the law as it stands on sex

Transwomen are women Mollygo I have always said that. They are not men Transmen are men they are not women. The two words woman and man are gender terms which are designated and seperated in society by the way people present.
They are different to sex which is male and female.
How do I know in every day life who is a woman? Well like everyone else I go on appearances and what the person says. does anyone do something different? In every day life that is how it has always worked. But I may also now encounter non-binary people and gender neutral people and I will respect their differences and use the pronoun they wish me to.

Of course if someone is a transwoman she is going to be fighting for the same things for women as I am. Why wouldn't she? The gender pay gap will be the same for her, the inequalities in society will be the same for her.
In any case why is it only women who have to be responsible for women having rights and being equal? Equality for women benefits everyone and some people know this.
If someone uses the term women to mean only females that is their responsibility, but I would point out that there are already transwomen in society who are accepted as women, so perhaps they need to adjust their language and use a term which indicates they don't accept those people in their definition otherwise how will anyone know.
Transwomen are women, they have been women for centuries.

FarNorth > trisher
So when you say things about women's rights, what women should do etc, you are including some men in that while claiming that you are agreeing with those who do mean female people only
Unbelievable isn’t it.
I was reading about gaslighting this morning. Can you self gaslight, ie keep saying one thing whilst convincing yourself that you’re“being kind”. I have only noticed a few posters using the ‘be kind’ mantra this way.
I’ve been researching transactivists-not just the rabble who are anti-female, but those who are concerned about trans without denying the rights of other groups including females.
I’ve also, as I posted earlier been investigating “intersectional feminism” and that has much the same message. Whereas trans feminism-where male or females (not necessarily trans themselves) see supporting trans as an opportunity to deny female rights or at least place female existing right below those of trans rights.
Ring any bells?

trisher you constantly refer that all the U.K.’s problems are due to the patriarchy but you are more than willing for the patriarchy to put on a dress and self ID as a women and infiltrate every day female life, sports and their hard fought for rights?

I would love to know how the idea that laws should be for the benefit of those who organise best and demand loudest sits with a professed desire to protect the vulnerable? I can’t reconcile what seem to me to be opposing views. Can you help, trisher?

Jamie Wallis MP has stated he has mental problems and is a survivor of sexual violence.
He may need help but should never be included in a refuge or a counseling group for women.
Even if you don't care about actual women, trisher, it's clear that his experiences and needs will be very different from those of women.
So, for his benefit if not women's, he should not use women's services and neither should other trans-identified male people.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-60925885

I haven't been following this thread and just spotted this from trisher -
"I use the term woman when I am referring to gender and female when I am talking about sex. Most circumstances in life rely on gender identity and not sex."

So when you say things about women's rights, what women should do etc, you are including some men in that while claiming that you are agreeing with those who do mean female people only.

It's very depressing that a self-professed feminist thinks the term 'woman' means 'a male person who can resemble a woman or a female person'.

Of course that leads to the idea that male people who can't/don't want to resemble a woman shouldn't be excluded so, in the end, there is no privacy or safety for women in 'single-sex' places.

I could report your post and ask for it to be deleted Mollygo as none of the things you have said are true, but I choose to leave it. It's an absolute example of how one woman can turn on another and lie about her.
Your constant threats to report posts with opposing points of view are, indeed examples of how one woman can turn on another. You are pretty hung up on laws, rules and appeals to authority, for someone who exhorts others to mobilise and demand their rights, and who claims to miss the days when women broke the rules and refused to be cowed. Double standards or what?

You could indeed trisher.
What have I said that’s a lie? Do you indeed not think or act on any of those things I mentioned without twisting the vocabulary from female to women?
You said,
For the record I have always stated that women have the right to single sex spaces and meetings and that transwomen can be denied those spaces
once again avoiding using female.

Once again saying TW “can be denied” rather than “are denied”.
The difference is that “can be denied” once again puts the onus on females to worry about whether they may be faced with an obvious man in their safe spaces.

I don't think the rights of women should ever be considered as either earned or won

You’ve certainly made that quite obvious.

