Mridul Wadhwa - Male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

GagaJo thank you for the demonstration of your moral compass, even hemmed round with “In this case”.
But GJ there is no equality in what you suggest. I understand why you can’t see that. I’m beginning finally to suspect why trisher takes that stance.
Of course you’re actively happy when men join your feminist fold. Your feminism appears not to be about women.
I’d be actively happy for men, women or even trans to claim to be feminists if they were there to understand and protect the rights of women instead of projecting the idea that all women are equal, but trans are more equal than others.

No, not if preferential treatment only applies when all else is equal, and a choice has to be made - the sort of situation where one sex's rights conflict with the other's. There is still a lot of levelling up to do.

In what sense is what you describe 'feminism'? Equality is a theoretical concept when there has been systemic prejudice for so long.

Nope. Equality. That is the beginning and the end of feminism for me. I'm actively happy when men join the feminist fold. I'm NOT referring to trans women there. Just regular CIS men. Not putting them first, or front and centre, just equal members.

I really don't see the point of replacing patriarchy with matriarchy. It's just taking one set of dominance with another.

Mollygo said I do wonder how anyone who purports to be a feminist can be so dismissive of the concerns of women. I am pointing out that not ALL women are fighting for equality. Just being female doesn't mean infallibility.

I think Molly meant that she wonders how people who claim to be feminists can also be TRAs, when there is such an obvious conflict of interest, but obviously she can correct me if I'm wrong.

After that, I've lost the thread of what you are saying. 'Not all women are fighting for equality'. Yes, that's clearly true. Some of them will always put men first.

'Just being female doesn't mean infallibility' Again, clearly true, but what it has to do with the previous statement is not clear.

That a woman can sometimes be in the wrong, and that there are times when men have concerns that need to be addressed is a given; as is the fact that when it is clear that the scales of justice weigh in favour of men then they have to be considered.

Nobody is saying that every woman should always be put first. The point made upthread is that when there is a conflict, and one set of rights has to take precedence, a feminist will support the female rights over the male ones.

You go away on holiday for 8 days and when you come back ..................... sigh
Mollygo depends how you define "lie", for some as long as you can delude yourself, a lie transforms to truth and even beyond unto a saintly revelation.

I wonder why the first feminists originated? Given some seem to think we should centre any male born person it does seem a bit of a misnomer ? perhaps we should evolve with the times and call ourselves meninists. Or maybe, just maybe, we could address the huge inequalities that many women of the female sex still suffer worldwide. Amazing how absolutely nobody, no matter how little educated, ever has any doubt about who should be a victim of FGM. Never yet heard of a penised body undergoing FGM, perhaps somebody cleverer than me can find a link?

*if it wasn't something the board were interested in

In this case, I don't regard MW as lying. They didn't ask her. It isn't a lie by omission if it isn't something the board weren't interested in. It's only a lie if you don't regard her as a woman. I regard her as a woman.

Don't bother asking me close ended questions in an attempt to get the answer you want.

GJ
Nobody said all women were fighting for equality. Some women are not aware of the insidious erosion of their rights that people, including some claiming to be feminists, are not just allowing, but encouraging to happen. Some women are in the fortunate position of never having come up against this erosion.
Do you think that means it should be allowed to happen?

Do you believe it’s OK to lie, even by omission to get something you want?
I’ll take your continued silence for assent.

Doodledog

*Women are not some special category that are without fault. There are women that commit crimes. There are women who discriminate against others.*

Who has said otherwise?

Mollygo said I do wonder how anyone who purports to be a feminist can be so dismissive of the concerns of women. I am pointing out that not ALL women are fighting for equality. Just being female doesn't mean infallibility.

trisher

I think he needs to be in a secure unit somewere Callistemon (you never ased me where I would put him) possibly somewhere where he can receive proper psychiatric care. I certainly never advocated putting him in a women's prison. I just pointed out other difficulties.

Who?

Women are not some special category that are without fault. There are women that commit crimes. There are women who discriminate against others.

Who has said otherwise?

I do wonder how anyone who purports to be a feminist can be so dismissive of the concerns of women.

Women are not some special category that are without fault. There are women that commit crimes. There are women who discriminate against others.

I am a feminist and my feminism includes trans women. It also includes any men who are feminists. I'm not a separatist feminist.

Segregating some spaces by sex is not punishment. It is the law.

Trisher , GagaJo, is it true that you believe it’s OK to lie, even by omission, to get something you want.

Honesty and openess would be a good start to acceptance; not subterfuge, lying by ommission and dictating how natal women should silently move over and make way for an intact male to be in their spaces. Women are not being treated with respect; we're being told "accept us as one of you, even if we're 6'2", with a beard, penis and testicles. Shut up or we'll accuse you of bigotry".

You're asking for acceptance and tolerance of someone who has demonstrated not just oblivion to, but intolerance of, natal women's feelings.

