Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11132379)

Sorry I just wanted to come back to this post again because what i should have added was, it's not really about transwomen being dangerous to women per se, the issue is MEN are dangerous to women, we know this. And the issue is not being able to define what a woman is, rendering the word meaningless and therefore opening the doors to places where women are vulnerable to anyone and everyone - as apparently a woman is just someone who says they are a women

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11132387)

I think most people get this no? Although I would qualify that with a ‘‘some men’..

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11132379)

Sorry I just wanted to come back to this post again because what i should have added was, it's not really about transwomen being dangerous to women per se, the issue is MEN are dangerous to women, we know this. And the issue is not being able to define what a woman is, rendering the word meaningless and therefore opening the doors to places where women are vulnerable to anyone and everyone - as apparently a woman is just someone who says they are a women

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11132379)

Sorry I just wanted to come back to this post again because what i should have added was, it's not really about transwomen being dangerous to women per se, the issue is MEN are dangerous to women, we know this. And the issue is not being able to define what a woman is, rendering the word meaningless and therefore opening the doors to places where women are vulnerable to anyone and everyone - as apparently a woman is just someone who says they are a women

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11132390)

This will be consistently ignored because its impossible to defend... I see people constantly putting on blinkers to the idea that it's not trans women that are the threat to women's spaces, but the concept of SELF-ID and predatory men pretending to be trans women in order to access women's spaces.

The arguments are that "no predatory man would actually bother to do that" (they can, have, will, and have gone to far greater lengths) and/or "Well that's not happened here yet" but ignoring that A) it's being campaigned for (heavily) and that one of the main things people are attacked for is campaigning against specifically that (it is branded transphobic).

Issues such as whether a trans woman should be in a female prison should be assessed PURELY on a case-by-case basis. It's the only sensible option.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 11132392)

Men are also dangerous to children, and will also bend the system to abuse them..

We are not allowed to discuss this on tibb though, even though there is no difference to what you are claiming can happen regarding this subject.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11132387)

I think most people get this no? Although I would qualify that with a ‘‘some men’..

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 11132392)

Men are also dangerous to children, and will also bend the system to abuse them..



We are not allowed to discuss this on tibb though, even though there is no difference to what you are claiming can happen regarding this subject.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11132397)

They are indeed and that's why you would never see an adult of any description being put into a juvenile prison with kids nor would anyone ever think that was a good idea... And also adults need disclosure documents and criminal records checks to work with children at all. This is something that's clearly recognised.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11132397)

They are indeed and that's why you would never see an adult of any description being put into a juvenile prison with kids nor would anyone ever think that was a good idea... And also adults need disclosure documents and criminal records checks to work with children at all. This is something that's clearly recognised.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11132396)

I find that a bit pandery, it's implied anyway and I personally don't understand why any man who knows he isn't a danger to women needs to have that pointed out. It's part of the whole problem really; outraged cries of "by pointing out any risks you tar all of [group] with the same brush!!". It just isn't true.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11132407)

As a mother of two sons I feel happy to point that out, pandery or not

Originally Posted by Elliot (Post 11132463)

There’s a social and medical context to gender and sex. You would probably have to disclose your biological sex to your hospital so they can give you the relevant and most suited treatment. On the other hand, if you were a bartender and someone like, let’s say Kim Petras, walked into your bar, you would probably use she her.

Originally Posted by Elliot (Post 11132463)

There’s a social and medical context to gender and sex. You would probably have to disclose your biological sex to your hospital so they can give you the relevant and most suited treatment. On the other hand, if you were a bartender and someone like, let’s say Kim Petras, walked into your bar, you would probably use she her.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 11132474)

Well yeah, in a day to day context of course one "should" use preferred pronouns for transpeople. To do otherwise would just be rude, like giving unsolicited opinions about an ugly person's appearance.

But gender identity shouldn't trump sex. When it comes to sports, prisons, and other single sex spaces, gender identity shouldn't come into it.

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 11132477)

There would be no outcry or outrage or action taken against someone giving an opinion on an ugly person. There is nothing an ugly person could do about it, they just don't have the same privilege as a trans.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11132346)

I see people make these claims all the time but where are all the stories of these attacks happening? When was the last time a transperson was murdered in the UK for example or in Ireland? I can give you 2 very recent cases of women being attacked and murdered by men though in both countries.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11132308)

No every answer is not correct when you're asking for an actual definition of a word, there is the correct definition

Woman - Adult Human Female

and there is the definition that isn't actually a definition at all

Woman - A person who identifies as a woman

That doesn't tell you what a woman is? That's like say the definition of a cat is something that looks like a cat. You're still none the wiser of what a cat actually is.



It isn't a complex issue at all, identify however you want, wear what you want to wear but biological sex isn't up for debate and it matters and is a protected characteristic. Gender replacing sex is going to disadvantage women, saying a woman is whoever says they are woman makes the word meaningless and will fail to protect biological women and girls who need that word to describe and protect ourselves.



I know she wore a T-Shirt with a slogan on it saying "This Witch won't burn" or something similar which i thought was quite clever really considering she created Harry potter plus a throw back to women being vilified as TERFs witches.

She didn't say "Real women Menstruate" She objected to women being referred to as "People who menstruate" instead of as women. Which as a woman I find pretty dehumanising and offensive (seems like only some people are allowed to dictate how they are and are not referred to though.) I will also add, it is ALWAYS women who are being referred to in these derogatory ways too, our medical literature changes us from women to "People with a cervix" while it's still just "men" who get Prostate cancer, not "Prostate havers"



With all due respect Mitchell as a man you can be as comfortable as you like with transmen or women using the male facilities but that is no real comparison to women having to share with biological men and you know that. Women are not a Physical or sexual threat to men in anywhere near the same way as men are to women



Absolutely true, however just because men will find ways to abuse women in other ways doesn't mean you make it easier for them by throwing away safe guarding because **** it it's going to happen anyway, right?

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11132388)

I don't even think it needs the qualifier, we know "not all men are like that", it doesn't need pointing out every time though imo! :fist:

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock (Post 11132503)

Oh there was this one guy on TikTok or Twitch (I can't remember which one) that claimed that most men like to attack women, he was a special one rather than The Special One.:joker:

I understand that you didn't mean it like that though Niamh.