Main Edition
US
FR
The launch of a sexual assault support centre for women is always good news but, when it is the brainchild of J.K. Rowling, it is very big news. Especially given the feminist philanthropist and world famous author has smartly taken pre-emptive steps to outwit her detractors.
Rowling has funded and designed a new, women-only sexual violence support service, Beiraâs Place, which opens today. âI founded Beiraâs Place to provide what I believe is currently an unmet need for women in the Lothians area,â the author said this weekend. “As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I know how important it is that survivors have the option of women-centred and women-delivered care at such a vulnerable time. Beiraâs Place will offer an increase in capacity for services in the area and will, I hope, enable more women to process and recover from their trauma.â
Situated in the heart of Edinburgh, it is a service for women who have been subjected to menâs violence. It is named after the Scottish goddess of Winter, as Rowling explained: âBeira rules over the dark part of the year, handing over to her sister, Bride, when summer comes again. Beira represents female wisdom, power, and regeneration. Hers is a strength that endures during the difficult times, but her myth contains the promise that they will not last for ever.â
It has taken a year of hard work by Rowling and her team to get it off the ground, and I was delighted to be invited to the top-secret launch on Saturday alongside the crĂšme de la crĂšme of Scottish feminists and many other supporters. Today is the first that anyone, aside from those who have had some kind of involvement in the project, will hear about Beiraâs Place.
The board, which includes Rowling, is comprised of experts with a lifelong commitment to ending menâs violence towards women and girls. They include former prison governor and LGB rights campaigner Rhona Hotchkiss, previous Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, GP Margaret McCartney, and Susan Smith who is director of For Women Scotland. Its CEO is Isabelle Kerr, a veteran of the Rape Crisis movement.
Beiraâs Place is strictly female-only, as defined by section 212 of the Equality Act which states that a woman is a âfemale of any ageâ. If you are a natal women aged 16 and over, reside in the Lothians and have experienced sexual violence or abuse at any time in your life, a free and confidential service is now there for you.
The service is funded solely by Rowling and is not set up as a charity, which means trans activists wonât be able to petition the Charities Commission to close it down.
Rowling understands why women need single-sex services following rape and sexual assault. As she wrote on her blog in June 2020: âI refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode âwomanâ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.â
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFantastic news. But please please PLEASE stop using the invented nonsense word “transwoman”. It means nothing, with or without a space.
Language was how men started stripping women of their human rights, and language perpetuates their predatory behaviour.
Men who identify as transgender is perfectly polite and rational, as well as being accurate.
Most men who identify as transgender have had absolutely no surgery and do not take hormones. The few who do are still not women.
It’s incredibly important that we use honest, reality based language.
Not to mention “natal woman”…
And the vomitous slur “cis” can go too. Not that anybody normal ever uses “cis”. Whereas “transwoman” is sometimes used by decent, rational people – and it should not be.
Indeed. I have a cervix, I donât require a prefix, thanks.
Indeed. I have a cervix, I donât require a prefix, thanks.
I favour “actual woman”.
But only if the society has the courage to utter the definition of the word. We donât have that courage here in the U.S.
My definition of “woman” is “the adult human producer of large immotile gametes”.
Two X chromosomes. Can’t be changed.
An interesting question: how would you classify the following two anomalies?
i. Adult human with XX chromosomes who produces and emits small motile gametes.
ii. Adult human with XY chromosomes who produces and carries large immotile gametes.
According to my definition i is male and ii is female. According to your definition it’s the other way round.
I don’t feel strongly that my definition is better than yours. Either will do just as well, save for answering questions like the one above.
This is a very rare translocation of the SRY gene complex normally found on the Y chromosome onto an X. This can happen during meiosis, the type of cell division used to produce gametes in both sexes. Nature occasionally makes mistakes. There is a type of Downâs syndrome where the extra chromosome 21 is attached to chromosome 15 so it looks like the normal 46 chromosomes but the extra DNA is still there. And there are also DSDs, continually cited by transactivists to suggest sex is a spectrum. Which it isnât!!
Thanks, that was interesting, although I have no background in biology and don’t know what “DSD” means.
Disorder of Sex Development, previously labelled Intersex.
These are divided into disorders which affect those with a Y chromosome (males) and those without (females).
(There are also Variations in Sex Characteristics (VSC) or Diverse Sex Development which do not rely on chromosomal abnormality.)
Disorder of Sex Development, previously labelled Intersex.
These are divided into disorders which affect those with a Y chromosome (males) and those without (females).
(There are also Variations in Sex Characteristics (VSC) or Diverse Sex Development which do not rely on chromosomal abnormality.)
Thanks, that was interesting, although I have no background in biology and don’t know what “DSD” means.
If the sex organs descend and produce swimmers, itâs a man. If not, itâs a woman.
Better to leave Lia Thomas out of this discussion, I think.
William.
William.
Outies vs. Innies.
I think that puts you on my side in my friendly dispute with Jeff Cunningham.
Better to leave Lia Thomas out of this discussion, I think.
Outies vs. Innies.
I think that puts you on my side in my friendly dispute with Jeff Cunningham.
For anybody who has any questions about the reality that human sex is binary, there are some great videos on this site which address any and all questions, including disorders of sexual development.
https://www.youtube.com/@ParadoxInstitute
Just for fun, I do not think looking for a precise and complete definition makes sense, particularly when you get into chromosomal anomalies. For instance, how would either classification deal with 1) a person with a single X chromosome and no Y chromosome. 2) a person with XX in some cells, and XY in other cells. 3) a person that produces no gametes at all?
I think something more pragmatic is needed. In reality humans come in only two models, but individuals can be quite different from the typical specimen for either model. Anyway, I’ll give you mine:
People who at some point in their lives can get pregnant without medical help are female, and people who can produce fertile sperm are male. There is no historical case of anyone who can do both.
For people who can do neither, you measure all relevant characteristics (chromosomes, historical and current hormone levels, internal and external organs, bone and brain structure, …) of the entire population, and plot them on a very large 26-dimensional piece of paper (or put them into a statistics program). You colour known females red and known males blue. That gives you two clear and reasonably well-separated clusters, one red and one blue. The black points will also separate in more or less the same clusters, and in most cases you can see pretty clearly which cluster each point belongs to. Where it is not obvious you can do some kind of mathematical analysis and come up with a discrimination function that privileges some differences over others, but at some point you will be left with a small number of people where it is not completely obvious where they should go. Those are then intersex / don’t know, and you have to accept some flexibility in which group they are allowed to join. Note that they are *not* a separate sex, because those points do not form a cluster on your plot, they are just a thin penumbra in between the two clusters.
