Mridul Wadhwa - Male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

Thank you Rosie51 and Galaxy for reading my post carefully and understanding what it means.

Rosie51

^Well I've always said the same thing about rights Mollygo that there is no hierarchy and everyone is entitled to them.^ When one person's rights are in direct conflict to another person's rights, then there has to be an order of preference, both can't be satisfied. For me and many others on this thread that means single sex rights take precedence over validating someone's self-perception.

Agreed Rosie, but I fear you are wasting your breath. We have all said this a thousand times, but it just doesn't go in.

And although most people would probably prefer equality, with no need for sex-based rights, it is not always possible to have that. There are times when compromise is just not possible, and when all avenues of compromise have been closed, feminists will put women first.

The same would theoretically apply to transmen in male single sex spaces, but I can't think of any circumstances in which transwomen would pose a danger to men.

And actilually certain rights not everybody is entitled to. I am not entitled to turn up at a gay mans sauna for example, a 20 year old is not entitled to go to playgroup, men are not entitled to be in womens single sex spaces.

Well I've always said the same thing about rights Mollygo that there is no hierarchy and everyone is entitled to them. When one person's rights are in direct conflict to another person's rights, then there has to be an order of preference, both can't be satisfied. For me and many others on this thread that means single sex rights take precedence over validating someone's self-perception.

Well I've always said the same thing about rights Mollygo that there is no hierarchy and everyone is entitled to them.
So the mystery remains, who could you mean?

Of course I did. I never said I didn’t. But I never mentioned you unless you are one of those people who don’t accept . . .
You can go back and look the end of that that up yourself. If the cap fits, wear it. If it doesn’t . . .

Of course not Mollygoyou never mentioned a mob on GN.

Thanks for that Doodledog. She knows very well what she is doing, but will never admit it.
So no apology needed.

Doodledog I posted the actual words. It now seems there should be a "like" in there which somewhat modifies it but there is still the last sentence....
Elegran I always understood that Lucifer tried too hard to be like God and was cast into eternal damnation as a punishment.

Ignore, Molly - it is yet another diversion, and is being used as an excuse to ignore the request to show where trisher has 'disproved' any of our statements.

I can't decide whether she is well aware that she has done nothing of the kind, is trying to convince herself that by coming up with diversions and leaps in logic she will fool people into thinking that she has, in fact, made a point, or if she is so far removed from reality that she believes her own publicity.

I’m retracting nothing as there is no need.
No apology needed trisher, unless you are actually one of the people mentioned in my post and I’ve never seen you admit to anything like that.
Maybe I should have quoted my mum instead. She says, “If the cap fits, wear it. If it doesn’t, you’ve nothing to complain about.”

The only error I made was in not inserting the word ‘like’ in between ‘are’ and ‘those’, but it worked OK without that.

Well, quite, Elegran.

Reading the diversion the thread has taken, I now wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let's get that important question answered before thrashing out lesser ones, such as why the angel Lucifer (the Bringer of Light) should wish to leave his former life in heaven and exchange it for becoming the Prince of Darkness and setting up the Other Side, or how much influence angels have on the lives and rights of humans. There might even, if time permits, be an amicable (or not) discussion on whether angels even exist.

trisher

By the way a little apology about Where does it 'specifically say the mob is on GN?' would be acceptable

Molly's post, whatever she meant it to mean, and I do apologise to Molly if I got that wrong, does not say that the mob is on GN. It says that from what she has read on GN the cartoon is true. Read it.

And if this is not a diversion from the subject matter, I don't know what is.

By the way a little apology about Where does it 'specifically say the mob is on GN?' would be acceptable

It's not a diversion Doodledog just another example of the misinformation and falsehoods perpetuated on this thread. Not only are they about trans matters apparently posters are now denying their own posts.

I accept that Mollygo doesn't seem to know what she actually posted (although she has said she keeps a copy of all her posts)

I take it she is retracting the statement on the grounds that she didn't make it, didn't mean it or has conveniently forgotten about it.
But as she asked the question "Who could she mean by that?"

Mollygo

Trisher it’s never been a discussion. I can’t discuss with you because of how you present everything.
And if you’d read my post you’d have realised that I said the mob are those on GN that won’t accept that some transwomen are determined to have the rights of TW placed above the rights of women.
Now who could I mean by that?

I have to post it again and ask the simple question who are the mob on GN? Name names or apologise. Because there isn't really one is there?

Mollygo I'm simply asking for an explanation. Who are those on GN really the cartoon speaks for itself those on GN needs explaining.
I don't expect a real answer by the way just more wriggling.

Molly may, of course, want to come back and tell me I'm wrong, as only she knows what she meant.
Which, of course, she has now done?. Sorry for speaking for you there, Molly - I was just hoping to get rid of the diversion.

Mollygo

You’re right about the make-up of the group in Manchester Galaxy, and I know it could be reduced to the fact that it was only ‘a small percentage’ of gay men who were treated badly, but what I read on GN is that the following cartoon is true-well except there’s not quite such a big mob.

Where does it 'specifically say the mob is on GN?'

It says that from what MG reads on here, she thinks that the cartoon is true, but that there's not such a big mob.

Yet again, you are batting back comments that were not made. Molly may, of course, want to come back and tell me I'm wrong, as only she knows what she meant.

I am not 'wriggling out' of anything. I didn't post the comment, and have nothing to gain or lose from my understanding of it. My motive for posting is simply to get rid of this diversion and reversal of the situation into one where you are the victim instead of the one (or one of the ones) who have hurled abuse on this thread.

I would rather get back to the topic under discussion - preferably via a response from you showing where you have proved that any statement made by me is untrue.

The cartoon refers to those who attacked the gay man in Mc. If you’re admitting that you are one of the group I posted about then you’re quite right for once trisher and your admission has made my day. If you aren’t admitting it, how can I be referring to you?

Sorry Doodledog the post specifically says the mob are those on GN so 10/10 for effort at wriggling out of what has been said but it won't wash.
If you check through the posts I do state when misinformaion is posted. But I tell you what, when I find out who "the mob" on GN is I will post them again.

Oh, and for the gazillionth time, could we please have an example of the numerous inconsistencies and/or factual inaccuracies that you claim to have corrected on here?

I took 'the mob' to be the people on the rally who hounded the man in the 'wrong' T shirt, and by extension their supporters.

Nothing to do with the mafia - that's rather an irrational link to make.