the law as it stands on sex

What would be your preferred outcome if women 'organised and demanded' a change in the law, 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?
TRAs have never been the only agressive and condemnatory people to abuse women. It happened to black women. It happened to revoutionary women. It happens to feminists.
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?

trisher can I ask you your sex and gender? I am female female. And do you believe laws should be based on sex or gender?

trisher

Rosie51

Still no comment trisher on British Cycling and their threats to women cyclists? Do you condemn them for thretening women who'd like to point out the unfairness of Emily Bridges, a male, being allowed to race against females?

Well if all the women cyclists walked out Rosie51 that would leave their sponsors high and dry with no one to carry their advertising. I condemn anyone who threatens another person, whatever the reason.

It would be so nice if just once you could say yes that action is wrong, British cycling are wrong to silence those women with threat of expulsion and therefore ineligibility to race ever again. But no, you go for if they all walked out. Most are too scared of the backlash to do or say anything, have you seen how vicious TRAs can be? You couldn't suggest that Emily Bridges could do the fair thing and race in the male category so avoiding the threat to the women. Those who read these threads will be able to see you have zero interest in fairness for women and happily chuck them all under the bus.

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.

Rosie51

Still no comment trisher on British Cycling and their threats to women cyclists? Do you condemn them for thretening women who'd like to point out the unfairness of Emily Bridges, a male, being allowed to race against females?

Well if all the women cyclists walked out Rosie51 that would leave their sponsors high and dry with no one to carry their advertising. I condemn anyone who threatens another person, whatever the reason.

Madgran77

debbiehayton.com/

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-woman-debbie-hayton-faces-ban-for-transphobia-96tfkl5gc

I am somewhat confused when a transwoman is accused of transphobia when she says that her sex remains male even though she chooses/feels a different gender and presents/lives as a woman! Poor thing .. she really does deserve more respect!

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?

If it wasn't so ridiculous it would be amusing Madgran and demonstrates how ludicrous this is becoming, as well as the fact that rather than supporting and helping trans, these idiots are isolating them.

I wonder how long it will be before further re classification is called for to include transphobic transwomen and transmen.

debbiehayton.com/

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-woman-debbie-hayton-faces-ban-for-transphobia-96tfkl5gc

I am somewhat confused when a transwoman is accused of transphobia when she says that her sex remains male even though she chooses/feels a different gender and presents/lives as a woman! Poor thing .. she really does deserve more respect!

* Not much use having a law about burglary if people didn't report it and just replaced their stolen property. So is that "putting the onus on the burgled"?* So should we just state that "all premises should be safe places to hold valuables, without making it illegal for burglars to enter and steal them, and without expecting the owners to take steps to keep burglars away from their posessions." ?

Perhaps they should but I'm one of those people who never believe what I'm told I always look for original sources. And these days it's so much easier with Google. still easy to get it wrong. 'Somebody' insisted smear tests were no longer done just a few days ago, turned out to be a total falsehood. Google can be your friend, or it can encourage lazy posting.
Only 'perhaps'? Surely any organisation that is publishing lies should apologise and retract? Don't you wish the Conservative party would or is it also 'perhaps' for them too?

Still no comment trisher on British Cycling and their threats to women cyclists? Do you condemn them for thretening women who'd like to point out the unfairness of Emily Bridges, a male, being allowed to race against females?

Ilovecheese

"That's why the law says if women will not use the spaces or events transwomen even with a GRC can be banned."

Stonewall ought to publicly retract all the lies they spread about this.

Perhaps they should but I'm one of those people who never believe what I'm told I always look for original sources. And these days it's so much easier with Google.

"That's why the law says if women will not use the spaces or events transwomen even with a GRC can be banned."

Stonewall ought to publicly retract all the lies they spread about this.

When will you understand, it's not the name calling it's the cancelling, the removal of their sponsorship that is being sought by the bullies? You know how they've tried to cancel JKR but she's too rich, how they managed to drive out Kathleen Stock and others?
No comment on the threat by British cycling to the other competitors? Do you agree with their censure of free speech? Amazingly there are decent transwomen who are also opposed to males in female sport, Debbie Hayton for one, then they accuse her of transphobia!!!

Rosie51

Oh and to add those sportswomen who are speaking out are having their sponsors contacted by TRAs saying "do you really want to be associated with transphobes?" If you don't bow down before the cheating transathlete you're a transphobe. It's bullying plain and simple, and lots of men are absolutely revelling in being able to bully in plain sight while pretending they're just being supportive of trans.

