TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Vassenor]

TERF concerns are just bigotry disguised as superficial feminist critiques of transsexuality. It's not real, not valid.

Trans people probably shouldn't be going around bluntly saying other people's identity-based concerns aren't real or valid because it makes us look hypocritical.

So what are those concerns and what actual evidence are they based on?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Trans people probably shouldn't be going around bluntly saying other people's identity-based concerns aren't real or valid because it makes us look hypocritical.

So what are those concerns and what actual evidence are they based on?

read down vass

[Necroghastia]

So what are those concerns and what actual evidence are they based on?

read down vass

Before telling others to read, perhaps you should give it a try yourself.

So what are those concerns and what actual evidence are they based on?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Before telling others to read, perhaps you should give it a try yourself.

You're embarrassing yourself with this behaviour because you are talking down while also having clearly not read the whole conversation.

Public bodies are obliged under equality duties to make assessments of any adverse impacts on all affected groups and consultation must be held with all stakeholders and in the cases where concerns are raised without evidence - the body is obliged to do as much as they can to carry out further studies rather than assuming what has been said isn't true, and only proceed when they are certain. In the case of self-definition it has been argued that it is by definition a violation of the protections to biological sex since if anyone can identify at a moment's notice sex ceases to exist as a "protectable" characteristic.

This part of my post - snipped out by Vass - is an important element in answering the question that I am responding to i.e. why might so-called "TERFs" be more organised and influential in the UK compared to the US. One of the possible institutional reasons is the impact of the Equality Act, and ideas introduced within such as the Public Sector Equality Duty. I'm making the point that having received the consultation responses it is the statutory duty of the government to now look thoroughly for that evidence and not change policy until they are convinced there will be no impact. It's entirely a non sequitur to demand that I produce this evidence, it is not my duty to do further free intellectual labour digging through the consultation responses as that does not relate to the point that I was making. To respond in such a way while quoting my post shows that they have either not properly read it or do not understand how debate works. I went with the more charitable interpretation.

I trust this has now clarified the matter.

[Auzkhia]

TERF concerns are just bigotry disguised as superficial feminist critiques of transsexuality. It's not real, not valid.

How do trans rights negate their sex-based rights, and what are even sex based rights?

DI just went full enlightened centrism.

TERFs aren't going to like you because you're "one of the good ones".

Like, it only makes sense if you either don't believe trans people are who they say they are, or that trans women are "male women" and trans men "female men", and apparently nonbinary people are not even existing in this perfect sex-based rights world.

Transphobia is rooted in sexism and misogyny, especially transmisogyny.

[Dumb Ideologies]

DI just went full enlightened centrism.

TERFs are going to like you because you're "one of the good ones".

Like, it only makes sense if you either don't believe trans people are who they say they are, or that trans women are "male women" and trans men "female men", and apparently nonbinary people are not even existing in this perfect sex-based rights world.

Transphobia is rooted in sexism and misogyny, especially transmisogyny.

If you two are going to write unsolicited fandom fantasies of my relationship with your monster of the week I would appreciate if you could at least have the courtesy of waiting until I'm not literally right here being active in the thread. Creepy.

[The Blaatschapen]

If JK Rowling's multimillion brand starts to sponsor a message or organization related to her unfortunate opinions, and making it seem like it comes from grassroot participants, would it be called... astroTERFing?

[Dumb Ideologies]

If JK Rowling's multimillion brand starts to sponsor a message or organization related to her unfortunate opinions, and making it seem like it comes from grassroot participants, would it be called... astroTERFing?

An outpouring of accidental magic from a distraught audience was blamed today as oversized curtain hooks from across the country swarmed on a local theatre to violently yank Blaat from the stage.

[Auzkhia]

If JK Rowling's multimillion brand starts to sponsor a message or organization related to her unfortunate opinions, and making it seem like it comes from grassroot participants, would it be called... astroTERFing?

Lol

It would be. I feel like some intra-LGBTQIA discourse is astroterfing.

[Grenartia]

If JK Rowling's multimillion brand starts to sponsor a message or organization related to her unfortunate opinions, and making it seem like it comes from grassroot participants, would it be called... astroTERFing?

Lol

It would be. I feel like some intra-LGBTQIA discourse is astroterfing.

Oh, it almost certainly is. Especially the "LGB Drop the T" types.

