Scarf in Suffragette colours not allowed in Scottish Parliament.

Rosie51

VS your dismissal of JaneJudge's concers for her daughter's care speaks volumes about the sort of intersectional feminism you practice. A disabled woman's mother told "I mean seriously, come on" You should hang your head in shame.

What?

What does my comment have to do with that?

It's not mentioned in her comment I replied too either

Seriously? What is this?

Would you even like to know what the group is for? What it does? What is shared there?

There are 3 million people in it

3 million

I've never seen a single one stoop to this level

It's gross

Just stop it

what is their viewpoint then? because whenever I have posted about female only personal care I am either ignored or gaslighted, neither which fill me with any confidence

I dont even know what GC is and am not that informed about intersectional feminism either. I could find out about the latter, but dont even know what GC stands for.

Having always tried to focus on what unites rather than what divides, I dont categorise myself or others because I dont feel I need a label to be me. I don't really understand what has gone on here, or why everyone is upset. Surely we as women should stick together even though we may not all think exactly the same.

GC means gender critical, it means protecting female only spaces/care etc

JaneJudge

what is their viewpoint then? because whenever I have posted about female only personal care I am either ignored or gaslighted, neither which fill me with any confidence

I said to you at the start, your daughter should get the care requested as long as that care is available. I can't do anything about how many people of whatever sex or gender are qualified to do a job but if the care you request is available, she should get it.

Same for any woman but in the interest of their immediate life or health needs, I can't fix who is available. Just cant.

Trans has nothing to do with that stance either, except where you aren't happy for a trans woman and I can't fix that either. I can empathise with your fears, your daughter is vulnerable but I am pwerless to know how you would best get that particular need met or even if you would ever need to.

I haven't answered since because, I didn't think I was being asked as I have already answered and I didn't think I need to repeat my views (even though whenever they do happen to be told back to me,they are invariably wrong) because I didn't think that was needed with you.

The group

It's just stories

Personal stories

Problems faced
Struggles
Successes
Shouting out other woman

It's a wonderful, positive, supportive place

It's the absolute pinnacle of women holding up other women.

JaneJudge

I think some of the viewpoints from intersectional feminists are misogynistic as they ignore natal born female minorities wrt groups who are generally much more vulnerable than natal born males with gender dysphoria

Yes, but IF on here will never admit that. It’s all ‘be kind’ until they come up against the need for support for females when it conflicts with the needs of males, whether TW or not.
Then female needs seem to come second.
I often wonder if we are given a fair view of IF.

I don't think I have ever said I don't want my daughter to receive care off a transwoman actually, I've said I don't want her to receive personal care off a biological man. This is where law comes into place and not emotion. It makes clear what is within and outside of law. It protects vulnerable people/women without giving into interpretation of the law by people overseeing care who may not even grasp or understand it. It is important. The pandemic and first lockdown will have highlighted to lots of people re 'interpretation of law' for example

I appreciate your reply btw

It's equal Molly

This is the bit you get stuck on

equality

No one should have or want more rights than anyone else

What the intersectional means is understanding that some groups have a larger struggle to gain that equality

That's it

Equality

If you are afraid that intersectional feminsim means putting one groups rights above yours, you shouldn't be. Your fears have no grounds

If my statement that I accept trans women as women is the only actual difference between us because you know that I see the same issues you do as I have said so so many times...

Then you need to check yourself

I'm no scapegoat for TRAs or whatever disgusting minority you guys must daily trawl the Internet for

I want equality and your rights matter as much as anyone's

I don't have to like anyone to believe that

VS, my daughter isn't a disgusting minority. She is a young lady who goes to college and works with support and goes out to the pub

She hasn't yet gained equality for herself, she requires advocacy and advocacy for all minority groups is often overlooked.

JaneJudge

I don't think I have ever said I don't want my daughter to receive care off a transwoman actually, I've said I don't want her to receive personal care off a biological man. This is where law comes into place and not emotion. It makes clear what is within and outside of law. It protects vulnerable people/women without giving into interpretation of the law by people overseeing care who may not even grasp or understand it. It is important. The pandemic and first lockdown will have highlighted to lots of people re 'interpretation of law' for example

I appreciate your reply btw

I don't have any issue with the way you express your views or your needs honestly

I respect the equality act and your entitlement to hold that belief

I believe there is a reason so many have gender dysphoria and its so important to not only find that out but to be able to properly diagnose and treat it without risk of harm to anyone.

