Yet another MP, ignorant about biology.

VioletSky

I won't be coming back to these threads. I think those who enjoy attacking others and driving this type of personal vendetta enjoy it and I want no further part in that unhealthiness

I'll stick to threads where this behaviour is more apparent and less tolerated by others

I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you don't realise that when you make comments about "those" or "these" people which are accusatory in nature - it is annoying to anyone who is attempting to have a rational debate.

You've done it again in this last post... "those who enjoy attacking others and driving this type of personal vendetta enjoy it"

I think what is happening is that, as an intersectional feminist, you do not accept the basic 'principle' of the argument from those who are labelled "gender critical" - me, Doodledog et al - that male-bodied trans women are not women; that a biological male, however he identifies, is not a biological woman. Not only do you not accept that argument - you appear not to accept it when we say that we are not questioning the right of a man to identify as a woman for the purposes of their every day life (ontological) - to respond to that inner-feeling of identity. I believe that to you - this means simply that we are questioning a trans woman's right to exist; so merely discussing the issues surrounding identity is, de facto, trans phobic. I think you have actually stated (though I can't remember the exact words) that trans gender people should not have to justify their existence? Is this what you think 'gender critical' posters on here are doing - suggesting that the trans community have to justify themselves?

I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you continually throw out these accusing observations, directed at no-one in particular but everyone in general. Such comments will, inevitably, generate a response and when posters who've been engaging with you become exasperated, they might not always respond in the polite way that you expect! And the end result is that you feel you are being victimised and that there is a 'pile on'.

For my part VS I am not part of any "vendetta", I am not "enjoying" an attack on you - I am not attacking you... I am asking you who you are referring to when you make these generalised observations about impoliteness, unkindness; suggest that posters are talking "nonsense"... "ridiculous"... "scapegoating". These are all allegations you've made to this forum as a whole.

Can you genuinely not see why this elicits a response? No one likes to be accused of a crime they haven't committed, nor accused of a phobia they don't have. If you don't specify - then we are all accused, and then we all respond - which then prompts you to say that there is a vendetta against you.

If allegations are not specific to individual posters Dickens, it's harder to be challenged about them. If one poster for example takes offence, the response can be 'it wasn't about/aimed at you'. It also enables the one making the accusations to avoid being reported for a personal attack.

Regardless of how one identifies be they an IF, GC or simply a feminist, it's very clear on this and other threads on the issue of trans, that no one has ever denied the right of the trans community to exist. Nor has anyone attempted to demonise the trans community as a whole for what a tiny but unfortunately very damaging minority are responsible for.

I haven't done extensive reading on IF but what I have read does not say that IF's believe that a man can be a woman, or that the 'rights' some trans demand should be at the expense of natal women's rights. In fact, despite being trumpeted as somehow superior to feminism by some, it's no different regarding aims and inclusivity to those referred too as GC and those of us for whom simply being known as feminists is enough.

Smileless2012

If allegations are not specific to individual posters Dickens, it's harder to be challenged about them. If one poster for example takes offence, the response can be 'it wasn't about/aimed at you'. It also enables the one making the accusations to avoid being reported for a personal attack.

Regardless of how one identifies be they an IF, GC or simply a feminist, it's very clear on this and other threads on the issue of trans, that no one has ever denied the right of the trans community to exist. Nor has anyone attempted to demonise the trans community as a whole for what a tiny but unfortunately very damaging minority are responsible for.

I haven't done extensive reading on IF but what I have read does not say that IF's believe that a man can be a woman, or that the 'rights' some trans demand should be at the expense of natal women's rights. In fact, despite being trumpeted as somehow superior to feminism by some, it's no different regarding aims and inclusivity to those referred too as GC and those of us for whom simply being known as feminists is enough.

Regardless of how one identifies be they an IF, GC or simply a feminist, it's very clear on this and other threads on the issue of trans, that no one has ever denied the right of the trans community to exist. Nor has anyone attempted to demonise the trans community as a whole for what a tiny but unfortunately very damaging minority are responsible for.

Absolutely I haven't read all the comments but none of those I have indicate hostility to the trans community as a group. I certainly don't feel such malice. Goodness, I have some inner identity issues myself as I definitely do not identify with every aspect of what is commonly assumed to be womanhood.

