Look uh uh uh uh uh
Another one of these. She barks like a seal at the sheer horror of being asked if women are allowed to talk about our own bodies now.
Tip Jar
Another one of these. She barks like a seal at the sheer horror of being asked if women are allowed to talk about our own bodies now.
She gives away the game there. If those are separate groups, then transwomen aren’t women. (And of course she doesn’t have anything to say about transmen.)
Also of note: “…this issue has just become so divisive and toxic. And it pits people against each other, both groups who face discrimination in this society, women and trans women. …” No mention of trans men, despite them being directly involved in discussions of population groups that have a cervix. Again, there is seemingly no drive, no impetus to push women into male spaces. It just doesn’t seem to matter, even to TRAs.
And then: “…and I just find this debate incredibly unhelpful, and unproductive to be totally honest.” Fine, it’s not a big deal worth bothering over… why then was her fellow labour member physically threatened for saying it? On the one hand, such comments are so impactful that they warrant reprisals, on the other, defending the sayer against those threats of violence is not worth bothering with.
I’m in the US and not familiar with Nick Ferrari, but by Jove that man knows how to ask (and ask and ask and ask…) a yes-or-no question till he gets a grudging yes-or-no answer.
And many points deducted from Reeves, including her sly attempt to play the Woman-Uncomfortable-Talking-Intimate-Things-With-Males card inappropriately. Especially since she’d no doubt refuse to allow women to play it when it both applies and matters.
Yes it’s funny how that works, isn’t it. The two should cancel each other out, but instead they double. Trans women are doubly marginalized because they are women AND trans women.
That sounds like a sour joke but it really is how the trans-befuddled see this – trans women are the most marginalized and oppressed of all, by a huge margin. How could that be unless because they’re counting twice? When really they shouldn’t be counting even once?
On the one hand women PLUS trans – on the other hand men plus nope still men.
Quite. And in any case, saying “Only women have a cervix” says nothing about transwomen; why even introduce them into the conversation? If anything, it “pits” women against transmen (or, more accurately, puts women and transmen into the same category).
She doesn’t want to talk about it so she puts it back on him as if he were a pervert for using the word cervix. NIce try.
WaM #5
It implicitly acknowledges that being a woman does indeed have something to do with physical traits. Can’t have that, can we…
Bjarte,
Yes, but it also explicitly includes transmen in the category woman. But of course transmen get lost in the conversation, because, as always, it’s all about the menz.
But why? And what the feck do you mean by identify as?