[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I think most people who enter the debate for genuine reasons know that...

There are an element who just want to stir the pot and be nasty

I think basically EVERYONE knows, it's just that there's this "tried and tested" prescribed methodology of "fighting back against this" that's been taken on - the slogans, mantras, refusing to engage in good faith, declaring debate offensive, the idea that any questioning or dissent is akin to hatred or more ludicrously "murder", and also an entire disingenuous demeanor that goes with it (that can be summed up with the emoji). You could collectively call it "stonewalling".

It doesn't really work any more but for whatever reason there are a large group of people still forging ahead with it. Probably because they don't actually have any other way to do it because, as a consequence of doing things this way, they have no solid understanding of their own cause and the arguments offered up are immature and riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. If you point those out, they just fall back on "getting rly angry" and the names come out (TERFs, harpies, murderers etc.). 95% aimed at women of course .

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Defending women = Bigot....nothing new

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing new

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Well hang on a minute what exactly was Starmer supposed to say ? . I'm not even a fan of his , but did JK want him to start calling trans women "MEN" ? Or something ? . Starmer knows biologically they were born male.But they identify as female now.

I have agreed with the points JK Rowling has made with protecting womens rights etc,I'm a woman myself.

But it feels like this is a pointless rant she's gone on now or am I missing something?? .

That’s exactly what she and her hateful horde want people to do, they don’t want trans people, especially trans women, to be recognised as what they are, they want them marginalised and separated away from the rest of society because they don’t see them as legitimate, that’s what it all boils down to

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

That’s exactly what she and her hateful horde want people to do, they don’t want trans people, especially trans women, to be recognised as what they are, they want them marginalised and separated away from the rest of society because they don’t see them as legitimate, that’s what it all boils down to

Most people just want proper safeguarding analysis to be done before forging ahead with irreversible changes to the law, and for reasonable debate where everyone stops pretending that there's no difference (sports, fairness in competition) and no risk (self-ID, exploitation of loopholes by predators). The argument seems to boil down to "predatory men won't exploit loopholes" which sadly just shows absolutely zero awareness of the risk women face from predatory men, and apparently, absolutely no desire to try to understand that risk. Any loopholes that haven't been adequately considered WILL be exploited. It's not a risk - it's a certainty.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there aren't bigots who simply don't like "the idea" hanging onto the coat-tails of the debate and using it as a shield to be petty, vindictive and cruel. Of course there are, there always are in any debate. Using that as justification to "no debate" the issue and tar everyone with concerns as being "just like those people" is a deflecting tactic and absolute nonsense. High school stuff. No place at all in the real discussion - and yet it's rhetoric that's bleeding into the politics and legislation of the issue (because of most politician's endless drive to appeal to populism).

[user104658]

To add to the above - JK Rowling is blatantly not one of those people using it as an excuse to be hateful. She has followers who do fall into that category, certainly. That's neither her fault nor her problem and none of what she has actually said is particularly unreasonable - although it's clear she's becoming increasingly frustrated.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing new

What has she said that's bigoted?

Originally Posted by Liam-

That’s exactly what she and her hateful horde want people to do, they want them marginalised and separated away from the rest of society

When has she said this?

Originally Posted by Liam-

they don’t want [] trans women, to be recognised as what they are

But they do want transwomen to be recognised as what they are ...

[Alf]

Trump said last night in his speech that when he gets back in the White House he will be stopping men from competing in women's sports.

[bots]

rhetoric like "hateful horde" is just not helpful

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Alf

Trump said last night in his speech that when he gets back in the White House he will be stopping men from competing in women's sports.

A real feminist.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Most people just want proper safeguarding analysis to be done before forging ahead with irreversible changes to the law, and for reasonable debate where everyone stops pretending that there's no difference (sports, fairness in competition) and no risk (self-ID, exploitation of loopholes by predators). The argument seems to boil down to "predatory men won't exploit loopholes" which sadly just shows absolutely zero awareness of the risk women face from predatory men, and apparently, absolutely no desire to try to understand that risk. Any loopholes that haven't been adequately considered WILL be exploited. It's not a risk - it's a certainty.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there aren't bigots who simply don't like "the idea" hanging onto the coat-tails of the debate and using it as a shield to be petty, vindictive and cruel. Of course there are, there always are in any debate. Using that as justification to "no debate" the issue and tar everyone with concerns as being "just like those people" is a deflecting tactic and absolute nonsense. High school stuff. No place at all in the real discussion - and yet it's rhetoric that's bleeding into the politics and legislation of the issue (because of most politician's endless drive to appeal to populism).

I understand the whole safeguarding, the issue is sensitive. And predators will always take advantage. And yes women's rights is important.

And some so called "activists" are insane.

But I just CAN'T see where JK is coming from on this new TIRADE of hers ,it seems she just wants to have a go at Starmer..... And I'm NOT even a big fan of his. How did she want him to refer to trans women?.

It's NOT like he said anything bad ,but she's chosen to be offended.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

. How did she want him to refer to trans women?.

.

you have successfully just answered your own question

[Kizzy]

Personally I don't feel Caitlin Jenner had the most positive impact. Sure, for the trans community she was a hero and the transition raised a lot of awareness with the media attention.
However, from my perspective I saw someone who effectively leap frogged over a huge part of what most consider an integral part of transition. Living as a female prior to surgery.

In July 2015 Caitlin won a 'Woman of the year' award, she had only come out to her family in April.
The award was presented by Abby Wambach, who that year had inspired the world by kissing her partner following a soccer win.