The two groups, male and female, are perfectly clearly defined, whatever activists say, even if there are a few cases that cannot be clearly classified. It is just that reality is not quite as clearcut as language is. After all we have no problem in dividing vehicles into cars, boats, etc. even though there is such a thing a a DUKW.
Thank you. That really worked for me
Thank you. That really worked for me
I would classify them as anomalies and leave it at that. The (mis)use of intersex people to support the laughable idea of a sexual spectrum — which doesn’t apply to trans people anyway as they claim it’s due to a supposed “gender identity” — is as farfetched as saying because there are some people born with 6 toes, there is a spectrum of the number of toes people can be born with.
The fact that you consider these situations as “anomalies” means that they are not particularly relevant in defining a class of living creatures. I don’t think biological groups are defined by the “anomalies,” mutations or other deviations from the norm. A bird born without one wing is still a bird and an octopus with a birth defect that gives it only four arms is still an octopus.
I think you recognize this when you indicate that you don’t feel strongly that either definition is better.
Anomalies – just as you said. What percentage of the population are you talking about? About it’s got a decimal and at least a zero or two before the first non zero digit as a percentage. There’s also XYY and a few other broken reproductive outcomes. They really have no bearing on how to define sex.
This is a very rare translocation of the SRY gene complex normally found on the Y chromosome onto an X. This can happen during meiosis, the type of cell division used to produce gametes in both sexes. Nature occasionally makes mistakes. There is a type of Downâs syndrome where the extra chromosome 21 is attached to chromosome 15 so it looks like the normal 46 chromosomes but the extra DNA is still there. And there are also DSDs, continually cited by transactivists to suggest sex is a spectrum. Which it isnât!!
If the sex organs descend and produce swimmers, itâs a man. If not, itâs a woman.
For anybody who has any questions about the reality that human sex is binary, there are some great videos on this site which address any and all questions, including disorders of sexual development.
https://www.youtube.com/@ParadoxInstitute
Just for fun, I do not think looking for a precise and complete definition makes sense, particularly when you get into chromosomal anomalies. For instance, how would either classification deal with 1) a person with a single X chromosome and no Y chromosome. 2) a person with XX in some cells, and XY in other cells. 3) a person that produces no gametes at all?
I think something more pragmatic is needed. In reality humans come in only two models, but individuals can be quite different from the typical specimen for either model. Anyway, I’ll give you mine:
People who at some point in their lives can get pregnant without medical help are female, and people who can produce fertile sperm are male. There is no historical case of anyone who can do both.
For people who can do neither, you measure all relevant characteristics (chromosomes, historical and current hormone levels, internal and external organs, bone and brain structure, …) of the entire population, and plot them on a very large 26-dimensional piece of paper (or put them into a statistics program). You colour known females red and known males blue. That gives you two clear and reasonably well-separated clusters, one red and one blue. The black points will also separate in more or less the same clusters, and in most cases you can see pretty clearly which cluster each point belongs to. Where it is not obvious you can do some kind of mathematical analysis and come up with a discrimination function that privileges some differences over others, but at some point you will be left with a small number of people where it is not completely obvious where they should go. Those are then intersex / don’t know, and you have to accept some flexibility in which group they are allowed to join. Note that they are *not* a separate sex, because those points do not form a cluster on your plot, they are just a thin penumbra in between the two clusters.
The two groups, male and female, are perfectly clearly defined, whatever activists say, even if there are a few cases that cannot be clearly classified. It is just that reality is not quite as clearcut as language is. After all we have no problem in dividing vehicles into cars, boats, etc. even though there is such a thing a a DUKW.
I would classify them as anomalies and leave it at that. The (mis)use of intersex people to support the laughable idea of a sexual spectrum — which doesn’t apply to trans people anyway as they claim it’s due to a supposed “gender identity” — is as farfetched as saying because there are some people born with 6 toes, there is a spectrum of the number of toes people can be born with.
The fact that you consider these situations as “anomalies” means that they are not particularly relevant in defining a class of living creatures. I don’t think biological groups are defined by the “anomalies,” mutations or other deviations from the norm. A bird born without one wing is still a bird and an octopus with a birth defect that gives it only four arms is still an octopus.
I think you recognize this when you indicate that you don’t feel strongly that either definition is better.
Anomalies – just as you said. What percentage of the population are you talking about? About it’s got a decimal and at least a zero or two before the first non zero digit as a percentage. There’s also XYY and a few other broken reproductive outcomes. They really have no bearing on how to define sex.
An interesting question: how would you classify the following two anomalies?
i. Adult human with XX chromosomes who produces and emits small motile gametes.
ii. Adult human with XY chromosomes who produces and carries large immotile gametes.
According to my definition i is male and ii is female. According to your definition it’s the other way round.
I don’t feel strongly that my definition is better than yours. Either will do just as well, save for answering questions like the one above.
I would also include those who have had to have their ovaries removed because of eg cancer. One is no less a woman if one has had to have invasive surgery due to illness, just as one is no more a woman because of elective surgery.
Two X chromosomes. Can’t be changed.
I would also include those who have had to have their ovaries removed because of eg cancer. One is no less a woman if one has had to have invasive surgery due to illness, just as one is no more a woman because of elective surgery.
Thanks to wokeness, the work of the devil. If you secular atheists can come up with a better word, have at it.
My definition of “woman” is “the adult human producer of large immotile gametes”.
Thanks to wokeness, the work of the devil. If you secular atheists can come up with a better word, have at it.
Just ‘woman’.
Thatâs redundant. There is no other kind.
But only if the society has the courage to utter the definition of the word. We donât have that courage here in the U.S.
Just ‘woman’.
Thatâs redundant. There is no other kind.
Indeed – “natal women”, “cis-gender” and all that other sloblock
And the vomitous slur “cis” can go too. Not that anybody normal ever uses “cis”. Whereas “transwoman” is sometimes used by decent, rational people – and it should not be.
I favour “actual woman”.
Indeed – “natal women”, “cis-gender” and all that other sloblock
I agree with you totally, except that I have spent 74 years on this planet without, to my knowledge, treating anyone with disrespect, a view which is echoed by almost every man of my acquaintance. Beware of stereotypes, but otherwise, more power to your elbow, Lynn
As you know, it is indeed men who are stripping women of their sex based human rights, with the help of some handmaidens.”Men” cannot be a stereotype, it is a sex class.
If I said scientists are working on curing cancer you would never – under any circumstances – argue that I meant all scientists.
Just as you fully understood the comment to mean predatory men.
