Latest from Mridul Wadhwa

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)

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.

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.

petunia I'm such a slow typist I didn't see your post with the same question as mine, sorry.

Doodledog I thought you called out the Churchill post because it didn't do what it was supposed to be doing?

I'd like to know why when any mention of woman/women is raised by an interviewer the interviewee immediately answers with transwomen..blah blah blah.

David Lammy has been quoted with these gems:

anti-trans “dinosaurs exist in our own party” who want to “hoard rights”. why is being pro women equated to anti-trans? Does pro-trans equate to anti-women? How do you hoard rights? Most people are not anti-trans they just want some spaces to be single sex, to have the right to want a female for intimate occasions, care or medical procedures.

always a debate when you’re extending rights to people who have been denied them for so long” please can we have the answer in plain English as to which rights precisely trans people have been denied? This question has been asked before, we never ever get a straight answer because the only 'rights' denied are the right to enter dedicated single sex places, to provide intimate care when a female has been requested.

He said Labour has historically been “too slow” to understand the structural barriers preventing the selection and election of black men, and called on the party to do “considerably more”. My bold on 'men'. Now this really does reveal his male privilege, where's his concern for black women?

When they show you who they are, believe them.

I think this question is best directed at Trisher as someone who has many trans friends.

Exactly what rights do transwomen and transmen want that they don't have now?

Interesting question Peasblossom. I look forward to trisher’s response.

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.

That’s not what I said, as I’m sure that anyone who read your post and my reply will be aware.

Doodledog just because you don't like something or it annoys you doesn't actually make it fallacious, nor is it diversionary. It is however a classic example of how obsessive and dismissive of other campaign for rights this trans argument has become and how much drawing attention to other issues which have been similarly forecast as having disastrous results upsets some people. Perhaps because they recognise the truth in the matter.

I guess I’ll never be your sort of feminist trisher, for which I am truly grateful. My feminism supports women.
And as for trivialising . . . Your expertise far surpasses mine.
Transmen are female. Transwomen are male, or to put it more simply for you,
Transwomen will never be female and trans men will never be male.
This really only bothers trans who want to create a big fuss and claim that THEIR RIGHTS SUPERSEDE THE RIGHTS OF FEMALES.
Most trans appear not to want that sort of publicity, or make those demands.

trisher

Doodledog I knew that would get you!

Well, as you're doing it on purpose, it is clear that you are aware that the diversionary arguments are fallacious. It would save a lot of time if you stopped making them.

For the avoidance of doubt transwomen are transwomen and remain male sex. Transmen are transmen and remain female sex.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202109/medium-672120-danielle-muscato-danielle-muscato-24-apr-at-10-07am-if-you-53257914.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202109/medium-929062-slide-1.jpg

And there is a man disguised as a woman lurking in every toilet (only he could be a butch lesbian, or non binary) but who cares? ,
these ones are so well disguised aren't they? Don't you constantly tell us transwomen have been using our toilets and changing rooms for ever? Not too many that looked like this, or displayed their penises like the WiSpa transwoman.

trisher What part of not being forced to be part of a same sex marriage before you get divorced do you not understand? Trans people should be campaigning for quicker easier divorce in the case of one partner wanting to transition to the other sex (an impossible act, but achieved by a legal fiction), so that nobody has to be a party to something they didn't consent to in the first place. I thought you were very in favour of consent in relationships, against forced behaviour? Despite the hype that says there have always been this many people wishing to transition, and girls now vastly outnumber boys, there has been no surge in the numbers of middle age women wanting to transition to match the numbers of men doing it. That's why I referenced women, but of course the same goes for a man whose wife decides to get a GRC to be 'reborn' as a male.
Some of us are hung up on science and fact, not fiction. As for your trans prison suggestion, trans facilities or third spaces would solve a great deal of the problems, but transwomen in particular seem to be against them. There's no validation if you go to a third space is there? MW boasts of passing, being validated.

Doodledog I knew that would get you!

Mollygo Now having failed to gaslight me you appear to be trivalising my comments. Honestly none of this is feminist you know.
Perhaps you should try moving away from the personal. But I realise that means you have to actually develop a coherent argument. Which is difficult when you believe that transwomen are men and transmen are women (but not the sort of women we listen to). That sex is a physical characteristic but we musn't discuss body parts. And there is a man disguised as a woman lurking in every toilet (only he could be a butch lesbian, or non binary) but who cares?

