Latest from Mridul Wadhwa

trisher

Peasblossom

The trans lobby is aggressively dismissive of the right to be homosexual. It campaigns for gay erasure.

They want to cause harm. And do harass and attack gay people.

Do you support them in persecuting others. Or perhaps you believe they are right and all gays are actually trans in denial.

Would you like to post some evidence of this? Or are the extremist policies of some people now being called the trans lobby?
It is interesting isn't it that a gay man like Owen Jones can be accused of being a trans activist and therefore presumably he wants to erase himself.

And there are many, many gay men who back women's rights to single sex spaces, services, prisons, refuges ........ James Dreyfus has suffered for standing by us. OJ on the other hand knows exactly which category of 'woman' he needs when he'd like to find a broody lesbian with whom to co-parent a child, and it's not a transwoman.

Ah so now I see. Only the right sort of gay people count just like only the right sort of women count. Gay people who support trans rights are wrong and women who are transmen don't count.
Owen Jones has been physically assaulted because of his homosexuality by a far right activist, but condemning him is OK (and of course there are no links between the far right and anti-trans activists)

Only the right sort of gay people count well that seems to be your position since OJ counts for everything. Just like you dismiss transexuals like Debbie Hayton who says transwomen are male, wrong sort of transwoman.

Still awaiting the list of all the rights transpeople don't have that others do. As always you'll just ignore the difficult questions or go off on a diversion.

Doodledog I thought you called out the Churchill post because it didn't do what it was supposed to be doing?
I did. It was a fallacious argument all on its own, not because I ‘don’t agree with it’. I do agree that Churchill said it, but not that anything from the anecdote can be extrapolated to the trans debate.

trisher, So now we have ‘the wrong sort of gay people’ as well as ‘the wrong sort of feminist’? I’ve lost track of what you mean by this (other than to make an attempt to shoot down arguments which you are otherwise unable to counter), but as far as I remember, you are the only one using these terms.

I have before suggested that you Google ‘gay reassure’ to see the many posts and articles on this trans policy. If it was just extremists there would not be so so very many.

Knowledgeable as you are about trans issues, I am sure you are familiar with this, although you pretend it doesn’t exist, It would be impossible for anyone involved to be unaware of it.
Not protests against trans people, but protests against their stated desire to ‘erase’ others.

But I knew you would go on pretending it isn’t happening.

erasure

I'm not pretending anything isn't happening. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find all sorts of groups supporting the most unlikely things.
It isn't my fault you only see certain aspects of the subject which fit your preconceived notions. Or that you are unable to examine your preconceptions too closely because many of them are formed from incompatible ideas. It can't be easy for you imagining the dreadful consequences of trans people being able to live their lives as they wish.
Doodledog you disagreed with me posting the Churchill analogy because every comparison of the anti-trans movement with any other anti-rights response in history is rejected by you. It did what it was meant to.

Peasblossom the history of antagonism between gay men and trans women is well known. There are extremist views on both sides. Neither is acceptable

Rosie51 It seems odd to me that anyone would post opinions on trans matters without being aware of the discrimination involved. So
Trans people want a simplified and inexpensive, non medical, non intrusive reasonably priced way to change gender. (The current process is described as the worst in Europe and breeches human rights).
Non binary people want to be recognised as such and to be able to put an X on their passport.

Doodledog you disagreed with me posting the Churchill analogy because every comparison of the anti-trans movement with any other anti-rights response in history is rejected by you. It did what it was meant to.

Please don’t tell me my motives.

The reason I rejected it is because it doesn’t show any corollary with the trans movement. AFAIK there hasn’t been another movement that has tried to erase women in the way that TRAs do.

You admitted that you knew it would ‘get’ me (whatever that means - that you were being deliberately provocative?), but there is a pattern of you dragging suffragettes and gay rights into threads about trans issues. Neither are remotely comparable, and they just serve as distractions from the wherever the discussion has reached.

It isn't my fault you only see certain aspects of the subject which fit your preconceived notions.

That you preceded this comment with one dismissing the gay erasure movement shows how blinkered you can be. The irony would be obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse.

Rosie51 It seems odd to me that anyone would post opinions on trans matters without being aware of the discrimination involved. So
Trans people want a simplified and inexpensive, non medical, non intrusive reasonably priced way to change gender. (The current process is described as the worst in Europe and breeches human rights).
Non binary people want to be recognised as such and to be able to put an X on their passport.
Why is it odd to post my opinions on anything that might impact on my life, or the lives of other women?

trisher I find it amazing that you, as someone so versed in all things transgender needed me to inform you a couple of months ago that there was a transgender judge, Victoria McCloud. You knew nothing of her existence even though she was the youngest Queen’s Bench Master of the High Court of England and Wales when she was appointed in 2010. As I recall you rejected the possibility of transgender judiciary and stated that if I could name one such appointment you'd consider changing your mind about something. Of course you didn't really mean that, but were polite enough to thank me for the information.

Your constant refusal to acknowledge that the loss of single sex exemptions will impact many different groups of women is deliberate, calculated and totally uncaring of the women who will have their lives further curtailed and restricted.

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1442536359990743042

You couldn't make it up! Stonewall have cottoned on to the fact if you change your sex marker on your NHS records from F to M you won't automatically get called for sex specific screening ie smear tests. You have to monitor this yourself. Didn't GC people warn that this was a danger? Suddenly Stonewall are having to concede YOU CAN'T CHANGE SEX, only your own gender descriptor if you choose to use one.
I love the hypocrisy of this bit in the tweet thread We also call for training to be offered to providers to help them design inclusive services, to help patients feel comfortable accessing services, or to offer alternative routes that are more inclusive (not asking trans masculine people to use ‘well women’ clinics, for example). But not for women who want female sex only places!

So that would be sex-based provision they are after, then? Hmmmm.

Aren't Stonewall the arch enemy??? Don't tell me they have got something right??? Strange isn't it. It's called being open to change and accepting differences.
Doodledog do you really think these discussions ever 'reach' anywhere? If I listened to my feminist friends who assure me it is useless to debate such things with such blinkered people I would have disengaged long ago. As it is I find it quite funny to post things which I know will aggravate someone. It compensates for the absolutely unjustified accusations hurled at me. Apparently I now support gay erasure. Which as I am the one supporting and not decrying a gay man on this thread is hilarious. But I forgot of course Owen Jones is the wrong sort of gay man. He's a trans supporter, so apparently trying to erase himself.

It's called being open to change and accepting differences

so we can expect that Stonewall will cease their demand that people can access single sex spaces based on gender identity? No I thought not. Is James Dreyfus who has lost work because of his GC views the wrong sort of gay man? Is Debbie Hayton who says she is still male and will remain so because sex is immutable (and of course Debbie is a scientist) the wrong sort of transwoman?

If I listened to my feminist friends who assure me it is useless to debate such things with such blinkered people I would have disengaged long ago. we have something in common! My feminist friends say similar that you'll never convince science deniers, you only have to look at the climate change deniers, the Covid19 deniers. Or are you now acknowledging that there is a difference between transmen and men, transwomen and women? We have posters on here that have said transwomen are exactly the same as women there are no differences.

Nobody should lose work for their views, and everybody is entitled to their own views Really why is the only response on this thread to attempt to accuse me of holding biased views? I'm not the one castigating anyone.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone accepted others and stopped blaming people who don't fit their preconceptions.

What unjustified accusations are these, trisher?

Calling the vast majority of people on this thread ‘blinkered’, whilst twisting the fact that Stonewall has shot itself in the foot (or are you supporting the idea that male-born people should have sex-based rights but not women?) into them ‘getting something right’ shows either a total lack of self-awareness or an inability to support female people over males.

It is clear from you comments on many threads that you have no respect for women, and this gets more obvious by the day. Fair enough - a lot of women were brought up to see men as the default, and to be condescending to women who speak against their (often subconscious) expectations that ‘men want=men get’, and it can be difficult to rid ourselves of ingrained prejudice; but to disguise this as a desire for inclusivity, and to pretend that it is ‘feminist’ to privilege transwomen over women suggests that you are doing this with full awareness.