If you’re not one of those violent, rapist predatory men who are assaulting women in rape shelters, prisons, toilets, raping women in NHS wards, stealing their sports and demanding access to their sex based spaces as well as denying them hospital care if they protest about men washing their private parts, that’s great.
But please, do waste your time trying to tone police women who are terrified for their human rights, safety and dignity, because that’s what matters at this juncture. Your choice to pretend you thought I was referring to you.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/
https://transcrimeuk.com/
“But please, do waste your time trying to tone police women”
You mean “don’t”. Apologies for mansplaining, but I thought you’d like to have this drawn to your attention.
Edit. Sorry, I didn’t pick up on the intended sarcasm.
It wasn’t mansplaining, as you are incorrect. Oh, wait…
I meant it most sincerely.
It wasn’t mansplaining, as you are incorrect. Oh, wait…
I meant it most sincerely.
I think you do not have logic on your side, here.
If you say that ‘scientists are working on curing cancer’ you imply that curing cancer is part of a a project that all scientists share. Which is fair enough. When you say that ‘men’ are stripping women of their human rights, you are also saying that all men share the blame – which is misleading.
If I were to say that ‘women’ are using sex to get ahead, and using demands for gender equality to get power and promotion that they could not get on individual merit – would you take it for granted that I obviously meant ‘some women’? Or would you ask me politely to put things differently?
‘If you say that âscientists are working on curing cancerâ you imply that curing cancer is part of a a project that all scientists share.’
No, wrong. It neither means nor suggests ALL scientists.
ï»ż
The phrase associates ‘curing cancer’ with scientists as a group. Because we know how many different things scientists are actually working on we do not conclude that it means ‘all scientists’, but we still associate it with all scientists. Try ‘scientists are overpaid’, ‘scientists have not got a clue’, or ‘scientists are b****rds’. Or, for that matter, ‘people named Lewis are total idiots’ (just as an example). Still say that ‘men are stripping women of their human rights’ does not reflect on all men?
The phrase associates ‘curing cancer’ with scientists as a group. Because we know how many different things scientists are actually working on we do not conclude that it means ‘all scientists’, but we still associate it with all scientists. Try ‘scientists are overpaid’, ‘scientists have not got a clue’, or ‘scientists are b****rds’. Or, for that matter, ‘people named Lewis are total idiots’ (just as an example). Still say that ‘men are stripping women of their human rights’ does not reflect on all men?
She is, obviously, referring to men who believe they are women, also referred to as âTransâ men. Those men. Clearly identified. But, the real conversation is getting off-topic with this digression.
I agree that this digression goes off topic – but it hits on another quite important one – it is important to avoid stereotyping – after all stereotyping “men” and “women” is what has led to this madness of “gender” obsession.
I agree that this digression goes off topic – but it hits on another quite important one – it is important to avoid stereotyping – after all stereotyping “men” and “women” is what has led to this madness of “gender” obsession.
Interesting that several men have flocked to this page to invent offence at absolutely nothing.
PS – you’re babbling and pretending not to understand the concept that you understand. Sealions never get to direct me, or converse with me.
Please feel free to continue. The conversation is over.
Thanks for saying ‘several’ . . . I jest
Thanks for saying ‘several’ . . . I jest
That’s nonsense. There is no implication that “all scientists” are part of the curing cancer project, just as there is no implication that all men are trying to strip women of their human rights. Anyway, these sort of semantic critiques are just unworthy distractions.
No, I wouldn’t, because I know it doesn’t apply to me. That’s a difference between men and women – we don’t automatically think everything is about me.
‘If you say that âscientists are working on curing cancerâ you imply that curing cancer is part of a a project that all scientists share.’
No, wrong. It neither means nor suggests ALL scientists.
ï»ż
She is, obviously, referring to men who believe they are women, also referred to as âTransâ men. Those men. Clearly identified. But, the real conversation is getting off-topic with this digression.
Interesting that several men have flocked to this page to invent offence at absolutely nothing.
PS – you’re babbling and pretending not to understand the concept that you understand. Sealions never get to direct me, or converse with me.
Please feel free to continue. The conversation is over.
That’s nonsense. There is no implication that “all scientists” are part of the curing cancer project, just as there is no implication that all men are trying to strip women of their human rights. Anyway, these sort of semantic critiques are just unworthy distractions.
No, I wouldn’t, because I know it doesn’t apply to me. That’s a difference between men and women – we don’t automatically think everything is about me.
Lynn, thank you for the link. I looked up the 2021 and 2022 lists of the latter site and what struck me forcibly is most of the crime was the behavior of Paedophiles. I know nothing of the subject but I assume a repeated characteristic of Paedophiles, particularly online is to pretend they are something other than an adult male. Because of policing policy today, they have to record these particular people as transgendered (because they say they are) and that leads them into female prisons, bonkers. The actual physical profiles were a real eye-opener. Lunatics and asylums spring to mind.
It’s pretty horrifying how many crimes have already been carried out by men pretending to be women – and even boys pretending to be girls, and how this is just ignored.
I too was very innocent of all these facts until a couple of years ago, when I noticed that Twitter was removing likes from this famous tweet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033 – my guess is that this tweet would have at least a million likes by now without Twitter interference.
Once you start looking into these matters, you very quickly find substantial evidence that men who identify as women are harming many women and children throughout the world.
Because women commit so few sex crimes, stats are also now skewed by the number of men who claim, after being arrested, to be women.
I remember the claims of “This never happens” and yet it has happened thousands of times. Decent men don’t want to be within a hundred yards of women and children’s spaces.
The reality is that only predatory or unhinged men want access to women and children’s spaces.
Good news re the Loudon County principal who was responsible for girls being assaulted by predatory boys at his school. He’s been sacked and the boy has been charged with kidnapping and assault.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/08/us/virginia-school-superintendent-fired-report-sexual-assaults/index.html
And parents are taking legal action against the school which has been protecting the fetishist teacher with the giant plastic breasts
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/10806891-oakville-high-school-parents-taking-legal-action-against-halton-district-school-board/
And with Musk insisting on free speech on Twitter, I see hashtags trending everyday such as #womanace #sexnotgender #adulthumanfemale
The reality is that nearly everyone agrees that nobody changes sex, it took an incredibly brave woman – Joanne Rowling – to start the ball rolling.
It is not a controversial stance that men are not women and that nobody changes sex – but it has been painted as such by the media, crimes have been hidden, stats have been tweaked, and the truth has been heavily suppressed. Yet still they cannot force us to ignore the evidence of material reality.
And by suppressing rational speech so heavily for years, and amplifying transgenderists, Twitter helped to shape policies which have had a real effect on real vulnerable women and children.