Taking the award from a woman who had been as if not more pivotal in the LGBTQ+ community seemed like .. male privilege.

The fact that in February that year Caitlin (then Bruce) had killed a 69yr old woman by driving recklessly. She escaped any accountability for that, again smacked of privilege due to status.

The fact that once transitioned Caitlin was for a long while a right wing mouthpiece was a massive kick in the face for those struggling. She didn't appear to acknowledge the struggle that had formed the crux of her acceptance speech. And it became clear to me that in her opinion rights and change are bought, not a right.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing new

OK Liam

[Swan]

Kind of ironic how some biological men think they know better on this subject.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Swan

Kind of ironic how some biological men think they know better on this subject.

Isn't it?

[Liam-]

Caitlin Jenner was never considered a hero

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Isn't it?

Actually yes , as I said my son is the first to tell me how wrong I am on this...jog on manchild!

[Liam-]

Only men that agree with you are allowed a voice then? Cause that’s what I’m getting here, none of you seem to have an issue with any of the men who are arguing the same side as you, it’s weird how you preach you’re being silenced yet diminish the opinion of people who don’t agree with you based on their gender, funny that

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Actually yes , as I said my son is the first to tell me how wrong I am on this...jog on manchild!

Was he able to explain why you're wrong?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Caitlin Jenner was never considered a hero

Bruce was.

[Cherie]

It used to be trans women and women...then it was transwomen and cis women...now the goalposts have moved again and its women as a collective, thats a not a good move for women born as women in my view

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Only men that agree with you are allowed a voice then? Cause that’s what I’m getting here, none of you seem to have an issue with any of the men who are arguing the same side as you, it’s weird how you preach you’re being silenced yet diminish the opinion of people who don’t agree with you based on their gender, funny that

I think to call a spade a spade here... When I see clashes across the media and the biggest contributers to each side of that argument are women on one side, and gay men on the other (a group who for the most part have far less vested interest in women than any other, to be blunt), and the argument is about women's rights... It seems fairly obvious which side I should be listening to in greater depth... And again to be blunt: you'd (I assume) completely understand that if it was about any other group. If a racial group for example was standing up and saying "Listen, this is how this actually affects us, these are our worries" and the response of a completely unrelated group with no skin in the game whatsoever was "Shut up you hateful scum!"... Well. I suspect you'd see the issue, then.

No attempt at all made to actually discuss or ease the fears of women, many of whom have very real personal reasons to be afraid. Just "shut up and stop getting in the way TERF". It's honestly a horrendous attitude.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It used to be trans women and women...then it was transwomen and cis women...now the goalposts have moved again and its women as a collective, thats a not a good move for women born as women in my view

It seems to be women and "people with a cervix " or "mensturaters" so transwomen are women and women are a bodily function or body part. Men are still just men though.... odd that

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think to call a spade a spade here... When I see clashes across the media and the biggest contributers to each side of that argument are women on one side, and gay men on the other (a group who for the most part have far less vested interest in women than any other, to be blunt), and the argument is about women's rights... It seems fairly obvious which side I should be listening to in greater depth... And again to be blunt: you'd (I assume) completely understand that if it was about any other group. If a racial group for example was standing up and saying "Listen, this is how this actually affects us, these are our worries" and the response of a completely unrelated group with no skin in the game whatsoever was "Shut up you hateful scum!"... Well. I suspect you'd see the issue, then.

No attempt at all made to actually discuss or ease the fears of women, many of whom have very real personal reasons to be afraid. Just "shut up and stop getting in the way TERF". It's honestly a horrendous attitude.

Exactly. I wonder if Liam will actually reply to your post this time or is it just the women he likes to lecture and "educate" about ourselves and our rights?

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think to call a spade a spade here... When I see clashes across the media and the biggest contributers to each side of that argument are women on one side, and gay men on the other (a group who for the most part have far less vested interest in women than any other, to be blunt), and the argument is about women's rights... It seems fairly obvious which side I should be listening to in greater depth... And again to be blunt: you'd (I assume) completely understand that if it was about any other group. If a racial group for example was standing up and saying "Listen, this is how this actually affects us, these are our worries" and the response of a completely unrelated group with no skin in the game whatsoever was "Shut up you hateful scum!"... Well. I suspect you'd see the issue, then.

No attempt at all made to actually discuss or ease the fears of women, many of whom have very real personal reasons to be afraid. Just "shut up and stop getting in the way TERF". It's honestly a horrendous attitude.

Right, so you’ve just confirmed what I’ve said then, men that don’t agree with the likes of Jk, especially gay men it seems, aren’t going to be listened to, great discussion that is for sure, very balanced, very equal.

Also, by your example, nobody is listening to trans people in this debate, the only ones who are being highlighted like you enjoy reminding us are the looney ones who show themselves up and they’re being used as an example to tar the entire demographic to further the anti-trans agenda, JK herself didn’t this on Twitter yesterday when she posted examples of support for her, censoring out the name of said supporter, but blasting someone’s out because they disagreed with her, knowing full well what she was going to send their way.

There are genuine concerns about an incredibly tiny percentage of people that could possibly abuse a loophole in the system, but I genuinely don’t believe that that’s what the majority of this is about anymore, it started off as genuine questions being asked, but i believe that it’s been turned into a full on which hunt against an already marginalises part of society, based off of ignorance and bigotry and I’ll continue to think that until I see something that changes my mind.