Cancel Culture or Free Speech

Now then Galaxy, don’t be suggesting hospitals, prisons or refuges may know what they’re doing. Glory will be along to advise us to the contrary, that in fact these well established public services get it wrong all the time

Sports hospitals prisons and refuges can be segregated by sex very easily.

Glorianny

Mollygo

Ok Glorianny
So you have said you don’t know what living as a woman means. Are you now saying you aren’t a woman?
That’s a new one.

No I'm saying there are many ways of living as a women. Some people live like me but of course I wouldn't expect everyone to. Quite why that means I'm saying I'm not a woman I don't know

Thinking about this even expecting me to know is completely discriminatory. Women live many different lifestyles no definition could completely encompass all women, so what you are really asking is how would I discriminate and the answer of course is I wouldn't. So perhaps that is why I don't know.

NanaDana

Glorianny. I'm really struggling with your apparent inability to take on board the core argument here. Yes, if someone, for whatever reason, chooses to tell you that they're a woman.. although why anyone would do so is beyond me.. it's your choice as to whether or not you accept that at face value. However, please try to understand that if in fact, they are not biologically female, both their declaration to you and your unconditional acceptance of it actually mean nothing in real terms. Neither of you get to choose. Nature has already done that for you, and regardless of surgery, of chemical or hormonal intervention or of anything else, that is biologically immutable. If you both continue with the self-delusion that you can deny nature, that's your decision, but it doesn't change the essential, core truth that the original assertion is both factually and biologically incorrect. A number of people on this thread keep explaining this to you, but for some reason, you just don't seem to get it. Is all this just a wind-up? I'm beginning to think so...

I regard the biological argument as a complete irrelevancy since no one can or has explained to me how it applies to my everyday life. But if you can explain to me how it will be done I'm quite willing to look at the question again.

Trans people do not have a choice

Gender dysphoria is diagnosable, not a chosen lifestyle

A trans test may not be a choice, it may end up being the gateway to the correct treatment. Although I understand some trans people fear it will not work well enough.

The scientific studies are valid. The differences found are real and the only hypothesis is whether this is a difinitive answer or more evidence is needed. Scientists still don't know the function of many genes and there is more to come.

But I agree it might make people uncomfortable. A diagnosis we can test for that proves trans people do not have a choice and that transitioning is the right treatment? Idk, people who wouldn't accept them may feel they should have been more open.

And I'm sorry but they aren't being accepted. Their definition of being accepted is the gender they feel inside. My definition of being accepted means that scientific studies are heard, that their rights are protected and that we stop shouting about how they aren't one of us, they are something "other".

Mollygo

Ok Glorianny
So you have said you don’t know what living as a woman means. Are you now saying you aren’t a woman?
That’s a new one.

No I'm saying there are many ways of living as a women. Some people live like me but of course I wouldn't expect everyone to. Quite why that means I'm saying I'm not a woman I don't know

Glorianny. I'm really struggling with your apparent inability to take on board the core argument here. Yes, if someone, for whatever reason, chooses to tell you that they're a woman.. although why anyone would do so is beyond me.. it's your choice as to whether or not you accept that at face value. However, please try to understand that if in fact, they are not biologically female, both their declaration to you and your unconditional acceptance of it actually mean nothing in real terms. Neither of you get to choose. Nature has already done that for you, and regardless of surgery, of chemical or hormonal intervention or of anything else, that is biologically immutable. If you both continue with the self-delusion that you can deny nature, that's your decision, but it doesn't change the essential, core truth that the original assertion is both factually and biologically incorrect. A number of people on this thread keep explaining this to you, but for some reason, you just don't seem to get it. Is all this just a wind-up? I'm beginning to think so...

Ok Glorianny
So you have said you don’t know what living as a woman means. Are you now saying you aren’t a woman?
That’s a new one.

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

Well Glorianny I for one think that the Joanne Rowling books are ( mostly) EXCELLENTLY written!
My children loved them.

But never mind that - anything to do with anyone who has ever criticised the magical thinking of the trans lobby (ie those who believe that TWAW and lobby for that point of view) will be pulled apart, and the smallest thing exaggerated so that the sense of what they are saying can be ignored. Insults and put downs abound too, again so that people are triggered into defending those and again, the sense is ignored.