People think if they don’t have a Twitter account they are not affected by Twitter. The reality is that 80 percent of journalists use Twitter as a news source. https://www.prdaily.com/report-83-of-journalists-use-twitter-but-most-still-want-email-pitches/
I’d like to see the men who caused the hounding and abuse of JK attacks on JK Rowling to be amplified and the quashing of the majority voices which supported her to be held accountable.
Anyway, I’m rambling, apologies. I am glad you found the link useful.
If they recorded the crimes as committed by transgendered persons it wouldn’t be so bad. Instead, male crime is being reported and recorded as committed by women.
It was this which first alerted me to what was happening with gender ideology; I noticed (over the course of a few months) several UK press reports of women committing sexual offences against children. Historically this has been a rare incidence and I tried to investigate why women were suddenly doing this. I found one report which revealed the truth in one case – the perpetrator was a trans identifying man.
This led me to transcrimes and Graham Linehan where the full truth of what was happening was laid bare.
It’s pretty horrifying how many crimes have already been carried out by men pretending to be women – and even boys pretending to be girls, and how this is just ignored.
I too was very innocent of all these facts until a couple of years ago, when I noticed that Twitter was removing likes from this famous tweet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033 – my guess is that this tweet would have at least a million likes by now without Twitter interference.
Once you start looking into these matters, you very quickly find substantial evidence that men who identify as women are harming many women and children throughout the world.
Because women commit so few sex crimes, stats are also now skewed by the number of men who claim, after being arrested, to be women.
I remember the claims of “This never happens” and yet it has happened thousands of times. Decent men don’t want to be within a hundred yards of women and children’s spaces.
The reality is that only predatory or unhinged men want access to women and children’s spaces.
Good news re the Loudon County principal who was responsible for girls being assaulted by predatory boys at his school. He’s been sacked and the boy has been charged with kidnapping and assault.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/08/us/virginia-school-superintendent-fired-report-sexual-assaults/index.html
And parents are taking legal action against the school which has been protecting the fetishist teacher with the giant plastic breasts
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/10806891-oakville-high-school-parents-taking-legal-action-against-halton-district-school-board/
And with Musk insisting on free speech on Twitter, I see hashtags trending everyday such as #womanace #sexnotgender #adulthumanfemale
The reality is that nearly everyone agrees that nobody changes sex, it took an incredibly brave woman – Joanne Rowling – to start the ball rolling.
It is not a controversial stance that men are not women and that nobody changes sex – but it has been painted as such by the media, crimes have been hidden, stats have been tweaked, and the truth has been heavily suppressed. Yet still they cannot force us to ignore the evidence of material reality.
And by suppressing rational speech so heavily for years, and amplifying transgenderists, Twitter helped to shape policies which have had a real effect on real vulnerable women and children.
People think if they don’t have a Twitter account they are not affected by Twitter. The reality is that 80 percent of journalists use Twitter as a news source. https://www.prdaily.com/report-83-of-journalists-use-twitter-but-most-still-want-email-pitches/
I’d like to see the men who caused the hounding and abuse of JK attacks on JK Rowling to be amplified and the quashing of the majority voices which supported her to be held accountable.
Anyway, I’m rambling, apologies. I am glad you found the link useful.
If they recorded the crimes as committed by transgendered persons it wouldn’t be so bad. Instead, male crime is being reported and recorded as committed by women.
It was this which first alerted me to what was happening with gender ideology; I noticed (over the course of a few months) several UK press reports of women committing sexual offences against children. Historically this has been a rare incidence and I tried to investigate why women were suddenly doing this. I found one report which revealed the truth in one case – the perpetrator was a trans identifying man.
This led me to transcrimes and Graham Linehan where the full truth of what was happening was laid bare.
My God, that transcrime site is an eye opener. What a weapon in the fight against the activists that claim that it’s only ‘isolated’ ‘trans’ individuals that carry out attacks.
“But please, do waste your time trying to tone police women”
You mean “don’t”. Apologies for mansplaining, but I thought you’d like to have this drawn to your attention.
Edit. Sorry, I didn’t pick up on the intended sarcasm.
I think you do not have logic on your side, here.
If you say that ‘scientists are working on curing cancer’ you imply that curing cancer is part of a a project that all scientists share. Which is fair enough. When you say that ‘men’ are stripping women of their human rights, you are also saying that all men share the blame – which is misleading.
If I were to say that ‘women’ are using sex to get ahead, and using demands for gender equality to get power and promotion that they could not get on individual merit – would you take it for granted that I obviously meant ‘some women’? Or would you ask me politely to put things differently?
Lynn, thank you for the link. I looked up the 2021 and 2022 lists of the latter site and what struck me forcibly is most of the crime was the behavior of Paedophiles. I know nothing of the subject but I assume a repeated characteristic of Paedophiles, particularly online is to pretend they are something other than an adult male. Because of policing policy today, they have to record these particular people as transgendered (because they say they are) and that leads them into female prisons, bonkers. The actual physical profiles were a real eye-opener. Lunatics and asylums spring to mind.
My God, that transcrime site is an eye opener. What a weapon in the fight against the activists that claim that it’s only ‘isolated’ ‘trans’ individuals that carry out attacks.
Only 65 here, and I reserve respect for people I know who have earned it. I also assume a presumption of deserving respect until strangers prove otherwise. A Biden or Hillary sticker is proof they do not deserve respect.
Interesting attitude. Personally I respect people who are sincere, can produce coherent arguments, and face up to discussion with people who do not agree with them. People who limit their respect to those who agree with them – not so much.
Interesting attitude. Personally I respect people who are sincere, can produce coherent arguments, and face up to discussion with people who do not agree with them. People who limit their respect to those who agree with them – not so much.
As you know, it is indeed men who are stripping women of their sex based human rights, with the help of some handmaidens.”Men” cannot be a stereotype, it is a sex class.
If I said scientists are working on curing cancer you would never – under any circumstances – argue that I meant all scientists.
Just as you fully understood the comment to mean predatory men.
If you’re not one of those violent, rapist predatory men who are assaulting women in rape shelters, prisons, toilets, raping women in NHS wards, stealing their sports and demanding access to their sex based spaces as well as denying them hospital care if they protest about men washing their private parts, that’s great.
But please, do waste your time trying to tone police women who are terrified for their human rights, safety and dignity, because that’s what matters at this juncture. Your choice to pretend you thought I was referring to you.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/
https://transcrimeuk.com/
Only 65 here, and I reserve respect for people I know who have earned it. I also assume a presumption of deserving respect until strangers prove otherwise. A Biden or Hillary sticker is proof they do not deserve respect.
