Women's rights under attack

Sadly, you're not the first woman I've disappointed😀!

I will respond to your longer post properly later, but I do want to state clearly that I am not trying to sow division. I'm merely trying to state my opinions clearly and unambiguously.

I have about 2,800 posts on boards. I challenge you to find a single one where I have insulted another poster. I have been on the receiving end of a fair amount of insults - in almost all cases the insulters didn't engage at all with what I had said, preferring to call me names, question my character or associate me with reprehensible people. It probably doesn't come across on screen but IRL (I'm thinking 360 feedback in work) even people who I've had strong disagreements with have remarked on my reasonableness. If anything I tend to be too reasonable to my own detriment - that has come with a financial cost.

I never called you a bigot or anyone else ( where do you get that from ?)and to be honest think if you want to talk about other posters you should quote them properly and talk directly . Not use your posts to me, Aero or anyone else to bitch and moan about others .

I didn't say you called me a bigot at all - how can you think I said that? 🤷‍♀️

As is always the case on these threads, people who make detailed, lengthy, nuanced posts explaining their position, don't have their points taken on board - they just get accused of being anti trans by numerous posters, who have no counter argument. If you and Oisin can't see this, ok, but I guarantee it has happened here. I've already quoted them - they know who they are. Pointless trying to reason with them. It's a bit inconsistent to imply I'm sneaky and not them. Ignoring people's points just to throw false allegations at them, then scuttling off, shouldn't be tolerated by anyone, no matter what "side".

I'm male - biologically and legally. As regards identity I don't really get the concept - I'm just me.

Yes I know what you mean about people not taking detailed nuanced posts into consideration .

I posted one two days ago and got given out to about other stuff instead by ....who would that be ? 🤔

Still not replied to , but hey it's not all about me !

"…it's not going to end well for anyone who's not a white, heterosexual christian."

Or male , no offence to the men here !

And yes @o1s1n , I have brought up that subject a few times since the start of this thread , and about how Ireland's sexual violence and femicide in NI , is the highest in the EU by a long shot , but it was repeatedly ignored to return to the subject of transgender around the world .

I guess the subject is very important to some people so much so , that the fact that all other reported crime in Ireland has decreased but violence and rape has increased … is not worth talking about ?

The subject is ignored and denied by those who are part of the manosphere on SM , much more important to punch down on a small minority of generally well behaved people , in this country anyway .

It's not that the transgender subject should not be discussed , it's just the level of importance it is being given .

It is pretty clear that those who are supporters ( disciples on some cases ).of people who think it Trump's ( no pun intended) questioning the development of theories that divide women , just when women need to pull together with supportive men to combat the scourge of male violence and the new creep in social media to indoctrinate young men and boys that women are objects who cannot control their own lives and spaces

Again not aiming this at anybody in particular at all here it is a general statement , but it is a big problem and as a mother of young men I see how insidious the algorithms can be ..

Yes, I apologise for getting confrontational towards you Oisin, and I agree that this is not a "sky falling down" matter (there are for sure far bigger concerns for women and girls globally - and while yes, horribly, many men are being killed... it's not usually women killing them, so domestic partner violence is a specific concern).

When this topic is brought up though, people will respond with their views (on how biological sex cannot be denied) and when they get accused of things they haven't said, well that's where it gets heated.

Sorry for my earlier brief post . I was a bit taken back if I am honest and reacted .

Thanks for that - your apology is as welcome as it is unnecessary. It's an emotive topic, we all have strong opinions and we're entitled to state them.

You say "loath though you are to quote Jordan Petersen, " and you then do quote him . Not a good start straight to a touchstone of conservatism against transgender .

I've explained this elsewhere but I'll do it again for completeness. I used the word "loath" as I'm aware of how divisive Petersen can be (BTW I wasn't aware of him being considered a touchstone of conservatism against transgender but I'm happy to take your word for it). If I could have thought of a less divisive source for a similar concept I would have used it. I have learned from recent experience that when sources are given, the source tends to be subjected to ad hominem attacks rather than there being any evaluation of the value or otherwise of the concept being referenced. I think that's exactly what you've done here - please correct me if I'm taking you up wrong.

Barb no 1 …

"however facts often seem harsh if you're on the wrong side of them" Indeed ! Who is on" the wrong side of them " ?

Who is on the wrong side of the facts, depends very much on what those facts are. For example, it is a fact that the three medallists in the 2016 Olympic women's 800m were male. That's a fact that must seem harsh for the women in 4th, 5th, and 6th positions, along with all the others displaced. Likewise, with the new rules announced last week, it is a fact that men will no longer be allowed in women's Olympic events - that no doubt feels harsh to those men who had intended to compete in the female category. Not barbs, just facts.

And you are the arbiter of what is fact and not ?

Absolutely not. I do try to distinguish in my posts between facts that I can support with evidence, and statements that are just my opinion, though I try to make a reasoned argument in support of those. My opinion is worth as much or as little as anyone elses, but facts are priceless.

This statement , as with Petersen comes across as condescending and" I know best " , is that what you intended ? To start with a statement which assumes others do not have the intelligence to read what you post or understand it is not likely to engender an open discussion .

I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm autistic. As such I tend to be literal in my use of language. It's a bit of a pain as I love poetry and literature, so while I can appreciate the skillful use of words I tend to miss the hidden meanings unless they are explained to me. I know I'm smarter and better educated than some people, and stupider, more ignorant and less educated than others. I try to treat everyone as I would like to be treated myself, and if there's one thing that really riles me up it's been talked down to, so I do my best not to talk down to others. I obviously hit the wrong tone with that part of my post, so sorry for that. That said, it's common enough for people who are obviously intelligent to not bother trying to get the points I'm making - they tend not to be that sophisticated.

I don't agree with the importance of this issue which is discussed next . I think it is a manufactured right wing issue which is being presented as a women's issue . People being doxxed, accused and sacked ? And those people are not guilty of the same themselves ? Again all the obscure links being posted are again examples of extremely conservative people… Sowell is an economist who worked with Reagan on his trickle down economics, not your average person .

Here's a list of some things that have happened in the UK - that is why the location of the recent WW4W conference had to kept secret until the last minute. People are afraid to speak out here too - there have been obvious problems in sport for example but they're only being properly reported now that the IOC have grown some balls, so to speak.

Sowell may be conservative (did you know that he graduated from college with Marxist beliefs) but to call him obscure would be incorrect I think. he's 95, and has published books as recently as 2023. Yes, he is conservative - are we not allowed to reference opinions from conservatives?

Just BTW I don't believe in trickle down economics, but if you are going to mention Reagan who started the end of responsible sustainable capitalism, then for balance you should mention how Clinton threw petrol on that particular fire by deregulating Wall St.

Barb no 2.

" I wonder about the motivations of someone who insists on trying to join a club where they clearly don't meet the eligibility requirements ".

Eligibility requirements ? What do you say then … No trans females need apply ?

And why do you assume any strange motivation only that which people usually have for signing up to dating apps ? Are you saying they are all perverted ?

There are many on these apps who are not what they say they are but might meet your eligibility requirements .

How about No Violent Men Need Apply ?

Ok. If you are setting up a social networking app aimed at women only (that is what Giggle was), then you say "no men need apply"

Again, you're missing my literal use of words - I mean I wonder what their motivation is as I haven't a clue. I wouldn't try to identify as a golfer or sea swimmer to join a club. I couldn't ascribe any motivation let alone a nefarious one, though examples have been given upthread of men identifying as women for nefarious reasons.

It's hard to trust anything anyone would say on a dating app, though I seem to be the 1 in a million who experienced perfect WYSIWYG with the one and only person I ever met that way.

As for "No violent men need apply" - that should probably be the rule for all clubs, though unfortunately it can't be tested for with a cheek swab. OTOH, if I was recruiting special forces, a bit of violence might be useful.

As to the discussion about children as young as 12 undergoing hormonal treatment , there are professionals involved advising both parents and children . I am not either in favour or against but see the limitations on all sides tbh .

As with any other medical treatment I would lean towards the needs of the people involved more than people whose ideology does not allow them to consider that it is necessary .

The whole thing is an ethical minefield, with no easy path through it. I would tend to lean heavily against medical or surgical intervention on healthy bodies. Puberty is a distressing time for everyone - there has to be a better way than automatically affirming delusional beliefs, though hands up, I have no idea what that should be. I was referring to any kind of delusional beliefs, if we narrow it to just the trans issue, then a fair bit of caution is needed if interacting with professionals involved in advising both parents and children. Despite CASS and the WPATH files, there's a lot of stuff being presented as best practice with no evidence base for it whatsoever, and a cavalier attitude to long term effects. Have a look at who Johanna Olsen Kennedy is and what she is being sued for.