My beliefs haven't ever changed on any of these threads

The only issue is those who like to fill in the gaps with paranoia and suspicion

And the damage that is doing out there in the wider world ro nit just trans people but women and young people who don't conform to gender

I read this thread and think of the women in Iran and Afghanistan. I doubt there'll be many self declared 'females' there. The biological ones are having an appalling time.

Yammy

volver

This thread, as well as being a trans thread as I said on page 1, has completely gone to pot. Away to watch Bake Off 😄.

I hope you're not participating you'll scorch them withe your tongue.
Give yourself a break and be pleasant for a change.

Illegitimi non carborundum…

Instead of being a Pro women debate, this has become a divisive thread, which is a shame because as the conservative government have already shown us, nobody wins where there is division.

What women need is to support each other and stand together. Any biological woman is not threatened by a trans woman because her chromosome dictate who she was at birth and still is. I am inclined to believe that a lot of trans is actually body dysmorphia. I realise that this view may be unpopular.

I also believe that women should have the right to have their own spaces, like toilets and changing rooms. There is no reason why a trans space cannot be provided as well. As far as prisons go, I don't know why there isn't a special trans prison, so they could all be supported in a specialist way and support each other. I don't think there can be a good way of mixing genders in prison.

If we are willing to accept Trans people, then I don't see why our acceptance should over rule our own rights. I'm not sure what brand of feminist that makes me, but I see no need for lables anyhow.

Probably if I had trans kids or a trans partner or was trans myself I would get very protective of them and want them to share my changing room and public toilets, but I don't and if we don't stand up for women (when we ARE women) then that's just a shame.

VioletSky

It's equal Molly

This is the bit you get stuck on

equality

No one should have or want more rights than anyone else.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sorry
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Equality doesn’t work like that.

By your equality the suicide bomber in the Manchester arena had equal right to be there doing what he wanted as the people had the right to be there watching the concert.

By your equality the council had equal right to house that family in unsuitable housing, which killed their son, as they had the right to object to being there.

You’re a TA and I’m sure you believe that all children have an equal right to a good education. But does your equality mean that you would deny 1-1 support to children with special needs because others don’t need it, or force 1-1 support onto children who don’t need it because others do?
Of course it doesn’t. That sort of treatment would abrogate the rights of both groups.

Equal rights doesn’t give one group the right to abrogate the existing rights of others.

Females have a right to places separate and safe from males.
If some males want the right to places separate and safe from males, that’s an equal right.
If the males wanting places separate and safe from males want to use the places where females have the right to be safe and separate from males , that’s not an equal right.
That abrogates the existing rights of females.

VS

This is the bit you get stuck on

equality.

Re the OP
Why did someone feel they had the right time to tell a female that she did not have the right to wear colours that she wanted whilst leaving others the freedom to wear their own choice.
Equal rights?

Yes, equal rights.

It a wonderful ideal. We should all have ideals, standards we aspire to. The problem is one persons ideal is not the same as another’s.

In an ideal world male and female would work together in harmony, supporting each other, caring for one another, without violence or threat and each would be able to go into any space because all spaces would be safe🙂

And then there’s the reality. Because of that, the reality of male violence and oppression to females we try to put n place laws and rules that will protect the more vulnerable from the more aggressive. Throughout the world that’s overwhelmingly the need to protect females from males.

So people can take a stand on ideals if they want. I’m sure that’s very praiseworthy and virtuous in the eyes of those who do.
Whilst totally discounting that other people must suffer because of them. History is littered with examples of that. What matters is they feel good about themselves 🤔

Some good points there, Molly and Lathyrus. There is so much muddle-headed thinking around this subject.

Nobody has responded rationally to my post to VS about the illogicality of her saying that women can choose their sexual partners and how that conflicts with her stance on TWAW. The concept of equality is like the concept of rights - mine end when they tread on yours and vice versa.

