Endometriosis charity appoints trans woman as the new head of the organisation.

VioletSky

None of life's major social or moral issues were ever resolved with a meme

These threads do more harm than good to the cause they promote

Those social and moral issues will be resolved elsewhere in such a way that everyone can live with all their rights and dignity intact

Well, everyone who has any dignity anyway

*None of life’s major social or moral problems were solved by lying and cheating or by hurling threats, insults and violence at those who disagree with the liars and cheats.

I’d be delighted to see the issues solved as you describe, but those who lie and cheat and enact violence to get what they want haven’t much dignity to start with.

As for threads doing more harm than good? That’s a very VS statement, but what exactly does it mean?
Are you saying women (AHF in case you’re not sure what a woman is), should shut up about the harm that’s being done to them and to the innocent trans people? Should the violent liars and cheats be allowed to achieve what they want?

None of life's major social or moral issues were ever resolved with a meme

These threads do more harm than good to the cause they promote

Those social and moral issues will be resolved elsewhere in such a way that everyone can live with all their rights and dignity intact

Well, everyone who has any dignity anyway

It would be lovely, but I can't see it happening. We've been saying this for years, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

Rosie51 - wouldn’t it be wonderful if your post put a stop to the nonsense glory and Violet insist on posting,

On the crass remark of "what is in your pants" perhaps this meme is appropriate.

Doodledog

I don't know where the idea comes from that sex is about 'what is in your pants', as is so often and so crudely suggested on here. There is a lot more to it than that, or it would be possible for people to change sex, which it isn't. Sex is about hormones, gametes, genes, chromosomes, resulting in particular musculoskeletal forms, internal and external organs, brain development and more.

Thank you for saying that. It's something that irks me, too.

What is in their pants is a deliberately facile point made in an attempt to negate the complexity of the issue, and thereby invalidate it.

I usually ignore it. It's neither a sensible nor serious argument.

Thanks Callistemon21.
I’d hate to have misread her post-but that means a deviation from the OP! 😱

Mollygo

GrannySomerset

I fear you are wasting you breath, Doodledog. None so deaf as those who won’t hear. You are of course quite right, but for a small cohort of posters only their view will be considered, and repeated until we die of boredom.

Exactly GrannySomerset. Well put, and thank you Doodledog.

Do you think the guys VS is referring to when she hopes you guys will never change are males?
Or is she supporting what we are saying?

No, I think Violetsky means a figure representing Guy Fawkes, burnt on a bonfire on Guy Fawkes Night

GrannySomerset

I fear you are wasting you breath, Doodledog. None so deaf as those who won’t hear. You are of course quite right, but for a small cohort of posters only their view will be considered, and repeated until we die of boredom.

Exactly GrannySomerset. Well put, and thank you Doodledog.

Do you think the guys VS is referring to when she hopes you guys will never change are males?
Or is she supporting what we are saying?

I fear you are wasting you breath, Doodledog. None so deaf as those who won’t hear. You are of course quite right, but for a small cohort of posters only their view will be considered, and repeated until we die of boredom.

The thing is, VS, that threads morph, and people respond to posts made about them, or when others pick up on a particular point. As a result, threads can start out about one topic and end up about another. I could just as easily suggest that you start a thread about kindness or projection (I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that).

I don't know where the idea comes from that sex is about 'what is in your pants', as is so often and so crudely suggested on here. There is a lot more to it than that, or it would be possible for people to change sex, which it isn't. Sex is about hormones, gametes, genes, chromosomes, resulting in particular musculoskeletal forms, internal and external organs, brain development and more.

Gender, which is a social construct but pervasive nonetheless, tends to mean that males are socialised differently from females from birth, and when that is coupled with the physiological differences the result is so much more than 'what is in someone's pants'.

The differences between the sexes are the reason why women and men have private spaces when they are vulnerable - it is so much more likely that people of either sex (or any 'gender') will be attacked by a man than by a woman, but men are, on the whole, better able to fight of other males, so separation by sex makes sense, whereas separation by so-called 'gender'. A male bodied, heterosexual man is more of a threat to women than other women, and it doesn't matter in the slightest whether he identifies as a woman, a lesbian or a cat - if he has male hormones, was socialised as male and has a male body he is a potential threat. I hope I don't need to say that NAMALT, or that yes, there are a few (very few) dangerous women - laws are based on generalised risk, and it is from that risk that women are protected by the existence of same-sex spaces.

I hope you guys never change

Lol

As I have said to you many times I will discuss what I like within the MN guidelines. I feel very uncomfortable when people try to dictate how people speak within the guidelines. Maybe you could reflect on that. Just an idea.

