[arista]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I appreciate your thoughts.

What about the trans men, born women, who now should be using the women’s bathrooms as by definition they are women. What about cis men who want to attack women now cosplaying as trans men instead of trans women?

I feel like it’s not been thought through at all.

Thats a tangle.


Politicians in Parliament
After their bloody holiday,
will have to sort this

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Maybe it’s best for you not to take an internet forum as a benchmark for the actions and thoughts of an entire community.

SOME of the gay community may not have been helpful. Best not to denounce an entire group of people off the actions of some though. Every community has its bad eggs, right?

I have friends who are gay, trans and all those closest to me are straight cis women and we speak about this issue and always have spoken about similar matters. I do wonder how many people on this thread have ever actually met a trans person let alone had an actual discussion with them.

Maybe its best for you not to tell me how to interpret things? I also listen to a lot of political radio shows, and I read.... we have to have met a transwoman to have an opinion? as a woman I have a lot more skin in this game than you, and as I said above if transwomen and women had been allowed to sort this out it would have been done and dusted, instead as I previously posted WOMEN have lost their jobs, WOMEN's safety has been compromised by housing MEN in prisons, WOMEN have lost their places on podiums, WOMEN have lost job opportunities and all this for a small percentage of the population whose hard left activist supporters felt their rights trumped women, but they don't we should have equal rights as we have had since the 70s not this new version of erasing women. Btw I do know two transwomen one beautiful elegant lady and one who has slapped a wig and a bit of lipstick on

I also dont know why you are so focussed on bathrooms when that is the thin end of the wedge, transmen will find a way to go to toilet trust me.

I also find it interesting that you refer to cis women when you have been respectfully asked not to refer to us in this way on the forum, where is the two way street here?

Anyway I am done with this topic now, it will just go around in circles like it always does .

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Maybe its best for you not to tell me how to interpret things? I also listen to a lot of political radio shows, and I read.... we have to have met a transwoman to have an opinion? as a woman I have a lot more skin in this game than you, and as I said above if transwomen and women had been allowed to sort this out it would have been done and dusted, instead as I previously posted WOMEN have lost their jobs, WOMEN's safety has been compromised by housing MEN in prisons, WOMEN have lost their places on podiums, WOMEN have lost job opportunities and all this for a small percentage of the population whose hard left activist supporters felt their rights trumped women

And now some women who may be a bit more traditionally masculine presenting - broader, taller, perhaps have facial hair due to medical issues, will now be forced to prove they are women in order to gain access to women's spaces. That doesn't sound like a win for women to me, it sounds regressive.

I also find it interesting that you refer to cis women when you have been respectfully asked not to refer to us in this way on the forum, where is the two way street here?

I have also referred to cis men. As previously stated, cis is literally just a neutral adjective that is the antonym for 'trans' and has been used since the times of Ancient Greece where is derives from.

I'm using it to differentiate to avoid confusion and have never attached a positive or negative to its usage. It's the correct word being used in the correct way and isn't being used to insult or mock or disparage.

[arista]

Strategy Director TransAcual
Keyne Walker.

Moaning on SkyNewsHD Live
That already British Tansport Police
have changed the policy.
So they should Fella/Madame

(Trans Women will now be searched by Men)



He demands Clarity
From the MP's



Protest in Parliament Square?

It is Saturday, Fella/Madame
no one there.......................

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I appreciate your thoughts.

What about the trans men, born women, who now should be using the women’s bathrooms as by definition they are women. What about cis men who want to attack women now cosplaying as trans men instead of trans women?

I feel like it’s not been thought through at all.

That's an excellent point, now they don't even need to make themselves look different, they can just say they're trans men. Once again the problem is CIS MEN being predators.

[bots]

there is no such thing as cis men

[arista]

Originally Posted by bots

there is no such thing as cis men

Yes


Search gave this

[A cis man is an adult male whose gender
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned
at birth. In simpler terms, a cis man is a person
who identifies as a man and was also assigned
the male sex at birth.
This means that their gender identity (man) matches
their assigned sex at birth (male)]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes


Search gave this

[A cis man is an adult male whose gender
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned
at birth. In simpler terms, a cis man is a person
who identifies as a man and was also assigned
the male sex at birth.
This means that their gender identity (man) matches
their assigned sex at birth (male)]

or in even simpler terms... Man there is no confusion, Man, Transman, Woman, Transwoman,

[arista]

Good on SkyNewsHD
walking around the Noisy Protest
in London on the green at Parliament

No Fights
yet

[BBXX]

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you.

Sadly people on this forum will read this well written explanation and still say they're not a subset of women even though that's not what it means at all. A lot of us gave up trying to explain a long time ago. It's very nice to see posts from someone who is not jaded.