Where there are clashes of rights (and of what constitutes equality) there can't always be compromise. Compromise is often flaunted as a 'good thing', but will always involve at least one 'side' backing down. Sometimes that's fine, if both sides are coming to something new from equally 'deserving' positions. But at others, such as when one side already had something that the other wants to take from them, it is not so easy, and real compromise is not possible. I tend to see it as akin to one person in a couple wanting to have children and the other not. They can't compromise on that. Or one wanting to emigrate for a new start and the other wanting to stay near family and friends. No matter how much both partners want the other to be happy, or how well-intentioned they both are, there are three options - one 'side' has to give ground, there is a divorce, or the relationship stumbles along unhappily with resentment on both sides.

In the case of trans 'equality', my position is that trans people have it already. There is no human right denied to them, and the law applies to transpeople exactly as it applies to everyone. What some transpeople want is not equality at all, but the right to change the whole concept of being a woman and force themselves onto 'femaleness' whether women want it or not, and regardless of the dangers to women and the obvious unfairness of having male-bodied people in competitions of strength. That removes a hell of a lot from women, and absolutely cannot be done in the name of 'equality'.

So lets be a bit more honest about male violence against women. It does not in fact happen in public places like toilets. The vast majority of male violence in public places is in fact against other males. The vast majority of male violence against women is in a domestic setting by someone known to or related to the woman. So if the gender critical feminists were really interested in reducing violence to women they should be researching and campaigning about domestic violence and why 50 years after the establishment of the first women's refuge there are still cases of appalling violence. Most of the women killed by men are killed by partners or relatives, and all this discussion about who is admitted to toilets and changing rooms won't have any impact on those figures.
By all means let's have a safer society. But let's begin by recognising that those most at risk of violence in streets or public places aren't women they are in fact young men
And in 2021
The homicide rate was 9.9 per million population, with the rate for males (14 per million population) more than twice that for females (6 per million population)
Male violence is a problem but not just for women.

And this all has what to do with scarves again...?

Oh yes. I remember.

It’s good that you remember that women were asked to leave a Parliamentary debate because, someone in authority decided that purple and green clothes they were wearing were a political statement that was not a view that the Givernment wanted.

But that the people who were wearing rainbow colours could stay because that was a political view in agreement with Government.

It isn't just about violence though is it Glorianny. It's about protecting the hard won rights of women. Protecting women from unfair competition in sports and as we've seen recently a beauty contest, where the prize for the winner was a female scholarship, and the winner was a trans woman called Brian.

The OP for this thread isn't about male violence. It's about a group of people, of women, being asked to remove an article of clothing because the colours are representative of the suffragette movement, while simultaneously allowing others to wear a lanyard that represents something else, in this case LGBTQ+.

Should they be able to wear that lanyard without fear of reprisals? Of course they should, just as those wearing the scarves should have been able to do.

An apology has been made but as far as I'm aware there's been no explanation as to why a member of staff thought it was reasonable and justified behaviour. The point is that for whatever reason, someone thought it was reasonable and justified, but didn't consider it to be reasonable or justified to do the same to those wearing rainbow lanyards.

Yes, this all has to do with carves volver and that although we constantly hear about equality for all, it appears that some are more equal than others.

scarves not carves

Lathyrus

It’s good that you remember that women were asked to leave a Parliamentary debate because, someone in authority decided that purple and green clothes they were wearing were a political statement that was not a view that the Givernment wanted.

But that the people who were wearing rainbow colours could stay because that was a political view in agreement with Government.

But certain groups have used the colours to make a political statement. Apparently, they even have the colours on their social media accounts.

Lots of people and organisations use colours to represent what they stand for. Lots of people wear those same colours every day. Unless there’s a slogan or symbol attached who’s to judge what’s meant.

Well, those in positions of power in the Scottish apparently🤔

Not only that but they can then skew a debate on a proposed law by exercising that judgment and power.

Whilst, let’s not avoid this, allowing others who wore representative colours to remain, because that indicated they would carry the debate in the the direction required.

If a member of staff thought that the wearing of suffragette colours wasn't allowed because it was making a political statement, why didn't they have the same view of the rainbow?

I agree with Lathyrus that the rainbow signified a political view in agreement with the Government.

If someone had been wearing both, would the staff member had asked them to remove just one?

Lathyrus and Smileless I'm not defending whoever banned the scarf wearers. I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong to claim that the colours haven't become a symbol of a certain stance on trans rights.