A strange union

Janice Turner mentioned a union in her Times piece on gender indoctrination in the civil service:

The head of the union says nuh-uh:

But what counts as “exclusionary” or “discriminatory”? That’s the issue, isn’t it. Trans dogma defines “exclusion” as “not including men in the category ‘women’.” We don’t agree that that’s a reasonable definition. It’s not “exclusionary” to exclude salmon from a recipe for chocolate cake, and it’s not exclusionary to exclude men from definitions of women. That ought to be obvious, but in the real world we are accused of being evil exclusionizers for not including men in our definition of women. That’s what unions shouldn’t be supporting.

But he seems to think it’s exclusionary to ask him to define “exclusionary.”

Good point except for the fact that “transphobic” is not comparable to racist or misogynist. This is the whole point. Trans proselytizing and ideology are parasites on older social justice movements, stealing their categories and vocabulary for a very different and non-progressive brand of politics.

That’s it. We’re called transphobic for saying that men are not women. This doesn’t work for us.

12 Responses to “A strange union”

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting