I believe that some people blow certain aspects of it being about women's rights / women's safety out of proportion because they are generally threatened by the very concept of M2F transgenderism, yes. I find many of the objections to be extreme and not particularly level-headed, and when that is the case, the reason is usually "fear". In this case, not rational fear of attack, but the same "fear of the unknown other" that has affected ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and (somewhat ironically) women themselves when campaigning for acceptance. Rewind the women's rights movement 100 years, to when women were first gaining access to what were traditionally "male spaces", and a lot of the rhetoric from "men scared of change" is very familiar.

Could I have entered this thread better? Yes, and no. Yes because I jumped in angry. No because I don't think doing it any differently will make a difference - as I'll be told that as a penis-bearer I can't possibly have a concept of the issue that is fully informed, or that while I'm entitled to my opinion, it's inferior to the opinion of any female who has given it 30 seconds thought or more. I know it won't go down well. I know it'll be paraphrased and misrepresented. I know this while this topic is fine for DISCUSSION, it is off the table for DEBATE on here, from experience, and yes, that makes me ... "angry and frustrated".

Well I don't know what kind of a reaction you were expecting tbf when you accuse people of what you did.

Anyway Withano, Jamie and Jack were perfectly able to have an opposing view without falling out with anyone or accusing them of basically lying about what they're concerned about.

Anyway, I'll leave it there with you.

And me Niamh. :nono: :oh: :(

Of course :love:

There are NO women's rights activists who are behaving in deliberately inflamatory and passive aggressive ways? None? Not... not even one? I'm sure you have to see that this claim is utterly ludicrous... it's practically a statistical impossibility. Of course there are thivk, angry people aggressively arguing stupid points. That is true of both sides of every debate there has ever been, so how you can be claiming that there is ZERO inflamatory feminist rhetoric caught up in this one, I really have no idea.

And yes... that's what "crossfire" means isn't it? Reasonable/rational Women's rights activists are being attacked because of boiling over anger; because of being lumped in with the angry, shouty, unreasonable ones. Just as transpeople are becoming increasingly angry about being lumped in with perverts and potential sex offenders. And so on, and so forth...

And you don't find that to be petty, or deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?

Exactly the reaction I got? :shrug:

That's not true though is it but your calling me names was removed. :nono:

You jumped in ignorant! You had no definitive opinion of your own ( by your own admission) you have no clue as to the issues or reasoning of other forum members and neither have you any personal insight as to the issues facing the transgender community.

If you think that entitles you stomp into a thread and demand that others amend or review their views you are very very wrong!

The reason why you are so worried about being paraphrased is you are terrified because you know that no matter how you word it you are going to come across as someone who is wholly prejudiced.

You have nothing to feel angry and frustrated for, there were no challenges to your opinion you didn't have one you simply failed to understand the concerns as debated and threw in your unnecessarily offensive remarks.

And this name was?

Easy to accuse someone of something when it's apparently been "removed".

It's fine to deflect if you can't own it, I know the truth of what I saw in black and white.

Not at all. Do you have any other suggestions? It may some across as petty, but the reasons behind it are sound and it seems the men its affecting agree that its needed and they understand the issues now.

Also this is a result of being ignored for years and years. I was there when they decided to do this (I will not join in with it because...well I am not confident enough and I also have been sexually assaulted way too many times to want to be in a male area tbh) and it was decided (on which I agreed) that the only way that people will be listened to on this topic, is when it starts to affect men. Women are just written off as hysterical bigots, where men are allowed to have an opinion. Some things never change I guess :shrug:'

Also, swim england have oddly enough now decided that a consultation is actually needed, rather than just deciding that anyone can self identify into either changing room (or women only/men only sessions) and that anyone who objects should be 'reeducated by staff'. Its very good timing, I have to say, that this revision came after women started self identifying as men. I don't think anyone thought women would do it in the way men do.

So I see how it could come across as petty yes. But it has been effective, which was the point. writing en masse got us ignored. Affecting men, got it changed immediately.



