the law as it stands on sex - part 3

VioletSky

Trasher is not a real word, this is not autocorrect at work.

I no longer want to be part of these discussions where me and my views are misrepresented and have been saying so since the beginning of the second thread.

I would ask respectfully that my name is left out of it.

The decent thing to do would be to restart the thread without an OP that misrepresents my views to others reading and that leaves me out of the new discussion entirely.

But you are not "out of it" as you have posted.

Which is your choice.

PS: Trasher is a word, according to Apple, who control the I gadgets, and according to a dictionary:

"noun Informal. a person who trashes something, especially in anger or protest."

www.dictionary.com/browse/trasher

an OP that misrepresents my views to others reading I thought I'd already disabused you of this assertion.
Are you denying that Thats exactly what was said any time anyone asked for their rights... Others complained it violated theirs. It didn't and it doesn't is a direct quote from your post on the 2nd thread? That's all you're quoted as saying. Doodledog then went on to explain how some transwomen's actions and demands do violate women's rights, refuting your statement. I can't see how you don't understand that, it's very clear.

With respect vs, since posting at 13.16 to announce that you no longer wanted to be a part of this thread, and would not be engaging with it or it's posters, you've since posted 8 more times to confirm that you no longer want to be a part of this thread and will not be engaging with its posters. Doodledog has explained that she simply copied and pasted the final post from thread #2 to be start off thread #3. She apologised if that was not within GNHQ guidelines. But as you've reported the thread to GNHQ, why don't you just leave it to them now to decide if indeed guidelines have been broken and whether we will need to start a new thread #3? It will save you popping backwards and forwards to tell us that you no longer want to be a part of this thread and will not be engaging with its posters.

Chewbacca

With respect vs, since posting at 13.16 to announce that you no longer wanted to be a part of this thread, and would not be engaging with it or it's posters, you've since posted 8 more times to confirm that you no longer want to be a part of this thread and will not be engaging with its posters. Doodledog has explained that she simply copied and pasted the final post from thread #2 to be start off thread #3. She apologised if that was not within GNHQ guidelines. But as you've reported the thread to GNHQ, why don't you just leave it to them now to decide if indeed guidelines have been broken and whether we will need to start a new thread #3? It will save you popping backwards and forwards to tell us that you no longer want to be a part of this thread and will not be engaging with its posters.

It's a well known distraction technique. Everyone debating what was typed/said, but not the subject.

Boris Johnson uses it all the time lol ?

I havent reported the thread, I said i would wait and see if i needed to as it was already reported.

I am not engaging in the discussion. Just pointing out the issues and responding to comments with my name in them and asking that I be allowed to move on from a discussion that is still misrepresenting me unfairly.

I answer on here to a variety of autocorrects or mistypes, including one poster’s favourite Molygo. I thought it happened by accident, but evidently, not.
Be warned! From henceforth all autocorrects, mistypes etc. will be seen as intentional, by order of . . .

I have re-read my OP several times to see what I have done wrong, and can’t find anything.

I quoted my own post - what can be wrong with that? I then pointed out that I don’t find trans issues funny, in response to a comment from trisher on thread 2, where she said something like ‘It’s funny but . . .’ promised to try not to refer to her as an ‘ally’ and asked her not to use the term ‘cis’.

I then quoted VS (again from thread 2) and asked for clarification of her statement that the rights of one group never violate the rights of another, and gave examples. I dion’t understand why that is seen as offensive. Are we simply to accept VS’s comments without question? It’s a discussion board - she has the opportunity to respond to my points if she thinks they are wrong, as of course has anyone else who wishes to do so.

I find some of the rules on here vague at times, but I have looked, and can find nothing to say that one shouldn’t start a new thread when a previous one runs out (we were already on thread 2), or that we shouldn’t quote or use a poster’s name in the OP of a thread. I genuinely don’t understand the fuss, and would like it on the record that it was not my intention to cause offence.

