Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

Yes we should. However we should also bear in mind that countries do tend to be different. For example Argentina is being held up as leading the way.

So there is a problem of violence against women. It would therefore seem more likely that a transwoman in Argentina is going to keep their head down, and that due to the masculinised culture of Argentina that being a transwoman would be seen as far more undesirable than it might in this country.

"seem"

There's that favorite word of Aurora and icow again.

"seem" means present an unevidenced claim as fact then build an argument around it.

Got to LOL at what you say. Here you are arguing ad fùcking nauseam for a more transphobic society, for this country and then commenting that Argentina might be more hostile to TW than the UK.

Do you ever have a flicker of self-awareness?

 

[monkers]

Yes we should. However we should also bear in mind that countries do tend to be different. For example Argentina is being held up as leading the way.

So there is a problem of violence against women. It would therefore seem more likely that a transwoman in Argentina is going to keep their head down, and that due to the masculinised culture of Argentina that being a transwoman would be seen as far more undesirable than it might in this country.

Please allow me to try and clarify a couple of things.

Women's rights movements existed because women were systematically oppressed by men. They had few legal rights.

Women wanted rights equal with men. Now they have those rights. The EqA makes the rights of males and females, men and women the same.

What some women are asking for now are more rights, not equal rights, extra rights.

And this is where I think the confusion is for you. Women are far too often subject to domestic violence than men. But young men are far too often to be the victims of violence on the street.

This is not because women do not have sufficient rights, or because young men do not have sufficient rights.

Rights are not the issue. The issue is that the state does nothing like enough to ensure those rights are enforced.

This is because we have had ongoing governments for thirteen years who just don't care. All that matters is enriching themselves and the billionaires they are in thrall to.

All but the top 1% of us are now victims of an abusive government, one that is corrupt in plain sight.

Our human rights are under attack right now, with new legislation that threatens us all, men, women, children, cis or trans, gay or straight.

We have a right to healthcare, but the system is in absolute chaos and crisis.

It's not that we don't have rights, it's because we have a corrupt government who are hell-bent on repealing human rights legislation, removing the separation of powers between legislature and judiciary, and withdrawing from the international rules based systems including convention rights.

We don't need more right to protect women, we need a government that protects the rights we have.

Women are already afraid enough, we don't need a panic alarm, we need a government that cares enough to want to protect us. They don't.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Women's rights movements existed because women were systematically oppressed by men. They had few legal rights.

Women wanted rights equal with men. Now they have those rights. The EqA makes the rights of males and females, men and women the same.

What some women are asking for now are more rights, not equal rights, extra rights.

Women, as a class, are still oppressed by men, as a class. Equal rights in law has not translated to equality of opportunity, equal status, equal freedoms. Certainly not in full in the UK, and not in every part of the world. The feminist movement isn't just about equality it's about liberation.

Women are not asking for more rights. They are asking that the provisions which were put in place to acknowledge that they are oppressed by men should remain in place. Like single sex spaces. I would call these 'rights' but you can call them something else if you like. They certainly aren't privileges.

What is privilege is demanding that a member of an oppresser group ie a male, can opt into an oppressed group, ie females, at will. That is demanding a privilege that isn't given to other men.

We wouldn't say black people don't have a right to meet without white people around. We wouldn't say disabled people don't have a right to meet without able bodied people around. We accept that right and allow provisions to make it happen. Yet women are the only ones who are told they can't have anything just for themselves.

I guess all those black student associations, clubs for the disabled, Men's Sheds groups, Gay Male Choirs etc should be forced to closed because those people are just so flipping privileged in wanting stuff just for themselves.

All those little girls in the developing world who can't go to school because there aren't separate toilets and shared ones aren't safe.... what an entitled group of privileged little madams they are to demand the right to safety, privacy, and dignity by excluding others.

 

[monkers]

Women, as a class, are still oppressed by men, as a class. Equal rights in law has not translated to equality of opportunity, equal status, equal freedoms. Certainly not in full in the UK, and not in every part of the world. The feminist movement isn't just about equality it's about liberation.

Women are not asking for more rights. They are asking that the provisions which were put in place to acknowledge that they are oppressed by men should remain in place. Like single sex spaces. I would call these 'rights' but you can call them something else if you like. They certainly aren't privileges.

What is privilege is demanding that a member of an oppresser group ie a male, can opt into an oppressed group, ie females, at will. That is demanding a privilege that isn't given to other men.

We wouldn't say black people don't have a right to meet without white people around. We wouldn't say disabled people don't have a right to meet without able bodied people around. We accept that right and allow provisions to make it happen. Yet women are the only ones who are told they can't have anything just for themselves.

I guess all those black student associations, clubs for the disabled, Men's Sheds groups, Gay Male Choirs etc should be forced to closed because those people are just so flipping privileged in wanting stuff just for themselves.

