Deliberate and orchestrated silencing of trans rights supporters on GN

I would quote the above post, and add to it, but
I have been warned of the consequences!

GagaJo

VioletSky

Mollygo

Can you explain what "I was warned" meant please

I have a good idea by what others have told me but I would like to know your answer

I think there is a good amount of 'backroom' discussion going on VS.

I wouldn't let it worry you.

Well, clearly, if 'others have told' VS.

I have no idea who knows what, if that helps anyone ?.

Life isn’t all about any one poster on GN. Why would you think it has anything to do with you VS?

VioletSky

Mollygo

Can you explain what "I was warned" meant please

I have a good idea by what others have told me but I would like to know your answer

I think there is a good amount of 'backroom' discussion going on VS.

I wouldn't let it worry you.

trisher can I please ask once again (it's getting tiring now!) that you don't quote me when you're answering someone else's post, or attribute a quote to me that someone else made? Not because I necessarily disagree with the points made, but out of basic respect for this individual. Your post at 12.36. Perhaps you could ask GN to remove the quote from your post?

And now back to read the replies after you've quoted me out of context!

trisher

Doodledog

More asthma sufferers would struggle with hills than men are likely to be pregnant ?.

A pregnant transmit knows that they are pregnant because of their female body, just as an asthmatic is aware of the triggers of their asthma. That is the parallel.

As I am sure you know.

Some women give birth without ever knowing they are pregnant. Are transmen different?
It isn't about someone knowing they are pregnant anyway. It's about warning of the dangers of a procedure.

How many people 'transition' to male, having had heterosexual sex as a woman within a timeframe that means that they conceived a baby but don't yet know they are pregnant, and then need to undergo a procedure that could harm that baby in circumstances in which their medical records are not available to hospital staff attending them? Enough to warrant a change to policy, in your view? My guess is that in most years the number would be exactly none, but ok, we can allow for the element of doubt.

But the fact that a nebulous 'most' (but non-countable) number of transwomen are 'not a danger' (whatever that means) to vulnerable women in prison, hospitals, refuges or changing rooms means that policies should include them as though there is no difference between people with penises and those without, and any element of doubt in this case has to be ignored, as it would be discriminatory if it were to be taken into consideration?

And these things are, in your view, happening in the name of Intersectional Feminism?

Mollygo

Can you explain what "I was warned" meant please

I have a good idea by what others have told me but I would like to know your answer

Women who have identified as women are once again permitted to compete

What does this mean when we can’t even define what a woman is?

On the NHS pregnancy question topic, I wonder what would happen if natal men started answering yes, they did indeed think they were pregnant.

No. trisher, no more than the posts on here trying to silence females is a question of wanting your prejudices validated, although actually, you seem to be wanting that.
It was a simple question , about a terrifying experience and I find it hard to believe any female would not agree that it was wrong.
But I was warned.

Mollygo

But my question was about your equality. Does your equality mean that the trans woman was blatantly demonstrating that he was male even when asked to cover up terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to stay there because he said he was a woman?

We all believe
No one should be harmed by anyone else. All violence is wrong. Causing harm to others is wrong.
Although you will undoubtedly come back with a request for me to elucidate what I understand by harm.

If you truly believe that why is it so hard to answer yes or no to my questions with a yes or no answer?

Why do you feel the need to have a "yes" or "no" answer Mollygo? Is it a question of wanting your prejudices validated? Sorry you've had your answer.
Demanding more just shows how right the OP is, animosity, personal attacks. These are the preferred methods used against trans rights supporters.

Doodledog

More asthma sufferers would struggle with hills than men are likely to be pregnant ?.

A pregnant transmit knows that they are pregnant because of their female body, just as an asthmatic is aware of the triggers of their asthma. That is the parallel.

As I am sure you know.

Some women give birth without ever knowing they are pregnant. Are transmen different?
It isn't about someone knowing they are pregnant anyway. It's about warning of the dangers of a procedure.

But my question was about your equality. Does your equality mean that the trans woman was blatantly demonstrating that he was male even when asked to cover up terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to stay there because he said he was a woman?

We all believe
No one should be harmed by anyone else. All violence is wrong. Causing harm to others is wrong.
Although you will undoubtedly come back with a request for me to elucidate what I understand by harm.

If you truly believe that why is it so hard to answer yes or no to my questions with a yes or no answer?

GNHQ has removed a quote

1. Does your equality mean transwomen should be allowed to complete against females in competitions where the fact that they are male has a benefit?

My equality means that women's sport gets a complete overhaul and those men who have spent decades subjecting women to degrading and intrusive examinations are told to step away and not permitted to ever again deal with women (ditto the women who took part in any of those examinations) . Women who have identified as women are once again permitted to compete without having to medicate themselves to fit preconceptions which have no medical basis. Meantime a time limit is set for transwomen so that they cannot simply transfer from men's sport to womens but have a period of qualification. At the same time a thorough investigation is launched and an equality standard set. Because as anyone who knows anything about sport willl tell you there are differences which give advantages to some people which are nothing to do with sex but are based on ethnic origins, early life experiences, and many other factors. Someone once said if you wanted true equality in sport you would have to raise all the sports people in one place, under exactly the same conditions, and you still couldn't guarantee it. Once the equality standards are set levels of competition can be decided and transwomen and all competitors allowed to compete on a near as possible equal basis.

2. Does your equality mean that the TW who, (whilst blatantly demonstrating that he was male, even when asked to cover up,) terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to remain there because he said he was a woman?

