You don't need to take my word for it, go check out their timelines. They may get the odd abusive message but its nothing at all like what feminists get. Each of my twitter posts gets at least 20 threats and 'bitch' 'slut' etc type replies. Even ones that are **** all to do with trans matters, because I am on the radar of these men who want women to shut up about stuff that affects them.

i get the problem with this, but it's also not that India is a likeable person, not at all, the way she came over on CBB

so if that feminist just told India she isn't a good role model for the women in general, there wasn't any problem whatsoever

it's just the way this person said it now, came over as homophobic, insult towards the LGBTQ community and that is just plain rude

Theres not generally a problem with post op people like India. Posie was invited on to discuss transactivism as a whole, then railroaded into discussing one trans person, when its not about individuals, its about the movement as a whole. And I genuinely cannot see how anyone can think that any man should be able to declare himself a woman and have womans rights. I don't. And I definitely do not see how people can not see that opening up womens rights to men makes womens rights meaningless. The word woman matters. Cis is sexist bollocks (against both men and women) as it relies solely on sex stereotypes. Transwomen are transwomen, and women are women. I don't get what the issue is with saying that.

and trans people are also quite insecure, not all of them but many are quite insecure, i personally am not against trans people, everyone has the right to be happy who they are for themselves

there definitely isn't much respect for women's rights, which should improve honestly, that subject has been going on for a long time now

equality for me is what should be more in the world, everyone is the same, we are all human, sorry if i sound poetic now with this

See I know this view will be controversial here, but equality is not what I want. I want equity. Acknowledgement that some of us are different (for example women have different needs to men a lot of the time due to biology) and steps taken to try and make everything fairer.

https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/s...ity-equity.jpg

In the case of the topic at hand, that would be a third unisex option for transpeople. ONTOP of single sex areas. So they have the right to use either the areas of their sex, or the unisex one if they do not feel comfortable using the areas that their sex is meant to use. As sex segregated areas are segregated by sex, not 'gender' anyway, and this needs to be acknowledged by all really. There is absolutely no point in segregating areas where one is naked or vulnerable by 'gender' which amounts to nothing more than a feeling in ones head, that a lot of people don't even have! (though women have had an honour system with transsexuals going for years and years anyway, where women will politely pretend they do not know the person is male, as they acknowledge that they have a difficult life. This is massively under threat with the behaviour/demands of transactivists tbh).

Interesting that it's mostly the males on this thread are telling us how bad transsexuals have it. And yes, some of them do, and I'm truly sorry for that. Everyone has a right to be happy.

That doesn't make the outrageous campaign against any woman who speaks out acceptable.

Who said it was acceptable? You seem to be putting words in mouths now.

You seem a little too preoccupied with dismissing opinions as "Oooh, well that's a male forum member so their view doesn't matter". Knock yourself out.

Moving the goalposts of the discussion from India Willoughby and this blogger and the debate they've had to the larger and more extreme examples of both of them doesn't help a reasoned discussion neither. It's all a little muddled.

Such as the points actually raised in this debate versus "can anyone identify as anything" are a different and much larger discussion IMO.

I think it helps to have a bit more background of quite what we are dealing with here :shrug: And the reasons Posie has ended up with the action of the billboard (which was what she was invited to discuss..the billboard, why it happened and the behaviour of transactivists, not India Willougby).. As women are just not being listened to. This has forced the issue really, and oddly enough, most people appear to agree with Posie, though seem to think she has a very harsh way of putting her opinions across. But yes, noone actually thinks transwomen are women. Hence 'transwoman'. And thats ****ing fine! Except apparently its not.

You do me a disservice Marshy. Look at the reaction to Vicky's post saying what the "Feminist" ( keep putting it in inverted commas because I'm too lazy to go back and find out her name) has suffered since exercising her freedom of speech. If a transsexual and his/her family/kids went through the same I wonder if people would be more worried?

And yes, men are entitled to have their say. But so are woman. Sadly if women have their say they run the risk of being abused online, at best, and in receipt of vile threats at worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G4IhPncF3w

Check out the difference between sky news, and the this morning **** show. Sky news actually stuck to the topic she was meant to be talking about. This morning was meant to be about the same thing, not one specific post op transsexual.

I especially like her ending comment, about the whole reason she did it was because she knew entitled males would kick off about it. That basically their (predicted) reaction would get publicity for whats going on. And it has. 700 quid well spent (and refunded, after the misogynist doctor who takes part in doxxing also, complained. And she got a refund and now has another billboard)

I'm sorry, you're posing a hypothetical scenario and want to discuss that rather than the topic at hand. If not, I don't follow?

That doesn't explain why you feel the need to point out the genders/sexes of forum members, unless such a thing is happening in this very discussion.

Saying women receive online abuse is fine, it's factual. Framing it with comments about this thread/forum itself is needless IMO.

"Entitled males" being trans women?

So they can't be "women" but now can't be "trans women" either so just "males"?

Or are they referring to men of all forms?

Entitled males being transactivists, not transwomen. Most transactivists are not even transsexual (and will abuse those who are actually transexual), at least the ones who kick off about stuff like the dictionary definition of woman..aren't. Transactivists on the whole, are just MRAs, or misogynists latching onto a cause. Obviously not all transactivists are like that, some genuinely do care about transsexual people. But the ones who are sending out daily threats to women, they aren't actually transsexual, usually.

You do know that 'trans' goes beyond transsexual? I would agree that transsexual people have a difficult life. But 'trans' these days is so wide it covers near all people. By the Stonewall definition anyway.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/01/trans...-girl-7994533/

As an example of what passes for transwoman these days. And exactly what feminists are fighting against. This man, will likely be sent to a female prison. There have been a few cases recently of rapists being sent to female prisons as they claim to be 'trans'.

Utter utter hyperbole. Noone wants trans people to have to stay indoors. Noone wants them to not have human rights.

The current system is fine. Transwomen can be moved to female prisons if they have a GRC. Which can be gained by having doctors agree you have gender dysphoria. And with a small fee, that is waived if you have a low income. The GRC system was made with it in mind that transsexuals were a very small number of people, it was estimated to help 5000 people. Today, just under 5000 people have a GRC, so its working exactly as intended. But transactivists say that such a small number of people having one is proof its not working, as there are 500,000 'trans' people in the UK. This is with the ever widening definition of trans of course. Not with what people think of when they hear trans...which is transsexual.

No reason at all to change this system, which helps transsexuals, while also keeping out fetishists and such. It puzzled me for a long time why transactivists were fighting for 'self ID'. Until it clicked, that transactivism in its current form is nothing more than a mens sexual rights movement. Now their behaviour and demands make so much sense.

India is a woman. Having had the full transaction. ( not sure if that’s the correct description).
I am a woman.
I don’t feel my femininity is threatened by transsexuals.
For medical purposes I am a biological woman.
I really don’t get the constant hype and aggro about it all.:shrug:
Live and let live.

It's only fine if you can get a man to agree with you.:joker:

The sentiment is good Smudgie and I believe that was what was happening before all these campaigns to change laws that could potentially put women in danger with this Self ID stuff ie. putting male rapists in female prisons because they say they're female now. That's doing a disservice to not only biological women but also to genuine trans people like India

I don’t believe you should be classed as a woman until you get rid of the penis.
Until then you should not be allowed in female prisons or toilets.
Perhaps the disabled toilets could be renamed and shared between disabled and trans.
I know wouldn’t have a problem with that at all.

Oh yeah, I agree with you on all that :thumbs:

Ah, so you can't be for women's rights unless you think that men who say they are women are exactly like you? Women's rights and trans rights are two different things. It's just like there are many black people who are all for black people's rights, but don't care at all about women's rights. It doesn't mean they can't support some rights and not others. So please don't define feminism by your idea of what feminism should be. Each women is entitled to her own view of feminism.

So to put this bluntly, you do not think that there should need to be any proof at all of a person actually having gender dysphoria, before they are able to get a GRC. EVen though the whole point of a GRC is to help transsexual people have an easier life, and all transsexual people have gender dysphoria? Are you saying that wanting to help transsexual people have an easier life, is wanting a patriarchal system? because if its a choice between self-ID...and repealing the entire act...I chose repealing tbh. Though I would much rather the compromise we have which helps transsexual people whilst also keeping pisstakers and fetishists out.

And that was one example of MANY. Its not a rare example, but then again it wouldn't be, given these days any man can declare himself a woman and be treated as such in statistics and new stories. And obviously its mainly men who commit sexual crimes. So it makes a lot of sense that a lot of those who currently 'identify' as women (often without changing anything) are just your bog standard pervert. And I don't think there is ever an excuse to lock up female prisoners with male rapists. Thats just ridiculous, yet happening.

I don't think this is an acceptable solution. I do understand why people think thats an acceptable compromise, however disabled people fought very hard, for a long time for disabled loos and such. To just decide that men who like wearing a dress on fridays should be able to use disabled loos..well no.

