Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Perhaps you should consider how to win us over.

The aim isn't to win people over. The aim is to shut down debate. This thread would have been closed on the old NACA long ago due to the personal abuse and histrionics.

Masked men holding flares outside Kathleen Stock's office isn't just to get rid of her, it's to scare all academics into not supporting her. Death and rape threats to JK Rowling isn't to cancel her, it's to make other people afraid to speak out on the issues. Stopping women attending a film in Edinburgh isn't about the film, it's about making women afraid to meet in public in the future.

 

[multitool]

That film is freely available to view on the Internet.

The ONLY reason your mates staged it in Edinburgh was as a direct provocation, hoping to be able to claim victimhood.

Actually, I feel the some trans right activists take the wrong approach, but that's easy for me to to say because it isn't my existence in public that is being threatened by people like you.

As to "shutting down debate", you complain every time somebody posts in this thread, which is weird because to contribute to perpetuating something that you want shut down. I'm not surprised you want it shut down. You get reamed every time you post, not least because your only supporter is icow, but mostly because at least 5 regular NACA posters have openly complained about your dishonesty.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That film is freely available to view on the Internet.

There was a discussion planned with the makers afterwards. Basically you are saying women shouldn't be allowed to meet to view the film or talk about it. Seems a bit authoritarian of you, confining women to their homes to watch material you don't approve of. I guess we should ban all book groups then; you can just read them at home on your own.

The ONLY reason your mates staged it in Edinburgh was as a direct provocation, hoping to be able to claim victimhood.

They wanted to meet peaceably to watch and discuss a film, as is their right in law. Due to protectors blocking the way, the police advised it wasn't possible to safely enter the building. You are saying people should be limited to what they can see and where they can meet - again, it seems very authoritarian, almost right wing of you.

Once again you conflate everyone with vaguely similar views on an issue as 'my mates'. Which means I suppose that it was your mates dressed in black and blocking the entrance as women exercised their right to meet together within the law.

Actually, I feel the some trans right activists take the wrong approach, but that's easy for me to to say because it isn't my existence in public that is being threatened by people like you.

The end justifies the means then. Women can't meet in public to discuss their rights because that threatens the right of trans people to exist. Seems a bit of a stretch to be honest but hyperbole is a feature of transactivism, as is special emotional pleading

As to "shutting down debate", you complain every time somebody posts in this thread, which is weird because to contribute to perpetuating something that you want shut down. I'm not surprised you want it shut down. You get reamed every time you post, not least because your only supporter is icow, but mostly because at least 5 regular NACA posters have openly complained about your dishonesty.

Again, falling back on personal abuse. It's you that keeps resurrecting the thread. And what are we up to on the count of how many times you mention me personally by name in your posts in this thread? It was 62 a couple of weeks ago. 62.

 

[multitool]

Me pointing out that 5 or 6 people have openly complained that you are dishonest is not "abuse". It's fact. You presenting it as "abuse" is, ironically, another example of your dishonesty.

Maybe you should pause to consider why they said it.

By the way, your little rhetorical trick of using the term "women", as a whole class, when you actually mean a tiny group of what are, essentially, oddball conspiracy theorists, is getting a little tired.

You make more posts in this thread than anybody. Don't be surprised if you get referred to. If you don't like the thread, don't post in it. I'm sure there are some 5g masts you could go and shout at instead.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Ah, Schrodinger's feminists again. A tiny group of 'oddball conspiracists' who are both irrelevant and inconsequential, yet with the power to stop people existing all at the same time.

I'll post on what topics, I like thanks. Feel free to do the same. Just don't moan when I do when you've name checked me 60 plus times in the thread, not even counting the times you've @ me.

 

[multitool]

I'm not moaning. You are

When you post, which you have done more than anybody else, and the content contains lies, misrepresentations, sophistry, straw men, distortions etc, I will point it out.