Mollygo

I answer on here to a variety of autocorrects or mistypes, including one poster’s favourite Molygo. I thought it happened by accident, but evidently, not.
Be warned! From henceforth all autocorrects, mistypes etc. will be seen as intentional, by order of . . .

True. I answer to Doodle and Doodlebug, as well as my own name. I know that Doodle and Doodlebug are both posters, which makes it worse . I never correct people who get it wrong - it’s so easy to mistype or get autocorrected, and there is no edit button, so we’re stuck with it when we click ‘post’.

Doodle and Doodlebug have my sympathy though - I didn’t know you were here when I registered. My first choice (Suedenim) was taken, and I plucked Doodledog out of the air without checking.

Am I the only one finding this thread ridiculously complicated and confusing?

Janamax

Am I the only one finding this thread ridiculously complicated and confusing?

Stick around. You really need to have read parts one and two for it to make some sort of sense.

It's a well known distraction technique. Everyone debating what was typed/said, but not the subject.

True. Let’s get back to the topic of the thread(s)?

So. We hear that transpeople asking for what they see as their rights will not violate the rights of others. What do people think about the following situations? Are the rights of women being violated, or should the rights of transwomen take precedence?

Women want the right to undress in a single sex environment but transwomen, as members of the opposite sex ask for the right to enter that environment.

Women want the right to compete fairly in a sport that they have trained for for years, but transwomen, who have stronger and differently proportioned bodies, feel that they have the right to compete against them.

Women want the right to have agency over who touches them intimately but transwomen insist on their right not to have to declare their male sex to female patients/clients.

Yes, some historic female rights are being trampled on.

Recent publicity will hopefully now shine a light on this.

Doodledog I'd say the three examples you give are proof positive that rather than Thats exactly what was said any time anyone asked for their rights... Others complained it violated theirs. It didn't and it doesn't they do violate women's rights.

We've been told before that there are exemptions that can be enforced but then rather gleefully........ you'll never be able to enforce them.

On the subject of sport we're told transwomen shouldn't be excluded because there are some black women who have suffered from racist ideas. We are told to rectify the complex problems of racial stereotyping before we rectify the simple problem of men competing unfairly against women.

If we require a female attendant (not a transwoman) to perform an intimate examination on us we should ask for a 'cis woman/female' compelling use of a word many of us consider offensive.
And on it goes.

The way I see it, there aren’t many areas where transwomen would find themselves unwelcome. If someone wants to live quietly (or noisily for that matter!) and be accepted amongst groups of women, all they need to do is not go into a line of work that involves intimate examinations, not compete against women in sport, and be sensitive about where they undress. There may be other things I’ve forgotten, but on the whole, unless, like India Willoughby, they want to ‘make a point’, it would be easy enough to just get on with life. I can’t help feeling that ‘some people’ do want to make the point that they can find ways to have power over women, and are using the trans cause as a means of doing so.

As I have been quoted once again...

It seems very obvious that whatever ways are suggested, by those who accept trans women as women, to resolve issues are not good enough for whatever reason...

Perhaps you could all now work on resolving said issues yourselves instead of simpky highlighting examples of those issues.

Within the law and while respecting the rights of trans people.

Best of luck

I must have missed the resolutions that respected women's rights in those few areas we're bothered about. There are only problems where a minority of transwomen refuse to respect women's rights to single sex spaces, sports and agency over who examines them intimately. If all transwomen showed that respect to women then this whole area of conflict would just fade away.

VioletSky

An easy way to leave a thread is not to look at it at all. Then you won't feel the need to keep saying you're not engaging with the thread when it's more than obvious you are.

Good advice, thank you

Hi, VS!

Who quoted you? I was very careful not to, and I haven’t seen anyone else doing it either.