Maybe people shouldn’t always make accusations that posters are anti trans (no matter what the heading is).

Just an idea.

Maybe you should have debated violence against women under a different heading...

Then these threads wouldn't appear so inflammatory against trans people in general for simply doing a job or standing up against those who wish to prevent them doing their jobs because of what is in their pants

Just an idea

Mollygo

... women can be violent too or young men are more at risk, when nobody has denied that, simply not mentioned it because it isn’t part of the male violence towards females debate.

Quite so, Mollygo. It's a deflection tactic. I've done it myself occasionally - and been picked up on it.

Agreed Dickens. I’m not reposting your whole post as it’s just above.
But even in a debate about male violence towards women we’re all too often met with non sequiturs like
women can be violent too or young men are more at risk, when nobody has denied that, simply not mentioned it because it isn’t part of the male violence towards females debate.

Doodledog

Dickens

Glorianny

I'm not going to respond to your post. I've said all I intend to say in my diatribe.

You twist things to mean something other than intended - as others have pointed out - and then make accusations based on your own interpretation. To respond, point-by-point, would just be more of the same. It's futile.

Agreed, Dickens. Don't take it to heart. The insults, twisting and gaslighting are par for the course, and you get used to it after a while. Readers can see through it, so whilst it may feel uncomfortable for a while, as you wonder if there is any truth in it, the important thing is that it is very clear what is going on to anyone reading the thread. Your post was not irrelevant, unless you think that women are irrelevant.

Thanks, Doodledog

Sometimes, being emphatic can come across as being - I don't know... hostile, "inflammatory", aggressive?

Maybe that's why some get the impression that you are saying things that, in fact, you are not.

I am emphatic, and I know that. And, I believe that the male propensity towards violence is what we are now talking about. And, I hope it goes without saying that I am not accusing all men of being violent - nor suggesting that all women are immune from the same trait.

VS has introduced the matter of personality suggesting that what is important is whether or not a person is kind, nice, or contributes something worthwhile to society. Whilst that's true - of any demographic - it hasn't been in question. As far as I have read, no-one on here is suggesting that transwomen - by nature of being transwomen - are unable to be nice or clever. Don't most of us on here give people, whoever they are, the benefit of the doubt unless they prove otherwise? I do.

But, that isn't what we are debating.

I think you and I both agree that sex is immutable and that men cannot become women.

Personally, I have no dislike of men wearing dresses or makeup - on the contrary, I think it's a great idea that both sex experiment with each other's stereotype, partly because it's fun and also to break-down the stereotype. Not all women are pretty / beautiful, not all men are handsome, and anything that makes life better for those who don't align with our youth-obsessed culture which insists on physical perfection and judges those who don't possess it, is good by me.

But that doesn't alter what we believe. Men cannot become women - and I'm only concerned with transwomen because basically transmen do not usually pose a threat, either to women or (as far as I know) to men. But they, too, cannot change their biological sex.

At the moment, we are allowed to hold that belief. But there are some TW activists who would, if they could (can?), make that impossible. They already attempt to silence anyone, like Rowling or Winston, who speak out. They do it by cancelling and no-platforming... and some attempt to do it by violent rhetoric via threats of rape and death because they are men with an inclination to use violence when challenged.

And that is what we are debating. Men's violence towards women.

Projection

Dickens

Glorianny

I'm not going to respond to your post. I've said all I intend to say in my diatribe.

You twist things to mean something other than intended - as others have pointed out - and then make accusations based on your own interpretation. To respond, point-by-point, would just be more of the same. It's futile.

Agreed, Dickens. Don't take it to heart. The insults, twisting and gaslighting are par for the course, and you get used to it after a while. Readers can see through it, so whilst it may feel uncomfortable for a while, as you wonder if there is any truth in it, the important thing is that it is very clear what is going on to anyone reading the thread. Your post was not irrelevant, unless you think that women are irrelevant.

"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Galaxy

Whether someone is a teacher or is kind or is a doctor doesn't change their sex. If I say the magic words it will have no impact on someones sex.

I don't think anyone on here has argued that transwomen cannot be kind or nice human beings, or doctors, etc. I'm sure they can be, and are, all of those things - why should they not be!

I'm not sure why this aspect has been introduced - it's not what we are debating!

Perhaps someone will study the phenomenon of using generalised slurs to try to attack people during an internet discussion.

Whether someone is a teacher or is kind or is a doctor doesn't change their sex. If I say the magic words it will have no impact on someones sex.

Glorianny

I'm not going to respond to your post. I've said all I intend to say in my diatribe.

You twist things to mean something other than intended - as others have pointed out - and then make accusations based on your own interpretation. To respond, point-by-point, would just be more of the same. It's futile.