Thanks for sharing that you have a deep sexy voice though

As a feminist I consider all harm done to anyone as unacceptable. Sometimes harm is done by a man, but we don't punish all men because of that. Sometimes harm is done by a woman, but we don't punish all women for that. Why does anyone want to punish all transwomen for the harm doen by a few?
For the umpteenth time, nobody wants to punish all transwomen. How is it punishing all transwomen to object to a man such as the one upthread being housed in a female prison? Just how?

As a woman, or as a person, you might see the rights of men and women as equal (although IMO your posts suggest that you definitely favour men), but a feminist perspective looks out for the rights of women. Not to side with every woman against every man, but where there is conflict between men and women a feminist will put the female sex before the male.

As a feminist I consider all harm done to anyone as unacceptable. Sometimes harm is done by a man, but we don't punish all men because of that. Sometimes harm is done by a woman, but we don't punish all women for that. Why does anyone want to punish all transwomen for the harm doen by a few?

I looked at the Christian thing I've seen the colour thing so many times and guess what the more you do it the easier it gets. So all it takes is a little practice and some flexibility. Try applying that to transpeople. It could help you.

Incidentally I have a deep voice (it's said to be sexy).

Perhaps rather than focussing on the harm done by other people you could actually recognise the good done by MW who has spent 16 years working in the field of preventing violence. If it was really women you were concerned with you would acknowledge some transwomen are forces for good. You would treat them with respect and use the pronoun they prefer instead of trying to link them to people who cause harm.

Well said Doodledog and Mollygo.

Chewbacca, why would trisher need to consider any points you are making. I do wonder how anyone who purports to be a feminist can be so dismissive of the concerns of women.
There are multiple examples of where allowing a man who calls himself a woman causes harm to women, but all I hear from a couple of posters on here are mentions of it only being a small number who are affected as if that makes it acceptable.

If only one woman is harmed by a man claiming that he is a woman then that is one too many.
It doesn’t mean that I believe all transwomen are like that. I’m happy to accept GJ’s description of a transwoman being softly spoken and very kind, because many of them have no reason to be otherwise. I’m even happy to accept trisher’s insistence that we shouldn’t make assumptions about the sex of someone deep voiced, big and strong.
I’d happily refer to a man who presents as a woman as ‘she’ if the appearance doesn’t conceal the need to lie in order to obtain access to women’s safe spaces or women’s jobs.
trisher won’t accept anything presented by ‘christianrethinkers’.
I won’t accept that women have to be known as something else to suit people who think like trisher and GJ.
I won’t accept that it’s OK to lie to get what you want, even a lie by omission, just because you’re a man dressed up as a woman.
trisher, GagaJo is it true that you believe it’s OK to lie, even by omission to get something you want?

trisher

Well if he is held in a men's prison will he not present the same or even greater danger to Muslim male prisoners? You don't seem to have considered that.. The fact is he is of course a danger to many people and all of this is diversion and red herrings. It has nothing to do with MW or trans women in general. It's simply a way of trying to justify unjustifiable prejudice.

Why do you say that someone who objects to a man being housed in a female prison is not considering Muslim men, as though that is an oversight?

As feminists, we consider the implications of decisions - whether personal or political - on women. It is for the prison system and the judiciary to decide on how to deal with a dangerous man in a male prison.

It is not necessary or desirable for the needs of men always to have to be considered before the threats to women. Why should it be women (whether that is female prisoners or job applicants) who have to 'deal with' the problem of men wanting to be women, whilst men stand back and allow it to happen? If feminists don't speak up for women, who will?

trisher

Ooh Christian thinkers would they be the same sort who wanted to use aversion therapy on Gay people?
Or the ones who think women belong in the home?
Or the ones who believe abortion should be illegal
I'm not about to start believing anything posted by Christian thinkers their prejudice isn't acceptable.

No comment about what was actually said, then. Just some silly remarks about other stuff you think they might have said.
Try having a look at the picture anyway - it's fun.

And did you listen to Rhona Hotchkiss?
It's about 15 mins.
Right at the end she says that the Scottish prisoners who claim to be transwomen number about 7% of the female prison population - way above the proportion in the general public.
Why do you think that might be trisher?

I think he needs to be in a secure unit somewere Callistemon (you never ased me where I would put him) possibly somewhere where he can receive proper psychiatric care. I certainly never advocated putting him in a women's prison. I just pointed out other difficulties.

Well if he is held in a men's prison will he not present the same or even greater danger to Muslim male prisoners His hatred of Muslims and Islam is "a problem" no matter where he's put; he hates them all, men and women alike, that's why he tried to kill them. So why should he now be put with vulnerable women? He's still got a penis and he is a greater danger to vulnerable women, in enclosed spaces, because of that. At least if he was put where he belongs, in a male prison, the risk of him sexually assaulting one of them is less. You don't seem to have considered that.

No.

Hang on I thought transwomen were accused of competing with us for places as head of companies, directors etc Now they're making us housewives? But won't that mean they'll want to be housewives as well?
What bizarre thoughts some have!