Doodledog I can't add anything to your post except the absolute certainty that trisher will somehow manage to mangle a response. If I ever (not holding my breath) see a response that isn't a mealy-mouthed excuse for inaction then I'll probably faint away with the surprise......... Shame the same doesn't apply to transwomen. Go away, organise your own refuges etc just the same as women had to...... and stop trying to infiltrate those spaces women spent blood sweat and tears establishing that you now want to take over. Whatever (eighth?) rule of misogyny... men are what they say they are and women are what men say they are.... Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose... doesn't it look more glamorous in a foreign language?

For the record I have always stated that women have the right to single sex spaces and meetings and that transwomen can be denied those spaces. The fact that I knew the law is apparently an offense. Apparently thinking women should stand up for their rights and ensure the law is correctly applied is also expecting too much of them.

This statement has more twists than a corkscrew! You ‘state’ that women have the right to single sex spaces, but you know full well than insisting on them is likely to bring down the wrath of the TRAs, and get them cancelled, persecuted or even arrested, as in the case of Ceri Black.

How a self-declared feminist can suggest that women should ‘ensure that the law is applied’ , as opposed to being able to work on the assumption that it will be, should be beyond me, but we’ve been here before, so it’s no surprise. What is the point of having laws if people have to ‘organise and demand’ their rights every time they are broken?

Mollygo

Thanks for this Ilovecheese
Women have already organised and won the right to safe refuges, and were then being told that they would have to let transwomen join them there. This was apparently not the total truth, but that is what women were led to believe by the trans activists.
To be fair, it’s only some transactivists who led women to believe that.
The definition of a transactivist doesn’t include:
the violence perpetrated against females by some transactivists
nor
trisher’s endless wordplays e.g. where she refuses to use female instead of women because she knows that men can also call themselves women
nor
trisher’s insistence that transmen should have access to female only spaces,
nor
her insistence that females should once again have to fight for the rights they earned long ago
nor
her statements that the law is in place to keep safe spaces for females and if it is broken, which it can easily be by a male suddenly declaring he is a woman (as per 2004) it’s up to the females to report it. (trisher’s version of onus on females)
Probably rather than a TRA, she is a trans-sectional feminist (one who supports the rights of trans over natal women).

Mollygo do you never get tired of telling other people (quite wrongly ) what I think.

For the record I have always stated that women have the right to single sex spaces and meetings and that transwomen can be denied those spaces. The fact that I knew the law is apparently an offense. Apparently thinking women should stand up for their rights and ensure the law is correctly applied is also expecting too much of them.

I use the term woman when I am referring to gender and female when I am talking about sex. Most circumstances in life rely on gender identity and not sex.

I don't think the rights of women should ever be considered as either earned or won whilst we live in a patriarchy. There are always women who still suffer discrimination and always will while the system remains. I do think women need to organise and oppose discrimination but they need to ensure they pick the right battles.

I could report your post and ask for it to be deleted Mollygo as none of the things you have said are true, but I choose to leave it. It's an absolute example of how one woman can turn on another and lie about her. Especially as the view I have alwayspresented that women's spaces are protected in law and transwomen can be denied them has now been endorsed by the EHRC.

But I will ask again and perhaps instead of tryng to say what I think you could give your own views. What do the gender critical really want?

I've known creationists who have been long term members of the C of E. and have simply moved on with their beliefs So that is manifestly untrue. They would have the experience and the knowledge however their views would not coincide with the views of the Cof E

Fair enough, exceptions can always be found! Their beliefs would not coincide.

However beliefs within a religion are not the same as viewpoints on sex/gender within a transgender debate, based on interpretation of science.

No I don't think it depends on who is asking for her to be removed because that was not the point being made.

It is unreasonable to call her transphobic just because she isn't joining a particular "group think". She is entitled to hold her views on her situation as a transwoman. She can ofcourse be disagreed with by other trans women. It remains ridiculous for "transphobia" to be a reason for her to be removed, she is a transwoman who holds a particular view on herself and on trans women.

