The fact that she's struggling to answer the question, is a sign that we know what her real answer is.

Anyone that's struggling to formulate an opinion on a topic like this is clearly being phony, especially a Politician trying to do it.

Neh that's an extremely weak argument even if assumed to be true; you're straight up admitting that it can be taken advantage of, just disclaiming it with the idea that people "only know that" because it was highlighted by people concerned at the possibility?

Your argument, then, hinges on the idea that said predators "would never have noticed" and so it wouldn't have been a problem which is at best shaky. Logically, of course it would still have "been noticed" and propagated. Best case scenario is that it might have taken a little longer.

And that's assuming full accuracy of what you're saying, I think there's a strong case to be made that the rise of "anti trans" has gone hand in hand with unrelated, self-driven trans awareness that has nothing at all to do with any anti-trans movement and is more rooted in the identity-politics that defines and is interwoven with late millenial/early genZ sociology.

What was their response to what is a woman?

Cut and paste is fine....

I'm not making any argument, as I have no interest in this discussion on here. I'm just pointing to the facts of the timeline. If it's true, then it's not weak. By definition.

Dude, honestly, you're the only person on here that I would have had this discussion with in a serious manner, but it's not something I'm interested in anymore. It always devolves. I've had folks who I had long standing relationships with, saying I've never been an ally to women about anything because of this topic, and let's also not forget your Saturday morning love letters to me about my signature (honestly no hard feelings whatsoever). It's always only ever one misplaced sentence (from either side) away from descending into full on stupidity, and so there's just no point.

BBC News Text Edit:
[An ongoing feud between J K Rowling and Labour,
over the party's stance on women and transgender rights.
The author has criticised Sir Keir for selecting
Anneliese Dodds as his minister for women
and equalities, after Ms Dodds previously
said there are "different definitions legally
around what a woman actually is".]


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...456a6.png.webp

I just wanted to respond to this as I didnt on the other thread, the idea that self ID would not have been taken advantage of unless it had been pointed out is pretty out there..... and you are right trans women have been using bathrooms for years with no issue but then self ID created a literal explosion of band wagon jumpers some actual trans but the majority just experimenting or using it as an opportunity whether that be financially in sport or as a predator or just because of plain old mysogny

Dude, honestly, you're the only person on here that I would have had this discussion with in a serious manner,

I find this part of your post astonishing, you would discuss an issue that affects women only with another male? is that you Andrew Tate?

Like the women of TiBB are not worthy...I guess :laugh:

It's just a very touchy subject I'm afraid Slim Reaper.

I feel like whatever your opinion is on this topic, there is bound to be a group of people not like you for saying it.

Personally when it comes to Dodds, I would've liked her to have stated her opinion more clearly, rather than trying to be evasive to the question.

Especially as she's a woman and this topic relates to women spaces, she'll have a more definitive opinion in either direction than she's giving at the moment, she feels dishonest with her answer imo.

I personally would've been fine with her answer regardless of which side that she picked, I just wished that she would say.

Herein lies both the problem and the reason. Monsieur Tate agrees with you on this topic, not me.

Has nothing to do with SB being male, it is about where he is coming from in the discussion. SB and I have had plenty of disagreements and differences, but I genuinely believe he's coming at it from an honest place, that isn't about simply dressing up excuses for bigotry.

I've seen numerous people insisting it's about x or y, but then love a bit of support for Parker and her merry band of Nazi's. I've seen numerous people pretend they just want to protect the integrity of women's sport, but don't half love some Gervais "SHE'S GOT A COCK"" screeching routines, and who want to girl-baws JK for going way past "concern for the safety of women" long, long ago, and is more concentrated on putting trans people in danger these days.

Here's my final thought.

I got an infraction a while back for saying that anyone who doesn't see that gaza is genocide, must either be ignorant or thick. I got it for insulting members, despite the fact it isn't either about anyone personally and doesn't mention anyone specifically.

We have a trans person (maybe persons) who use this forum, but yet people just have carte blanche to call trans people any names they want, at any time, and without any repercussions whatsoever.

so you think I am coming from a place of bigotry as least we know where we both stand now, and herein lies the problem women can't stand up for themselves any more, they are either called Karens or bigots, maybe you could tell me the names trans people have been called on the forum by me? the fact that you think SB can say the same thing as I say but he is coming from an honest (manly) place but I am a bigot, frankly I dont wish to discuss this with you any further either tbh

My point was, as you can clearly read in my post to SB, that the discussion always devolves, and I also clearly said from both sides (ie - me, too)

I don't know what your posts are, Cherie, but me saying that this forum is dripping with bigotry towards trans people, is not a controversial statement.

You can believe my post was about you and just the women if you want, but that doesn't make it true, and it's not the first time in this thread that misrepresenting what I've written seems to be the go to.

Whether you make bigoted comments about trans people or not is for you to decide, but you've definitely been a complete snide towards me in the past, so why would I want an in-depth discussion with you about anything? I'm happy to keep things surface level.

"They were elected"?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GR-tsVIa...jpg&name=small

Oh I'm more than happy at surface level with you

I just cant take to her. She looks like someone who spent the 90s on the edge of the dancefloor.