Women have been called many much worse things Rosiee51 if they believed what they were doing was right name calling never stopped them before.
Suffragette was a term of abuse originally.
Feminist has been used as a term of abuse.

None of these answer the question if the present law isn't enforced why should any future law be?
It isn't "putting the onus on women" or any other section of society to suggest that a law be enforced . Of course it only works if the person who sees or reports the infringement is willing to do so, but that is true of any law. Not much use having a law about burglary if people didn't report it and just replaced their stolen property. So is that "putting the onus on the burgled"?

Because trisher, you’re putting the onus on females again to sort out a problem caused by men (in whatever form they present) and celebrated by some women (in whatever form they present).
Those women who dismiss the work and sacrifices of suffragettes on behalf of females because it excludes men (in whatever form they present).

Oh and to add those sportswomen who are speaking out are having their sponsors contacted by TRAs saying "do you really want to be associated with transphobes?" If you don't bow down before the cheating transathlete you're a transphobe. It's bullying plain and simple, and lots of men are absolutely revelling in being able to bully in plain sight while pretending they're just being supportive of trans.

trisher

Rosie51

As I said upthread trisher you love to quote this And the law is clear transwomen can be refused entry even with a GRC. and then also post Can I just ask who is going to implement this law and how? Will women be required to prove they haven't a penis? especially if they are a bit butch? Will the inspection require a full frontal flash, or just a quick grope? (but then it might just be a rolled up sock!!!)

You're not interested in solving any problems, you only ever throw up diversions. Transwomen out of women's sports won't solve all the problems with women's sports but it would solve one problem. And it's so easy to do!

In the UK it would be Rosie51 if all the women in the event refused to compete the transwoman could be banned. I wonder why they don't?

Maybe in the case of the cycling because British cycling has warned the women they are not to say anything under threat of sanctions. You want them to give up everything they've worked years for because Emily Bridges retains a sense of male privilege and believes his wants override women's rights to fair competition. You are unbelievable, no pressure on the males to behave respectfully and with sportsmanship, no let the women make the sacrifices instead. And you say you don't centre men in all their guises!!!

Ilovecheese

" ghettoizing women."
Well yes, making sure of the physical safety of women in all spaces would possibly solve the problem in our western culture. But we can't always override the sensibilities of other cultures who may not just consider physical safety, in a multi cultural society.
When we live among other cultures we should not always try to shape them to suit ourselves.

We should also be understanding of the feelings of women and children who have suffered at the hands of men, as Elegran says "women who turn to refuges need the psychological security of knowing that no men will be admitted, as well as physical safety. "

All these different groups need to be considered. the feelings of transwomen should not be thought more important than those of anybody else.

That's why the law says if women will not use the spaces or events transwomen even with a GRC can be banned.

I also wonder if you think that the present laws can't and won't be implemented what on earth makes you believe any new law would be?
Either you believe in law and its implementation. In which case push for the present laws to be used and prosecutions brought or you don't. In which case why bother wiith any new ones.

" ghettoizing women."
Well yes, making sure of the physical safety of women in all spaces would possibly solve the problem in our western culture. But we can't always override the sensibilities of other cultures who may not just consider physical safety, in a multi cultural society.
When we live among other cultures we should not always try to shape them to suit ourselves.

We should also be understanding of the feelings of women and children who have suffered at the hands of men, as Elegran says "women who turn to refuges need the psychological security of knowing that no men will be admitted, as well as physical safety. "

All these different groups need to be considered. the feelings of transwomen should not be thought more important than those of anybody else.

Rosie51

As I said upthread trisher you love to quote this And the law is clear transwomen can be refused entry even with a GRC. and then also post Can I just ask who is going to implement this law and how? Will women be required to prove they haven't a penis? especially if they are a bit butch? Will the inspection require a full frontal flash, or just a quick grope? (but then it might just be a rolled up sock!!!)

You're not interested in solving any problems, you only ever throw up diversions. Transwomen out of women's sports won't solve all the problems with women's sports but it would solve one problem. And it's so easy to do!

In the UK it would be Rosie51 if all the women in the event refused to compete the transwoman could be banned. I wonder why they don't?

Women who are still being bullied and traumatised by men Says trisher. Did you mean “all those who now have the right to call themselves women?” trisher?
I haven’t heard you mention trans women being bullied by trans women before.

Females are now being bullied by the females who support the bullying by men, in the name of “being kind* to males whether the males are TW or not!