All those little girls in the developing world who can't go to school because there aren't separate toilets and shared ones aren't safe.... what an entitled group of privileged little madams they are to demand the right to safety, privacy, and dignity by excluding others.

Women are not a class, and not a minority, and not without rights anymore.

Men do no longer have the tools of oppression.

The legal apparatus is there to stop it.

The government could insist those tools be used to clamp down - but they don't. Instead they want to ignore convention rights, repeal the human rights act and abolish the commission.

We have a government who are stirring up a culture war because they hate human rights.

I've tried to warn you, but you have no political awareness. This combined with bigotry means women are at risk of losing 'their hard won rights'.

This is a repeat exercise for me. I warned people about the consequences of engaging with state-sponsored racism during the referendum campaign. Violence increased on minority groups then because they were made to feel emboldened by and abusive state.

Now it is happening again trans people - not trans activists - just peace loving a living trans people being targeted by thugs. There's a report this week about two trans women and one gay man sharing a flat in London, they've been subject to an arson attack.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/04/20/london-whitechapel-arson/

My feeds will be different to your's, but everyday it is a horror list of threats of violence, death threats, rape threats, reports of abuse, aggression, denial of service, discrimination, eviction, harassment, violence, murder - not just of trans people, but anyone like me who lends support.

The more heated the campaign rhetoric becomes, the more toxic it becomes. There is no discussion or debate, the 'war' is truly into 'culture war' and you are one of its advocates.

The reason my niece moved back in with me this year, though she's moved out again now, is that her house and car were vandalised after she was outed and doxxed by a 'gender critical female'. This was another case of a failed arson attempt.

You stated often enough that you are 'not prepared to be kind' but you have complained that my posts are not kind to you.

What do you really expect? You are an obvious bigot and your actions and campaigns encourage violence against a minority group, while at the same time complaining about violence against women.

Women don't need more rights, we need action to ensure that everybody's human rights are upheld. We won't get them upheld by supporting a government intent on destroying them. Wise up ffs.

 

[classic33]

I worked with a woman, who's now a man. He's not as broad shouldered as I remember her. Lighter as well.

Why has this thread fixated only on one side of the issue. And even then on the fear that men are the sole danger. Whether as a man or trans woman. When it's been pointed out that women are just as dangerous, it's been mocked or simply ignored(Possibly because it interferes with the picture being portrayed.). Why are women who murdered, especially when the murdered were children, seen as the exception. Check Lucy Letby, fourteen murders, with another sixteen possible attempts.
Britain's youngest double murderer is a woman.

Is the person, let's remember they are people, who was a woman when I worked with her, more of a danger to others now he's legally a man?
When I worked with her, she was in the packing and warehouse, I was in production. She'd turn her hand, just like most of the women, to almost any job in the factory. And like the majority of women in the packing department, she'd turn the air blue in no time. You upset or annoyed them at your peril.

He was a solicitor in one of the local solicitors. And until he said where he knew me from, there was no way of knowing who they were. Just puzzlement at how he, a "stranger", could know so much about me. Things that could only be known by a few.

 

[classic33]

Women, as a class, are still oppressed by men, as a class. Equal rights in law has not translated to equality of opportunity, equal status, equal freedoms. Certainly not in full in the UK, and not in every part of the world. The feminist movement isn't just about equality it's about liberation.

Women are not asking for more rights. They are asking that the provisions which were put in place to acknowledge that they are oppressed by men should remain in place. Like single sex spaces. I would call these 'rights' but you can call them something else if you like. They certainly aren't privileges.

What is privilege is demanding that a member of an oppresser group ie a male, can opt into an oppressed group, ie females, at will. That is demanding a privilege that isn't given to other men.

We wouldn't say black people don't have a right to meet without white people around. We wouldn't say disabled people don't have a right to meet without able bodied people around. We accept that right and allow provisions to make it happen. Yet women are the only ones who are told they can't have anything just for themselves.

I guess all those black student associations, clubs for the disabled, Men's Sheds groups, Gay Male Choirs etc should be forced to closed because those people are just so flipping privileged in wanting stuff just for themselves.

All those little girls in the developing world who can't go to school because there aren't separate toilets and shared ones aren't safe.... what an entitled group of privileged little madams they are to demand the right to safety, privacy, and dignity by excluding others.

Remind me, when did the sex discrimination act come into force in the UK?
When did the Disability Discrimination Act come into force in the UK?

As a person covered by the latter, I've never demanded better treatment, just equal treatment. Even when that legal protection wasn't there, it was to be treated the same as an "able bodied" person I sought. And in the 28 years since "legal protection" was given, I stiII find myself fighting for equal treatment.
None of this "you can't come in here on your own, you need someone watching you."