Anyways, I'm too tired to update the thread at the usual time, but I'll have it fixed up first thing in the morning.

[Alyakia]

Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject.

Your takeaway from the PinkNews article is a little hyperbolic in light of what Minister Badenoch actually said:

"We have heard concerns that progressing the rights of transgender people should not have a detrimental effect on the rights of others, especially women. The government believes that the protection of certain single-sex spaces, as governed by the Equality Act 2010, is important. I can assure your constituent that any changes to the act – as with all legislation – would go through the appropriate processes of engagement."

So, what the Minister actually said: we've heard some arguments for GRA reform. We've heard some arguments against GRA reform. We won't do anything without the appropriate process of engagement.

What you and the PinkNews headline seem to think the Minister actually said: we're gonna amend the GRA to make sure to transform all gendered spaces in the UK, into sex-segregated spaces.

well, yes, of course that is what they think. the democratic process in this country is a farce. the consultation process is a farce. any sense of co-operation is a farce. what almost always happens is that the government makes its mind up about what it wants to do then shoves it down everyone's throats with a rubberstamp. so it is only natural that people would expect the same here and begin to try find out what the governments pre-determined course of action is. like you don't actually believe that the government sits down, gets the arguments together and properly engages with everyone before coming to a decision do you? maybe for some random nonsense like building a new road, but for hot button issues their minds are already made up. the points need to be scored.

[Purgatio]

The Equality Act created a legal framework where every protected characteristic group knows that the government has a legal responsibility not to pass anything with the potential to cause them harm. This has of course encouraged the establishment of permanent "insider" lobby groups who've tapped up sympathetic MPs to make their case in public and who will engage with government on controversial issues. Why wouldn't TERFs, as a group who feel that their identity and their physical safety is under threat from any weakening of biological sex segregation, have a lobby? Why would their concerns not be given serious evaluation? If you have to balance the concerns of two groups of people whose characteristics you're obliged to protect then you'll tend to get policy that is a compromise rather than progressing towards one side having their interests favoured. TERFs get equal influence to trans people on policy related to this issue - I'm sure they think trans people have too much influence in the US!

TERF concerns are just bigotry disguised as superficial feminist critiques of transsexuality. It's not real, not valid.

How do trans rights negate their sex-based rights, and what are even sex based rights?

Access to sex-segregated spaces?

[Purgatio]

Your takeaway from the PinkNews article is a little hyperbolic in light of what Minister Badenoch actually said:

"We have heard concerns that progressing the rights of transgender people should not have a detrimental effect on the rights of others, especially women. The government believes that the protection of certain single-sex spaces, as governed by the Equality Act 2010, is important. I can assure your constituent that any changes to the act – as with all legislation – would go through the appropriate processes of engagement."

So, what the Minister actually said: we've heard some arguments for GRA reform. We've heard some arguments against GRA reform. We won't do anything without the appropriate process of engagement.

What you and the PinkNews headline seem to think the Minister actually said: we're gonna amend the GRA to make sure to transform all gendered spaces in the UK, into sex-segregated spaces.

well, yes, of course that is what they think. the democratic process in this country is a farce. the consultation process is a farce. any sense of co-operation is a farce. what almost always happens is that the government makes its mind up about what it wants to do then shoves it down everyone's throats with a rubberstamp. so it is only natural that people would expect the same here and begin to try find out what the governments pre-determined course of action is. like you don't actually believe that the government sits down, gets the arguments together and properly engages with everyone before coming to a decision do you? maybe for some random nonsense like building a new road, but for hot button issues their minds are already made up. the points need to be scored.

None of which detracts from my point that the PinkNews headline is misleading, it makes it sound like Minister Badenoch specifically proposed, suggested, or responded that the Government would be amending the GRA to exclude trans people from sex-segregated spaces, when she said no such thing. She simply pointed out that the Government has not settled on any one course of action, and spoke about sex-segregated spaces not in the context of any specific Government policy or proposal, but to quote concerns raised by other people to the Government, not that the Government plans to act on them. My point is, this is just bad reporting and a bad headline that misrepresents the actual contents and substance of the article itself.

[Purgatio]

TERF concerns are just bigotry disguised as superficial feminist critiques of transsexuality. It's not real, not valid.

How do trans rights negate their sex-based rights, and what are even sex based rights?

DI just went full enlightened centrism.

No? She literally just explained how a Government consultation process works, and that the Government's gonna look really really bad if its conducting a consultation process on the GRA, and won't listen to minority groups based on sex, and based on gender, given that both are explicitly protected classes under the Equality Act 2010? Has the debate been stripped of all nuance that we can't even acknowledge that sex and gender are both protected classes in most anti-discrimination laws around the world (the UK included), and its generally only sensible for the Government to listen to representatives of both classes when considering reforms that affect them? And that its hyperbolic and a gross misrepresentation to look at that and represent, without any nuance, that this means the Government is 'dominated by TERFs', as was the original claim?

But I mean, if you wanna call all that and smear DI's comments as 'enlightened centrism', whatever I guess.

[Vassenor]

Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject.

Your takeaway from the PinkNews article is a little hyperbolic in light of what Minister Badenoch actually said:

"We have heard concerns that progressing the rights of transgender people should not have a detrimental effect on the rights of others, especially women. The government believes that the protection of certain single-sex spaces, as governed by the Equality Act 2010, is important. I can assure your constituent that any changes to the act – as with all legislation – would go through the appropriate processes of engagement."

So, what the Minister actually said: we've heard some arguments for GRA reform. We've heard some arguments against GRA reform. We won't do anything without the appropriate process of engagement.

What you and the PinkNews headline seem to think the Minister actually said: we're gonna amend the GRA to make sure to transform all gendered spaces in the UK, into sex-segregated spaces.

And what does "protection of certain single-sex spaces" entail in this case?

Also "appropriate processes of engagement" doesn't hold water when the GRA reform already went through it and the government threw the result out for not fitting what it wanted to do.

[Purgatio]

Your takeaway from the PinkNews article is a little hyperbolic in light of what Minister Badenoch actually said:

"We have heard concerns that progressing the rights of transgender people should not have a detrimental effect on the rights of others, especially women. The government believes that the protection of certain single-sex spaces, as governed by the Equality Act 2010, is important. I can assure your constituent that any changes to the act – as with all legislation – would go through the appropriate processes of engagement."

So, what the Minister actually said: we've heard some arguments for GRA reform. We've heard some arguments against GRA reform. We won't do anything without the appropriate process of engagement.

What you and the PinkNews headline seem to think the Minister actually said: we're gonna amend the GRA to make sure to transform all gendered spaces in the UK, into sex-segregated spaces.

And what does "protection of certain single-sex spaces" entail in this case?

Also "appropriate processes of engagement" doesn't hold water when the GRA reform already went through it and the government threw the result out for not fitting what it wanted to do.

You keep missing the point, idk if you're just actively trying to ignore how misleadingly you and PinkNews portrayed what Minister Badenoch actually said. Need I remind you, that you, specifically entitled the link as follows:

"Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject."

Again, you said: "Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject." (I need to repeat this point because you are either missing it or deliberately pretending it doesn't exist).

In what sane universe is that an accurate, non-misleading summary of the actual contents of that article? Minister Badenoch said NOTHING of the sort in her response. She did NOT propose a "UK bathroom bill". She did NOT propose any Government action, at all. ALL she said, was she made a single reference, in a single line to concerns about "certain single-sex spaces", raised by some people during the GRA consultation process. She did not say that the Government intended to act on those concerns, or would reform the GRA in response to those concerns, or any other such hyperbolic nonsense. She simply stated that protecting "certain single-sex spaces" was "important", but did not propose or suggest or 'float' any legislative proposals or concrete policy suggestions to that end. That's it.

So again, in light of all I said, can you, or can you not, defend "Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject" as an ACCURATE descriptor or summary of the actual contents of the PinkNews article? Or do you accept you were being misleading, hyperbolic, and essentially misrepresented the actual substance of what the article said? Yes or no?

[Vassenor]

And what does "protection of certain single-sex spaces" entail in this case?

Also "appropriate processes of engagement" doesn't hold water when the GRA reform already went through it and the government threw the result out for not fitting what it wanted to do.

You keep missing the point, idk if you're just actively trying to ignore how misleadingly you and PinkNews portrayed what Minister Badenoch actually said. Need I remind you, that you, specifically entitled the link as follows:

"Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject."

Again, you said: "Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject." (I need to repeat this point because you are either missing it or deliberately pretending it doesn't exist).