âmen started stripping women of their human rightsâ
The main problem here appears to be Nicola Sturgeon⊠voted into office by the women of Scotland.
Read the Glinner Substack. It is filled with years of abusive, violent predatory men raping women, assaulting children, stealing their human rights, dignity, safety, sports and even their right to personal care.
Nobody said there weren’t handmaidens assisting them. But I am not afraid of being raped and assaulted in an NHS ward by Nicola Sturgeon. Though she should be investigated for her part in helping men to strip women and children of their rights, dignity and safety.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/
You can also look at transcrimes UK for hundreds more violent, predatory men assaulting women and children and hiding being being “transgender” to do so. https://transcrimeuk.com/
No, it’s men who have been doing this. And yes, women have been assisting them. But it’s still men who I’m afraid of raping little girls in toilets.
f I said scientists are working on curing cancer you would never â under any circumstances â argue that I meant all scientists.
Just as you fully understood the comment to mean predatory men.
But please, do waste your time trying to tone police women who are terrified for their human rights, safety and dignity.
‘Tone’… uh?
When men turn up and tell women how to speak because they have decided women aren’t being nice enough and their hurty feelings matter more than facts, that is often referred to as tone policing.
When men pretend not to understand what women mean, that is often called sealioning.
I never heard of “sealioning” before, but I think it is a good description of the hoarse day- and night-long arguments of that species we experienced during a long weekend at an Oregon seaport town. They lay on the rocks near a rotting wharf and went on and on and on, nothing ever resolved so far as we could perceive. Luckily, we had a noise machine turned to high.
Not to be difficult, well maybe a bit, if men cannot understand what women mean then it must be true that women cannot understand what men mean. And that leaves us where exactly?
But of course, as a woman, Lynn Just Lynn is immune from accusations of tone policing or sealioning.
And this is what you come onto a board discussing men pretending to be women assaulting women? You should be ashamed.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
And this is what you come onto a board discussing men pretending to be women assaulting women? You should be ashamed.
I never heard of “sealioning” before, but I think it is a good description of the hoarse day- and night-long arguments of that species we experienced during a long weekend at an Oregon seaport town. They lay on the rocks near a rotting wharf and went on and on and on, nothing ever resolved so far as we could perceive. Luckily, we had a noise machine turned to high.
Not to be difficult, well maybe a bit, if men cannot understand what women mean then it must be true that women cannot understand what men mean. And that leaves us where exactly?
But of course, as a woman, Lynn Just Lynn is immune from accusations of tone policing or sealioning.
When men turn up and tell women how to speak because they have decided women aren’t being nice enough and their hurty feelings matter more than facts, that is often referred to as tone policing.
When men pretend not to understand what women mean, that is often called sealioning.
I will grant you that statistics show men are more violent and criminal if you grant me that statistics also show men are also more competent and successful. The thing about comparing men and women, for anyone who’s looked at the data, is that men are more variable. “Fatter tails” as they say in statistics: more men are morons and criminals than women. More men are rocket scientists and CEOs than women. Where the radical feminists lose all credibility is they want to cherry pick only the data that suits their superiority myth, or put another way, “heads we win, tails you lose”.
I’m not a feminist. Too many feminists think prostitution is eMpOwErInG,the term has been destroyed.
Your irrelevant babbling aside, it is always a bit depressing how incensed men become when women simply won’t kowtow to their hurty feelings. A bit embarrassing for your better behaved counterparts.
The conversation is now over.
Well someoneâs prowling the comment sections with their âhurry feelingsâ – thatâs for sure!
Not her. I don’t blame her a bit for being pissed off at these stupid distractions from a very serious issue being discussed here. You, on the other hand…..
Not her. I don’t blame her a bit for being pissed off at these stupid distractions from a very serious issue being discussed here. You, on the other hand…..
Let ’em be. They’re eminently ignorable.
Well someoneâs prowling the comment sections with their âhurry feelingsâ – thatâs for sure!
Let ’em be. They’re eminently ignorable.
You may be correct regarding the different shaped distribution curves. Itâs also completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
What is the point youâre trying to make? That itâs OK to have violent male perverts pretending to be women because more men are rocket scientists and brain surgeons?
The point is prejudice. Women like this commenter are constantly slandering all men on the basis of those at the bottom of the distribution curve. I think if you read a few more of this posterâs vitriolic attacks against the men on this page you might appreciate the point a bit better.
please stop with the BS. are you derailing this conversation on purpose, or are you just thick and entitled?
please stop with the BS. are you derailing this conversation on purpose, or are you just thick and entitled?
LOL
The point is prejudice. Women like this commenter are constantly slandering all men on the basis of those at the bottom of the distribution curve. I think if you read a few more of this posterâs vitriolic attacks against the men on this page you might appreciate the point a bit better.
LOL
“if you grant me that statistics also show men are also more competent and successful.”
By what measure are men more competent and even more so, by what measure are men more “successful”? How are you defining successful?
Give it a rest. This is not the time or place for this sort of BS. The issue is not what “radical feminists” do or don’t do. It’s about pretend women and the damage they’re inflicting on real women. Stop the distractions. This is shameful behaviour.
I’m not a feminist. Too many feminists think prostitution is eMpOwErInG,the term has been destroyed.
Your irrelevant babbling aside, it is always a bit depressing how incensed men become when women simply won’t kowtow to their hurty feelings. A bit embarrassing for your better behaved counterparts.
The conversation is now over.
You may be correct regarding the different shaped distribution curves. Itâs also completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
What is the point youâre trying to make? That itâs OK to have violent male perverts pretending to be women because more men are rocket scientists and brain surgeons?
“if you grant me that statistics also show men are also more competent and successful.”
By what measure are men more competent and even more so, by what measure are men more “successful”? How are you defining successful?
Give it a rest. This is not the time or place for this sort of BS. The issue is not what “radical feminists” do or don’t do. It’s about pretend women and the damage they’re inflicting on real women. Stop the distractions. This is shameful behaviour.
True, but let’s try another thought exercise: if I said black men are thugs you would never – under any circumstances – argue that I meant all black men.
And if I said “women are making irrational arguments”, our feminist friends would never – under any circumstance – argue that I meant all women.
Cut the crap.
Cut the crap.
Imagine prowling around comment sections trying and failing to score points against women and pretending not to get it.
Men like you do your decent counterparts no favours at all.
The conversation is now over.
If you canât handle reasoned debate you have no business posting online. Youâre almost as bad as the transgender activists who shout others down. A pox on both your houses.
There’s nothing reasoned about derailing a serious discussion with this sort of bullsh*t.