And no , thats not hyperbole either. Such men are classed as women on the days they wear a dress. Infact a guy like this recently got an award for 'women in business' when hes basically a part time transvestite. Thats been quite publicized, and has woke up a lot of people to the issue too.

However I agree that no penis should be the requirement for womens areas. Its absolutely insane to me that some people think its fine for preop people to use female changing rooms.

And whats interesting is (and many on this site will not like me saying this) its accepted that transwomen do not want to use the mens loos because they are scared of male violence. Fair enough. However, when women say they do not want males in their areas because they are scared of male violence, they are declared bigots. So, how does that work? Answers on a postcard. Thats why I think the only solution to all of this is a further unisex option being made available wherever possible. Much like disabled areas, just not colonizing disabled areas.

Can you cite this paragraph, Vicky? For my own general research...


Great discussion all around :clap1:

On what has been discussed so far

It's interesting hearing what others have to say about women's rights. It does make me uncomfortable that other groups have managed to commandeer the cornerstone of Feminism and usurp that voice to play out their own selfish end(s). It's not just an issue with trans activists. It seems like a quite a few interest groups have been seeping into the young women's movement(s) for some time now. Even if in many cases, it's not actually doing actual women any favors... small detail.

The gas-lighting that occurs when a woman of her own volition decides to speak up in criticism of said direction, should be disturbing. I've been watching #walkaway videos on and off. (#walkaway = people who are leaving Democrats/Progressive-ism). There's a fair amount of older women, some who are LGBT, who have long histories of campaigning for women's rights who are now being blackballed by their own interest group. Wha? That should make zero sense to us. Moreover, women are being kicked out of her own movement for not agreeing on non-women's related issues? That women are no longer allowed to be mutual champions of their own cause? They must be questioned? And yet they want to be unquestioned on the public stage when it comes to women's rights? :spin:

Imo, a circus it has become, that adopts some strange unconventional philosophy alien to most people. The young particularly, are pressured to buy in it without opposition... I would lose my practical sh** if I were the mother... I don't see how anything healthy for society, much less equity, equality or whatever we want to call these things can ever come from such a situation... so in my view, it's a total dud. A failure.

I think it's gone this way because the only way a fanatics voice can be heard in this environment is to be an ad-hoc for other interests groups who will gladly let them do the dirty work i.e. be the face... meanwhile hurting actual women ... and we can't bring up within the movement itself, as it will invite accusations of major moral failings and to be labeled "definitely not a feminist"... riight... who is gas-lighting who, now? :laugh:

BTW, my major beef with Self-ID is that it's not practical... imo, the culture is the "mask" in which we view which solutions we should adopt. If it can't work culturally, then it will certainly fail to work in legal... forcing it with law will not force it to work culturally.. maybe with some coaxing on particular issues, we can trick people to go along for a while, but it will be found out eventually... like a lot of things are being figured out now about some of our politics. (well, not even just now, but in general...)

Cite which paragraph maru, and from where? Sorry I am drawing a blank at what you are meaning, and no doubt once you explain further it will make a lot of sense, but genuinely cannot understand right no :laugh:

I don't see the point in this as they'll always be biologically male, no matter what they have done to their penis. Inverting it won't make them any more female, so I'm not gonna base how I see them based on it. Transwomen are transwomen.

But this I agree with.

The transactivists ~= men's rights activist portion

Yeah if they're full-time the other sex, then I would regard them as their converted sex. But legally, there has to be some common sense... but the thing with toilets, it's not like we ask people for their ID when they go to the restroom... so not sure how that could really be enforced? After all, I think I read that they can get a diagnose after living as the opposite sex for a time, and well... part of that would mean entering the restrooms I think? (How does that work, I wonder?)

Oh thats just my own personal opinion on the matter tbh.

Obviously goes a lot deeper than this, and there are multiple other examples, but its very clear to me that the majority of transactivists are just MRAs with a new angle to attack womens rights. This image gives the gist of it, though maybe is a bit childish :laugh:


(AGAIN, though it shouldn't need saying, I am not saying all transsexual women are MRAs. But I do feel that the majority of transactivists, especially ones I have personally encountered are. And I think your common garden variety misogynist is very attracted to this movement as they get to tell women to shut the **** up AND seem all 'woke' when doing so. Seems to attract a lot of incels too.)