As to your Schrodinger's women, yes, they are a tiny group of conspiracy theorists, but they contribute to the noise which has led to people sieg heiling and openly waving swastika flags at the rallies held by people whose views you support. There is a concommitant increase of hate crimes against trans folk, which has also spread into hate crimes against gay people. Eventually, it'll spread to women too.

Meanwhile, where are all these sex attacks by trans women? Oh. They aren't happening.

This is the very essence of what a conspiracy theory is, in that it isn't grounded in any sort of reality.

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

You do know that gish-galloping lies and spamming a forum are the means by which people try to silence others?

To claim that women are being silenced with the backdrop of your trolling here suggests that women are not being silenced.

And yes, your bogus claims have been debunked.

It doesn't matter how many time a lie is repeated, it remains a lie. The sex and gender of a liar are unimportant, it remains a lie.

Only the truth matters otherwise logic and reason fail.

 

[newfhouse]

Seems a bit of a stretch

Yes, but from here it appears to be you doing the stretching. You quoted what @multitool actually wrote but then stretched it way beyond what a reasonable reader would say that he meant. Where was "the end justifies the means" other than in your own head?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Looks like your only argument at this point is to accuse me of lying. There's been no debunking of arguments from you. Sports examples? Liar. Not happening. Male offenders in women prisons? Doesn't happen, and even if it does it doesn't matter. Women being driven from jobs? Doesn't happen.

People aren't stupid. They can read the news for themselves.

 

[AndyRM]

Simply not true. Transwomen offend at the same rate as men. I've given you the stats and research several times.

Again, self ID in America and Canada has allowed men who claim to be trans to transfer to women's prisons. Just because women's prisons are unpleasant already is no reason to add men to the mix and make them worse. Your concern for vulnerable women really is about zero.

'A' successful cyclist? There were more than one in that list, it was around 20, and they are winning races and taking places and opportunities away from women.


You are making an extraordinary claim without evidence and telling me it's disrespectful not to believe it. It's not disrespectful to not believe in astrology, a flat earth, or creationism either.

Also, Andy, I'm afraid that by not putting a gap between trans and woman, you have committed the egregious sin of having transphobic grammar.

You've said that transwomen aren't women, repeatedly, that's not an extraordinary claim.

I don't particularly give a stuff about the semantics of the grammar to be honest. I wouldn't even bother with the trans term to be honest. Obviously it's up to the individual, but of the several people I know, they don't bother.

Personally as someone who is non binary I could reasonably request people use gender neutral pronouns when referring to me. I don't bother because I don't see that it matters, which is a position of privilege I know, but I appreciate that it really matters to some.

Unlike calling transwomen men, which is hugely disrespectful. Do you deadname them too?

 

[AuroraSaab]

The extraordinary claim I referred to is that transwomen are women. There's no evidence that this is true, but you are telling me to respect it regardless of its veracity. You are demanding a level of compliance that you wouldn't expect people to give to religious claims or claims of a flat earth.

I wouldn't deadname someone because people change their name all the time and it affects no one. Pronouns are a choice, but I don't see that you can compell people to use them. It's not anybody job to validate other people's view of themselves.

Telling women that they must call men women if those men say so is rather disrespectful I think.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Yes, but from here it appears to be you doing the stretching. You quoted what @multitool actually wrote but then stretched it way beyond what a reasonable reader would say that he meant. Where was "the end justifies the means" other than in your own head?

Get real dude. You've read enough of this thread to know the history. If you don't agree with the arguments come out and say so rather than jumping on the 'liar' bandwagon and in doing so implying that Tool is an honest broker.
It's obvious to most people reading this thread that there is no amicable conclusion.
Trans women are women - disagree, you're a transphobe and must be attacked at every opportunity vs women (cis women if you insist) have legitimate concern about something that's a bit more than who goes to which toilet.
For what it's worth I agree with the latter - nobody's counting apart from the Tool.

 

[fozy tornip]

Get real dude.

What's going on?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

What's going on?

Sorry did l misgender them. (Oops, no levity allowed).

 

[fozy tornip]

Not that. Just that Bill and Teddisms might be thought out of place on a forum the members of which have an average age of 73.