You constantly quote your feminist friends, your young friends, and ‘all the transpeople you know’ as though they give you an authority denied to the rest of us. Have you considered that they may be a very untypical and self-selecting group? Several people on these threads have said that our experience differs, which doesn’t make us authorities either, but would suggest that our views are not the minority ones.

I am not decrying OJ, FWIW. I said that I was surprised at his vocal support of trans rights given his usual feminism, and will add that I think it is unfair of someone with the media presence he has to block dissenters on Twitter. I also have no problem with disagreeing with gay people, incidentally . I see them as just people, not some sort of special humans who can’t be contradicted.

Do I think these discussions ever get anywhere? Not when they get diverted and any suggestion that women’s rights should have the same currency as men’s is swept aside, no, probably not. But I do think it is important not to let anti-female views go unchallenged, as the number of trans threads started on here suggests that a lot of people are coming to an awareness of the issues for the first time.

Oh Doodledog that is so funny! Me being in some way subservient to men, or thinking men's views matter more. It's entirely the opposite. I simply don't believe women have to be victims. I think they can change things for the better but do so by not taking on board masculine perceptions of life. So it isn't a battle, a war is never won, everyone suffers through such things and negotiation and discourse is always the best option. Nothing masculine or male about it. It's entirely feminist. Unlike some of the posts on this thread. And yes before you comment I do sometimes slip from my ideal. I still have a background of defiance in my life and learning pacifism takes time and effort. But me being dictated to by men!! I'm still laughing!

40 years ago I honestly believed "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". I've come a long way from then. Men exist and we can't ignore them. We can change them

Laugh if it helps, but with respect, I am looking at your posts objectively - purely based on what you say on here, and you aren’t doing that. I have never seen a post from you that suggests that you don’t always put men’s rights ahead of women. Even when asked directly if you could remember doing so when all else was equal, you didn’t answer directly - instead claiming that you took each case on its merits, which said it all, really.

It is perfectly possible to support trans rights without privileging those rights over women’s, and IMO that is what a feminist would do. Also, your implication that anyone who disagrees is seeing women as victims doesn’t wash - it is a non- sequitur.

Of course you are Doodledog no bias there at all.

Doodledog

*It isn't my fault you only see certain aspects of the subject which fit your preconceived notions.*

That you preceded this comment with one dismissing the gay erasure movement shows how blinkered you can be. The irony would be obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse.

Like this for instance. I had already commented about the dismissal of Owen Jones views but you did what all biased people do chose part of my post and read into it what you wanted.
I'd also said there is a long history of disagreement between some gay people and some trans people. You chose to translate that as me dismissing gay erasure. Which shows just how objective you are.

trisher Theoretical situation, but in fact a reality for some. A woman (female for the avoidance of doubt) wants to go to a women only swim session. For reasons of culture, faith, modesty or something else she absolutely can not attend mixed sessions. A transwoman who can easily attend mixed swim sessions wants to assert her right to attend the single sex one despite having a male body. They can't both be accommodated and the pool refuses to make a ruling, and has handed the decision to you. Which one will you support?

Good question Rosie.

trisher, let’s see the whole picture?

This was what you said in response to peasblossom’s comment on gay erasure (not mine). She invited you to Google it, as she felt that you were oblivious to its existence.

*I'm not pretending anything isn't happening. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find all sorts of groups supporting the most unlikely things.
It isn't my fault you only see certain aspects of the subject which fit your preconceived notions. Or that you are unable to examine your preconceptions too closely because many of them are formed from incompatible ideas.*

I commented that your remark about people only seeing certain aspects of a situation was ironic, given that you had dismissed the invitation on the grounds that it is easy to find all sorts of fringe groups online. Thus restricting your own parameters to those certain aspects that back up your point of view. If you can’t see the irony in that, others certainly can.

There is no bias there, and nothing at all about Owen bloody Jones, who I quite like, as it goes.

Doodledog, an excellent post. Rosie51 experience tells me you are only likely to receive more obfuscation in response to your question about rights.

Probably Mollygo but it really is a straightforward answer to a straightforward question that's required. Choose which one gets to go to the women only swim session.