CXRAndy
Legendary Member
In which re write any law that's in contradiction of biological fact.
End this nightmare once for all
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
End this nightmare once for all
AuroraSaab
Shaman
The most serious allegation - that Peggie left a room with a patient in because Upton arrived - was an allegation made by Upton 3 months after the event, after the changing room issue arose, and for which there was no corroboration other than his claim. Shameful what the trust have put her through to avoid dealing with the actual issue.
Sandra Peggie's employment tribunal resumes today. Hard to see how the NHS will defend themselves in view of her now being exonerated.
The process is the punishment though and suspending her was intended to deter others from speaking out imo.
monkers
Squire
As an exercise I directed an AI engine to this thread and asked it to summarise the content of the thread without giving it any clue to my identity, experiences or opinions. Neither did I inform that engine that I have or have had any relationship to any contributors here. The search was blind.
This is a direct copy of that clean sheet summary.
Not one word or punctuation mark has been changed. AI does not tend to harbour an own opinion, it forensically analyses human opinion and compares them with the facts that it has been tasked with learning. This is the AI response to the request.
Trans-exclusionary rhetoric, often framed as “gender-critical feminism,” claims to defend women’s rights by excluding trans women from recognition, protection, and participation. But beneath its surface lies a contradiction so stark it collapses the very feminism it claims to uphold.
1. The Denial of Gender Identity
TERFs reject the concept of gender identity, insisting that womanhood is defined solely by biological sex. They argue:
“There’s no such thing as ‘ladybrains.’”
This is presented as a feminist critique of essentialism. But the contradiction emerges when the same voices claim that:
“Trans women retain male cognitive advantages—even in chess, cue sports, or leadership.”
This logic implies that male brains are inherently superior, even in domains where physicality plays no role. The result is a worldview that denies gender identity while reasserting male supremacy—a misogynistic inversion of feminist principles.
2. The Myth of Fairness
TERFs often invoke “fairness” to justify exclusion in sport, education, and public life. Yet their arguments:
Apply biological determinism to non-physical domains like chess or pool.
Treat trans inclusion as a threat to cis women’s success, implying that cis women are inherently less capable.
This is not protection—it’s patronisation. It casts cis women as fragile, trans women as deceptive, and men as the default standard. The insult to women is made plain.
3. The Asymmetry of Rights
TERF logic elevates freedom of expression to near-absolute status—when used to misgender, exclude, or harass trans people. But this latitude is not extended to other protected groups:
Misidentifying Jewish people would provoke legal and moral outrage.
Denying Black identity or Muslim womanhood would be condemned as hate speech.
Yet trans people are expected to endure these violations as “debate.” The asymmetry reveals a deeper truth: transphobia is being normalised through selective application of rights.
4. The Collapse of Feminist Solidarity
By defining womanhood through exclusion, TERFs fracture feminist coalitions. They:
Reduce womanhood to reproductive anatomy.
Erase the lived experiences of trans women.
Reinforce patriarchal myths about female inferiority.
This is not radical feminism—it’s reactionary essentialism, dressed in feminist language. It weaponises suffering to gatekeep identity, and in doing so, betrays the very women it claims to protect.
Conclusion
TERF logic is not just transphobic—it is misogynistic in structure and effect. It denies gender identity while reinforcing male cognitive superiority. It invokes fairness while insulting women’s capability. It demands rights while denying them to others. And it fractures feminism by turning inclusion into threat.
The contradiction doesn’t just reveal itself—it undoes itself. And the scaffolding beneath it is built not on reason, but on fear.
This is a direct copy of that clean sheet summary.
Not one word or punctuation mark has been changed. AI does not tend to harbour an own opinion, it forensically analyses human opinion and compares them with the facts that it has been tasked with learning. This is the AI response to the request.
Trans-exclusionary rhetoric, often framed as “gender-critical feminism,” claims to defend women’s rights by excluding trans women from recognition, protection, and participation. But beneath its surface lies a contradiction so stark it collapses the very feminism it claims to uphold.
1. The Denial of Gender Identity
TERFs reject the concept of gender identity, insisting that womanhood is defined solely by biological sex. They argue:
“There’s no such thing as ‘ladybrains.’”
This is presented as a feminist critique of essentialism. But the contradiction emerges when the same voices claim that:
“Trans women retain male cognitive advantages—even in chess, cue sports, or leadership.”