I haven't done extensive reading on IF but what I have read does not say that IF's believe that a man can be a woman, or that the 'rights' some trans demand should be at the expense of natal women's rights. In fact, despite being trumpeted as somehow superior to feminism by some, it's no different regarding aims and inclusivity to those referred too as GC and those of us for whom simply being known as feminists is enough.

Yes - I'm finding the labels somewhat burdensome. To be 'filed' under "Gender Critical" because I question an aspect of identity is quite irritating. Essentially, I regard myself and everyone else as human beings, worthy of the same rights and protections. As a Feminist I'd like to see the diminishment of Patriarchy and misogyny.

Did you see the John Hopkins Glossary definition of lesbians as "non-men"? And, if you did, did you note that the definition for "gay" still included the word 'men'?

Is it any wonder that women feel they are being eradicated when under its "Diversity and Inclusion Gender and Sexuality Resources" it decides not to include "women"?

Yes I did Dickens and it's a lot more than women feeling we're being eradicated, there are very real attempts to make it happen.

'People who bleed', 'people with a cervix' and 'chest feeders' are clear examples that the words women and woman are being substituted by ridiculous so called 'inclusive' terminology.

A number of “inclusive” terms struggle with their meaning and understanding. Non- men, if anybody had actually about it included the whole animal world, as Twitter was quick to point out😬 And also inanimate objects. A chair is a non-man. You simply can’t use a negative to express an inclusive positive.

“People that bleed” was another since we all bleed. At least that confined the definition to people.

“Chest feeder”. That’s no one. Nobody can feed from their chest. Human mammary glands are contained within the breast.

I could go on.

Snap Smileless

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that Lathyrus but of course non-men includes every other living creature and inanimate object. The terms is even more ridiculous than it first appears isn't it.

You simply can't use a negative to express an inclusive positive exactly.

Great posts from both of you (Dickens and Smileless).

This is not meant as a personal attack, although some points are specific to VS's accusations of being picked on, but I believe in being direct in my responses, so I am not going to do the Some People or oblique digs thing, and get to the point.

I have tried more than once to explain as patiently as I can why many of VS's posts are so inflammatory, but to no avail. I have come to the same conclusion as you Smileless, which is that the passive aggressive generalisations are from the same stable as the Some People ones - it is in the mistaken belief that having what is presented as a generalised dig at a group of people is not going to count as a personal comment, so the point can be made (aggressive) without owning it, taking responsibility (passive). This is no more the case than someone who asks a direct question of a particular poster is being personal. A direct question is assertive, whether or not the person being questioned is comfortable with the question being asked.

Also, we are expected to remember which identities apply to VS at any given time. Is it neurodiversity, bisexuality, someone with training in gender dysphoria, Intersectional Feminism, victim of an abusive parent or what? There are so many posters on here that it is impossible to remember everyone's circumstances, and in any case we can't be expected to know how to apply these identities in the case of a particular thread, yet VS mentions all of these things in mitigation when she is losing an argument, but if any of us bring them up we are accused of using them against her.

I'm sure that most of us will have aspects of our lives, backgrounds/neurology/psychology/sexuality that we could equally use in mitigation, or as a way to claim that we know more about an issue than other people, but that just doesn't work on open forums such as this. Partly as I said, because we can't remember everything about everyone, and partly because we just don't know who is telling the truth and who isn't. We could all claim membership of 'marginalised groups'.

That is NOT to say that I am accusing VS of lying - I'm not. I think that she does believe what she says, but even so, hers is a subjective view and we have no way of verifying it, and in any case we still have to take posts as we find them. If I said, in order to make a point seem more authoritative, that I was really a man who enjoyed exercising power over women by accessing their spaces and seeing their fear, would anyone believe me? It is possible that I might be, isn't it? All the same, apart from the fact (for avoidance of doubt!) that this is not the case (), I wouldn't expect to be believed because I could equally claim to be a circus clown, a wizard or a secret agent if it suited my purpose. It has to be a level playing field, with everyone assumed to be starting afresh on every thread, and we can only judge a post by the words on the page, not be expected to know what was in the mind of the poster when she wrote them.