In what sane universe is that an accurate, non-misleading summary of the actual contents of that article? Minister Badenoch said NOTHING of the sort in her response. She did NOT propose a "UK bathroom bill". She did NOT propose any Government action, at all. ALL she said, was she made a single reference, in a single line to concerns about "certain single-sex spaces", raised by some people during the GRA consultation process. She did not say that the Government intended to act on those concerns, or would reform the GRA in response to those concerns, or any other such hyperbolic nonsense. She simply stated that protecting "certain single-sex spaces" was "important", but did not propose or suggest or 'float' any legislative proposals or concrete policy suggestions to that end. That's it.

So again, in light of all I said, can you, or can you not, defend "Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject" as an ACCURATE descriptor or summary of the actual contents of the PinkNews article? Or do you accept you were being misleading, hyperbolic, and essentially misrepresented the actual substance of what the article said? Yes or no?

So you're not going to answer my questions. You're just going to waffle because you think banging on about language use will make the whole thing fall apart.

[Purgatio]

You keep missing the point, idk if you're just actively trying to ignore how misleadingly you and PinkNews portrayed what Minister Badenoch actually said. Need I remind you, that you, specifically entitled the link as follows:

"Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject."

Again, you said: "Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject." (I need to repeat this point because you are either missing it or deliberately pretending it doesn't exist).

In what sane universe is that an accurate, non-misleading summary of the actual contents of that article? Minister Badenoch said NOTHING of the sort in her response. She did NOT propose a "UK bathroom bill". She did NOT propose any Government action, at all. ALL she said, was she made a single reference, in a single line to concerns about "certain single-sex spaces", raised by some people during the GRA consultation process. She did not say that the Government intended to act on those concerns, or would reform the GRA in response to those concerns, or any other such hyperbolic nonsense. She simply stated that protecting "certain single-sex spaces" was "important", but did not propose or suggest or 'float' any legislative proposals or concrete policy suggestions to that end. That's it.

So again, in light of all I said, can you, or can you not, defend "Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject" as an ACCURATE descriptor or summary of the actual contents of the PinkNews article? Or do you accept you were being misleading, hyperbolic, and essentially misrepresented the actual substance of what the article said? Yes or no?

So you're not going to answer my questions. You're just going to waffle because you think banging on about language use will make the whole thing fall apart.

.........what?

You were the one who posted the article. You chose how to entitle the link. I responded pointing out how misleading your title was, and how you were misrepresenting what the article actually said, and what Minister Badenoch said. You denied it. Then I responded explaining in greater detail why your title was so misleading and deceptive. And now, instead of defending your misrepresentation, you accuse me of "banging on about language use".

Jesus Christ, Vass. How desperate are you to avoid having to acknowledge that you linked an article whilst simultaneously misrepresenting what it said, which is literally what I called you out for and what started this whole debate.

And what's just amazing about all this is that you're the one ignoring and dodging my point (that you linked an article whilst simultaneously misrepresenting what the PinkNews article said), and yet to get around it, you're accusing me of trying to dodge your point. Its completely farcical at this point. But since you seem to have trouble understanding what it actually means to dodge someone's argument, just a friendly reminder that this is what kicked off this whole conversation:

Looks like we're heading for a UK bathroom bill after all despite the outcry on the subject.

Your takeaway from the PinkNews article is a little hyperbolic in light of what Minister Badenoch actually said:

"We have heard concerns that progressing the rights of transgender people should not have a detrimental effect on the rights of others, especially women. The government believes that the protection of certain single-sex spaces, as governed by the Equality Act 2010, is important. I can assure your constituent that any changes to the act – as with all legislation – would go through the appropriate processes of engagement."

So, what the Minister actually said: we've heard some arguments for GRA reform. We've heard some arguments against GRA reform. We won't do anything without the appropriate process of engagement.

What you and the PinkNews headline seem to think the Minister actually said: we're gonna amend the GRA to make sure to transform all gendered spaces in the UK, into sex-segregated spaces.

1) You linked an article, and gave it a misleading title
2) I called it out as a misleading title
3) You're refusing to acknowledge that the title is misleading, or defend how you titled the link
4) Instead, you accuse me of avoiding your point, when you're the one avoiding the issue that started this whole conversation

Is that clearer for you, Vass? I hope it clarifies things.