Late edit - did you mean can you cite it? If so, then yes of course. Feel free to swipe any of my posts for stuff like that really. Question confused me :laugh:

Whatever the case, Vicky, that's a really interesting theory. Some keen insight there. Even if it's only a subconscious thing, I could see that playing out to some degree as you say... it's certainly more convincing than throwing around the word "patriarchy" anytime someone wants to get their point across... in your points, it sounds like you and even Livia may have touched on a nerve, things going on beneath the surface that maybe we discount somewhat with the topic of the moment being transactivism. :laugh:

Myself though, my distraction is probably that I do tend to think men get an unfair wrap sometimes. It does take mutual cooperation for any lasting changes to occur, something we have forgotten in an era that centers around the activists themselves.

I do see the sexes as two necessary forces in life that are forced to work together, even if they often don't want to. Kind of life marriage, really :laugh:... one can't live without the other and so-on... our society would fall apart. So I do think there is a breaking point when either or one of the sexes is put underneath a lot of stress... as we've seen in the past and are seeing today.

I don't think I've ever met someone who is an MRA? So I don't have a mental framework for those type of folk, how they would think. I think the closest equivalent are maybe some people I'd seen or heard about on YT. It's hard to tell how much of that is authentic hough, with everything being about inducing shock vs. woke-ness...

I know we all know some men who have issues with the patronizing attitude that comes from Feminism towards them and their own thought-processes... that they just can't help but be men, and yet, are supposed to help it at the same time :spin: ... and there are some great reasons for some of that criticism imo. To be fair, I prefer a world where we criticize and criticize often... as long as it remains constructive and not destructive... that's the balance.

Edit: Also that image was hilarious...

I don't mean MRA as in someone who is actually concerned about the rights of men.

I mean MRA as in, extremely problematic misogynist who blames feminists for everything and basically only 'what about the men's as a way of slating feminism and women in general.

I believe transactivism in its current form (again, not people actually concerned for the rights of transsexual people) is a backlash against feminism, against the gains women have made recently. Afterall, what better way to destroy womens rights, than to open them up to men too. Transactivism gives men who dislike women intensely (as many transactivists do) a 'woke' excuse to tell women to shut the **** up, to discredit them, and to threaten them in very...MRA like ways. Like threatening to rape them or their children. I think the whole thing we have today is kind of the perfect storm. Of course most people have sympathy for transsexual people, but I think many nefarious kinds of people are piggybacking on a genuine cause, for their own gains. This includes

-MRAs who just hate women/feminism in general. Not much needs said on this issue really. Anyone can see why such types would be attracted to this movement.

-Incels who wish to guilt trip people into sleeping with them. There are many many people currently trying to guilt trip lesbians into shagging male people. Theres been workshops about this. Its nicknamed the 'cotton ceiling' and its just ****ing disgusting. I have spoken to a fair few lesbians who have had issues with this. 'Transwomen' yelling transphobia when the lesbian refused to shag their very male self. Of cause transsexual people who are attracted to women understand that lesbians may not be attracted to them..again they are not the problem here. Its 'transgender' males...often those who have made no physical changes whatsoever, who assert their right to sex. And become very bitter when told no. Unfortunately when attached to the 'trans' label, its not looked at like regular incel behaviour and laughed away and ridiculed. Its taken seriously and there are a fair few lefty dudebros in the wings waiting to attack any lesbian woman who asserts her boundaries. Becuse 'transphobia'. As a very prominent and well known example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5GYlZKfBmI
But this ridiculous type of view is fairly widespread among todays 'transactivists'

-Homophobes. Lesbophobes in particular. See above cotton ceiling which is self explanatory. But it goes a bit deeper than that. Many many gay people are gender non-conforming. I would say most people are to some extent ,but its more prominent in the LGB community. The likes of butch lesbians are being pressured to become transmen, as they are clearly really men. They cannot possibly just be butch women. Ontop of this you have Mermaids and such pushing for child transition (Mermaids is a pressure group, who there have been issues with in the past. https://4thwavenow.com/2016/11/12/th...ed-in-stealth/ ). When the huge majority of children who are gender questioning....essentially grow out of it, and the majority of these children will simply grow up to be gay. Where, when put on 'puberty blockers (read. cancer drugs) near 100% of these children will go on to transition. Essentially 'transing away the gay'

-Paedophiles. Hot on the heels of 'child transition', of course paedophiles have a special interest in all of this too. Putting young children on puberty blockers, creates 'legal children'. This part is hard for me to talk about as it sickens me too much so I won't go into it too much..but joining the dots here should be easy enough. Also allowing children to make the huge decision to 'change sex' opens the doors for really...saying children can consent for stuff. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see, if this is all still going in a few years, people pushing to lower the age of consent. Lets not forget that paedophiles tried (luckily unsuccessfully) to piggyback on the back of the LGB community once before. Not sure if anyone on here remembers the Paedophile Information Exchange, and how they attached themselves to those campaigning for gay rights. And how their movement was very nearly successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedop...ation_Exchange .