There’s nothing reasoned about derailing a serious discussion with this sort of bullsh*t.
If you canât handle reasoned debate you have no business posting online. Youâre almost as bad as the transgender activists who shout others down. A pox on both your houses.
And if I said “women are making irrational arguments”, our feminist friends would never – under any circumstance – argue that I meant all women.
Imagine prowling around comment sections trying and failing to score points against women and pretending not to get it.
Men like you do your decent counterparts no favours at all.
The conversation is now over.
‘Tone’… uh?
I will grant you that statistics show men are more violent and criminal if you grant me that statistics also show men are also more competent and successful. The thing about comparing men and women, for anyone who’s looked at the data, is that men are more variable. “Fatter tails” as they say in statistics: more men are morons and criminals than women. More men are rocket scientists and CEOs than women. Where the radical feminists lose all credibility is they want to cherry pick only the data that suits their superiority myth, or put another way, “heads we win, tails you lose”.
True, but let’s try another thought exercise: if I said black men are thugs you would never – under any circumstances – argue that I meant all black men.
Go to universities. Look who heads up and staffs their equity offices. Look who chooses to sit on their equity committees. Look at all the feminist professors attacking âTerfs.â This phenomenon has been driven by women – mostly upper middle class white women.
I provided evidence, believe what you like, material reality will never alter your misogyny. The conversation is now over.
shut up and let the appropriate conversation continue. unbelievable. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I am so sorry the women here have to endure this garbage.
I provided evidence, believe what you like, material reality will never alter your misogyny. The conversation is now over.
shut up and let the appropriate conversation continue. unbelievable. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I am so sorry the women here have to endure this garbage.
Read the Glinner Substack. It is filled with years of abusive, violent predatory men raping women, assaulting children, stealing their human rights, dignity, safety, sports and even their right to personal care.
Nobody said there weren’t handmaidens assisting them. But I am not afraid of being raped and assaulted in an NHS ward by Nicola Sturgeon. Though she should be investigated for her part in helping men to strip women and children of their rights, dignity and safety.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/
You can also look at transcrimes UK for hundreds more violent, predatory men assaulting women and children and hiding being being “transgender” to do so. https://transcrimeuk.com/
No, it’s men who have been doing this. And yes, women have been assisting them. But it’s still men who I’m afraid of raping little girls in toilets.
f I said scientists are working on curing cancer you would never â under any circumstances â argue that I meant all scientists.
Just as you fully understood the comment to mean predatory men.
But please, do waste your time trying to tone police women who are terrified for their human rights, safety and dignity.
Go to universities. Look who heads up and staffs their equity offices. Look who chooses to sit on their equity committees. Look at all the feminist professors attacking âTerfs.â This phenomenon has been driven by women – mostly upper middle class white women.
It does not help your cause to perpetuate the myth of a distinction between sex and gender.
This is meaningless and not directed at anything I wrote.
“This is meaningless and not directed at anything I wrote.”
My comment was a reply to your first post, where you refer to ‘transgender’, so it plainly is directed at your comment. Furthermore, people were formerly always referred to as transsexuals when they transitioned from their birth sex. It is the introduction of the myth of gender which has obfuscated matters to a great degree.
This is meaningless and not directed at anything I wrote. Do you have a point, or a question? If so make it clearly and respond only to what I said, not what you interpreted, believed or wished I had said.
You are an obsessive avoider of argument contrary to yours. You used the word transgender in your first comment. The word is meaningless. As you yourself acknowledge, there are two sexes, male and female. A problem arises when, preponderantly in your example, a male wishes to be regarded as a female. In the past, such men who underwent surgery to appear woman-like were always referred to as transsexual. I agree that you cannot change your sex, but such men do their best to appear as a female. The word “gender” is an obfuscation. The Gender Recognition Act is an abomination because it is not policed. The Act states that a man who wishes to be regarded as female must desire to present as a woman for the rest of his life. Plainly that excludes any lawful possibility of retaining male genitalia. A so-called transwoman with a p***s is already breaking the law before he gets anywhere near women-only spaces, such as refuges for abused women. No-one in charge of such spaces should grant refuge there to anyone who has male genitalia. Any male who retains his genitalia while pretending he is female has plainly, and in law, failed actually to transition at all.
You are an obsessive avoider of argument contrary to yours. You used the word transgender in your first comment. The word is meaningless. As you yourself acknowledge, there are two sexes, male and female. A problem arises when, preponderantly in your example, a male wishes to be regarded as a female. In the past, such men who underwent surgery to appear woman-like were always referred to as transsexual. I agree that you cannot change your sex, but such men do their best to appear as a female. The word “gender” is an obfuscation. The Gender Recognition Act is an abomination because it is not policed. The Act states that a man who wishes to be regarded as female must desire to present as a woman for the rest of his life. Plainly that excludes any lawful possibility of retaining male genitalia. A so-called transwoman with a p***s is already breaking the law before he gets anywhere near women-only spaces, such as refuges for abused women. No-one in charge of such spaces should grant refuge there to anyone who has male genitalia. Any male who retains his genitalia while pretending he is female has plainly, and in law, failed actually to transition at all.
You cannot âtransition from your birth sexâ. Sex in mammals and birds is determined at fertilisation and encoded in every cell. So-called âsex-changeâ surgeries are cosmetic to try and look like the ideal person of the opposite sex. They fail, miserably, and certainly donât stop these men behaving very much as the worst men do. And yet their crimes are recorded as being committed by women!!! No wonder weâre angry!!!
‘Transition from your birth sex’ was used as shorthand to refer to mutilating operations which a) sterilise men, removing their genitalia and giving them an artificial vagina, or b) sterilise women by removing their reproductive organs and giving them an artificial p***s. Thus sexual activity by such people is an inadequate reverse of what happens between normal men and women. As noted in my previous post, a male who simply claims to be a female, retains his p***s and wears dresses to access female-only spaces is breaking the law. This is why gender is a deliberately destructive concept. Such a male may well claim he has changed his gender, and the Gender Recognition Act by its title tends to support that view. All the same, the Act does not allow any man with male genitalia to claim that he is female. Self-evidently no such man is actually living as a woman.
‘Transition from your birth sex’ was used as shorthand to refer to mutilating operations which a) sterilise men, removing their genitalia and giving them an artificial vagina, or b) sterilise women by removing their reproductive organs and giving them an artificial p***s. Thus sexual activity by such people is an inadequate reverse of what happens between normal men and women. As noted in my previous post, a male who simply claims to be a female, retains his p***s and wears dresses to access female-only spaces is breaking the law. This is why gender is a deliberately destructive concept. Such a male may well claim he has changed his gender, and the Gender Recognition Act by its title tends to support that view. All the same, the Act does not allow any man with male genitalia to claim that he is female. Self-evidently no such man is actually living as a woman.