Thanks for this Ilovecheese
Women have already organised and won the right to safe refuges, and were then being told that they would have to let transwomen join them there. This was apparently not the total truth, but that is what women were led to believe by the trans activists.
To be fair, it’s only some transactivists who led women to believe that.
The definition of a transactivist doesn’t include:
the violence perpetrated against females by some transactivists
nor
trisher’s endless wordplays e.g. where she refuses to use female instead of women because she knows that men can also call themselves women
nor
trisher’s insistence that transmen should have access to female only spaces,
nor
her insistence that females should once again have to fight for the rights they earned long ago
nor
her statements that the law is in place to keep safe spaces for females and if it is broken, which it can easily be by a male suddenly declaring he is a woman (as per 2004) it’s up to the females to report it. (trisher’s version of onus on females)
Probably rather than a TRA, she is a trans-sectional feminist (one who supports the rights of trans over natal women).

What is it you think that women want 'handed on a plate', trisher?

"It isn't not asking for fairness to think that if women want something and they aren't going to be handed it on a plate they should organise and demand it. It's how it's always worked. Why do women just have to play the victim now? How is that feminist?"
Wasn't that one of the disagreements though? Women have already organised and won the right to safe refuges, and were then being told that they would have to let transwomen join them there. This was apparently not the total truth, but that is what women were led to believe by the trans activists.
I am glad the truth is now being spelled out clearly.

If you are a member of the C of E, during the service of Communion you say the Nicene Creed "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only on of God, eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, light from light, true God from true God begotten not made, of one being with the Father, through Him all things were made".

Creationists have moved away from the belief that Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe and that "through Him all things were made" so I agree with your trisher, that they would have the relevant experience and, having moved away from that belief, as you have said trisher as their views "would (no longer) coincide with the views of the C of E, they are not qualified as Madgran has posted, "to represent the C of E".

They no longer believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The one(s) you said that we should organise to demand, in order to protect ourselves.

Your words, not mine.

Mollygo

trisher

Of course British Cycling will have no interest in women Rosie51 they will of course be men. So what do women do? The law is there. Why not use it? Why not show that it is possible to stand together.
As I said, you put the onus on females to stop tw from cheating.
Which by implication means you believe transwomen to be incapable of stopping themselves from cheating or seeing that it is wrong.

I wonder how you’ll answer Doodledog’s question, or if as usual you will evade answering by introducing a complete non-sequitur?

Doodledog

*What would be your preferred outcome if women 'organised and demanded' a change in the law, trisher?*

If a law was passed through parliament I'd regard it the same as I do the present law. Something that should be enforced and obeyed,

Can you now explain exactly what law you want to see?

And DD there you have your answer.

Madgran77

*trisher As she is serving on a committee that represents transpeople most of whom disagree with her you are effectively saying that it is mandatory for someone to be accepted, even though their views are not those of the majority of people they represent. To try and give an analogy. if a creationist were serving as a representative of the C of E would that be OK?*

I am not saying it is mandatory for her to be accepted/agreed with. I am saying that she deserves to be able to express her views on trans issues, including her own view of herself, without being shouted down as "transphobic" rather than being accepted as having a different view, within her own experiences as a transwoman!!

How can someone who is a transwoman be "transphobic" ...she would have to have a phobia about herself!!

Regarding the creationist analogy ...a creationist will not have the relevant experience that qualifies them to represent the C of E.

It is hard to argue that a transwoman does not have the relevant experience to sit on a committee representing trans people! Being disagreed with does not negate her viewpoint or disqualify her from having a clear view on trans and on her own situation; in fact it might well provide checks and balances within the discussions!

The whole point is that no group is an amorphous mass who all have to think the same, including trans people. Are "committees" to be made up only of people who have been "vetted" to check that they "agree" with a very specific viewpoint decided by??? That road leads to totalitarianism/loss of freedom of speech!!

And does anyone actually know that the majority of trans people think the same? Hmmm!

Regarding the creationist analogy ...a creationist will not have the relevant experience that qualifies them to represent the C of E.
I've known creationists who have been long term members of the C of E. and have simply moved on with their beliefs So that is manifestly untrue. They would have the experience and the knowledge however their views would not coincide with the views of the Cof E.
I suppose it depends on who is asking for her to be removed. I would assume that LGBT people have a right to choose their representation and don't have to have someone because they are a certain colour, race, gender or sexual orientation

trisher As she is serving on a committee that represents transpeople most of whom disagree with her you are effectively saying that it is mandatory for someone to be accepted, even though their views are not those of the majority of people they represent. To try and give an analogy. if a creationist were serving as a representative of the C of E would that be OK?