-Sexual predators. Again, self explanatory. Wanting easier access to women and children.
If any man has access to female areas, this benefits this group immensely. The prison service warned against this during Maria Millers Trans Equality Report...during which, she ignored womens groups and basically anyone who spoke of any potential problems, and invited only those entirely unquestioning of the transactivists narrative to give further evidence. One pf the prominent transactivists consulted for the report, was Jess Bradley. Jess is currently suspended from their job as NUS trans officer. As a blog was discovered where Jess was unveiling Jess' penis to unsuspecting members of the public, including getting it out at Jess' desk at work. People like Jess have a vested interest in opening up female areas to everyone, as Jess' hobby is flashing. Infact a fair few prominent transactivists have dodgy pasts/present behaviour. Jess, and people like Jess have been a huge part of the way things are today, where businesses/schools have been misled to think that single sex areas are illegal and girlscouts have gone mixed sex by stealth. But I swear this post would go on forever if I went into all of that and most people will just dismiss it anyway. Only reason I am going into so much detail here is because I know you will actually read it maru :p I only really do this when talking to you or jack.

I may possibly have forgotten some other groups I believe are involved in this perfect storm...as its late and I am half asleep. Of course, though again it shouldn't need to be said as it should be taken as a given really, I am not saying that all transsexual people are predators, or homophobes or whatever. This is my observations/thoughts on transactivism as it stands today. Its not about the rights of transsexual people at all. Infact transsexual people are branded truscum by todays transactivists and get just as much abuse as women do. Which proves in itself that this is not about transsexuals.

A couple of links on the topic that I have bookmarked. One is a wider explanation of it all. The other is a recent explanation from a gay man who was until recently very involved with Stonewall and used to run 'Queer up North' who has recently started speaking out on this. Some of his other pieces are really good too, should be able to follow them from that link if you feel like it. Also petition to Stonewall..by Jonny and a bunch of prominent LGBT people, including some transsexuals.

https://notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress...re-notadebate/
https://medium.com/@JonnnyBest/calli...s-9df277ecb59e
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/...-your-approach


And finally, a glossary of a load of stuff about this topic. I know people on here will take the piss for a mumsnet link, but **** it tbh. Its one of the only places on the internet women can actually talk about this issue that will affect/has affected us, though men keep claiming it won't/doesn't

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...iced-here?pg=1


So yeah. Long post, but you have my theory on it all. Yet again, not claiming all, or even most transsexual people are like this. Transsexdual people are not the problem. Other people are, and especially transactivists/MRA.s

...just going back to the OP and the vid...I really can’t gel with this ‘feminst’ at all..and I guess it goes back to what TS said, in how femist is defined, which is varying quite a lot it seems...I mean I have not once in my life experienced women defined as cervix havers or menstruators or chest feeders...yeah, maybe pregnant people..like ‘she’s a pregnant woman’ type thing, when it’s relevant to refer to a pregnancy for some reason...she doesn’t represent a world I know as a woman...she talks about one person who apparently wears a dress one day a week who has been given an award...I have no idea who Philip Bunce is but whoever he is...he’s one person so not a representative..anyways I couldn’t really get much further in the vid in trying to rewatch it and I can’t recall it all from before...Because it makes me so sad for transgender people...what does living as a woman mean...WHAT DOES LIVING AS A WOMAN MEAN..!!! ..define it for me..!!!!...well I guess it’s defined as the same as what does living as a man mean...a woman living within her gender or a man living within his gender, everything matching and everything fitting in terms of the body born into, would be how I would define...India will never be a cervix haver...she can never menstruate so can’t be a menstruator...or a chest feeder..because she’s not a born woman and that can’t ever change...So either in a man body of the past or a woman body of now, I doubt she sees herself as ever having experiences of any priveledge of either gender...she can though live her life as what she feels she is...a woman...

Wow thanks for all that detail Vicky, it's certainly clarified a lot of detail for me.

On the topic of safe spaces. I don't really see toilets as being safe spaces at all and perhaps thats part of my problem understanding some of the discussion.