[Vassenor]

Trans people were promised change, but instead they face deepening prejudice

A prime example of this toxic discourse is how the conversation about “single sex spaces” for women has evolved. Trans women have been safely accessing these spaces for years. We are deeply concerned that leaked proposals calling for trans women to be barred from these spaces will ultimately victimise all women, trans or otherwise. Who decides what a “woman” looks like, and whether they therefore can access a space? Would a masculine-looking woman be disqualified? If we judge people not according to their behaviour, but according to what some third party perceives as their sex and gender, we risk imposing a singular idea of what a “woman” is.

[Nakena]

TERF concerns are just bigotry disguised as superficial feminist critiques of transsexuality. It's not real, not valid.

How do trans rights negate their sex-based rights, and what are even sex based rights?

DI just went full enlightened centrism.

Whatever DI has done or said, must have been something right and good.

[Grenartia]

DI just went full enlightened centrism.

No? She literally just explained how a Government consultation process works, and that the Government's gonna look really really bad if its conducting a consultation process on the GRA, and won't listen to minority groups based on sex, and based on gender, given that both are explicitly protected classes under the Equality Act 2010? Has the debate been stripped of all nuance that we can't even acknowledge that sex and gender are both protected classes in most anti-discrimination laws around the world (the UK included), and its generally only sensible for the Government to listen to representatives of both classes when considering reforms that affect them? And that its hyperbolic and a gross misrepresentation to look at that and represent, without any nuance, that this means the Government is 'dominated by TERFs', as was the original claim?

But I mean, if you wanna call all that and smear DI's comments as 'enlightened centrism', whatever I guess.

Your problem seems to be that you don't grasp that trans people's rights and cis women's rights are not at all in conflict. There are no rights cis women have that are endangered by trans people's rights. The only people making it out to be that way are TERFs themselves, who don't even represent a majority of cis women.

It is neither "hyperbolic" nor "a gross misrepresentation" to claim that TERFs have a lot of political influence in the British government and media. Furthermore, DI's comment read less as a dispassionate explanation of the phenomenon, and more as a condescending 'both sides'-ism. Hence my comment about enlightened centrism.

[Purgatio]

No? She literally just explained how a Government consultation process works, and that the Government's gonna look really really bad if its conducting a consultation process on the GRA, and won't listen to minority groups based on sex, and based on gender, given that both are explicitly protected classes under the Equality Act 2010? Has the debate been stripped of all nuance that we can't even acknowledge that sex and gender are both protected classes in most anti-discrimination laws around the world (the UK included), and its generally only sensible for the Government to listen to representatives of both classes when considering reforms that affect them? And that its hyperbolic and a gross misrepresentation to look at that and represent, without any nuance, that this means the Government is 'dominated by TERFs', as was the original claim?

But I mean, if you wanna call all that and smear DI's comments as 'enlightened centrism', whatever I guess.

Your problem seems to be that you don't grasp that trans people's rights and cis women's rights are not at all in conflict. There are no rights cis women have that are endangered by trans people's rights. The only people making it out to be that way are TERFs themselves, who don't even represent a majority of cis women.

It is neither "hyperbolic" nor "a gross misrepresentation" to claim that TERFs have a lot of political influence in the British government and media. Furthermore, DI's comment read less as a dispassionate explanation of the phenomenon, and more as a condescending 'both sides'-ism. Hence my comment about enlightened centrism.

I'm not saying they are in conflict at all, nor am I saying that organisations like Women's Place UK have legitimate concerns or arguments, the merits of sex-segregated spaces or gender-segregated spaces for women have been litigated and debated to death. My point, and DI's point too, is simply that since both sex and gender are protected categories under the Equality Act 2010, when you're proposing GRA reform which necessarily affects the status of sex-segregated spaces, its only proper that the GRA consultation include representatives of sex-based classes, as well as representatives of gender-based classes, so you can hear both perspectives before making a reasoned policy decision at the end of the day. Hearing someone out isn't the same as agreeing with them. You can invite Women's Place UK to the table and listen to what they have to say and still disagree with every single one of their ideas at the end of the entire consultation.