Being classed as s drunk, which is way wide of the mark. Or have pitying comments made, purposely said in a loud voice so they'd know they'd be heard. Or asked to get off public transport because I'm upsetting or making other passengers nervous.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Women are not a class, and not a minority, and not without rights anymore.
Men do no longer have the tools of oppression.
The legal apparatus is there to stop it.

Black people also have equal rights. Noone would dream of saying that they are no longer oppressed. Oppression doesn't just come in the form of not having legal parity. It comes in the form of inequality of opportunity and lack of freedom. No laws are broken when women stay home at night because they are afraid to walk alone after dark, but it's still a form of oppression.

My feeds will be different to your's, but everyday it is a horror list of threats of violence, death threats, rape threats, reports of abuse, aggression, denial of service, discrimination, eviction, harassment, violence, murder - not just of trans people, but anyone like me who lends support.

According to the Trans Murder Monitoring website, 11 trans people were murdered between 2008 and 2022 in the UK. (2 of these are disputed, so possibly only 9). Trans people are a relatively safe demographic.

Women who campaign for their rights have also faced threats, abuse, and discrimination. It's wrong that anybody should face such things but you have shown no empathy whatsoever for women who have like J K Rowling or Kathleen Stock.

You stated often enough that you are 'not prepared to be kind' but you have complained that my posts are not kind to you.

You demand an end to single sex services and spaces. That's not kind. Your demand for kindness comes at the expense of others, so it's not kindness you ask it's subservience to your own wants. You offer no solution to the issues other than expecting women to make sacrifices to accommodate those men who wish they weren't men.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As a person covered by the latter, I've never demanded better treatment, just equal treatment. Even when that legal protection wasn't there, it was to be treated the same as an "able bodied" person I sought.

So there should be no toilets set aside for disabled people then? They should just use the ordinary ones because having their own is unequal and privileged treatment?
So no disabled parking spaces nearer the entrance of buildings? No subsidised mobility cars? No clubs just for disabled kids where they can socialise with kids who are the same?

We have long acknowledged that certain demographics have different, and sometimes unique, needs. It's not unfair to treat different groups differently when doing so is a proportionate and a legitimate response to the problems they face.

 

[monkers]

Black people also have equal rights. Noone would dream of saying that they are no longer oppressed. Oppression doesn't just come in the form of not having legal parity. It comes in the form of inequality of opportunity and lack of freedom. No laws are broken when women stay home at night because they are afraid to walk alone after dark, but it's still a form of oppression.

According to the Trans Murder Monitoring website, 11 trans people were murdered between 2008 and 2022 in the UK. (2 of these are disputed, so possibly only 9). Trans people are a relatively safe demographic.

Women who campaign for their rights have also faced threats, abuse, and discrimination. It's wrong that anybody should face such things but you have shown no empathy whatsoever for women who have like J K Rowling or Kathleen Stock.

You demand an end to single sex services and spaces. That's not kind. Your demand for kindness comes at the expense of others, so it's not kindness you ask it's subservience to your own wants. You offer no solution to the issues other than expecting women to make sacrifices to accommodate those men who wish they weren't men.

You truly are the idiot that my niece quickly summed you up as being.

As for 'demanding' anything - not true. I merely tell the truth about the law instead of just making stuff up - like you saying that we already segregate toilets by biological sex. Idiocy. You know nothing - make that less than nothing.

You have no political awareness to the extent that you are endangering human rights for everyone. In the meantime so-called 'gender critical' people are creating a hostile environment and promoting violence against people who are trans and those who are not but perceived as trans.

Stock - she is a bigot and an agitator. Gay women like me think she is vile. I know you will say that she's a lesbian, which is great, except that she is now working hard to divide a harmonious group of women into two groups and set them against each other for no other reason that she hates trans women.

My feeds today featured polls directed to lesbian women asking them to vote on trans matters including photographs of trans women they've taken from people's profiles and asking lesbians if they are people who 'should be able to call themselves lesbians'. I've been voting on these as much as anything to then be able to see how the voting is going. The votes to not accept them has been 0%. Lesbian women have no problem with trans women calling themselves lesbians. And the photographs show the falseness of the argument. Trawling the internet for the least attractive trans women and using them as this kind of bait is disgraceful enough in itself, but it is also intellectual dishonesty from Stock to be promoting it. In other words the intention is to steer the results - but we aren't stupid enough to fall for this bullshit.

Stock is a bad faith actor. Rowling is a bad faith actor. You are a bad faith actor. I know because I read your lies.

 

[monkers]

So there should be no toilets set aside for disabled people then? They should just use the ordinary ones because having their own is unequal and privileged treatment?
So no disabled parking spaces nearer the entrance of buildings? No subsidised mobility cars? No clubs just for disabled kids where they can socialise with kids who are the same?

