New trans-critical female rights campaign launched

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... ettes.html

Three brave activists launch 'most significant female movement since the Suffragettes' urging public demand EVERY politician standing in next month's elections can answer that simple - and very direct - question



Can a woman have a penis?

A simple question, you might imagine.

But not, it seems, for a flustered Sir Keir Starmer, who squirmed when asked just this in a radio interview this week.

'I'm not... I don't think we can conduct this debate with... I don't think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run,' the Labour leader stammered.

And he's certainly not the only politician struggling with such matters. Anneliese Dodds, the shadow minister for women and equalities, recently had an issue defining precisely what a woman was (a clue, Anneliese, look in the mirror!), before reaching the conclusion 'it depends on what the context is'.

The Chancellor Rishi Sunak, too, in a recent radio interview was unable to say in his own words what a woman was.

How worrying it is that politicians are now too cowardly to answer this most basic of questions, that they are unable to define what is, after all, half the population.

...

When it comes to publicly standing up for females — as, inch by inch, our hard-fought rights are eroded as more biological males self-identify as women — bravery is in very short supply. In a series of tweets earlier this month, JK Rowling, who has faced the wrath of trans activists for her comments on the subject, warned politicians that women were organising to defend their rights.

And today, exclusively in the Daily Mail, I can reveal that this warning is becoming a reality with a new force that represents the most significant women's movement since the Suffragettes.

Because we women have had enough.

So three of the country's largest campaign groups on women's rights — Women Uniting, Sex Matters and Women's Rights Network (WRN) — are mobilising with a new campaign: 'Respect my Sex if you want my X'.

While having painsomnia I read the article and then went and played in Google ...
The gal in grey outfit in that photo is the interviewee in this from what looks to be an activist we site.
The court case details struck me as being of interest.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/i ... forstater/

"Maya Forstater’s case has already been celebrated as a breakthrough for protecting freedom of belief and sex-based rights in the UK after she won in a judgment from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, overturning the previous decision that her views were not protected under the Equality Act 2010 because they were “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”.

The Appeal Tribunal ruled that “becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA [the Gender Recognition Act] does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex”. She is about to return to an employment tribunal to bring the claim that she was discriminated against by her employer because of her protected belief ..."

It's pretty vile stuff, isn't it?

Reminiscent of the campaigns to ban lesbians and black women from "straight, white women's spaces".

Another totally selfish group who thinks LGB/women etc should be protected from harm, but those who are trans can go f*** themselves when it comes to being safe.

Which campaigns were those?

yes... but no.
They are essentially argueing from fear, and I do not want to discard that as selfishness.

There is a problem with defining exactly who gets to claim certain rights and privileges, such as this generalized protection. That protection is usually based on the difference in physical strength between potential victim and potential perpetrator and history of power relations.

I was quite surprised to learn about all the pedophilia movements in the 60s which jumped on the bandwagon of sexual liberation and gay rights. It took a while to sort out what our society is accepting and who it is willing to grant what rights to - and what is remains unacceptable. And unless this conversation is had, there will always be people claiming that leaving a self-identifying woman alone with children is a problem.
I also don't feel comfortable calling women selfish bigots who don't want to welcome a physically male person into women's shelters or want to share prison sentences with one. There are conflicting interests of who gets protection from whom and who is a potential as well as a real victim.
So I fully agree with the "depends on context" position. Since I'm neither a doctor, a woman nor a child nor have children, in any context I can imagine encountering a self-identifying woman, I have no reason to not accept the person as what they are identifying. But I do think the discussions about context needs to be had between the respective groups so they can get along.

Excluding black women from “white women’s spaces” is part of racial segregation.

10-15 years ago it was very common to hear the sentiment that gay people should not be allowed to change or share a toilet with straight people. Even today, manly women (particularly butch lesbians) are often challenged when they attempt to use women’s facilities.

Nah Forstater doesn’t have cover, she’s made it clear that she’s not acting from a position of first-glance fear, it’s a calculated position of hatred that she’s maintained over time.

There certainly are some people who are simply uneducated, who have an instinctive “hmm, not sure about this” reaction. That’s understandable and should be approached with compassion. Most people will happily accept that there’s no conflict after a bit of a discussion. But the three women in the article do not fall into that category. They know they’re both factually and morally in the wrong, but they pursue it anyway for their own selfish reasons. They’re evil.

fair enough - but it is still necessary to have this conversation, to undermine the roght wing claim that this is a marxist conspiracy etc. with yransparency, and to make it harder for them to gain followers anong the uninformed who may have to vote on this, even if it basically doesn't concern them.

So the tables have turned. 15 years ago LGBT people wanted to use spaces for their biological gender and straight people didn't want them to. Today LGBT people want to use spaces for their "gender identity" and straight people don't want them to.

I do see how in both scenarios straight people can feel threatened and LGBT people can feel discriminated, albeit in a different ways. It is interesting though how the tables turned.

Another example of "turning the tables" is this. In America gay rights activists are saying they can't help being gay while "homophobes" are saying yes they can. In Russian prisons its the opposite. Gays are being told "once gay always gay" and they are forced to report their status so they can be segregated. Furthermore, those "gays" aren't really gays: they are prison rape victims, but they are told that they are gays whether they admit it or not. Which is very opposite to an American scenario where gays want to say they are gays yet they are told they aren't.

So I guess I can draw the following parallels. Russian prisons are similar to the bathroom attitude 15 years ago: in both cases straight people are trying to make gays act like gays. While American attutude towards cure for homosexuality is analogous to bathroom attitude today: in both cases straight people are trying to convince gay people to become straight. Well, the fact that "homosexuality cure" is the thing of the past kinda ruins that parallel, since it doesn't coincide in time with "corresponding" bathroom attitude. But still interesting thing to contemplate about.

What does X stand for?

That's what it smacks of. Conservatives can't be woke, however hard they try

Vote. Cross in box (on a ballot).

Are the people in the photo trans?

The Daily Mail's emotive language in that article represents its usual dishonest approach to providing news.

I can see why a lot of people aren't 100% sold on everything they're expected - or think they're expected - to do about the fact that not everybody is completely gender-binary. They're concerned that any man could declare himself a woman, get himself automatically believed, and get access to their daughter's school changing room. But the Daily Mail takes things way too far, which is only to be expected from a source that feeds its audience's prejudices to sell copy.

It's got to be a very thorny issue, and I'm not surprised that politicians don't want to answer questions about it. Whatever you say, you're going to offend somebody.

The best thing I've read about the misgivings of the skeptics ran something like this: "If you've got a penis and you think you're a woman, fine. You're entitled to that belief, and if anybody attacks you for it, I'm happy to defend you. But I'm also entitled to my opinion, and I don't have to believe you're a woman, and I expect you to respect my belief as I respect yours."

That brings to mind the Dan and Dan Films "Daily Mail Song" from some years back,