For what it's worth, Women's Place UK, if they had their way, would repeal the GRA entirely and keep all women-only spaces sex-segregated, instead of gender-segregated. The current Government is not gonna do that, and have not proposed anything in that direction, all they've done is just not reform or amend the present GRA regime (which is what trans rights organisations wanted). So clearly, it is possible to invite a group of people for a consultation and NOT end up adopting the policies and measures that they support. And the idea that gender-critical feminists have huge support in the Government is kinda obviously belied by the fact that the Government did not end up adopting the suggested ideas that have long been championed by Women's Place UK.

[Dumb Ideologies]

No? She literally just explained how a Government consultation process works, and that the Government's gonna look really really bad if its conducting a consultation process on the GRA, and won't listen to minority groups based on sex, and based on gender, given that both are explicitly protected classes under the Equality Act 2010? Has the debate been stripped of all nuance that we can't even acknowledge that sex and gender are both protected classes in most anti-discrimination laws around the world (the UK included), and its generally only sensible for the Government to listen to representatives of both classes when considering reforms that affect them? And that its hyperbolic and a gross misrepresentation to look at that and represent, without any nuance, that this means the Government is 'dominated by TERFs', as was the original claim?

But I mean, if you wanna call all that and smear DI's comments as 'enlightened centrism', whatever I guess.

Your problem seems to be that you don't grasp that trans people's rights and cis women's rights are not at all in conflict. There are no rights cis women have that are endangered by trans people's rights. The only people making it out to be that way are TERFs themselves, who don't even represent a majority of cis women.

It is neither "hyperbolic" nor "a gross misrepresentation" to claim that TERFs have a lot of political influence in the British government and media. Furthermore, DI's comment read less as a dispassionate explanation of the phenomenon, and more as a condescending 'both sides'-ism. Hence my comment about enlightened centrism.

> Make snide comments about "TERF Island" while asking why Britain has more prominent discourse for this side of the argument.
> Get mad when someone answers the question you asked in a neutral rather than explicitly critical way, throw out a cheap political slur and refuse to engage.
> When people point out that you're being thoroughly unreasonable claim that their tone is the problem.

This thread has long been operating under false pretences. Your response and those of a number of other posters here highlights the general point that the culture is to hypocritically tone-police, deflect and divert, and generally close down rather than enable discussion. This needs to change.

This nonsense is doing our community no credit whatsoever. It's time to admit that this thread has a problem and that it needs to shape up or else kick the bucket, shuffle off this mortal coil, rung down the curtain and join the choir invisible.

[Centai Mal]

Your problem seems to be that you don't grasp that trans people's rights and cis women's rights are not at all in conflict. There are no rights cis women have that are endangered by trans people's rights. The only people making it out to be that way are TERFs themselves, who don't even represent a majority of cis women.

It is neither "hyperbolic" nor "a gross misrepresentation" to claim that TERFs have a lot of political influence in the British government and media. Furthermore, DI's comment read less as a dispassionate explanation of the phenomenon, and more as a condescending 'both sides'-ism. Hence my comment about enlightened centrism.

> Make snide comments about "TERF Island" while asking why Britain has more prominent discourse for this side of the argument.
> Get mad when someone answers the question you asked in a neutral rather than explicitly critical way, throw out a cheap political slur and refuse to engage.
> When people point out that you're being thoroughly unreasonable claim that their tone is the problem.

This thread has long been operating under false pretences. Your response and those of a number of other posters here highlights the general point that the culture is to hypocritically tone-police, deflect and divert, and generally close down rather than enable discussion. This needs to change.

This nonsense is doing our community no credit whatsoever. It's time to admit that this thread has a problem and that it needs to shape up or else kick the bucket, shuffle off this mortal coil, rung down the curtain and join the choir invisible.

Maybe don’t speak for an entire sub?

[Purgatio]

> Make snide comments about "TERF Island" while asking why Britain has more prominent discourse for this side of the argument.
> Get mad when someone answers the question you asked in a neutral rather than explicitly critical way, throw out a cheap political slur and refuse to engage.
> When people point out that you're being thoroughly unreasonable claim that their tone is the problem.

This thread has long been operating under false pretences. Your response and those of a number of other posters here highlights the general point that the culture is to hypocritically tone-police, deflect and divert, and generally close down rather than enable discussion. This needs to change.

This nonsense is doing our community no credit whatsoever. It's time to admit that this thread has a problem and that it needs to shape up or else kick the bucket, shuffle off this mortal coil, rung down the curtain and join the choir invisible.

Maybe don’t speak for an entire sub?

But where's the lie, though?