Anyway, this is wandering from the point, but I do hope that it is clear that VS is not a victim on these threads, despite the continual protestations that she suffers from pile-ons and is misrepresented etc. People like Dickens, Rosie and Smileless are reasonable posters who post on all sorts of threads without such accusations being levelled against them, and I believe that I do too. It is very difficult to read accusations of bullying/hounding etc, and think that they might be believed, so I hope this post goes some way to explaining at least some of the reasons why VS may seem to get a hard time on these threads.

Sorry - there are lots of typos and editing errors in that post, and the thread moved on when I was writing it. I hope it makes sense as it stands.

VioletSky

I'm trying to give my honest opinion in discussion and won't be engaging with people who can't do the same.

It’s hard to engage with a poster who accuses everyone of not posting honest opinions. I don’t understand how VS doesn’t see that that is what she is doing.
If she has read any of the posts here, maybe it will make things clearer.

Agreed, Molly. The insinuations that we are all dishonest are personal attacks, too. I take accusations of lying very seriously.

So do I Doodledog, along with insinuations of misrepresenting and especially that there are 'some' with a personal vendetta.

It is as you say difficult to see accusations of hounding and bullying because of the worry that they may be believed.

After John Hopkins... comes Wicke's - whose Chief Operating Office has said that trans voices must be amplified in business, and that those who disagreed with him are "bigots" and not welcome in the store.

So here's the thing...

People's beliefs, whether as an individual or as part of a group, have always been open to debate and discussion. Worker's rights, men's rights, women's rights, ethnic-minority rights, and other political groups' rights - we, as a society, frequently debate whether a body of workers belonging to a trades union should go on strike; we discuss men's-rights activism; feminists frequently have their demands questioned. Why should the demands made by some trans rights groups / activists not be questioned - especially if some of those demands impact other groups or individuals? Is this the "no debate" argument again? Is this COO saying, in effect, I have spoken and anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot?

I don't want to see anyone discriminated against in the workplace - unless they are bullies, criminals or thugs, but I do want to talk about men in women's intimate spaces. Is this bigotry?

I would imagine that Wicke's gets a fair share of 'bigots' browsing their stores... racists, xenophobes, misogynists, misandrists - you name it, and the store accommodates them day in day out because the COO has no idea of the beliefs and opinions of his customers! Why jump on this bandwagon - why not champion the ending of all discrimination in commerce and industry?

Thoughts?

I read about the Wickes thing a few days ago, and wondered if it might be the 'Ratner Moment' for the company, but it all seems to have gone quiet.

I don't think that retail outlets can afford to be discriminatory in any way, whether that is to staff or customers, and discrimination includes saying that someone not embracing the TWAW mantra is a bigot.

Monsoon's sales tanked after the CEO said they produced beautiful clothes for ugly women, Abercrombie and Fitch lost customers when they were seen as 'anti-fat' in their discrimination against larger sized assistants, and so on.

From my experience of stores like Wickes, it seems unlikely that its customers represent a 'woke' minority . Most are blokey men browsing screwdrivers and couples looking at kitchens. The stores don't have a 'metrosexual' vibe at all. Of course they should not discriminate against transpeople or anyone else, but why should trans voices be 'amplified' (whatever that means)?

I wonder whether Wickes' PR team have done sterling work in getting this story out of the media?

Doodledog

I read about the Wickes thing a few days ago, and wondered if it might be the 'Ratner Moment' for the company, but it all seems to have gone quiet.

I don't think that retail outlets can afford to be discriminatory in any way, whether that is to staff or customers, and discrimination includes saying that someone not embracing the TWAW mantra is a bigot.

Monsoon's sales tanked after the CEO said they produced beautiful clothes for ugly women, Abercrombie and Fitch lost customers when they were seen as 'anti-fat' in their discrimination against larger sized assistants, and so on.

From my experience of stores like Wickes, it seems unlikely that its customers represent a 'woke' minority . Most are blokey men browsing screwdrivers and couples looking at kitchens. The stores don't have a 'metrosexual' vibe at all. Of course they should not discriminate against transpeople or anyone else, but why should trans voices be 'amplified' (whatever that means)?

I wonder whether Wickes' PR team have done sterling work in getting this story out of the media?

Monsoon's sales tanked after the CEO said they produced beautiful clothes for ugly women...