3. Does your equality mean that because there are only a small number of trans who are cheats or mean harm to females it’s more important that trans rights are recognised than it is to protect females from such events?

No one should be harmed by anyone else. All violence is wrong. Causing harm to others is wrong
This is in bold because I am so tired of saying it..

Sorry - just read my last post back, and 'transmit' should have been 'transman'.

What it all boils down to is that women are not born with a penis & testicles.

trisher
Human rights is all about supporting and recognising minorities and providing them with the means to be treated equally. It's the basis of a civilised society.
So please do explain your equality, because I really don’t get it. You only need give a one word answer to each question if you’re short of time, or even ignore them, so I can understand your answers as Yes but I’m not silencing you.

1. Does your equality mean transwomen should be allowed to complete against females in competitions where the fact that they are male has a benefit?
2. Does your equality mean that the TW who, (whilst blatantly demonstrating that he was male, even when asked to cover up,) terrorised already traumatised women on a hospital ward, should have been allowed to remain there because he said he was a woman?

3. Does your equality mean that because there are only a small number of trans who are cheats or mean harm to females it’s more important that trans rights are recognised than it is to protect females from such events?

The discussion was about if warnings or forms should aim questions about pregnancy purely to someone who is a natal woman. I think you'll find transmen are natal women, and if their medical records have the correct sex marker on them then they will be asked if there is a possibility they're pregnant.Except in an absolute emergency no medical treatments are given without the patient's medical record in front of them. Everything is computerised, they can see in an instant what sex the patient is registered as, which is why they should always be accurate with a note attached if the patient prefers to ID as the opposite sex.

More asthma sufferers would struggle with hills than men are likely to be pregnant ?.

A pregnant transmit knows that they are pregnant because of their female body, just as an asthmatic is aware of the triggers of their asthma. That is the parallel.

As I am sure you know.

If you check my OP, I predicted that I would step away from the thread, because we've all said everything we have to say repeatedly. There is nothing new being said. I do pop back now and again, in case there is something new, because it is a topic I'm interested in. But I'm not doing the same thing on repeat.
Hello again. Glad to see you haven’t been silenced or chestrated. You’re quite right about there being nothing new.
There can’t be whilst people refuse to use the word female.

Doodledog

No, I don't think we should get rid of signed events. Why would you think I would?

I forgot that you struggle with analogies - maybe I should have taken that into account when assuming that you would be able to understand that the asthma reference was simply that.

Why do you think that a pregnant person would think that radiation wouldn't affect their baby because they 'present' as male? Please answer that instead of picking invisible holes in everything I say?

The discussion was about if warnings or forms should aim questions about pregnancy purely to someone who is a natal woman. It isn't a question of what anyone thinks. It is a question of what information needs to be given or gathered before a procedure and in the case of dealing with any radiation the question "Are or could you be pregnant?" should be asked however the person presents.

I seem to remember in the past being accused of being too fond of analogies, apparently now I struggle with them. Only if they are inappropriate. As I said not every asthma sufferer would need to use an inhaler before climbing any hill. Whereas any wheelchair user needs step free access and any foetus can be damaged by radiation, no matter what minority the parent might belong to.

No, I don't think we should get rid of signed events. Why would you think I would?

I forgot that you struggle with analogies - maybe I should have taken that into account when assuming that you would be able to understand that the asthma reference was simply that.

Why do you think that a pregnant person would think that radiation wouldn't affect their baby because they 'present' as male? Please answer that instead of picking invisible holes in everything I say?

Doodledog

trisher

Well I never expected to see such a clear demonstration of discrimination
I do, however, think that they should take a certain amount of responsibility for realising that they are a minority group, and as such might have to think for themselves when it comes to things like childbirth or gynaecology
So once one minority group have been left to fend for themselves who comes next?
Human rights is all about supporting and recognising minorities and providing them with the means to be treated equally. It's the basis of a civilised society.

Well, if crediting people with the sense to take responsibility for realising that they need to think for themselves counts as discrimination to you, there's not a lot I can say, is there?

We all do it. As one example amongst many, I am asthmatic, but I don't expect to see signs at the bottom of every steep hill reminding me to take my inhaler - I take responsibility. Should I be starting threads to complain that I am being discriminated against?

OK Doodledog Which group comes next?
Shall we choose the deaf? I've been to quite a few signed events lately. Should we get rid of them?
Or what about mobility? Who needs wheelchair access? Not that many people.
Or those bumpy pavements and the noise at pedestrian crossings- only there for the partially sighted -they must be. a minority.

As for your asthma analogy. Asthma and the drugs taken is a very personal experience. Some asthma sufferers may need medication to climb a hill others won't. You are posting to someone with 3 generations experiences of asthma- all different.

We know radiation damages foetuses. We know anyone pregnant needs to avoid them. How that person presents shouldn't be a barrier to that.

But how can we (you or I) compromise? You believe TWAW, and I don't. Neither of us will change her view.

We can tolerate one another's difference in perspective, but compromise would involve changing a basic belief.

I don't think that compromise is always a good thing anyway. I don't compromise with racists, for instance - where would I start?

Ah well, that is where the mutual respect breaks down, isn't it? No room for compromise.

Unfortunately, the world moves on and society changes, so even if some feel compromise isn't possible, change happens.

But again, I understand our perspectives just differ in this area.

GagaJo

Just putting it out there DD. I believe it, and a few others agree.

No, I don't think there'll be a consensus. Is there ever in life, about anything?

No, there's not, and in some things (including this one) there is no real room for compromise - tolerance yes, but compromise isn't really possible.