I am not saying it is mandatory for her to be accepted/agreed with. I am saying that she deserves to be able to express her views on trans issues, including her own view of herself, without being shouted down as "transphobic" rather than being accepted as having a different view, within her own experiences as a transwoman!!

How can someone who is a transwoman be "transphobic" ...she would have to have a phobia about herself!!

Regarding the creationist analogy ...a creationist will not have the relevant experience that qualifies them to represent the C of E.

It is hard to argue that a transwoman does not have the relevant experience to sit on a committee representing trans people! Being disagreed with does not negate her viewpoint or disqualify her from having a clear view on trans and on her own situation; in fact it might well provide checks and balances within the discussions!

The whole point is that no group is an amorphous mass who all have to think the same, including trans people. Are "committees" to be made up only of people who have been "vetted" to check that they "agree" with a very specific viewpoint decided by??? That road leads to totalitarianism/loss of freedom of speech!!

And does anyone actually know that the majority of trans people think the same? Hmmm!

trisher

Of course British Cycling will have no interest in women Rosie51 they will of course be men. So what do women do? The law is there. Why not use it? Why not show that it is possible to stand together.
As I said, you put the onus on females to stop tw from cheating.
Which by implication means you believe transwomen to be incapable of stopping themselves from cheating or seeing that it is wrong.

I wonder how you’ll answer Doodledog’s question, or if as usual you will evade answering by introducing a complete non-sequitur?

Doodledog

What would be your preferred outcome if women 'organised and demanded' a change in the law, trisher?

grannygranby

STOP PRESS...Stonewall law just died, might be a while before the funeral, but it’s happened.

Employers, institutions, govt bodies & third sector orgs have been told it is unlawful to do what the EHRC today has laid out as lawful. Women can no longer be told our rights are discriminatory.

Brilliant so the law as it stands will be enforced hopefully, which should solve all the problems
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/guidance-published-providers-single-sex-services

Mollygo

Mollygo
Elegran, in trisher’s world yes.
She doesn’t see things as a female, she sees them as a ‘woman’ and we know that that now includes men. Being an ardent supporter of men to the detriment of females therefore presents no problem.

She is possibly too old for this travesty of justice to affect her or her family, but those females who, like Kathleen Stock and many posters on here who can see the future damage to females caused by a small group of TW and their fans including some posters on here, are right to be concerned.

Intersectional feminists on GN (I can’t speak for the rest of them as I have no proof that they treat females equally badly), could well be described as trans-sectional feminists because they cannot truthfully claim to care for the needs of, or support females and their rights, whilst putting trans rights above all else.
It doesn’t matter if they can’t see that or will deny it. It’s still true.

This is worth reading or re-reading.
It explains clearly about the fantasies people have written to justify the bullying of females, by those doing it, who are not trans.

When it comes to people who aren’t trans, the typical motivations for immersion in trans activism’s foundational fictions seem of four main sorts. First, there’s a desire to be kind to trans people, without a lot of further thought about what that might look like. Second, there’s those who want to seem kind because of the social capital it brings these days. Third, there’s a desire to avoid ostracisation, since you know you will be socially punished if you don’t. And fourth, there’s a desire to undo human sexed categories with the power of words, because you heard from some whackjob academic that this was a coherent and politically desirable thing to aim for.

Isn't it funny how those who claim to be so feminist have to resort to abuse and dismissal of other women when they are presented with arguments they find hard to refute.
For the record (and I have said it before). My support for trans people is rooted firmly in my belief that minorities matter. That patriachy thrives by spreading inequality, distrust and competition, so it sets women against transpeople, workers against the unemployed, poor against the undeserving, residents against immigrants and even women against women. Meantime of course the patriachy flourishes, builds its wealth and status and enforces inequalities. And so it continues and nothing changes.
It may seem foolish, it may seem idealistic but it is unconnected with any of the reasons Mollygo imagines for the support of transpeople and it's the reason most of the young people I know accept and welcome transpeople, because in the end it can be summed up in one word "caring". And most young people care for people they know who have very difficult lives.

STOP PRESS...Stonewall law just died, might be a while before the funeral, but it’s happened.

Employers, institutions, govt bodies & third sector orgs have been told it is unlawful to do what the EHRC today has laid out as lawful. Women can no longer be told our rights are discriminatory.