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

We are truly in La La Land.
😥

And just in case you were thinking of challenging a male in the female toilets . . .
Here is a #trans-identifying #FloridaMan named #PatrickHagan, who sucker-punched a woman in the face after she objected to his intrusion into a ladies’ room that she was using.

Hagan, a 6’3, 280 lb man with a black belt in tae kwon do, claimed that being questioned by a woman who was 10 inches shorter and 110 pounds lighter, with no martial arts training and no weapon of any sort, made him feel so threatened that he was compelled to punch the 40 year old #CherylPartsch in the mouth hard enough to knock out 5 of her teeth.

This vicious attack, committed by a larger, stronger, highly-trained assailant, caused damage that will cost approximately $60,000 in dental bills and a great deal of pain to repair. It should send a chill down the spine of every woman who opposes the existence of spaces where we can attend to our bodily needs in safety and privacy.

For his violent, unprovoked, and disfiguring attack on the smaller and much weaker Ms. Partsch, Mr. Hagan received only 30 months behind bars - far less time than it takes most Americans to earn the extra $60k it will take to fix the damage he caused to her mouth.

During his time in prison, he will not only be able to access “gender affirming care,” including hormone therapy, at the taxpayer’s expense; he will also be entitled to consideration for placement in a women’s prison, should the committee responsible for making that decision believe that he will be at risk in an institution for men.

No consideration whatsoever will be given to the safety or comfort of the #women who will likely be confined with Mr. Hagan, the overwhelming majority of whom will be survivors of male violence.

I wonder how many of them he will abuse or assault over the course of 30 months?

Doodledog

Exactly what I've been saying, Cal. It is a stunt, is all, to get people debating trans issues yet again, and giving a platform to those who want t bang the drum. And it's worked, hasn't it?

And donations have gone up, allegedly 🙂

Yes, it is a publicity stunt.

Galaxy

To be fair I am not sure it is gloriannys responsibility, or any womens really, to sort this mess out. We should never have pretended that it's ok for some men to be in womens spaces.

It isn't. But Glorianny is the one shouting us down, and she's not being asked to sort it out - just to justify the statements she makes in support of the state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

You are right that we should have nipped it in the bud, but it happened by stealth, and was allowed to happen because I really think that very few people are actually transphobic. Most people IMO, (and everyone I know) is supportive of transpeople, just not of the way the law has gone, which uses trans rights to put women at risk. We have tried to say this on here for years, but everything we say is resisted, twisted and patronised, and out actual support for transpeople is disbelieved.

I agree that Glorianny is not responsible for the law (although nothing she has ever said suggests that she would alter it) but she is responsible for the tone and content of her posts.

I am not convinced that the idea that women refusing to use a service means that transwomen are banned is correct - I though that this was discussed a while ago and shown not to be the case, but I could be wrong, which is why I asked for a link.

nail on head galaxy

To be fair I am not sure it is gloriannys responsibility, or any womens really, to sort this mess out. We should never have pretended that it's ok for some men to be in womens spaces.

Glorianny

Mollygo the law is quite clear. Where women would not use a space or service because transwomen were present, transwomen even those with a gender recognition certificate can be banned. I support that law.
As for rights I believe in human rights for everyone, including children.

No you put the burden on females to get the men removed or to refuse themselves access, instead of putting the burden on males not to lie. Ergo you condone the lying males who attempt to use those spaces.
I believe in human rights, but your statement means nothing if you support liars against those who tell the truth.

Who enforces that law, Glorianny? To whom would I report a situation in which I would not use a space or service, who would ban the transwomen, and how would they be informed? Would it happen 'on the door', or in advance? If the former, who ensures that women are not threatened by aggressive e TRAs? How do aggressive TRAs manage to intimidate women if this law has teeth? How widely known is this law? I have only heard of its existence from you - in no other area of my life has it been mentioned - any chance of a link to it, please?

Mollygo the law is quite clear. Where women would not use a space or service because transwomen were present, transwomen even those with a gender recognition certificate can be banned. I support that law.
As for rights I believe in human rights for everyone, including children.

Wouldn't you then agree that transwomen using women's spaces are just as much at danger of assault as natal women?
Those TW who are in female spaces making it quite obvious that they are male (you remember that you assure us (quite inaccurately) that we can’t tell, may well be as much danger to the unidentifiable TW that you talk about.
If that’s true, then why aren’t you campaigning for safe spaces for females, which might well include those liars who could pass Unidentified?
Why do you insist on supporting all TW, even those who are ill-intentioned, instead of supporting female rights?