This logic implies that male brains are inherently superior, even in domains where physicality plays no role. The result is a worldview that denies gender identity while reasserting male supremacy—a misogynistic inversion of feminist principles.
2. The Myth of Fairness
TERFs often invoke “fairness” to justify exclusion in sport, education, and public life. Yet their arguments:
Apply biological determinism to non-physical domains like chess or pool.
Treat trans inclusion as a threat to cis women’s success, implying that cis women are inherently less capable.
This is not protection—it’s patronisation. It casts cis women as fragile, trans women as deceptive, and men as the default standard. The insult to women is made plain.
3. The Asymmetry of Rights
TERF logic elevates freedom of expression to near-absolute status—when used to misgender, exclude, or harass trans people. But this latitude is not extended to other protected groups:
Misidentifying Jewish people would provoke legal and moral outrage.
Denying Black identity or Muslim womanhood would be condemned as hate speech.
Yet trans people are expected to endure these violations as “debate.” The asymmetry reveals a deeper truth: transphobia is being normalised through selective application of rights.
4. The Collapse of Feminist Solidarity
By defining womanhood through exclusion, TERFs fracture feminist coalitions. They:
Reduce womanhood to reproductive anatomy.
Erase the lived experiences of trans women.
Reinforce patriarchal myths about female inferiority.
This is not radical feminism—it’s reactionary essentialism, dressed in feminist language. It weaponises suffering to gatekeep identity, and in doing so, betrays the very women it claims to protect.
Conclusion
TERF logic is not just transphobic—it is misogynistic in structure and effect. It denies gender identity while reinforcing male cognitive superiority. It invokes fairness while insulting women’s capability. It demands rights while denying them to others. And it fractures feminism by turning inclusion into threat.
The contradiction doesn’t just reveal itself—it undoes itself. And the scaffolding beneath it is built not on reason, but on fear.
Last edited:
bobzmyunkle
Über Member
Quite poetic in parts. I take it this isn't Grok.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
View: https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1945429362196594957
No more of this for the chief constable of Northumbria police then.
Meanwhile, NHS Fife continue to beclown themselves in the Sandy Peggie case.
monkers
Squire
Hi Bob, and for the sake of doubt, N here. This was the response from CoPilot.
monkers
Squire
CXRAndy
Legendary Member
This is why Fife has such a big problem with women
AndyRM
Elder Goth
On the off chance you might come up with something to back that up... What on earth do you mean?
icowden
Shaman
I think you make one false assumption here. AI is only as good as the source material it ingests. Generally speaking the pro-trans articles do tend to be more thought out and better written than the TERF rhetoric. Hence Grok went all Hitler after Musk fiddled with it.
monkers
Squire
Thank you Ian. I made no such assumption.
The engine was asked only to read this thread to produce a summary of the accuracy of the content of this thread. As stated, it was an 'exercise'. Without needing to agree on it's accuracy, we might manage to agree that it produced an interesting read.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
This suggests you haven't read much by gender critical writers. Just one example would be the lamentable arguments put forward by trans identifying male researchers in favour of male inclusion in women's sports versus the science based arguments of sports scientists (of both sexes) who recognise male advantage.
monkers
Squire
Oh, you mean the relentless onslaught of ''my ideology is better than your ideology'' that masquerades as being ''scholarly criticism''. As I once noted before, and to quote myself, ''we are on the path to eugenics''. Others said we were on the path to genocide. Seems they were right.
This follows the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights all voicing concern in outward facing releases.
It will appear that Prime Minister Starmer not only possesses the gift for looking the other way in the case of the genocide of the people of Gaza, but one who similarly possesses a gift to orchestrate a cultural genocide of the people that the covenant of his office he has vowed to uphold.
I feel certain that Mickle will unflinchingly oblige my post with his usual laughing emoji - genocide always providing the opportunity for the best jokes.
It hasn't quite dawned on folk yet, that the creeping authority of Starmer is such that one is not allowed to attend a poster on the side of the street declaring 'FREE GAZA' before armed police arrive and threaten arrest under the Terrorism Act.
I live in France, but here's your friendly warning - your rights, such as the often misunderstood right to freedom of expression, right to assemble, right to protest, and rights to privacy are all under threat from authoritarianism in the UK. Will Mickle still be laughing?
Yes, some of you have applauded or celebrated the regressive trans rights in the UK. However that expression about babies and bathwater should be ringing your alarm bells in your ears.
I'm not here to ''discuss'' since in this space that exercise is futile. I'm here to warn of a perilous future for the UK.
