Scarf in Suffragette colours not allowed in Scottish Parliament.

Oh and you think it's easy to decide what's harmful do you? Many gay men and lesbians are saying many of the concepts expressed with regard to gender identity are deeply harmful, who decides? You?
The NHS are saying that the use of pronouns with regard to young people may be harmful. The way people use the word harm and offense as if they are 'easy' things makes me smile.

You were 5 minutes ago comparing the policing of speech to the far right and are now explaining why policing speech in many cases is necessary

Quite. The lack of consistency is staggering. I completely understand that believing something passionately can sometimes make people forget about logic and/or reason; but so many of Glorianny's posts show an absence of either, yet sneer at others who do present their arguments with a rational explanation.

The perpetual 'if you do't understand. . .[state the obvious] then I can't help you' and 'isn't it funny that those who think X claim Y [state false equivalence]' posts are exhausting, along with statements such as

. . . . any policy which assumes women can be identified or recognised simply by their external appearance necessarily impacts on what is found acceptable for women. That transwomen therefore are women.

I have already asked (three times, I think) for clarification of how that works (the leap from gender expectations being influenced by appearance to 'therefore TWAW', but to no avail. The 'sneer, make a fallacious statement or argument, attempt a 'gotcha' then refuse to engage with any request for clarification' MO is getting tired.

As the anti-GC premise is 'TWAW and this won't make a difference to actual women', it would be a huge step in the right direction if someone explained what that means. How people with male bodies and gametes can possibly 'be women', and how having sex reduced to 'gender' based on nothing but 'feelings' is ever going to be anything other than detrimental to women. But nobody even bothers to try.

Glorianny
14:03 -you met the target! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Galaxy

I am not cis, because I dont have a gender identity, I believe the concept of gender is oppressive and regressive. I dont believe what you do. It's the same as calling me a Christian. However I wouldnt stop someone using the word cis, I would point one I wasn't one but that's different. I am free to say transwomen are men and you are free to use the word cis. I think its use is banned on MN but obviously I have no control over that
You were 5 minutes ago comparing the policing of speech to the far right and are now explaining why policing speech in many cases is necessary.

Actually I think I can sum it up as if you are policing language purely because you don't like a word then you are on dangerous ground. If you are policing language to protect others from harm then you need to look at it carefully but it can be necessary. One the problems of course is that language isn't fixed it's fluid and some minority groups choose to reclaim some words.
Many of the views expressed on these threads fit in exactly with the far right in Europe Like Poland
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/trans-community-in-poland-braces-for-political-attacks-as-election-nears

G
However just as I can swear profusely at times I recognise there are people who find some words offensive and I don't do it in their company.
But in the safety of the anonymity of GN, you see it as OK to use a word in ‘their company’ that you know is offensive to many.
The picture of you gets clearer and clearer.

Fact -Transwomen are male. Not what I think, but fact.

No I wouldn't condemn it because I think "cis" is a perfectly acceptable.
So Glorianny
Now there is a clearer picture of your attitude to females.

You are happy to offend because you think it’s acceptable.
You are happy to dismiss female rights in favour of male rights because you think it’s acceptable.
You are happy to condone or refused to condemn the actions of those TW and TRA, who have caused the problem in the first place because you think it’s acceptable.

And if you think it’s acceptable then it must be right!
That would be 🤣🤣🤣🤣 if it wasn’t so shameful.

I am not cis, because I dont have a gender identity, I believe the concept of gender is oppressive and regressive. I dont believe what you do. It's the same as calling me a Christian. However I wouldnt stop someone using the word cis, I would point one I wasn't one but that's different. I am free to say transwomen are men and you are free to use the word cis. I think its use is banned on MN but obviously I have no control over that
You were 5 minutes ago comparing the policing of speech to the far right and are now explaining why policing speech in many cases is necessary.

Glorianny

So transwomen don't cause any of the fuss but they must suffer because a few women want to keep some services for themselves.
Most transwomen aren't dangerous but a few are so all must suffer.
No one is allowed to use the word cis because some of us don't like it.
Actually the only regimes which have ever applied any of these judgements to any minority groups or policed language, the way some of you seem to want, to have been pretty horrendous.
I watch the rise of the far right in Eastern Europe and fear for all minorities and for women.

This is the biggest load of rubbish that I've seen on here for some time.
So transwomen don't cause any of the fuss but they must suffer because a few women want to keep some services for themselves.
Transwomen don't cause any of the fuss? Really? What about the ones who picket feminist meetings? Who threaten LGB people who don't want to have their spaces invaded? Who insist on going into women's changing rooms and head to Twitter when they are challenged, in order to spread fear amongst retail managers? Who 'cancel', doxx and threaten women who speak out against them?

Most transwomen aren't dangerous but a few are so all must suffer
It is true that most transwomen are not dangerous, but neither are most men, but they manage to stay out of women's safe spaces. Most shoppers are not dishonest, but we all have to suffer CCV surveillance and having security tags on his value items. Most travellers are not terrorists, but we all have to go through security checks at airports and can't leave bags unattended at stations. The list goes on, and the premise is fatally flawed as the point is that some people in any group are dangerous, so we have to assume that anyone might be, and legislate accordingly.