You do have to wonder about the mindset of some of these COOs and CEOS! I didn't know about that one.

As for Wicke's. You're right, the customer-base is more blokey than wokey, so I'm not sure quite what he's achieving.

Just more nonsense isn't it. 'Oh look at me and how inclusive I am' when there's nothing at all inclusive by labelling someone who disagrees with you as a bigot.

The most inclusive label you could have is M&F. Everybody, however they identify fits that grouping.
I’m hoping the word woke, will either die a death or go back to what it meant originally.

That is a point that is often lost on here, I think. The 'kind' and 'inclusive' comments that support the rights of a small number of men over a vast number of women are in fact exclusionary and ultimately very unkind.

I do still think (in spite of the examples on this thread of Wickes and Kirsty Blackman in the OP) that the tide is turning, though. Jess Phillips has spoken out, for instance. A couple of years ago that wouldn't have happened without a huge backlash. She has also spoken in defence of Rosie Duffield which is encouraging, if late in the day. There are, of course, calls for her resignation from the opponents of free speech and the silencers of women, but any resignation hasn't happened yet, and my guess is that JP will have tested the water before speaking out.

We shouldn't despair, I think - tempting though it can be to feel despondent at times.

Doodledog

I read about the Wickes thing a few days ago, and wondered if it might be the 'Ratner Moment' for the company, but it all seems to have gone quiet.

I don't think that retail outlets can afford to be discriminatory in any way, whether that is to staff or customers, and discrimination includes saying that someone not embracing the TWAW mantra is a bigot.

Monsoon's sales tanked after the CEO said they produced beautiful clothes for ugly women, Abercrombie and Fitch lost customers when they were seen as 'anti-fat' in their discrimination against larger sized assistants, and so on.

From my experience of stores like Wickes, it seems unlikely that its customers represent a 'woke' minority . Most are blokey men browsing screwdrivers and couples looking at kitchens. The stores don't have a 'metrosexual' vibe at all. Of course they should not discriminate against transpeople or anyone else, but why should trans voices be 'amplified' (whatever that means)?

I wonder whether Wickes' PR team have done sterling work in getting this story out of the media?

Wickes was bought by Travis Perkins, and both are just 2 of about 300 companies, owned by HIG Capital, a finance company.

So not sure there will be a "Ratner" moment.

Having read the Jess Phillips link can anyone tell me how on earth you pronounce womxn? Thank goodness I'm one woman in a group of women, I know how to pronounce those

It's customer response to a brand that counts where that is concerned though. If people stop shopping at Wickes - which I doubt will happen - partly because this hasn't been widely reported, AFAIK, and also because I can't imagine most of Wickes' customers being bothered one way or the other - then being part of a larger group wouldn't save them.

On the whole, people see the brand, and unless there is a reason for a group to be in the news (eg Arcadia) that's all they know or care about.

Rosie51

Having read the Jess Phillips link can anyone tell me how on earth you pronounce womxn? Thank goodness I'm one woman in a group of women, I know how to pronounce those

I have no idea, Rosie. Funnily enough, that word isn't in my vocabulary

Not in mine either, but the x stands for the exclusion of females from women.

Mollygo

The most inclusive label you could have is M&F. Everybody, however they identify fits that grouping.
I’m hoping the word woke, will either die a death or go back to what it meant originally.

The most inclusive label you could have is M&F. Everybody, however they identify fits that grouping.
👏👏👏

I’m hoping the word woke, will either die a death or go back to what it meant originally.

I don't think it will disappear for some time. It's use now encompasses more and more of what used to come under the umbrella of 'political-correctness gone mad'. We'll have to wait until another word or phrase is dragooned into service - another word that denigrates anyone who shows some compassion for the people that the users don't approve of!

The trouble now is that the word is used (apart from the original meaning of a form of ‘awake’) in three ways - one to describe an inclusive point of view and the holders of that viewpoint, one to claim that view for oneself (even, as said above, when doing so is, in fact, exclusionary because of assumptions and stereotyping of those who disagree on a small but fundamental point of faith) and thirdly to sneer at people who are trying to be inclusionary.

It is sometimes easy to tell how it is being used at a given time, but not always. Like ‘kind’, it is a word that no longer has a fixed meaning.