.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Right now you've made your list of women's hard won rights, what does have any of this to do with the GRA 2004 or otherwise how are trans rights diluting any of that under the EqA?

I was hoping it might give you some insight into the fact that women face oppression by men. I didn't say it related to the GRA or the Equality Act.

But it does explain why single sex spaces and services came to be necessary in the first place and why the Equality Act allows men to be excluded from them. And that need hasn't gone away.

You see, it doesn't. It's a plea to victimhood that doesn't pass muster because not all men are oppressors, and not all women feel oppressed by men - I don't.

Of course not all men are oppressors as individuals. But it is a plain fact that whilst sex doesn't matter most of the time, sometimes it matters very much. And it's not claiming victimhood to say that women need single sex spaces and services, like being able to insist on a same sex carer for intimate care. It's not claiming victimhood to say that having males in women's sports is unfair and unsafe for women.

If anything insisting that men can breach these boundaries just because they claim to identify as women is emotive special pleading of the highest order.

 

[fozy tornip]

... right to be away from men, in certain situations and certain times, for their own safety, dignity, and privacy.

I want that right. What must I do to qualify?

 

[multitool]

You seem to consider yourself a hot shot of debate.
But then come out with stuff like this.🙄

Have you ever considered you might be viewing yourself through the 'prism' of unjustified intellectual superiority?

Without much in the way of humility, or pause for thought, getting in the way.



Having some concerns about the way gender disphoria, and other allied conditions have been treated, just recently.

And having some concerns about the overall effect on the hard won rights of women.
Particularly more vulnerable women

Does not immediately make one a transphobe.
Despite your seemingly very assured* conclusion that it does.

Nor, does having such concerns, immediately ally one with the brutish mob depicted above.

Any more than our defending of transrights allies us with the 'kill the terfs' extremists

You really do like to apply one rule to yourself
And one rule to everyone else, don't you.?

It's the same old same old.

'At the end of the day, us chaps always know best' overconfidence.

*But I guess if you've been brought up in a society that repeatedly tells you that, it will permeate your world view.

Just so you know, and to save you some time, I never read your posts

 

[classic33]

Why is only one side of the trans gender 'argument" being portrayed here?

Trans men have made their choice, so they shouldn't have any worries about where they are sent, and men should just be ready to accept them. We can't have any objections under the same laws that protects women in women only areas.

This applies to trans men who compete in any sport. They knew what to expect from the minute they decided to become a man, now live with it. No inclusion in the "third class" of sports person for them.
Why should there even be a "third class"?

We have female teachers, who in most cases can wander into boys changing areas, no questions asked as to why. It's just to be accepted, but why. Why is the "case" being made from one side only. Safe single sexed spaces at schools apply to one side only it would seem.

The argument isn't constant, it changes at the whim of one person. Never staying the same, if they're not able to state their case it gets changed.