CXRAndy
Epic Member
Good, these groups are not working for women's interests, if they allow males, or TiMs to participate in their events
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
monkers
Shaman
Let me guess. You are delighted because you know best for women, and women are better off when controlled by the likes of you.
Somebody tell me, am I close?
CXRAndy
Epic Member
So you reply, telling me I'm on your naughty list
You, like me shouldn't involved in women's social events if they're only for women, which we are not
mickle
Regular
Lol.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
The WI were talking about running groups that included men alongside women's groups. The groups that don't like having to exclude men could become one of those.
I find this bit hard to believe. I think it's unlikely that women are more reluctant to sit next to a woman who identifies as a man (why would she want to go to the WI if she identified as a man anyway?) than next to an actual man, even if he had a dress on.
Of course there's no mention of the women who might have left or who self-excluded because the WI decided to indulge the special subset of men.
Telling women they must include men in everything is the epitome of male control.
I find this bit hard to believe. I think it's unlikely that women are more reluctant to sit next to a woman who identifies as a man (why would she want to go to the WI if she identified as a man anyway?) than next to an actual man, even if he had a dress on.
Of course there's no mention of the women who might have left or who self-excluded because the WI decided to indulge the special subset of men.
Telling women they must include men in everything is the epitome of male control.
monkers
Shaman
The practice of truth inversion is prevalent, and unfortunately convincing to those with minds alert to content that serves to feed their power fantasies.
Ianonabike
Esquire
Projection aside, yesterday's small chorus of useful idiots must have been some consolation.
mickle
Regular
Controlling women? WTF are you on about?
monkers
Shaman
Unsurprisingly the thread appears to me as a bunch of replies from the people I've put on ignore. I can't reply to that directly.
Instead I can examine Aurora's reply. It's quite revealing.
This is Aurora telling women who accept the status of transgender women and trans women as women ''you must not say this, it does not fit my ideology''
The WI have a history of ensuring that trans women receive no less favourable treatment.
There has been a turning point caused by a decision handed down without consultation, because the trustees (or whoever) has believed that the Supreme Court ruling makes out the case for blanket exclusion. This has proved to cause unhappiness in large numbers of the WI membership.
Well OK, I find it easy to believe that Aurora finds it hard to believe.
The gender critical movement pretends critical mass. This is evidence of the contrary. It is a demonstration that there exists a minority of some women eagerly supported by some men that the majority of women view must be overturned in the interests of those women. However the WI women are apparently comfortable with the company of transgender and trans women. BUT, they are less comfortable with the prospect of transgender or trans men joining them. That is the exact point that Jules Mortimer is clearly saying, and a point that Aurora attempts to invert. It just needs considering in context.
I might be incorrect, but I will hazard a guess - there are men saying that ''men like you'' are trying to be in control. You know they must be correct. Clearly ''men like me'' have taken over governance of the WI, and most obviously with the express desire to ban ourselves from membership? Oh look here it is. Thanks Aurora.
What else? Oh yes.
This is where we are at. The WI is an hotbed of trans activism.
I couldn't make it up - but Aurora did.
This is why I called out truth inversion and the behaviour of her loyal sheep.
Instead I can examine Aurora's reply. It's quite revealing.
This is Aurora telling women who accept the status of transgender women and trans women as women ''you must not say this, it does not fit my ideology''
The WI have a history of ensuring that trans women receive no less favourable treatment.
There has been a turning point caused by a decision handed down without consultation, because the trustees (or whoever) has believed that the Supreme Court ruling makes out the case for blanket exclusion. This has proved to cause unhappiness in large numbers of the WI membership.
Well OK, I find it easy to believe that Aurora finds it hard to believe.
The gender critical movement pretends critical mass. This is evidence of the contrary. It is a demonstration that there exists a minority of some women eagerly supported by some men that the majority of women view must be overturned in the interests of those women. However the WI women are apparently comfortable with the company of transgender and trans women. BUT, they are less comfortable with the prospect of transgender or trans men joining them. That is the exact point that Jules Mortimer is clearly saying, and a point that Aurora attempts to invert. It just needs considering in context.
I might be incorrect, but I will hazard a guess - there are men saying that ''men like you'' are trying to be in control. You know they must be correct. Clearly ''men like me'' have taken over governance of the WI, and most obviously with the express desire to ban ourselves from membership? Oh look here it is. Thanks Aurora.
What else? Oh yes.
This is where we are at. The WI is an hotbed of trans activism.
I couldn't make it up - but Aurora did.
This is why I called out truth inversion and the behaviour of her loyal sheep.
Last edited:
