Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

As we all know, the law is not always adhered to, and it doesn't matter whose fault it is, that is the situation.
If this is the general view about the law then I take it we don't blame men because the law on rape isn't applied properly ?

Blaming all transpeople because a few transgress isn't at all logical. By those standards footballers should be regarded as dangerous (because some have been convicted of assault) only policewomen should be allowed to arrest women (because a policeman killed a woman) and no man should be allowed anywhere near children (because some are paedophiles). Ridiculous???? Of course it is!

The question I asked was absolutely stupid of course it was, I just hoped it might encourage some of these gender critical feminists to explain to me quite how they envisage things working, without introducing policies and ideas which rely heavily on gender stereotypes, and which will impact on women who don't fit gender stereotypes. Surely if you are really .feminist you have considered the question

Well I was certainly sworn at early on (not by you Chewbacca).

Some on here are still insisting on policing languge.
What I and others are doing is trying to retain the language

That is just tautology Doodledog. They mean exactly the same thing. Which is my point. You want to deny others the right to call themselves what they want. Policing language.

As far as I can see, the rudeness is pretty one-sided. Accusing people of DEMANDING replies to their questions, but then doing exactly the same is rude.

Asking a question, dismissing the answer but not giving an opinion as to what is the 'right answer' is rude.

Making assertions about science, then refusing to back them up with a 'go and Google it' is rude.

Asking the same questions (eg about whether someone should have to check genitals before deciding on their sex) over and over, then complaining when the answer is given over and over is rude.

Commenting on a post by saying that you haven't bothered to read it is very rude.

Telling people to 'go to other threads' is rude.

Calling people bigots is rude and offensive (and probably, as the culprit is very fond of citing GN rules 'against the spirit of Gransnet').

Accusing people of 'policing' the language whilst simultaneously redefining words that have been in the language for centuries and refusing to provide new ones is gaslighting, as well as being rude.

Making sweeping, unsubstantiated and offensive generalisations about groups of people is rude, narrow-minded and bigoted. (OED definition of 'bigoted' adjective:
adjective: bigoted
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.)

Etc. (those examples are just from the past couple of pages)

When you say 'bringing people's personal lives into it', do you mean things like questioning 'how much involvement [people have] had with the gay community', when it is clear that there is a very limited understanding of the way in which TRAs are anti-gay? That's about the only example of that that I can think of, but do point us in the direction of another if you can (or is that a DEMAND because it came from me?).

Swear words?

As for respect - I have far more respect for people who can debate rationally and without resorting to childish retorts such as 'because I say so', and 'Who made you God?', who back up their assertions when asked for clarification, and who respond to other participants in the debate. I don't mind whether they agree or disagree, but I have no respect for people who do none of the above, but get angry and abusive when they can't (or won't) answer a question.

Oh, and happy-clappy nonsense about trees in forests is just patronising and adds nothing to the debate.

GagaJo

Well I was certainly sworn at early on (not by you Chewbacca).

Some on here are still insisting on policing languge.
What I and others are doing is trying to retain the language

That is just tautology Doodledog. They mean exactly the same thing. Which is my point. You want to deny others the right to call themselves what they want. Policing language.

No, they don't mean the same thing.

Wanting to retain the word 'woman' in its established meaning allows for women (ie adult human females) to be discussed in terms of what we are, in the way we have been able to do for centuries.

Policing the language so that there is no way to have such a discussion erases women, which is what Stonewall is doing, by insisting on the T in LGB(TQ+), by removing 'mother' from maternity policy, and by blurring the meaning of the word 'woman' so far that there supporters are unable to define it. According to you, saying that 'woman' means 'adult human female' is bigoted, yet you say that I am policing the language.

As far as I'm concerned, people can call themselves what they like - but that does not mean that they are what they say they are, simply because that is what they say.

This is a very complicated thread . I don't know anyone gay or trans but it seems from the media that whoever shouts loudest wins.
I have just watched a couple of videos on Insta where very young autistic girls have had their breasts cut off!

Trisher who on GN is blaming all trans people because a few transgress?
If you read responses on any of this sort of thread, you will find that posters don’t ‘blame’ trans people for anything in general. They do accuse some transpeople, and indeed some others of trying erode women’s rights-and trying to give trans a bad name by behaving in a manner that endangers and causes fear in women (adult females).
Do I take it that you actually know that all trans endorse the actions taken by the few transgressors you mention?