This ^ is why these conversations never get anywhere. Diversion, insult, smear, insinuate, but never, ever, answer questions such as the ones about marginalisation or rights (never mind the basics of what 'living as a woman' actually means).

That's OK some people like Jeffrey Archer.

See, that's just being snobbish and unpleasant. It adds nothing to the 'debate', such as that is now.

As for 'why don't [I] make suggestions - as I keep saying, it is not my role to do that. I am a woman, and would like to keep women's spaces for women. If someone wants to intrude into them, they should come up with solutions that keep women happy, not expect us to do so. Or alternatively, the people allowing this to happen (proprietors? lawyers?) should do so.

If someone wanted to use my sitting room to watch TV, against my will, would it make sense if they asked me to find a way to make myself happy with that, and meanwhile sat in my favourite seat with a cup of tea in one hand and a sandwich in the other?

Sorry that is an absolute cop out. It's simply untenable. If women are equal they need to take responsibility for decisions not pass the buck.

As for the TV analogy. It smack too much of desperation. We are not talking about private places but but public ones and if you want to have those spaces regulated you should at least have a vague concept of what could be done.
Personally I would be quite happy to pass the decision to the women using those spaces, since I am reasonably certain that some of them might want to restrict the facility to natal women and some of them might not. If the majority wanted to do so the restriction would apply. They would then formulate the process for taking action.

Galaxy

Yes the Jeffrey archer thing was again quite unpleasant

Sorry why was it unpleasant?
Some people like JK Rowling I never have. but they are entitled to their opinion
Some people like Jeffrey Archer I don't. But others are entitled to do so.
I wouldn't consider either of them good literature.

Mollygo

^G you’re outdoing yourself this afternoon.
This is why these conversations never get anywhere. Diversion, insult, smear, insinuate, but never, ever, answer questions such as the ones about marginalisation or rights (never mind the basics of what 'living as a woman' actually means).
*Exactly your tactics. You are keen to marginalise the rights of females and you you have never answered what ‘living as a woman’ means, though you’d probably start with males having the right to be in female safe spaces!*

I have actuually
I've said I don't really know.
But it is in any case irrelevant. What I referred to were people who present as women. But I suppose that is very personal. Which is why it is dangerous, because some people will judge women who have slightly masculine features as men. And those judgemental people are just as dangerous to all women. So perhaps best not to imagine you can tell.

icanhandthemback
Sorry DD, I had a moment and find quite a lot of the language around this quite confusing!
I think you'll find it was deliberately done when the words were coined. Especially when they want the trans separate from the man or woman and therefore an adjective. So a man who wants to present as a woman should have been a trans man ie a man who had transgendered, but was still a subset of males. That's why I always use transwoman as one word, a noun that describes a male who wants to present as a woman. Hope I haven't just made it more confusing!

Do you think KS thinks transpeople arent real?

Yes the Jeffrey archer thing was again quite unpleasant

DD 🤣🤣🤣

Sorry DD, I had a moment and find quite a lot of the language around this quite confusing!

No need to apologise. I knew what you meant, but was trying to save you from a 'Gotcha' .

The 'You Decide' was meant to be read in the voice of Marcus Wossname from Big Brother. Sorry - I didn't sleep well last night, and I'm tired

Glorianny

Doodledog

Well Glorianny I for one think that the Joanne Rowling books are ( mostly) EXCELLENTLY written!
My children loved them.

But never mind that - anything to do with anyone who has ever criticised the magical thinking of the trans lobby (ie those who believe that TWAW and lobby for that point of view) will be pulled apart, and the smallest thing exaggerated so that the sense of what they are saying can be ignored. Insults and put downs abound too, again so that people are triggered into defending those and again, the sense is ignored.

This ^ is why these conversations never get anywhere. Diversion, insult, smear, insinuate, but never, ever, answer questions such as the ones about marginalisation or rights (never mind the basics of what 'living as a woman' actually means).

That's OK some people like Jeffrey Archer.

See, that's just being snobbish and unpleasant. It adds nothing to the 'debate', such as that is now.