No one is allowed to use the word cis because some of us don't like it.
Everyone has to jump through linguistic hoops because some of you have rejected biological fact and don't recognise sex differences.

The policing of language, the judgement of those who speak in defence of women, the general atmosphere of No Debate that you seem to want is, indeed, frightening, and I agree that there is cause to be concerned for minorities and for women. The threats (and the acceptance of them) against women is, indeed, horrendous.

Mollygo

^For example if I was working with someone and they objected to me using "cis" about them I wouldn't do it. Using it on posts on GN is simply easier.^
And because it’s easier, you wouldn’t condemn it? How . . . unexpected.

No I wouldn't condemn it because I think "cis" is a perfectly acceptable term to use about someone whose birth gender matches their chosen gender. However just as I can swear profusely at times I recognise there are people who find some words offensive and I don't do it in their company.
Some people of course swear all the time.
Incidentally if there are cis-women there must be cis-men. So why is the word offensive?

For example if I was working with someone and they objected to me using "cis" about them I wouldn't do it. Using it on posts on GN is simply easier.
And because it’s easier, you wouldn’t condemn it? How . . . unexpected.

Galaxy

If you are against the policing of speech I presume you fully support those women who had to fight to retain their jobs or were sacked for saying men cant become women.

I think anyone is entitled to a belief. I think posting offensive things on social media needs some regulation. I think if you use offensive language to another person in the workplace it needs dealing with. For example if I was working with someone and they objected to me using "cis" about them I wouldn't do it. Using it on posts on GN is simply easier. I think misgendering someone because of your beliefs isn't acceptable. I can only liken it to people who give someone a nickname which the person objects to, but which some people insist on using. It's a form of bullying.

make free= male-free

Gort says
Most transwomen aren't dangerous but a few are so all must suffer.
I’m asking
Why do you never blame the TW and TRA who caused this problem, not the females who want to retain the safety measures they have managed to acquire?

Why do you never campaign for safe spaces for trans without trying to remove the right to make-free spaces for females?

Quote of the year below to explain it to you in simple terms.
Most shoppers don't shoplift, but everyone accepts that shops take precautions because of those who do.

Most airline passengers aren't terrorists, but everyone accepts that airlines take precautions because of those who are.

Most men cause no problem to anyone but everyone accepts that at least some precautions are necessary because of those who do.

Most trans people cause no problem to anyone, but everyone accepts..... hmm, yes, it falls apart a bit there.

As my dad used to say, Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest. Then you’ll understand.

If you are against the policing of speech I presume you fully support those women who had to fight to retain their jobs or were sacked for saying men cant become women.

To men you mean. That's who I am applying single sex spaces to. As specified in the equality act. Are you saying the equality act is similar to a far right policy.

So transwomen don't cause any of the fuss but they must suffer because a few women want to keep some services for themselves.
Most transwomen aren't dangerous but a few are so all must suffer.
No one is allowed to use the word cis because some of us don't like it.
Actually the only regimes which have ever applied any of these judgements to any minority groups or policed language, the way some of you seem to want, to have been pretty horrendous.
I watch the rise of the far right in Eastern Europe and fear for all minorities and for women.

Glorianny’s latest
Some women realise transwomen are the victims of violence just as they are and would want them to have a safe place.

And you presume I don’t want them to have a safe space trisher? How very arrogant of you.
Of course I want them to have safe spaces if they need them, but not by taking over those free from male spaces that females have fought for and deserve to keep.

That’s like a child in school crying, “Miss, I know it’s his medal, but I want it more so I should have it.”
Would you take away the hard earned medal and give it to the crier because he wants it now?

It seems you would.

^ You have also said, at various times, that we can’t always tell the difference just by looking at a TW.
Obviously we can’t always tell the difference -until it’s too late, any more than you can, which adds to the potential for misuse of self ID.

^Before the damaged caused by TRA and the TW - you support (you say you support all trans), I possibly shared spaces unknowingly and unconcerned with TW.
However,
Those TW who cheat, rape, harm, discriminate against females, demand to be placed in female spaces etc. and once again TRA and any others who refuse to condemn that behaviour, and shriek ‘transphobia’ at anyone does condemn it are responsible for the problem.

Now, how am I supposed to know that a TW has no harmful intent? Is it only those who “look like males”?
But as you say, you can’t always tell the difference.
So maybe you can come up with a way to identify all non-harmful TW?

Until you can do that, or sort out the mess caused by TW and TRA, it’s reasonable to keep female safe spaces . . . for females.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny oh dear you really shouldn't attempt to use numbers for your arguments. It didn't work when you tried to use an example for gender neutral aka mixed toilets in the past. In your refuge scenario, 1 transwoman aka male, 13 women, 12 places available. 1 person, the transwoman wants to make it a mixed sex refuge, 3 women want a single sex refuge, 10 women don't mind either way. That totals 13 women happy with single sex against 11 (10 women and one transwoman) that are OK with mixed sex. I think you'll find 13 is a larger number than 11, and therefore single sex is the way to go. Hope that helps!