If we are expected to a accept that the definition of women (ie that we are adult human females) is bigoted, and nobody will give us a replacement definition, how do we discuss women?

Any answers?

kircubbin2000

This is a very complicated thread . I don't know anyone gay or trans but it seems from the media that whoever shouts loudest wins.
I have just watched a couple of videos on Insta where very young autistic girls have had their breasts cut off!

You're right KC2000. It's because we've meandered. Which as the original poster, I could be offended about, but it's what threads do.

Don't sweat it, over the respect thing DD. I think we can safely say that both sides regard the other side as bigots. Hence not a lot of respect.

And I'm happy to debate. But I won't be dictated to.

And I'm afraid anyone that writes posts that are hundreds of words long are destined not to be read by anyone other than their clique. (Although, much as I respect trisher, I wouldn't even read one of her posts if it was hundreds of words long.)

I think that's what's described as "DARVO".

How is it ok for you to ask me a question, but when I ask one if you it is dictating?

My post was long, but it was a long thread. I don't know how you can discuss a complex issue in soundbites.

Oh, actually, yes I do. You avoid answering questions and make sweeping generalisations.

Chewbacca

I think that's what's described as "DARVO".

Yup.

Bit extreme, to use an acronym often used for criminals.

Criminals? DARVO is commonly used to describe manipulative communicators/phsycological abusers, but to return to the Venn Diagram, there would probably be criminals in both of those groups, just as there will in most others.

dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

But if you want to use that term, for someone that isn't interested enough to read multiple 500 plus word posts, which are merely argumentative, feel free.

This isn't real life DD. It is just an internet forum.

GagaJo

But if you want to use that term, for someone that isn't interested enough to read multiple 500 plus word posts, which are merely argumentative, feel free.

This isn't real life DD. It is just an internet forum.

Eh? I didn't use the term, I responded to a post that did.

And what have I said that suggests I don't know I'm posting on an internet forum? What an odd comment.

Anyway, here's a different link - as you'll have seen there are lots on google ?

metro.co.uk/2020/06/13/guide-darvo-gaslighting-response-people-give-when-called-bad-behaviour-12847680/

And here's another for those who can concentrate for more than a couple of paragraphs

My POINT is, this is supposed to be interesting. The text type would suggest brevity. If posters harangue, it isn't interesting.

Oh the irony!

FarNorth

*If we are expected to a accept that the definition of women (ie that we are adult human females) is bigoted, and nobody will give us a replacement definition, how do we discuss women?*

Any answers?

Depending on who answers the response will look different.
From those who accept science is correct and therefore the definition of women as adult human females is correct and therefore not bigoted.
For others, who don’t accept science is correct the term woman can include men, women, TW, TM, and probably unicorns and other fantasy beings.
This second group would like ‘women’ to be replaced with cervix havers or others bodily part names so that their misappropriation of the word woman will be allowed.
Women who don’t accept this misappropriation will then be stigmatised as bigoted or phobic to make the second group feel better.

Just in case I've missed it, have you provided any evidence regarding the science you referred too in your OP Gagajo?

GagaJo

My POINT is, this is supposed to be interesting. The text type would suggest brevity. If posters harangue, it isn't interesting.

Oh, so you are now deciding what is interesting, as well as how science works and how GCFs and Pro-lifers think, and the views of 'the next generation'?

Anyway, I thought this thread was just 'a starting point for discussion', yet I've been told to go to another thread, that my posts are too long, and that I make demands (which are questions when you ask them) and now that I am haranguing.

We have different styles. I prefer to answer what I am asked as fully as possible, to examine the nuances of what is being asked (or claimed, or asserted) whereas you style is to ignore questions and throw around accusations. Of course my posts will be longer.

I don't expect people to agree with me, although it seems that on this topic at least, many on here do. But I, like most posters, do everyone the courtesy of responding to their questions, and take the time to do so as thoughtfully as I am able. Different strokes and all that.

Smileless2012

Just in case I've missed it, have you provided any evidence regarding the science you referred too in your OP Gagajo?

No, you haven't missed it, Smileless. You haven't missed the definition of a woman, either.

SL2012, 'the science' I was referring to was what the gender critical always fall back on.

so how does that prove that there's science that demonstrates that human life forms are born in categories what are neither male or female?

No I didn't miss that one Doodledog. Great posts as ever from your BTW.