Exactly what I've been saying, Cal. It is a stunt, is all, to get people debating trans issues yet again, and giving a platform to those who want t bang the drum. And it's worked, hasn't it?

The charity's founder and chair, Jodie Hughes said: “It will still be me fronting the charity. I will be the face of the charity; Steph is here to do the running of the day-to-day"

So the title Chief Executive Officer is just a posh name for someone who is going to be a voluntary Administrative Assistant for a tiny charity.

The job was apparently "offered over a cup of tea" so not a formal interview with other candidates who might be equally or better qualified.

Glorianny

Doodledog

What is this 'wealth of experience'?

And remember that this isn't a 'job' - it is a volunteer position, which was not advertised - Steph was approached by the founder and asked to do it. It has been built up to sound like the post is equivalent to the CEO of Oxfam (although that postholder is 'captured' too), but it really isn't. It is a small local charily with a tiny turnover and very few staff/members.

I know that.
Steph established the charity Translucent. I did post a link to it earlier and has won awards for it.

Yes, a trans charity. So what experience of working for women's issues, or go a health issue, or of a women's health issue does Steph have? My point is that this is a PR stunt for the trans cause, not a genuine appointment. Why does such a tiny organisation need a CEO?

Whether or not Steph is capable of the role is not the point - that is what we are supposed to be talking about, rather than the plight of endometriosis sufferers in the SE coastal area of England, which is the focus of the charity. It has succeeded in doing that - I am happy to admit that Steph has done a lot to promote trans issues on the back of the role.

Ah the I don’t mind . . .
if you ever read posts properly, you know I believe it is only those T W and their fans and supporters who have no respect for females who demand access female spaces, who want to cheat at sports by entering female competitions.
Oh, the “ I won’t answer questions, but I don’t want to answer
And I’ll ask you again Glorianny, even though I know you won’t answer, do you condone all male liars or only TW?

Glorianny

^You are quite entitled to dislike what she says. You are not permitted to police her language- it's called free speech.^

Criticising is not 'policing'. If it is - then she is policing the language of 'TERFS', because she condemns their stance.
Criticising says I don't like those words.
Policing says I don't like those words and I don't want anyone to be able to use them.

Oh, please!

The transgender community activists attempt to no platform and censor the gender-critical from speaking in universities and other podiums and locations.

... because they don't like the argument or the words and don't want anyone to be able to use either

Look, let's get one thing clear. I don't like Steph Richards using words like TERF, or her boasting about "strutting her stuff" etc, etc, but I defend her right to use them whilst arguing against them because free-speech means allowing words, views and opinions I might not agree with.

I am not a 'no-platformer', I wouldn't agree with her not being allowed to have her say by banning her from a public podium.

... but that is what a number of TG activists are actually doing.

Who are those who are crying and shouting "no debate"?

It's not us.

They are having their say - and saying it loudly and aggressively, and sometimes threateningly.

None of us - Doodledog, Mollygo, Rosie, etc are doing that.

As I said, criticising is not policing. You have introduced that word in an attempt to invalidate my / our argument.

You are quite entitled to dislike what she says. You are not permitted to police her language- it's called free speech.

Criticising is not 'policing'. If it is - then she is policing the language of 'TERFS', because she condemns their stance.
Criticising says I don't like those words.
Policing says I don't like those words and I don't want anyone to be able to use them.

Doodledog

What is this 'wealth of experience'?

And remember that this isn't a 'job' - it is a volunteer position, which was not advertised - Steph was approached by the founder and asked to do it. It has been built up to sound like the post is equivalent to the CEO of Oxfam (although that postholder is 'captured' too), but it really isn't. It is a small local charily with a tiny turnover and very few staff/members.

I know that.
Steph established the charity Translucent. I did post a link to it earlier and has won awards for it.

Glorianny

Dickens

Glorianny

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.
Wouldn't you then agree that transwomen using women's spaces are just as much at danger of assault as natal women? And that the constant linking of transwomen to predatory males actually damages transwomen. So they are more at risk than natal women.
And that constantly insisting this is a major problem stirs up hatred for transpeople.

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.

That's your interpretation.

The problem we have is with a transwoman who has made it quite clear that those women who do not agree with her that men, women and children are social constructs are TERFS - a label she knows is offensive and uses it deliberately. That's the background to her becoming the head of a charity set up to deal with endometriosis which is a condition that affects, mostly, women. Many of whom will not agree with her socially constructed view of sex.

Also, her insistence (and the terminology used to enforce it) on entering female changing rooms and other spaces, is a stance which many women will probably find provocative.

So, no - we don't have an intrinsic problem with transwomen - but we do have a problem with Steph Richards.