I could have pointed out that Votes for Women was opposed by one Winston Churchill who considered it the thin end of the wedge which would introduce all sorts of social change.

I wondered when the suffragettes would get a mention ?

Bringing in diversions such as this is tiresome, and in any case, the example doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny. You could, had you wanted to, have used it as an example of how men have always objected to women's rights being broadened (and yes, we know that a tiny minority of men were in favour of female suffrage), or as an example of how upper and middle-class rights were put ahead of those of working people, or of how Churchill was less of a hero than many seem to think.

It doesn't prove any of these things conclusively, any more than it proves anything about trans issues.

Trisher, you are so funny. Except when you continue to make the point that harm to a few women by trans doesn’t matter, or is what usually happens. Incidentally, why not use “some trans” instead of your usual sweeping generalisation?)
I don’t think and have never posted that I think all trans are dangerous. As for being hung up on body parts . . . I wonder which poster I think if in connection with that statement.

Mollygo I simply don't believe any harm is the direct result of anything to do with transpeople. Are there assaults in prisons? Well yes there are and there will continue to be. Are the number of assaults by people claiming to be trans few in number -yes they are and they are easily solved by a trans prison. As for the stuff about changing rooms and toilets, most of it is hype. No one is taking away any of my rights by giving transpeople rights.
Harm to anyone is wrong but it isn't the fault of transpeople if a man harms a woman. Anymore than it is the fault of men if one of them is a paedophile.
As for the divorce problem Rosie51 it continues to be ridiculous. Jan Morris and her wife had to divorce when she transitioned because women could not be married, when the law was changed they remarried. Why you should be able to block a GRC if you re divorcing someone I don't know, or why that should impact on you getting a divorce, but presumbly it is the same for man whose wife becomes a transman. So not really against women.
The point about the cervix is I don't know who has one and who hasn't and transmen may have one just as a woman may not. But some of you are so hung up on physical features and sex definition you seem to forget that actually people just live their lives and those things don't impact on them.

Sorry, I forgot to address it to trisher, though it’s probably evident.

I understand, having read your posts, that you feel harm to a small number of women is a small price to pay for allowing transwomen’s rights to override those of women.
I find it fascinating to see how many ways you have found to make this evident, but I can’t understand how a female could actually support this. Hmmm.
Using gay rights to try and ‘prove’ your point demonstrates your lack of understanding of the difference.

Excellent points petunia. I feel for the wives who at present can block a partner's GRC giving them time to obtain a divorce from the heterosexual marriage they entered into. Stonewall and the like want this right removed so the woman is made to exit what will have become a homosexual marriage as her partner will now legally be a woman. It's the transwoman who must be placed first every single time. Almost like they're retaining their male privilege!

trisher

A friend diagnosed with cervical cancer at a very young age hasn't got one any more. Has she ceased to be a woman? Of course not. These politicians aren't the only people who are confused.

I'm surprised the people born with DSDs aren't being dragged out again as if that's some sort of gotcha. The fact that a very tiny number of people with a DSD can be difficult to easily correctly sex does not prove anything. We are a dimorphic species just like every other mammal species. You cannot change sex, it's immutable.
These politicians aren't confused, they're either lying because they do understand biology, or they're ignorant of biology and need to educate themselves. Only the female sex ever has a cervix. Some will have it removed for medical reasons, a vanishingly small number of females will be born without a cervix. They still remain females, women. I wonder if these male politicians who you think are confused know whether or not they have a cervix, and if they do, how do they know? What clues did they use?

.
“I think we just need to stop panicking and let things be. Trans people aren't going to cause the harm some people imagine”.

But some transwomen and the activists have caused harm, and continue to do so. Not all, but some.

Ask the women assaulted in prisons what they think. Or the rape victims subjected to re framing their bigotry. Or the women who lost out to men in competitive sport. Or the women who have been denied single sex spaces once transwomen were admitted. Ask the women expecting a female health professional but are then faced with a transwoman. Ask the women who married a man, had children and a family life but now are expected to relate to their husband as a woman. Ask the women who protest in public what its like to be subjected to hate mail and harassment. Ask Rosie Duffield why she isn't going to her party's conference this week.

And worse, ask the children who have been swept along on the fantasy of changing sex and subsequently had life changing surgeries, castrations and life long medication. Ask the ones who gradually realised they had made a mistake that could not be rectified.

So maybe you are right Trisher, we should let it be. It cant get much worse. Can it?