We have long acknowledged that certain demographics have different, and sometimes unique, needs. It's not unfair to treat different groups differently when doing so is a proportionate and a legitimate response to the problems they face.

An absolute batshit crazy response, and one that I think is really insulting. How can anybody take you or these twisted arguments seriously?

 

[classic33]

The recurring theme in this thread has been "I don't like them, so they can't be trusted". Often using the larger number to hide behind. Quoting things that are very unlikely to happen to most people. And it's people we are talking about, not inanimate objects or words, that require someone using them to cause the damage.

The real question is why.
Why is only part of issue being talked about. It's a two way street, not a one way. But everything is focused on one way only, Why?
Why when "trying to make a point" is another thing used as an example, but dismissed when it's no longer considered to be important, or as is more common because there can be no answer given when they're questioned. It's pointless, distracts from what is being talked about and opens the door for the person who questions it to open abuse. Normally by the person who raised it in support of their argument.

As a total diversion, why is little made of the fact that up until the early 60's, the suffragettes* were responsible for more bombings, than any other terrorist organisation on these islands?
The indiscriminate letter bomb being their prime choice. They could, and often went off in transit. Their leader fled the country to avoid an English prison, but conducting the campaign from abroad.
I enquired about a new statue of Emiline Pankhurst being erected in Greater Manchester, a city that has suffered from a large number of bombings over the years, that a known bomber and terrorist group leader was now being celebrated for what she'd done. The plaque "celebrating" what she did has since been removed, but the statue remains.

*A name given to them by the Daily Mail, which given the views held about that particular paper seems odd.

 

[classic33]

So there should be no toilets set aside for disabled people then? They should just use the ordinary ones because having their own is unequal and privileged treatment?
So no disabled parking spaces nearer the entrance of buildings? No subsidised mobility cars? No clubs just for disabled kids where they can socialise with kids who are the same?

We have long acknowledged that certain demographics have different, and sometimes unique, needs. It's not unfair to treat different groups differently when doing so is a proportionate and a legitimate response to the problems they face.

We're back to toilets!
What is this fixation you have with them.

Early disabled toilets were provided for wheelchair users. They required wider doors, and more room to manoeuvre once inside. Not everywhere had them as they were more expensive to build and install. The space required for one disabled toilet could be used for two normal toilets.

Now the "disabled toilets" are more often than not the only ones still open. For use by all. There goes the dignity that you've kept hammering on about, along with the privacy and their safety. Especially if they happen to be young and need help, or need help because they're older. Hanging around outside toilets can get you police attention fairly fast.

There's plenty wish they could use the same facilities as everyone else, but they are unable to due to physical issues. They tend to be unisex as well, no seperate male/female ones. But still...

There's plenty of groups who'll try and get a disabled child into a group for all kids rather than a seperate one. It's better in the long run for the child.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I merely tell the truth about the law instead of just making stuff up - like you saying that we already segregate toilets by biological sex. Idiocy. You know nothing - make that less than nothing.

Oh dear. Falls back on abuse every single time. We have segregated toilets by biological sex for a hundred years. It is legal to exclude males from the Women's and females from the Men's. The fact that some men who identify women have managed to ignore that and use them does not make that fact untrue.

Stock - she is a bigot and an agitator. Gay women like me think she is vile. I know you will say that she's a lesbian, which is great, except that she is now working hard to divide a harmonious group of women into two groups and set them against each other for no other reason that she hates trans women.

Funny that so many gender critical feminists are lesbians and dislike the forced teaming with the trans community - it's hardly a harmonious homogenous group as you claim. If they want their own group, let them have it. Noone would dream of telling trans people they can't go do their own thing. You seem very bitter about the fact that some lesbian women have no interest whatsoever in transwomen who say they are lesbians. Surely that is entirely up to them.

Stock is a bad faith actor. Rowling is a bad faith actor. You are a bad faith actor. I know because I read your lies.

It must be exhausting being so hyperbolic. I'm chuffed to be spoken of in the same breath as Kathleen Stock and J K Rowling though. They seem absolutely lovely when you see them interviewed.

 

[AuroraSaab]

An absolute batshit crazy response, and one that I think is really insulting. How can anybody take you or these twisted arguments seriously?

It was a rhetorical question to Classic, as you well know, showing the logical outcome of his 'I just want equal treatment' post. You simply show how desperate you are when you try stuff like this.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Early disabled toilets were provided for wheelchair users. They required wider doors, and more room to manoeuvre once inside.
There's plenty wish they could use the same facilities as everyone else, but they are unable to due to physical issues.

...... you're here acknowledging that some demographics have different needs and we take steps to accommodate that - which might mean excluding other groups. Seems fair enough.