But I thought that beliefs didn't matter. That people could believe in God or not, you didn't have to agree with them. So what you are now saying is that unless someone's beliefs match yours they shouldn't be permitted to do a job, even though they bring a wealth of experience to that position. What about the women who believe transwomen are women don't they have a say? What about transmen (who some think are women) don't they have a say? What about non-binary people don't they have a say?
You are quite entitled to dislike what she says. You are not permitted to police her language- it's called free speech.
I thought the gender critical believed in that.

So what you are now saying is that unless someone's beliefs match yours they shouldn't be permitted to do a job, even though they bring a wealth of experience to that position.

Er, No.

That is not what I am saying - it's what you think I am saying.

SR is entitled to hold any belief she likes, and I am free to criticise it. And that's what I've done

I've not called for her to be banned from the position, which is what 'policing' means.

You are quite entitled to dislike what she says. You are not permitted to police her language- it's called free speech.

Criticising is not 'policing'. If it is - then she is policing the language of 'TERFS', because she condemns their stance.

What is this 'wealth of experience'?

And remember that this isn't a 'job' - it is a volunteer position, which was not advertised - Steph was approached by the founder and asked to do it. It has been built up to sound like the post is equivalent to the CEO of Oxfam (although that postholder is 'captured' too), but it really isn't. It is a small local charily with a tiny turnover and very few staff/members.

Dickens

Glorianny

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.
Wouldn't you then agree that transwomen using women's spaces are just as much at danger of assault as natal women? And that the constant linking of transwomen to predatory males actually damages transwomen. So they are more at risk than natal women.
And that constantly insisting this is a major problem stirs up hatred for transpeople.

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.

That's your interpretation.

The problem we have is with a transwoman who has made it quite clear that those women who do not agree with her that men, women and children are social constructs are TERFS - a label she knows is offensive and uses it deliberately. That's the background to her becoming the head of a charity set up to deal with endometriosis which is a condition that affects, mostly, women. Many of whom will not agree with her socially constructed view of sex.

Also, her insistence (and the terminology used to enforce it) on entering female changing rooms and other spaces, is a stance which many women will probably find provocative.

So, no - we don't have an intrinsic problem with transwomen - but we do have a problem with Steph Richards.

But I thought that beliefs didn't matter. That people could believe in God or not, you didn't have to agree with them. So what you are now saying is that unless someone's beliefs match yours they shouldn't be permitted to do a job, even though they bring a wealth of experience to that position. What about the women who believe transwomen are women don't they have a say? What about transmen (who some think are women) don't they have a say? What about non-binary people don't they have a say?
You are quite entitled to dislike what she says. You are not permitted to police her language- it's called free speech.
I thought the gender critical believed in that.

Also, speaking for myself, I don't 'mind transwomen'. I am not a transphobe, despite what you may say. 'The ones I don't like', in fact the ones I object to strongly, are the ones who bend the language, impose themselves into women's spaces, render research irrelevant, cheat at sport and reduce women to 'menstruators' and 'birth givers'.

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.

Ah, the ‘my attempt to silence them by a spurious claim that they were ‘trying’ to make arguments was quashed, so I will attempt to do it with sarcasm and a superior attitude’ defence.

Glorianny

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.
Wouldn't you then agree that transwomen using women's spaces are just as much at danger of assault as natal women? And that the constant linking of transwomen to predatory males actually damages transwomen. So they are more at risk than natal women.
And that constantly insisting this is a major problem stirs up hatred for transpeople.

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.

That's your interpretation.

The problem we have is with a transwoman who has made it quite clear that those women who do not agree with her that men, women and children are social constructs are TERFS - a label she knows is offensive and uses it deliberately. That's the background to her becoming the head of a charity set up to deal with endometriosis which is a condition that affects, mostly, women. Many of whom will not agree with her socially constructed view of sex.

Also, her insistence (and the terminology used to enforce it) on entering female changing rooms and other spaces, is a stance which many women will probably find provocative.

So, no - we don't have an intrinsic problem with transwomen - but we do have a problem with Steph Richards.

Ah the I don't mind transwomen really just the ones I don't like argument now.
Wouldn't you then agree that transwomen using women's spaces are just as much at danger of assault as natal women? And that the constant linking of transwomen to predatory males actually damages transwomen. So they are more at risk than natal women.
And that constantly insisting this is a major problem stirs up hatred for transpeople.

Total aside, but interesting.
Olympic diving champion Tom Daley says he is "furious" at his sport's world governing body for voting to stop transgender athletes from competing in women's elite events.

Yes, you read it. A male thinks it’s unfair to stop males competing in female events.