Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Sorry I've no idea what you're suggesting. Do you think the Women's Rights Networks wants to remove women's right to vote??

They don't.

They just want to ensure that women are as safe as possible from male abusers (which is still an issue in the 21st century), and also that religious women like Muslims and Orthodox Jewish women can also have access to sport.

But then you think such women are just god-bothering bigots. I think they're victims of a misogynistic religion and if we can make their lives better we should.

Look, men like @Boggles know what is good for women and will not tolerate them being god-bothering bigots or archaic looney tunes.

And it's not a bit misogynistic for him to feel entitled to be the ultimate arbiter of what women are entitled to want or need. It's just that women shouldn't bother their pretty little heads with such questions - they should let men make those decisions for them.

How is offering a few female only swimming sessions going back to the rights women had in Victorian times? Are they saying that those are the only options that should be available to women? Clearly they aren't. The fact is that for various reasons, there are many women who would like spaces free of men for certain activities. That seems to be something that you just can't countenance. Why do you care so much?

Despite your attempt to potray it as some sort of fringe desire held by a bunch of repressed prudes, many women would like to do certain activities without the presence of men. For example, in a 2022 survey, 61% of women polled in the UK said they would prefer to use female only work out spaces.

No one is saying that should be the only option for women, just that it should be an option for the ones that want it. Why does that bother you so much?

Yep.

Reminds me strongly of this:

What sort of men WANT it to be the norm for women to be expected to put up with a certain amount of hassle from men?

As I said way back, if somebody wants the concept of single-sex spaces to become old fashioned and unnecessary, they need to first fix the problem of male abuse of women.

But men advocating to get rid of protected spaces for women and girls just because these men consider it prudish of women - well. You do wonder why, don’t you?

Several things are troubling about trans issues and the direction they’ve taken. One is the way that they’ve been politically hijacked by both the right and the self-styled ‘progressive’ left. The right has jumped on the bandwagon of opposing trans rights, while the ‘progressives’ are framing any concern over women’s rights as ‘far right’ and smearing anyone who expresses doubts over the impact of trans rights on these, or any gender critical views, as a far-right supporter. That is both a reductio ad absurdum and extremely offensive.

The second is the constant resort to the old straw man about ‘how many trans women have committed assaults in a public toilet?’, to which the answer is that trans identity has been used to gain access to women and girls to commit crimes against them. It’s rare but it does happen. Perhaps a greater risk is that if it is possible for men (who may not actually be trans) to access single sex spaces by claiming to be so, there are some who will take advantage of that to prey on women. The safety of women is important and it’s unacceptable to brush these concerns aside.

Maybe the root of the problem is the insistence of trans campaigners that there’s no difference between a biological woman, a trans woman who has undergone surgical reassignment or hormonal therapy and a trans woman who is biologically male but has adopted a female social persona. I can see why they take this view but to many people, this raises problematic questions. The aggression with which some campaigners have pursued this and attempted to shut down objections has exacerbated these. Hounding women out of their jobs for disagreeing, calling them far right, or terfs, and telling them to shut up sounds awfully like the misogynist behaviour that so many women – especially those older than Gen Z - are all too familiar with. Both sides need to dial down the temperature of the debate.

Some people will use gender criticism to mask their Transphobia, see the likes of Matt Walsh. He did a lot of acting in bad faith, which is never good and undermines any legitimate point he may have made/had.

Never Implied he was a feminist, he is however part of the discourse around the debate. When I said with sides, ai meant both sides of the debate, didn't mean specifically British Feminist.

Yeah Saturday's march has been ugly. They do seem to react in a very 'aggressively male way', and defacing feminist statues is all part of their manifesto.

If mixed changing rooms are grand, then why can't transwomen just change in the men's changing room? Since sex based changing rooms are so passe?

it’s really scary how much hate/violence there is for women. This now feels like a women-hating movement, when all women have done is to say: live you life, dress the way you want, enjoy the same rights we all have, but NO to taking our rights away; we want our single sex places back - we want to be able to access same sex services with safeguarding in employment, hospitals, schools, prisons, rape crisis centres, mental health & disabled facilities and elderly care.

..and this is the result of saying no to these men as Volchitsa has already stated.

Scary stuff..

Sums up feelings this morning. Many would’ve been sympathetic and kind towards trans as a vulnerable group all the while correctly asserting women’s rights. Any good will there was though is disappearing fast.
How they can get away with this heightened level of aggression and threats against women is beyond me. Where’s the outcry from the media?

I'm actually quite concerned that the 2015 Irish self-ID law may mean that we've already passed that stage here, and a woman going to court would find herself in a similar position to Sall Grover in Australia, who was sued by a trans identifying man for having thrown him off her woman-only meeting site, Giggle. She lost - because the judge found that in Australia, the law DOES say that men can be women.

The applicant, Roxanne Tickle, sued Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (Giggle) and Sally Grover, Giggle’s Chief Executive Officer and founder, alleging unlawful gender identity discrimination, contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA). It is not in dispute that Roxanne Tickle was prevented by the respondents from using a mobile phone social media application, known as the Giggle App, marketed for communication between women, which did not allow men to join or use the app. The issue is whether that was unlawful discrimination.(…)

Roxanne Tickle is a transgender woman, whose female sex is recognised by an official updated Queensland birth certificate. For that reason, I refer to her as Ms Tickle.

I have found that there was no inconsistency between the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1994 (Qld) and the SDA. (…)

Conclusion I have found that Ms Tickle’s claim of (…) indirect gender identity discrimination succeeds. I will make a declaration of contravention by way of unlawful indirect gender identity discrimination (…) I will also order the respondents to pay Ms Tickle compensation in the sum of $10,000 and to pay her costs…

The case has not yet reached its final appeal (both parties are suing, Giggle to have the judgment overturned, and "Roxane Tickle" to have the damages Sall Grover has been ordered to pay increased) but it shows that the exact wording of these laws matters - the UK Supreme Court couldn't just say "Well it's common sense!"

If the Scottish parliament had been able to pass its planned laws on gender reassignment (which failed precisely because they were alleged to contravene UK law of course - as has now been demonstrated) things might have been very different. As I suspect they may be under Irish law thanks to the madness that is the GRA. Of course we won't know for sure until it's tested in court.

Yes we know you hate feminists, especially those terrible Victorian ones. No comment about any of the other points made?

It's the fact that they see a woman's rights activist from the Victorian Era, ie not related to trans rights at all, as being against trans rights that is significant. It shows that their movement is against women's rights per se. They themselves obviously feel that trans rights are men's rights.

What was that you were saying about wanting to "go back to the same rights women had in Victorian Times"?

Right argument, but you're on the wrong side of it. Well, you're on the anti-woman side - you seem to think that's the right side, and I won't try to change your mind. I'm just pointing it out for others.

And I notice you don't care enough about the other notices, about dead TERFs, or the ones with "bullet holes" for women to even comment on them. You're grand with those it seems.

How do you know it was man that did it?

Plenty of women on that march yesterday too.