A familiar accusation
Kellie-Jay eviscerates that smug conceited prat in the Spectator:
‘I just get the impression she hates men’, said a wound-licking James Max, on TalkRADIO, after he interviewed me on Wednesday. It’s a familiar accusation from those who fail to drum up rational arguments for the destruction of women’s rights.
He got that impression because she’s a great deal more intelligent than he is, not to mention skilled at arguing on live radio. Naturally a woman who makes him look stupid by being cleverer than he is must hate men.
The tone was set when Max tried to link the views of J.K. Rowling to the notorious outing of George Jamieson by the Sunday People in 1961 — four years before to Rowling’s birth. He claimed that Rowling’s recognition of women as adult human females contributed to the suffering of trans people.
It seems too obvious to point out, but Max is talking about men who claim to be women, rather than women who claim to be men. That is the nature of most of the conversations I ever have on this topic. Be in no doubt, this is a men’s rights movement.
James Max did an outstanding job of underlining that.
Unfortunately, as I tried to point out, we have yet to be able to tell which men are the bad ones — and until we do, we must ensure the best possible safeguarding for women by keeping all of them out. Men who do not wish to harm women, or cause us any discomfort, are okay with staying out of our spaces.
For making that point, Max called me hateful, disturbing and unpleasant. I am not any of those things, but I am also not afraid of these tactics to bully me into surrendering the rights women before me fought for. I am not fearful for any legal repercussions either. I am fearful for women across the country who can no longer guarantee a female-only rape crisis centre, a female-only domestic violence shelter, for the girls in schools losing their right to female-only changing rooms and toilets, who are threatened with accusations of unkindness for feeling uncomfortable. I am fearful of the great untruth being fed to us through our media, government and institutions.
Via puffed-up mediocrities like James Max.
As a straight man, the only thing I question in KJK’s points is her claim that some people choose to be gay, according to what she has been told. But, I wonder if she really meant to say that it takes a while for a man or a woman to accept that they are gay, and choose to stop suppressing their true nature.
Any insight is welcome.
I don’t know, maybe some people are omnisexual and decide to pick being gay? Is that possible?
There are some famous feminists who claim to be ‘political lesbians’. I suppose that, if you are a bisexual woman, it wouldn’t be too difficult to ignore half the potential dating pool and only go for other women. I’m straight; I couldn’t possibly consider lesbianism, political or otherwise. However, I’m also happily married, and don’t include any men other than my husband in my dating pool. We all discriminate.
He conceded that he knows the difference between men and women when he talked about how respectful the exchange with Debbie Hayton was. Debbie never claimed to be a woman, but it’s clear anyway from watching.
The core point that is so quickly swept aside by the “be kind” and “we just want to pee” crowds. The continued expectation of traditional male entitlement leads TiMs to believe that their interests outweigh those of women, that deference to their demands for “kindness” overrides any such needs that women should expect. Kindness is a one way street. Failure to accede to the requirements for “kindness” are met with a harshness and vehemence you wouldn’t expect from such frail, delicate creatures as they claim to be.
Gay activist Martin Duberman is among those who assert that people are mostly bisexual and that gay or straight is a preference (usually a very strong one) that can change. He and others have made the point that “born this way” is a poor political strategy, because people do sometimes change their minds. Lots of young people experiment with relationships of various flavors, and some. due in part to peer group or societal pressures, may assume they “are” one thing, but later “realize” they are not. It’s an important preference, given the way society works, but I think insisting it must absolutely be innate and unchanging does not help people.
In Feminism for Women, Julie Bindel rejects the “born this way” argument. She feels it was a choice.
I’ve always hated the “born this way” argument for rights. First, if we discover they are not born that way after all, the argument for rights goes out the window. Second, I think the choice of a gay/lesbian lifestyle should be enough. There shouldn’t be rights only to people who are born into the condition. Since it does me no harm for my neighbor to be gay, it doesn’t cost me money, it doesn’t force me to be anything other than my own choices, then there is no good argument for curtailing ordinary human rights and privileges shared by other couples.
The only real argument against giving them rights is the Argument from Ick, and that’s not a good argument. Nor is “God said it, I believe it, and that’s it.”