Another stupid distraction.
This is meaningless and not directed at anything I wrote. Do you have a point, or a question? If so make it clearly and respond only to what I said, not what you interpreted, believed or wished I had said.
You cannot âtransition from your birth sexâ. Sex in mammals and birds is determined at fertilisation and encoded in every cell. So-called âsex-changeâ surgeries are cosmetic to try and look like the ideal person of the opposite sex. They fail, miserably, and certainly donât stop these men behaving very much as the worst men do. And yet their crimes are recorded as being committed by women!!! No wonder weâre angry!!!
Another stupid distraction.
“This is meaningless and not directed at anything I wrote.”
My comment was a reply to your first post, where you refer to ‘transgender’, so it plainly is directed at your comment. Furthermore, people were formerly always referred to as transsexuals when they transitioned from their birth sex. It is the introduction of the myth of gender which has obfuscated matters to a great degree.
This is meaningless and not directed at anything I wrote.
I favour “transvestite”.
Different word. There are men who enjoy wearing woman’s clothing while still considering themselves as sexually male.
So can’t we just go back to the innocent days of Danny La Rue? The only difference between transvestites then and transsexuals now is that these days the transvestites are encouraged to physically mutilate themselves by activists.
Womanface is always insulting and creepy, including Danny La Rue – although to be fair he never pretended to be a woman and if some adults find that kind of thing entertaining, fair enough.
And almost no men ever actually have any surgery or hormone treatment. The majority of men claiming to be women are fully intact males, including the ones who are in prisons with females and who are demanding access to rape shelters
https://fairplayforwomen.com/p***s/
Again, transvestites and transgenders are not the same thing. Cross *dressing* does not necessarily mean that the person thinks or even wants to be considered as one of the opposite sex.
Womanface is always insulting and creepy, including Danny La Rue – although to be fair he never pretended to be a woman and if some adults find that kind of thing entertaining, fair enough.
And almost no men ever actually have any surgery or hormone treatment. The majority of men claiming to be women are fully intact males, including the ones who are in prisons with females and who are demanding access to rape shelters
https://fairplayforwomen.com/p***s/
Again, transvestites and transgenders are not the same thing. Cross *dressing* does not necessarily mean that the person thinks or even wants to be considered as one of the opposite sex.
It’s not relevant what men consider themselves, only what they are.
Transgender men could all be considered to be cross dressers. The opposite is not true. Not all cross dressers are transgender, nor do many of them even desire to be. I’m simply making a linguistic point in mixed up definitions. All A are B does not mean that all B are A.
Transgender men could all be considered to be cross dressers. The opposite is not true. Not all cross dressers are transgender, nor do many of them even desire to be. I’m simply making a linguistic point in mixed up definitions. All A are B does not mean that all B are A.
So can’t we just go back to the innocent days of Danny La Rue? The only difference between transvestites then and transsexuals now is that these days the transvestites are encouraged to physically mutilate themselves by activists.
It’s not relevant what men consider themselves, only what they are.
Different word. There are men who enjoy wearing woman’s clothing while still considering themselves as sexually male.
Sadly gender ideology has robbed language of useful meaning. Very effectively, so âmenâ meaning people with penises and âwomenâ meaning people with vaginas is no longer true so qualifications have to be made which makes communication confusing.
This was purposeful. This is what Orwell and Philip k d**k tried to explain. The first mantra of transactivists was âtranswomen are womenâ for that very purpose, and to demonise and humiliate and silence any one who disagreed.
To say that men werenât women was enough to get the author of father Ted cancelled. The musical banned.
Rowling has made sure that there is a sanctuary for women that is p***s free, As rape is defined by the action of a p***s you would have thought that it wouldnât have been so difficult.
It just shows what a mad time we are in so stop being pedantic and concentrate on the reality that gender ideology harms females thatâs the beginning and end of it.
Indeed. However, the majority of people only ever use the words men and women, male and female. Nobody actually talks the way the cult has tried to instruct people to talk, outside some very specific areas.
Despite a very well funded, orchestrated and organised campaign against rational language, they have failed. We all know what women and men are. I suggest we all – including the author of this otherwise excellent piece – stop pretending this invented language matters and use the language we all understand.
It’s incredibly freeing.
You are right about the majority of people. However, and tragically enough, there are numerous political figures here, and a now Supreme Court Justice in the US, who cravenly refuse to define ‘woman’ as what we all know the word to mean. Thus what you describe as a failure is by no means total, but it should be in discourse between rational adults.
And it is now taught in uk schools that transwomen are women
And it is now taught in uk schools that transwomen are women
You are right about the majority of people. However, and tragically enough, there are numerous political figures here, and a now Supreme Court Justice in the US, who cravenly refuse to define ‘woman’ as what we all know the word to mean. Thus what you describe as a failure is by no means total, but it should be in discourse between rational adults.
Indeed. However, the majority of people only ever use the words men and women, male and female. Nobody actually talks the way the cult has tried to instruct people to talk, outside some very specific areas.
Despite a very well funded, orchestrated and organised campaign against rational language, they have failed. We all know what women and men are. I suggest we all – including the author of this otherwise excellent piece – stop pretending this invented language matters and use the language we all understand.
It’s incredibly freeing.
Letâs take the ultimate violence- murder.
Per the link below roughly 90% of murderers are men. Roughly 30% of the murdered are women. In a nation with 33.7m males, assuming one murderer per murder (which probably overestimates), 0.0018% of UK males are murderous and men are 3x more at risk from them than women.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1221306/homicides-in-england-and-wales-by-gender/
Why always this relentless gender war? Would it not be more sensible for men and women to get together to figure out what makes a tiny minority of the population murderers, or rapists or just thugs, and how to stop them getting that way or deter and punish those that do?
Given the already existing evidence of trans men assaulting women in prisons, toilets and hospitals, against their tiny numbers I suspect the %ages of trans men we should worry about are significantly higher than 0.0018%
Why indeed do men lie about violence and rape against women by men? Why indeed do men murder, rape, beat, bash and batter women and children in such horrifying numbers, then become enraged when this is pointed out?
If we knew the answers to those questions, perhaps women and children wouldn’t need rape shelters to flee men and men could stop prowling comment sections babbling misogynistic nonsense.
As you have nothing to add, our conversation is over.
A standard response of the woke. Utterly fail to engage with the point made, have a bit of a rant, flounce off in a huff.