Sorry I just cant help responding. The 10 women may not want a single sex unit. They all accept transwomen. Assuming that they "don't mind either way" shows what contempt GCs really have for any women who think differently to them.
Some women realise transwomen are the victims of violence just as they are and would want them to have a safe place.

You may refuse to use "cis" yourself. You have no authority or ability to police my language. Trying to do so really exposes what sort of controls some wish to impose on others.

This was your fabricated, imagined scenario wasn't it? Therefore the 10 'happy' to share are from your imagination, not 10 actual women fleeing DV. The transwoman may be a sweet tiny thing or a 6' male complete with full working male genitalia like the vast majority of trans identified males. I'll give you an alternative scenario, there are 10 women who want a single sex refuge, one trans identified male who wants a mixed sex one and 3 women who don't mind a mixed sex refuge. Now what should happen? Should the 3 female votes for mixed sex outweigh the 10 who want single sex? Are you at all concerned about any children who having witnessed male violence might be frightened by the presence of a male in the refuge, or will you only allow ones that fully 'pass'? Gets complicated doesn't it?
Asking people not to use offensive terms is not controlling, it's asking for common courtesy.

Lathyrus

And should alarm and alert all women as to the kind of regime transactivists are trying to impose.

Yes, it is alarming, as is so much of this.

And should alarm and alert all women as to the kind of regime transactivists are trying to impose.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny oh dear you really shouldn't attempt to use numbers for your arguments. It didn't work when you tried to use an example for gender neutral aka mixed toilets in the past. In your refuge scenario, 1 transwoman aka male, 13 women, 12 places available. 1 person, the transwoman wants to make it a mixed sex refuge, 3 women want a single sex refuge, 10 women don't mind either way. That totals 13 women happy with single sex against 11 (10 women and one transwoman) that are OK with mixed sex. I think you'll find 13 is a larger number than 11, and therefore single sex is the way to go. Hope that helps!

Sorry I just cant help responding. The 10 women may not want a single sex unit. They all accept transwomen. Assuming that they "don't mind either way" shows what contempt GCs really have for any women who think differently to them.
Some women realise transwomen are the victims of violence just as they are and would want them to have a safe place.

You may refuse to use "cis" yourself. You have no authority or ability to police my language. Trying to do so really exposes what sort of controls some wish to impose on others.

Umm no, it exposes your total lack of respect for a group who have asked you not to use an offensive term.

*Sorry I just cant help responding. The 10 women may not want a single sex unit. They all accept transwomen. Assuming that they "don't mind either way" shows what contempt GCs really have for any women who think differently to them.
Some women realise transwomen are the victims of violence just as they are and would want them to have a safe place.*

A few observations: The first is that 10 women represent, well, 10 women. If they are all from the same refuge, they are even less representative of women at large. Who knows whether the refuge in question is typical or unusual in some way that might skew opinions one way or another?

Secondly, what does 'accepting transwomen' actually mean? I 'accept transwomen', using the term to mean that I see them as having every right to live as they choose, and to do so in peace. What I don't accept is that they are women, or that they have a right to impose themselves into women's safe spaces. To extrapolate anything from the article, we'd need to know what the question meant by the term, how it was explained to the respondents and the mechanism for checking that both understandings were the same.

Thirdly, what one person posts proves absolutely nothing about what any others so-called 'GC's' think, do or say.

Finally, one minute you say that the law says that if women object then transwomen can't use services, but the next you seem to be suggesting a show of hands should sort it out.

It is no wonder that we see so much nonsense posted on these threads when people have such a tenuous grasp on how to read articles critically, or to differentiate between journalism and research.

Rosie51

Glorianny oh dear you really shouldn't attempt to use numbers for your arguments. It didn't work when you tried to use an example for gender neutral aka mixed toilets in the past. In your refuge scenario, 1 transwoman aka male, 13 women, 12 places available. 1 person, the transwoman wants to make it a mixed sex refuge, 3 women want a single sex refuge, 10 women don't mind either way. That totals 13 women happy with single sex against 11 (10 women and one transwoman) that are OK with mixed sex. I think you'll find 13 is a larger number than 11, and therefore single sex is the way to go. Hope that helps!

Sorry I just cant help responding. The 10 women may not want a single sex unit. They all accept transwomen. Assuming that they "don't mind either way" shows what contempt GCs really have for any women who think differently to them.
Some women realise transwomen are the victims of violence just as they are and would want them to have a safe place.

You may refuse to use "cis" yourself. You have no authority or ability to police my language. Trying to do so really exposes what sort of controls some wish to impose on others.

Contempt for women seems sadly prevelant amongst people who say they’re transactivists/supporter’s