[arista]

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by arista

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

After one day of protests ?

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you.

There is a cis woman on here that does this every time the word cis is mentioned. Like Jessica says, we kinda gave up on explaining it to her.

A great post

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

Sadly people on this forum will read this well written explanation and still say they're not a subset of women even though that's not what it means at all. A lot of us gave up trying to explain a long time ago. It's very nice to see posts from someone who is not jaded.

Originally Posted by Glenn.

There is a cis woman on here that does this every time the word cis is mentioned. Like Jessica says, we kinda gave up on explaining it to her.

A great post

Appreciate it

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

Its almost like they don't want a second term isn't it, no wonder Starmer didn't refer to the judgement at all...

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Its almost like they don't want a second term isn't it, no wonder Starmer didn't refer to the judgement at all...

Yes
This week
Parliament returns this Tuesday, 22nd April

So I am sure loads will try to drag this debate in.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes
This week
Parliament returns this Tuesday, 22nd April

So I am sure loads will try to drag this debate in.

I will be well pissed off if they waste more time on this, they have plenty to be getting on with, and apparently there will be a rebellion over the proposed disability cuts

[Cherie]

Director of For Women Scotland Susan Smith has declared that women are "not human shields" for "vulnerable men" following demonstrations across the capital in protest of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Following a challenge by the For Women group, the Supreme Court ruled that women are determined by "biological sex", not those who are transgender and simply identify as women.

Storming the capital on Saturday, transgender protesters demonstrated against the decision, choosing to graffiti on key women's rights figures - including suffragette Millicent Fawcett.

Discussing the ruling on GB News, Smith told host Camilla Tominey that the ruling was to simply "clarify" the legislation against those who have tried to "trespass across women's boundaries".

Smith explained: "We've got the clarity, that is what the Supreme Court ruling was, giving us that clarity. And people have really pushed and pushed and pushed and they have tried to trespass across women's boundaries.

"For a long time, women had been accommodating, they hadn't raised too many objections. And it was only when people really started to make our lives intolerable that we started to have to fight back."

Highlighting the women's argument further, Smith declared that women are "not human shields" for vulnerable men, and those who have been critical of women's only spaces have "no sympathy" for the women "unable to live their lives".

Smith told GB News: "I don't understand why a woman would be at risk in a men's space. And if they are at risk in a men's space, that's something that men have to start to deal with, because it shouldn't be up to women to protect men who might be vulnerable.

"There are plenty of men who are vulnerable for all sorts of reasons, not all of them people identify as being trans, and we're not human shields for them. And when they talk about not being able to live their lives, they have had no sympathy for the very many women who have not been able to live their lives."

Smith added: "They have not been able to go shopping because they can't use a mixed sex changing room, and that's especially the case, perhaps for ethnic and minority religious women. They've not had any sympathy for women who've been frightened to use a rape crisis shelter because it was headed up by a biological man.

"They've had no sympathy for these women who've been pushed right to the fringes because of their activism. And now they're trying to pull sob stories and try to make play on women's kindness. Well, we were kind for a very long time, and it got us into this mess."

When asked by Camilla Tominey if she is surprised by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's silence on the verdict, Smith claimed that many politicians "owe an apology" to women.

Smith explained: "I think a lot of politicians owe women an apology, and I think Keir Starmer is one of them. He did make some ridiculous comments about something like 1 per cent of women have penises.

"And I know that the Labour Party have stepped back a bit in recent times, and Keir Starmer has been conspicuously silent on it - I think a lot of politicians are afraid of some of the sorts of men that we saw out demonstrating yesterday. I think they're frightened of them, and they should be frightened of them, because a lot of them are dangerous people."

She concluded: "I am frightened, I'm terrified of them. But as mothers and grandmothers and young women, we've got an enormous amount of young women starting now to speak up at universities, and these are people who are actually at risk.

"He's the most powerful person in the country. He needs to stop being afraid of them and start to stand up for the people who need protection."




Perhaps someone can explain to me why a group protesting trans rights would choose to deface statues of womens rights figures @Glenn @Jessica in particular ....surely they dont want women to lose their rights...that cannot be so...these vulnerable transwomen

[Barry.]

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Barry.

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

Parliament must clarify the new Rules.
This Tuesday.

No need to Panic.

[Barry.]

Originally Posted by arista

Parliament must clarify the new Rules.
This Tuesday.

No need to Panic.

Was I panicking there?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Barry.

Was I panicking there?

A little bit
only

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Barry.

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

[Barry.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

Oh yes I worry about the men who pretend to be women to get in their prisons to abuse them, however I also feel bad for the trans woman who just wants to be them in the prison too. I see it from both sides but I don’t like that all trans women are put in the same box as those scumbags too