There is a primary functional difference between a mens and womans toilet ... one has a urinal and the other doesnt, and that is there to service the differences in anatomy between a man and a woman. So, someone with a dick, should use the toilets with a urinal if we are looking at things logically.

From a male perspective, I don't associate toilets with safe spaces at all. One only has to look at well publicised cases featuring MP's and George Michael to name a few, where it has been a decidedly unsafe space.

What I'm trying to say i think is that there are places where people are more vulnerable than they would be otherwise and the solution to that vulnerability has to be more all encompassing than segregation by anatomy. People should just be safe and protected from predators in going about their daily lives ... and that is the ultimate goal surely.

Just to echo what Bots has said, thanks Vicky. I always read your posts on this particular subject because they're packed with facts and make the subject so much easier to get my head around. You kind of put into words what I'm thinking.

And thanks everyone who's posted so far... it's been enlightening and interesting.

Legitimately curious, to people in this thread what constitutes as an mra? I don’t really call myself a feminist or mra but whenever I state my values or what I believe on certain topic I get told stuff like ‘well by definition you’re a feminist since it’s literally just the term for advocacy of women’s rights’ and in a sense couldn’t someone use this inflection to go, for example supporting the idea of domestic abuse shelters for men, that I’m an mra? And thus since it seems to be a dirty word, such as feminist is in a lot of circles..

Idk it just seems weird to me because at the end of the day they’re only labels but I’ve had people take me to down on the guilt by association when it comes to using the word feminism debate but these same people also slate mras so :shrug:

Elliot, have a Google around and look at some of the MRA nonsense out there.

I don't believe feminism is 'wanting everyone to be equal'. Thats egalitarianism. IMO feminism is a movement about the liberation of female people. Equality (or equity as I posted up thread) is the end goal, but its about female people on the whole. As such the endless calls to centre male people in feminism are bizarre to me. Kind of like how you wouldn't expect black lives matter to be fighting for people who are not black, though they may still care about non-blacks :shrug:

MRA, as I said...is not someone genuinely concerned for the rights of men. The MRAs I am talking about only make out they care about men as a stick to beat feminists with. Google MRA..tbh. Theres plenty out there that explains it all better than I could :laugh:

Ammi, sadly cervix havers and menstruators and such is very common language in todays world, where the very meaning of the word woman is apparently offensive. I do think Posie was harsh with India, but again will point out that she was not there to discuss India in the first place, its not about each single transsexual person, and its generally not about transsexual people (especially post op) at all.

I don't class loos as 'safe spaces' either tbh. Loos is just my go to area when discussing these issues because transactivists always drag it back to loos, so its a habit really. Loos is easily solved by chucking money at it, unisex would be fine as long as they are all single contained units like disabled toilets are now. Its changing rooms, refuges and prisons and such where it becomes much trickier, but we are expected to think its perfectly fine to allow any and all males into these female areas, and are bigots if we refuse or bring up potential problems.

As for Bunce, yes he is one person. But thats one woman who did not make the list that should have..all because a bloke who wears a dres 2 days a week is apparently a woman. Again, its not just one example. 2 main ones off the top of my head are the first 'female soldier' on the front line, widely hailed fantastic, but he completed his training as a man and had only started identifying as trans after being caught crossdressing. And when Sharon Maguire should have had an award for the first female director to direct a movie trilogy...the Matrix brothers kicked off. Because they had now decided they were women despite identifying as men while directing the films...so again, a woman has an achievement taken away because of men.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/1835...thats-just-one

Yes, 2 men directing films is a crack in the glass ceiling. You couldn't make it up.

Male suicide, for example, is one of many examples of real and genuine men's rights issues that I find are dismissed and rejected by self identifying feminists more often than they should be. At the same time, I've never seen a self identifying MRA who doesn't blatantly have deep issues with women and who doesn't have clear and obvious dysfunctions e.g. a lack of social skills. In this day and age I'm a bit suspicious of the motives of anyone who identifies with any of the mainstream movements. I agree with the post on the first page which says these movements need to start again.

On the trans issue I do agree with some of what Posie and Magdalen Berns on YouTube say. I think that women approached pretty close to equal rights in many ways in recent years but it's all rapidly being taken away from them again by, for example, letting men into their prisons. As a gay man I think that trans people should be able to live and love as they desire. But at the end of the day you cannot change biology and you simply cannot change your sex. Designating people born in a female body as being equal in status to men who dress in women's clothes and perhaps take hormones I think is actually kind of insulting to women in the context of their historical fight for rights.

This is a good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxxBQm114k

An interesting read there, mxhunter.