Proud to demand the end of women’s sport.
“We are asking rugby clubs at all levels of the game to stand with us against a ruling that is exclusionary and that will impact some of the most vulnerable people in the community”.
— Stonewall (@stonewalluk) August 21, 2020
Join us and @LgbtiqS in calling @WorldRugby to #TackleTransphobia https://t.co/Y0ngO2VbQE pic.twitter.com/Qj8KSdOL5S
Comments
7 responses to “Join us in attacking women”
I mean, this is what comes of adding moral valence to neutral words like “inclusion” and “exclusion”. People always called me pedantic whenever I resisted that sort of simplification. “You’re just arguing for argument’s sake. You know what I/we/they mean.”
Uh-huh. Look who was (unhappily) right.
It’s a particularly stupid kind of moral valence, too – gratingly sentimental and touchy-feely. I would dislike the words even without the hijacking by trans laydeeez.
“Some of the most vulnerable people in the community” – male rugby players? Okayyyyyyyyy
It’s as if wokeness is the incarnate form of the Geek Social Fallacies.
Are they more vulnerable than the 10 year old girl who struggled to get an abortion after being raped by a family member? More vulnerable than black men facing armed police officers? More vulnerable than gay men, who were sent to jail for some time before they finally got their rights? More vulnerable than women, who still have to deal with sexual, verbal, emotional, and physical abuse? More vulnerable than people thrown out of work during the global pandemic?
Yeah, obviously they are the most vulnerable group. Probably the most vulnerable group ever. Not even puppies in the pound could be more vulnerable. Not even Jews in Nazi Germany. None of them have the slightest understanding of the horrors of being a man who wants to be a woman and being told he can’t play a sport on a women’s team because it would be bad for the women. Yep, that’s super vulnerable all right.
Nothing says “the right side of history” better than disabling replies except for approved people.
Why can’t these self-obsessed fantasists understand that there are very good reasons to exclude certain people from various activities? It’s not as though transwomen are the only people excluded from womens’ rugby. What about women who are missing a leg or an arm two? What about women paralysed below the waist? Brittle bone sufferers? Septuagenarians? Even women with plenty of enthusiasm but no discernible talent for the game are excluded from playing at any serious level.
Are the TRAs demanding that room be made for all of the above, or just for mememememe? Answers on a postcard, please.