As for 'why don't [I] make suggestions - as I keep saying, it is not my role to do that. I am a woman, and would like to keep women's spaces for women. If someone wants to intrude into them, they should come up with solutions that keep women happy, not expect us to do so. Or alternatively, the people allowing this to happen (proprietors? lawyers?) should do so.

If someone wanted to use my sitting room to watch TV, against my will, would it make sense if they asked me to find a way to make myself happy with that, and meanwhile sat in my favourite seat with a cup of tea in one hand and a sandwich in the other?

^Yes, on the whole I think you are right (although I think you mean Transwomen?). A lot of this is about power, really.

Also, how many places have the space or plumbing to be able to comply with that? New builds could do it, but converting older buildings often would not be possible. So instead, rather than have men inconvenienced, the Ladies 'conveniences' double up as 'gender neutral' and often are also available to the disabled and parents with babies, so men, women, transpeople, the 'non-binary' the disabled and parents are all expected to use the space with cubicles only, whereas the men get a place all of their own with both cubicles and urinals. The best solution? You Decide.^

Sorry DD, I had a moment and find quite a lot of the language around this quite confusing!

I'm not sure that I have the brain power to decide but agree that women draw the short straw where public toilets are concerned.

As for "asking" anybody what gender they are, quite often you don't have to ask, it is very obvious. However, if somebody was behaving themselves, I'd have no reason to ask them and would live and let live.

^G you’re outdoing yourself this afternoon.
This is why these conversations never get anywhere. Diversion, insult, smear, insinuate, but never, ever, answer questions such as the ones about marginalisation or rights (never mind the basics of what 'living as a woman' actually means).
Exactly your tactics. You are keen to marginalise the rights of females and you you have never answered what ‘living as a woman’ means, though you’d probably start with males having the right to be in female safe spaces!

Mollygo

And since we obviously can’t rely on the honesty of some males, someone announcing that they are a woman is the first indication that they aren’t.

Now that would be an interesting if problematic standard to apply.

The point is that young people want to be able to question their gender identity just as they have questioned their sexuality and it really isn't up to anyone else to interfere with that, or to tell them that if they have gender dysphoria that it is just a fiction.

So who does that????
I see lots of accusations from you, but presumably you’re addressing them to those other than on GN because I can’t find any references or posters doing this UNTIL I read your posts claiming it’s happening.

Mollygo You obviously haven't read Kathleen Stock, because that is exactly what she does claim that transpeople are living a fiction. In other words they are not real.
OMG I've just realised she thinks she looks like Kendal Roy, she is the one with the fiction problem.

And since we obviously can’t rely on the honesty of some males, someone announcing that they are a woman is the first indication that they aren’t.

But surely Mollygo the point is that if your standards are to be applied I need some way of knowing, regardless of if I ask, am told, psychically communicated with, or observe it.
So how will I have proof?

You’re the one who talks about people telling you they are a woman.
I haven’t ever been told that, nor needed to ask for proof, but I don’t live in your fantasy world, so it’s not a problem.

Doodledog

No, me neither, and I have never ever wondered if I should ask to 'look in their pants' either. It's just not something that would occur to me, but I suppose we are all different.

Again, apologies for repetition, but I just take people as I find them. It is only when they want to colonise women's spaces (including sports and language - eg telling me what it means to be a woman) that I object.

In that case why not post your ideas for how you would do things and how you would regulate things.
Rather than castigate those of us who keep pointing out that it cannot reasonably be done.

Doodledog

*Well Glorianny I for one think that the Joanne Rowling books are ( mostly) EXCELLENTLY written!*
My children loved them.

But never mind that - anything to do with anyone who has ever criticised the magical thinking of the trans lobby (ie those who believe that TWAW and lobby for that point of view) will be pulled apart, and the smallest thing exaggerated so that the sense of what they are saying can be ignored. Insults and put downs abound too, again so that people are triggered into defending those and again, the sense is ignored.

This ^ is why these conversations never get anywhere. Diversion, insult, smear, insinuate, but never, ever, answer questions such as the ones about marginalisation or rights (never mind the basics of what 'living as a woman' actually means).

That's OK some people like Jeffrey Archer.