Also on the rest of your post, of course I cannot say that no womens rights activists anywhere in the country behave in inappropriate ways. Thats ridiculous. But the women attending the meetings who were attacked, were not doing anything wrong. And were attacked for simply wanting to talk about a change that will affect them in a very negative way. The amount of transactivists who are behaving in this way vastly outnumber the one or two womens rights activists who may possibly be behaving in that way (though none I have seen/know). I did nothing wrong besides talk, and attracted death threats, rape threats, and threats against my children...and I have never ever issued a death threat, rape threat, or threatened anyones kids, obviously.

Deflect it? I haven't called you anything.

The very fact you're not very forthcoming with what was actually said speaks volumes.

I am stunned that you would lie about it.

So, Jaxie has come back onto the thread to bait another argument about something she doesn't wish to actually say?

:joker:

Also on this point, its not women who have done this either. Its stonewall who lumped transsexual people in with fetishists and such.

And a hell of a lot of transsexual people are trying to distance themselves from the 'transgender' label.

Also 'old school transsexuals' tend to be against selfID too. As it effectively makes the GRC utterly meaningless if anyone can get one.

I'm not rising to the baiting Marsh, we both know what you said and that the thread was closed 3 times for cleaning. I will completely own calling you a misogynist in return though. But don't make yourself out to be innocent, you aren't.

I'm baiting? You came in here to address me. I have no interest in you.

You called me a misogynist after I called you, what? It's much easier to either admit or deny when I know what I'm admitting or denying.

More personal slurs, Kizzy?

The purpose of debate is to develop and inform an opinion. I know that some people believe that it's about butting their heads against a wall until the wall breaks, but it's not, and it's perfectly acceptable to have views on aspects of a discussion - or in this place (accurately) believe that the subject isn't really up for discussion - without a pre-formed "definitive opinion".

Questioning and criticising other people's reasoning is a valid and important part of debate. Again, I understand why that would be a problem in a thread that is not up for debate.

As far as I'm aware, no one on this thread does?

I explicitly did not "demand that others amend or review their views". I requested that they cut the BS and be a bit more honest about the root of their views because, in my opinion, 2 + 2 is equalling 5 a lot of the time.


I'm not "worried" about anything; I dislike being paraphrased (which I'm going to take on board, because I'm guilty of doing it to others) and I especially dislike being paraphrased "so what you're saying is..." style with the suggestion being something that I haven't said at all. I'm especially opposed to this when there isn't even a quote to clarify.

Don't be a hypocrite Kizzy; who are you to tell anyone that they are or are not allowed to feel? I suspect you'd take issue with it if someone did that to you?

I'm not going to just say "yes, I've said that" when you're not actually telling me what I am admitting to.

It was while you were mocking me for not liking the cis add on if that helps.

Likewise apart from when you decide to call me names and polish your halo that you haven't been attacking in a thread.

Just for the record I've said all I'm saying to you.

How ****ing patronising seriously.

This conversation would be a hell of a lot shorter if you'd just come out and say it?

Why all the baiting and mystery around something I've supposedly said to you? Just come out with it or shut up altogether. :shrug:

He is thinking for us now? Just wow.

How is that people think they know how others minds work and all their motives for any given subject after sharing a few opinions on a forum. It's ridiculous.

As succinctly as I can;

My issue is that Brillo feels very strongly that she has the right to comment on Muslim-issues despite being a non-Muslim, and you and Cherie are invariably the first people to jump in to back her up on that right...

...and then on this thread Brillo felt that I did not have the right to comment on female-issues as I am a non-female... and you and Cherie were the first to back her up.


Brillo having contradictory stances isn't really the issue though; people often have contradictory opinions. The back-up though, just confirms to me that Brillo is "someone that you two will back up" regardless of what is actually being said. I'm not painting you as villains, just making an observation, but it does I think render it fairly meaningless when you jump in on other threads to adamantly state that "Brillo is entitled to her opinion!".

Jaxie/Marsh.

None of Marshs posts have been removed in here. In another similar thread that was closed for cleaning a few times, yes, but not in here.

Not sure if you are talking about this thread specifically, or the topic in general. So just wanted to clear that up.