Barb no 3 .

"Dissenters are automatically branded "anti-trans". The "anti" is applied when you are not against anything, but are in favour of biological reality and it's implications."

Where have you portrayed yourself as pro trans ? And by implications you suggest all means of degradation and depravation that will follow the acceptance of those who are trans in society, particularly trans female . (Cue more obscure examples in reply ) Why would any other moniker be applied then ?

Again you are attributing the ability to yourself that only you can see the reality and that others are basically too thick or naive .

I never portrayed myself as pro trans. I believe in live and let live, including for people who's beliefs are different to mine. I have no idea what you are saying in the rest of that paragraph. I accept trans people, I don't accept their beliefs as they contradict biology, which I find more reliable. And again no, it is not only me who can see it, in fact I think everyone can see it save for those who chose not to. If I'm pro anything it's pro truth - and that truth has to be backed up with evidence or it's just opinions.

Barb no 4

" ironic those doing the stereotyping would most likely be vehemently anti-Trump, yet this "with us or agin' us" stance is quintessentially US GOP "

Firstly I disagreed with the paragraph saying that people were stereotyping you or others here on this thread . One or two posters were called out for comments they made specifically .

It is indeed ironic , given the oppression by Trump and his abuses against women . Why would anybody in support of women:s rights be pro Trump? Who are you directing this at ? I would think most right thinking people at this stage, never mind women, would be against Trump and his policies vehemently or not .

There are people posting here who would never support Trump nor the GOP and to say that those who are in favour of a live and let live approach to a minority group like transgender , are like MAGA , who are hell bent on bullying and excluding them along with other minorities , is frankly strange thinking .

I wasn't suggesting people would support Trump, though he does seem to have some support. I was drawing a comparison between the debating tactics of the MAGA crowd and some people on this on similar threads - name calling, questioning posters' motivations, misrepresentation, demanding sources but never providing any themselves, etc, etc. In fact to say "debating" tactics is incorrect, some seem to want to avoid debating, or shut down debate. I've no idea why you saw that as a barb.

You and others have had ample lattitude to express your opinions without any such comparisons .

Hence my disappointment reading your post and reading such a bizarre statement .

So some areas of agreement, but the other parts were a step too far and frankly overpowered any more reasonable points .

Maybe somewhat on this thread, though there have been ad hominem attacks. I don't understand why you thought my comparison bizarre, it was based on the totality of my experience on CA - mainly based on the responses to other posters - I'm not very prolific. I accept your sincerity in making the comments, and I appreciate the detailed response, but I don't agree that any of what you classed as barbs were in fact that.

My humble apologies. I thought your detailed reply deserved the courtesy of a proper response. I couldn't do it on the phone as I needed to keep a few tabs open to keep track of it - I suffer from unexplained chronic fatigue and associated brain fog and it takes a bit more effort than it should to keep track of multiple points in a post. I needed to wait until my day's work was done and the dinner eaten to sit down and give it proper thought.

I posted one two days ago and got given out to about other stuff instead 

My short response indicated that a longer response would be forthcoming - did you miss that?

I suspect I was typing my long response to your detailed nuanced post while you were typing your barbed remark. I hope it meets your requirements. Let me know when it's your birthday and I'll buy you a mirror - it seems you are in need of one.

I think you need to edit again, or read more carefully.

I never said I take a bingo card approach, I said we are expected to take a bingo card approach: i.e. if you call yourself left wing then you are supposed to be ok with men in women's sports, open borders etc. I said I take an a lá carte approach - I look at each individual argument made by the people whose work I read, I accept those that convince me, reject those where I think the argument falls down and file the rest under "interesting but needs more evidence".

I posted this in the sports thread - it might be of interest here as there's a fair bit of discussion about how drugs tend not to be tested on women due to the difficulty of controlling for the menstrual cycle. @magicbastarder mentioned this earlier in the thread - it seems to me that if it's so hard to run a good test, then the real life situation of women taking drugs where testing has taken no account of their menstrual cycle whatsoever is a bit of a crapshoot. The rest of the video contains the science behind the new IOC policy and explains all about the genes and chromosomes.

Edited for typo.