Donât forget the part where you imply everyone who disagrees with you is a rapist murderer! Thatâs the coup de grace!
huffy indeed, how many times must one state ” our/this conversation is OVER”, (my emphasis added) yet continue to engage?
Oh shut up. She isn’t woke, and the “point” made has nothing to do with what’s being discussed.
Donât forget the part where you imply everyone who disagrees with you is a rapist murderer! Thatâs the coup de grace!
huffy indeed, how many times must one state ” our/this conversation is OVER”, (my emphasis added) yet continue to engage?
Oh shut up. She isn’t woke, and the “point” made has nothing to do with what’s being discussed.
A standard response of the woke. Utterly fail to engage with the point made, have a bit of a rant, flounce off in a huff.
Martin, you are illustrating the confusing capture of language here! Transmen are FEMALE!! Transwomen are male or as I prefer to say transwomen are men. Not any kind of woman. Half of all the trans-identifying men in prison are sex offenders, rapists and killers of women and children. This is why the public mostly donât quite understand the problem, itâs capture of language and hence thought.
Why indeed do men lie about violence and rape against women by men? Why indeed do men murder, rape, beat, bash and batter women and children in such horrifying numbers, then become enraged when this is pointed out?
If we knew the answers to those questions, perhaps women and children wouldn’t need rape shelters to flee men and men could stop prowling comment sections babbling misogynistic nonsense.
As you have nothing to add, our conversation is over.
Martin, you are illustrating the confusing capture of language here! Transmen are FEMALE!! Transwomen are male or as I prefer to say transwomen are men. Not any kind of woman. Half of all the trans-identifying men in prison are sex offenders, rapists and killers of women and children. This is why the public mostly donât quite understand the problem, itâs capture of language and hence thought.
Thank you for the lecture, Lynn. There are such things as editors, style guides, house style, that kind of thing. Then there is a necessary compromise every now and again. If I (and the handful of other feminists that have been speaking out about the trans madness since before 2015) hadn’t been willing to make slight compromises over the 18 years I have personally been involved in this battle, we may not be where we are now. Of course I agree with you that terminology, and I’ve written lots about it, but perhaps just going in straight away with what feels like quite mean-spirited criticism it’s not the best approach to change hearts and minds? Thank you for reading anyway, Julie
It’s a genuine pity you’re hostile to fair, honest, rational, measured, correct and polite concerns, considering the incredible importance of using rational and correct language.
I am delighted that my comment has once again brought such a hugely important topic to the forefront.
I will always advocate for correct and rational speech over compelled speech.
Good piece, apart from the incorrect use of language.
Appreciate you writing it anyway.
Lynn, Julie makes a good point. She didnât come across as hostile to discussion but since you raise the word, surely toning down the relentless hostility is always a good idea.
Well, if you will not listen to Julie Bindel you will certainly not listen to me. But few people will pay attention to your arguments, let alone let themselves be convinced, as long as your posts come across as hostile, self-righteous, closed-minded, and hyper-biased. Julie Bindel can be aggressive and one-sided too, but people listen to her and respect her, even if they disagree, because she does not talk as if her opponents already ought to accept that she was right. If you really care for fair, honest, rational, measured, correct and polite concerns you could do worse than trying to learn from Julie Bindel.
RasmusâŠ. I agree with you. The world will surely be turning violently upside down very soon and I suggest that we all duck!
RasmusâŠ. I agree with you. The world will surely be turning violently upside down very soon and I suggest that we all duck!
Lynn, Julie makes a good point. She didnât come across as hostile to discussion but since you raise the word, surely toning down the relentless hostility is always a good idea.
Well, if you will not listen to Julie Bindel you will certainly not listen to me. But few people will pay attention to your arguments, let alone let themselves be convinced, as long as your posts come across as hostile, self-righteous, closed-minded, and hyper-biased. Julie Bindel can be aggressive and one-sided too, but people listen to her and respect her, even if they disagree, because she does not talk as if her opponents already ought to accept that she was right. If you really care for fair, honest, rational, measured, correct and polite concerns you could do worse than trying to learn from Julie Bindel.
It’s a genuine pity you’re hostile to fair, honest, rational, measured, correct and polite concerns, considering the incredible importance of using rational and correct language.
I am delighted that my comment has once again brought such a hugely important topic to the forefront.
I will always advocate for correct and rational speech over compelled speech.
Good piece, apart from the incorrect use of language.
Appreciate you writing it anyway.
Better still is just ‘gender dysphoric men’
Men who identify as transgender are often AGP, NPD, BPD and many other types of mentally ill. There is no definition of “trans”. Better to always just say men who identify as transgender as that covers those who are genuinely dysmorphic and otherwise mentally ill as well as the predators pretending to be.
Men who identify as transgender are often AGP, NPD, BPD and many other types of mentally ill. There is no definition of “trans”. Better to always just say men who identify as transgender as that covers those who are genuinely dysmorphic and otherwise mentally ill as well as the predators pretending to be.
A man who portrays as though he were not a man, but a woman, should be called ⊠a trans man. A Trans woman is coherent when it refers to a woman who wishes to portray herself as though she was male or at least masculine.
In its current meaning, âTrans womanâ referring to a man, is incoherent.
Too confusing, as is all the language around transgenderism.
Additionally it is deeply offensive to refer to men as women in any context.
Men who identify as transgender is clear and concise and cannot be mistaken.
I think your formulation suffers from the same ambiguity, given current usage. Maybe XY-trans would do it.
.
There has just been a disastrous judgment by Lady Haldane in the Court of Session, which found that Scottish government guidance that extends the definition of âwomanâ to transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) is lawful. She held that for the purposes of the 2010 Act, sex âis not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRCâ. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Scottish judiciary is so insistent upon supporting the rights of a tiny minority of those born male at the expense of all women. It makes no sense, either juridically or in terms of the common weal. To adopt your word, this judgment is vomitous.
I think your formulation suffers from the same ambiguity, given current usage. Maybe XY-trans would do it.
.
There has just been a disastrous judgment by Lady Haldane in the Court of Session, which found that Scottish government guidance that extends the definition of âwomanâ to transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) is lawful. She held that for the purposes of the 2010 Act, sex âis not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRCâ. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Scottish judiciary is so insistent upon supporting the rights of a tiny minority of those born male at the expense of all women. It makes no sense, either juridically or in terms of the common weal. To adopt your word, this judgment is vomitous.
Too confusing, as is all the language around transgenderism.
Additionally it is deeply offensive to refer to men as women in any context.
Men who identify as transgender is clear and concise and cannot be mistaken.