The thing is, (and if anyone feels I am misrepresenting their view they will let me know), we don’t feel that it is our place to work on resolutions to problems we didn’t cause. Maybe the transpeople could do that? Or men? Or how about the allies? If an idea pops into my head I’d be happy to share it, but otherwise I’d rather just be able to get on with my life, thanks, without having to worry about people violating my rights, and those of my daughters/granddaughters/friends.

I’d also rather not be gaslighted into thinking that there would be no violations of women’s rights if we stood back and let the Stonewall agenda hold sway, as we all know that’s not the case, don’t we?

Diamond My grandson attends Plymouth Uni, and the toilets are now gender neutral, with attached sign on the doors.

I've just read about this in the Mail online and I'm sorry to say that it surprises me not one bit.

Female students at the University of Plymouth have been told not to confront anyone they suspect of posing as a woman in their toilets - and instead 'protect them from harm'.
Signs in both male and female lavatories around its buildings contain the warning posters branded with the pink, blue and white strips of the trans flag.

But critics have branded the move 'repellent gaslighting' and questioned why a third toilet space could not be created instead.

How typical that a male in a women's toilet needs to be protected from harm but the women can sort themselves out if that male means them harm. Still a long way to go......

Rosie51

Doodledog I'd say the three examples you give are proof positive that rather than Thats exactly what was said any time anyone asked for their rights... Others complained it violated theirs. It didn't and it doesn't they do violate women's rights.

We've been told before that there are exemptions that can be enforced but then rather gleefully........ you'll never be able to enforce them.

On the subject of sport we're told transwomen shouldn't be excluded because there are some black women who have suffered from racist ideas. We are told to rectify the complex problems of racial stereotyping before we rectify the simple problem of men competing unfairly against women.

If we require a female attendant (not a transwoman) to perform an intimate examination on us we should ask for a 'cis woman/female' compelling use of a word many of us consider offensive.
And on it goes.

VS I’m not sure why you object to being quoted. Either you posted the text below or you didn’t.

Thats exactly what was said any time anyone asked for their rights... Others complained it violated theirs. It didn't and it doesn't
My records show that you did, and that I asked for an explanation of the text and how it related to 3 Situations where females feel their rights are being violated.

Many females are indeed working to stop this happening.
You say
It seems very obvious that whatever ways are suggested, by those who accept trans women as women, to resolve issues are not good enough for whatever reason…

The whatever reason is that the solutions offered, always seem to involve TW doing what they want and AHF women allowing that.

Let’s take requesting a female for an intimate examination.
I have been told on this thread (part1&2) that it’s discriminatory to ask TW to reveal their sex,
as a reason for allowing TW to appear to do the examination.

That’s not a solution to the issue, it’s just an opportunity for a TW to exhibit dishonest behaviour.

I’ve been told on this thread, (part1&2) that a poster “has been examined intimately by many men and *they didn’t mind”*
as a reason for allowing a male to appear to do the examination.

That’s not a solution to the issue. That’s just an example of personal preference AND
examination by someone you know is a male is one thing. Examination by someone purporting to be female is totally different!

So would you agree that requiring a TW to be honest and not arrive to do intimate examinations when a female has been requested, is an acceptable solution?

Or is dishonesty acceptable behaviour for TW?

How typical that a male in a women's toilet needs to be protected from harm but the women can sort themselves out if that male means them harm. Still a long way to go......
Yes, it’s maddening, isn’t it? But our rights are not being violated, no siree.

The poster explicitly demands young women not to question any male in their bathroom. So young women, away from home for the first time, on a huge university campus, are actually instructed not query why a man is in the toilets. It goes even further; she should seek to protect him! The fact that he's likely to be bigger, stronger and faster than she is is, apparently a moot point.

WOMAN! BE QUIET! SIT DOWN! MOVE OVER! A MAN WANTS YOUR SPACE!

My great niece is at Plymouth Uni. I’m not sure what she thinks about this, but if she meets the situation, my nephew will be in Face Time ranting about it!