Despite warnings
Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to change the law to allow trans people to self-declare their gender, The Telegraph can reveal in the wake of anger over similar moves in Scotland.
The Labour leader has said he will “update” the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) if elected, despite warnings that doing so would impact women’s rights and could enable predatory men to access single-sex spaces.
It’s so heart-warming to know that Labour doesn’t give a shit about women.
In a message to Pink News for Pride last year, he said his priority was “forming the next government so we can introduce legislation and change society so that, whoever you are, you can lead a happy and fulfilled life. We are committed to updating the GRA to introduce self-declaration for trans people”.
So that, whoever you are, you can lead a happy and fulfilled life unless you have the bad taste to be a woman. If you’re a woman, then fuck you. Solidarity.
Asked by The Telegraph about the leader’s comments to Pink News, Labour confirmed that he stood by plans to reform the GRA.
And to destroy women’s rights. Thanks a lot.
It really is (morbidly, frustratingly, infuriatingly) fascinating how this movement reveals just how insignificant the concerns and welfare of women and girls are to those in power. And not just political power. It’s as though power itself, even if only that of an artist or book club chairman, makes it difficult to remember that female people exist and are as valuable as males.
The movement’s success also shows how fragile actual progress is and that liberty really does have an eternal price. After all, Genderism quite obviously depends on the exploitation of existing sexism, whether conscious and overt or nascent and hidden. The very idea of gender identity requires that there be nonphysical traits that are not merely predominantly associated with but actually unique to one sex. To be taken in by the ideology requires some degree of what used to be called sexism. (It’s a sort of ethical special pleading via persuasive definition. You get to engage in the very thing you decry, because the new definition doesn’t apply to you.) Genderism doesn’t create sexism; it liberates it. Genderism absolves people of moral failing, transmuting sin and shame into virtue and pride.
What an exultant rush that must be.
Nullius in Verba,
It’s not as simple as that. You see, “sex” (if it exists at all) is a spectrum. So now, in the UK, the legions of hermaphrodites who didn’t know which bathrooms they could access can live happy and fulfilled lives.
“Gender” on the other hand, can sit apart from sex. “Gender” (as Julia Serano explains) refers to “masculine” and “feminine” which can have nothing to do with “male” or “female” “sex.” [Whether Serano is an advocate of the non-existence of “sex” altogether is something I can’t bring myself to care about at the moment.]
“Gender” being a self-contained, and unconnected with one’s “sex” means that a 6’5″ muscle-bound rapist with a penis might appear to have a “male” “sex” but is actually 100% “female” or a “woman” mentally and spiritually.
“Gender” as a really-existing aspect of one’s psychological makeup, is fixed and immutable. It’s something children recognize about themselves as early as age 3. Unless they don’t. Sometimes you don’t know if you’re “masculine” or “feminine” until puberty when your secondary sexual characteristics start to kick-in. And any discomfort that process causes you is a sure sign that you’re trans. Unless you undergo surgeries and cross-hormones and then realize you’re not actually “trans” and you announce yourself as “de-trans” in which case (according to “actual” “trans” people) you’re an idiot who should have known better and all your regrets are tiresome and stupid.
And let us not forget that there’s no proper or mandatory protocol for performing “gender.” [So-called “gender critical” thinkers insist on “biological essentialism” and that “men” and “women” must conform to rigid “gender” stereotypes. (Or at least that’s how TRA’s who behave like caricatures of the “genders” or “sexes” or whatever that they claim to be like to distort the gender-critical position.) ] So if you feel like having a beard and dressing like a “man” or “masculine” that doesn’t mean that you’re not still 100% a “woman.” And you’re 100% entitled to be in a woman’s washroom or changeroom. And literally nothing could go wrong in such a scenario.
And you’re a fascist if you disagree with any of that.
All very well put, but the quoted bits particularly.
The whole unanswering, forge ahead with bloody-minded, single purposea attitude is frightening, especially coming from ostensibly democratically elected members of governments. Corporations and companies are their own thing, but governments are supposed to be our thing. Aren’t these people supposed to be accountable? Aren’t they supposed to be able to argue their corner, explaining exactly what they’re doing, why, and comprehend the full consequences of it? It’s chilling that they really don’t give a shit about women, except for the newly-minted, self-declaring kind. They’ve been offered ample opportunities to acknowledge and address the concerns of women, to understand that there is a conflict between trans “rights” and the rights of women and girls. When the response hasn’t been utter silence, it’s been derision and contemptuous, condescending minimization and trivialization of the price women are already paying and will continue to pay.
Merry fucking Christmas you heartless, misogynistic bastards.
[…] a comment by Nullius in Verba on Despite […]
Yeah.