Ginger men who now identifies as a woman.

[JohnD]

JohnD's fanatical belief exposed eventually.
He has the right to his TERF fanaticism.

Crazy Billy calls someone who doesn't agree that men are entitled to access women's toilets and changing rooms a TERF fanatic.

Billy is crazy.

Let me remind you.

"T E" is for "Trans Exclusionary"

Keeping men out of dedicated women's toilets?

Yes, that's the law. And normal accepted behaviour.

"R F" for "Radical Feminist"

A person who thinks women have some rights, even when a man in a frock doesn't like it?

Yes, that's the law. And normal accepted behaviour.

Barmy Billy doesn't like the law, and he doesn't like normal behaviour.

 

[King Billy]

Crazy Billy calls someone who doesn't agree that men are entitled to access women's toilets and changing rooms a TERF fanatic.

Billy is crazy.

Let me remind you.

"T E" is for "Trans Exclusionary"

Keeping men out of dedicated women's toilets?

Yes, that's the law. And normal accepted behaviour.

"R F" for "Radical Feminist"

A person who thinks women have some rights, even when a man in a frock doesn't like it?

Yes, that's the law. And normal accepted behaviour.

Barmy Billy doesn't like the law, and he doesn't like normal behaviour.

I'm familar with the acronym of TERF, I wouldn't have used it without knowing what it means.

Good for you having the courage to admit to it....eventually after pages and pages conflating male sex criminals with Transgender people to avoid admitting that you're a TERF.
Now that you have eventually admitted to being a TERF, do you honestly think you have anything to contribute to a discussion on whether transwomen should be allowed to use women's space when you fundamentally deny they even exist?

All you can contribute is nonsensical slogans like a men wearing women's clothes is not a woman.
Yet you are unable to tell us what someone is, if they're not a man.

This fanatical denial of the existence of intersex and transgenders, that determines your every decision denies you the ability to think: what is a person who is not a man.

 

[Highway Man]

Im not saying all transgender people are sex criminals

They are if they enter female only toilets and changing facilities,

 

[Highway Man]

Been to Spain and France never seen a woman in the men's toilet....

Birmingham hippodrome...now thats an experience, mixed toilets, nobody seemed to like it.

In Norway there was a mixed toilet I used, it isn't nice as you can imagine the crowd I drew whilst just trying to take a leak, its not for me.

 

[King Billy]

A person who thinks women have some rights, even when a man in a frock doesn't like it?

This is where the Radical Feminism kicks in.
As explained earlier, Radical Feminists want to overturn a patriarchal society to a matriarchal society.
They think that having a space that is solely reserved for those with a birth certificate that says Female that they've partly achieved their matriarchal society
Anything that could be remotely connected with being male must not be allowed to pass, in order to maintain their female only space.
Hence the Trans Exclusion.

Such is their appropriate description of TERadical Feminist.
Radical refers to extreme, fundamental,

Maybe it should be reworded as TERFF - Trans Exclusionary Radical Fanatical Feminism.

 

[King Billy]

They are if they enter female only toilets and changing facilities,

Transwomen are not criminals when they enter a female only toilet. That's a myth put about by TERFFs.

And JohnD accuses me of myth making.

 

[Highway Man]

Transwomen are not criminals when they enter a female only toilet. That's a myth put about by TERFFs.

And JohnD accuses me of myth making.

Only in your opinion they are women, not in mine.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I'd like there to be a criminal offence for using acronyms angrily.

This should take care of most of the daft people finding things to disagree and insult each other about.

Angry feminists should be sentenced to be locked in a room with angry cross-dressers. Let them out when they've done shouting at each other.

 

[King Billy]

Only in your opinion they are women, not in mine.

That's irrelevant waffle trying to get me wrestling with pigs, and not connected to your earlier claim:

Im not saying all transgender people are sex criminals

They are if they enter female only toilets and changing facilities,

is wrong . They're not criminals for using a womens toilet.

 

[King Billy]

I'd like there to be a criminal offence for using acronyms angrily.

This should take care of most of the daft people finding things to disagree and insult each other about.

Angry feminists should be sentenced to be locked in a room with angry cross-dressers. Let them out when they've done shouting at each other.

We could call it the AFCD room.
Just don't use it angrily.

 

[JohnD]

As explained earlier, Radical Feminists want to overturn a patriarchal society to a matriarchal society.

Silly Billy thinks he is in a position to define feminists. He even thinks that a person who says men are not entitled to go into women's changing rooms and toilets is radical.

Since he doesn't agree that women can have rights, he has no grasp of the concept.

A woman's rights are not subject to the permission of a man in a frock.

That's not how rights work.

 

[King Billy]

Silly Billy thinks he is in a position to define feminists.

I don't define Radical Feminism, Radical Feminists do.

Radical feminism in sociology views patriarchy as the fundamental, systemic root of women’s oppression, existing across all social, economic, and private spheres. Emerging in the 1960s/70s, it argues that male supremacy is deeply ingrained and requires radical restructuring, not just legal reform, to abolish, often highlighting the family as a key site of domination.

Germaine Greer – The Whole Woman and The Family​

Germaine Greer (2000) argues that the family continues to disadvantage women. She focuses on looking at the role of women as wives, mothers and daughters.

A Radical Feminist Perspective on the Family – ReviseSociology

the norm of the traditional, privatised nuclear family can disadvantage women who would be more free in women only households.

revisesociology.com

He even thinks that a person who says men are not entitled to go into women's changing rooms and toilets is radical.

You phrase your comment about your idea of what I think. You have a track record of deliberately misinterpreting what I think, including calling me crazy, off my head, etc.

I believe that the recent Supreme Court Judgement was a pyrrhic victory, because it's virtually impossible to enforce.
It's a bit like the Supreme Court deciding that all cyclists must not exceed 10mph.
How will they enforce that?
Windybottom would suggest that any cyclist with big hands would be assumed to be exceeding the limit. How big exactly is big?
JohD would refuse to accept that cyclists exist, in order to enforce the limit.
Both ideas are legally nonsensical, and unenforceable.
I'm happy to explore the methods for enforcing the Court's judgement in more detail, either with, or without the analogy of the cyclist's 10 mph limit. But it'll take up a bit more space than I want to devote to it, here.

Since he doesn't agree that women can have rights, he has no grasp of the concept.

JohnD wants to increase women's rights only by reducing others.' rights. That's not improving equality, it's creating a new order of inequality, where women are granted more rights over others, i.e the Radical Feminism progression.

A woman's rights are not subject to the permission of a man in a frock.

A woman's rights are not protected by Trans Exclusionary ideology that refuses to accept that intersex and transgenders exist.
It's a radical ideology based on scientific illiteracy and biological nonsense.

That's not how rights work.

Exactly, Rights for one group are not advanced by stealing them away from another group. That only advances inequality, the underlying goal of the Radical Feminist.
If we were talking about Racial Inequality, or sexual inequality, or any other sort of inequality, I suspect we would both be positing exactly the same arguments. yet here you are, wanting to increase one group's rights by denying another group their rights. That's social morality gone awry.

 

[King Billy]

In Trans-World, calling a woman a "Terf" is considered a grave insult and a condemnation of wickedness and Wrongthink. ... So they include "radical feminist" as a term of abuse. In their world, they think it sounds sensible.

I'd like to return to one of your Posts, JohD, if you don't mind. I was pushed for time before.

You complain about being called a TERF, as does J K Rowling.

I want to address your concern (and hers) from two approaches:
1. If you display TERF like behaviour and beliefs, you cannot complain of being described as a TERF.
Both you and her argue your doctrine of being gender-critical, of believing that biological sex is immutable, i.e. the Trans Exclusionary part of TERF
Yet medical science and modern day biology recognises that sex is not binary, that intersex conditions exist in nature, and in humans. Attempts are made (without the consent of the patient) to surgically normalise that intersex condition into a socially acceptable appearance of binary sex, and the appropriate label is assigned to the baby, sometimes incorrectly.
Therefore your belief, and the surgical procedures, without the consent of the patient, is based on scientific illiteracy and biological nonsense.
Let's take the example of you describing, say Spinless, as a racist. You do so based on his racist behaviour and belief. If he wanted to not be described as a racist, the solution is very simple, he should stop behaving like a racist.
It's that simple for people like you and J K Rowling, If you don't want to be described as TERFs, simply stop behaving like TERFs.

2. Your offended by being described as TERF.
You describe it as offensive and objectionable.
Yet you happily describe all transgenders as sex perverts and criminals, without the a shred of evidence to support your accusation.
You refuse to acknowledge the existence of intersex and transgenders, describing them all as 'men wearing frocks'.
Has it never occurred to you that that is offensive and objectionable?
But you happily continue to be offensive and objectionable, while complaining that being described as TERFs is offensive.
You have the solution readily available to avoid not being called TERFs, by stopping behaving like TERFs.
Intersex and transgenders can't stop being intersex, nor transgenders. There is no possible way for them to resolve your offensive and objectional description of them.
So not only are you being Trans Exclusionary, you are, at the same time, and in the same process, demeaning their very existence to be below your preferred status of women, the goal of the Radical Feminist.

So if you don't want to be called a TERF, stop behaving like one!
Just like Spineless, if he didn't want to be called a racist, all he has to do is to stop behaving like one.

But in the real world, saying that a man is not a woman is perfectly true.
Transworld is fantasy land.
Some of the nutters hate people who think women should have rights. So they include "radical feminist" as a term of abuse. In their world, they think it sounds sensible.

You're simply reinforcing your Trans Exclusionary, gender-critical dogma, which is based on scientific illiteracy and biological nonsense.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Hands up, who's reading King Billy's posts?

 

[pete01]

Hands up, who's reading King Billy's posts?