The symbols of what did you say?
Yet another sneaky dishonest bit of word manipulation to deceive the readers or audience: Kezia Dugdale, former Member of the Scottish Parliament in the Times:
There is a rotten irony in the tagline “women won’t wheest.” That line is used by many campaigners against the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which will go through its stage 3 proceedings in the Scottish parliament this week. The phrase implies both that women are united in opposition to this legislation and that they have been somehow silenced during the bill’s passage.
From where I sit, it is the women who support this legislation who find themselves voiceless: women who have watched the colours green, white and purple, the symbols of universal suffrage, be appropriated by a cause they don’t support…
There it is. Yes, the colours green, white and purple are symbols of universal suffrage but not just any old universal suffrage, but specifically women’s suffrage. It’s not a straight-up lie to say the colours are symbols of universal suffrage but it’s highly misleading and incomplete and deceptive. The flag stands for women’s suffrage. Dugdale of course knows this but she pretends not to.
All too typical, isn’t it – take something that’s for women and force it to become more “universal” and thus take it away from women. All Lives Matter.
While I have written previously about what this proposed legislation does and does not do, I have resisted the temptation to enter the debate online or in the media, safe in the knowledge that the bill had a parliamentary majority. It would pass, and so too in time would the fractious debate. But with hours to go, I feel that there is a need to call out the populist tactics at play and to defend the process and indeed the people this bill is really about — the trans community — and their human right to live their lives with dignity and respect.
Anything about women’s right to live their lives with dignity and respect? Nah.
Opponents of this bill fall into two categories: those who want to diminish the universal human rights of trans people because of the actions of predatory men pretending to be something they are not, and those who simply do not believe changing sex is something that is possible.
Wait a second!
Nobody wants to or is trying to “diminish the universal human rights of trans people.” It is not a universal human right to force people to say you are the sex you are not. It never has been. Search the UDHR until there are spots before your eyes, you won’t find it. It’s not a universal human right for men to be able to force women to say the men are women. That doesn’t even resemble a human right.
This bill is one of the most consulted upon in Scottish parliamentary history. Those opposed to it do not want delays to improve it, they want to use them to dilute and defeat it. Each attempt to postpone or weaken the legislation perpetuates the unfounded stereotype of trans women as violent or predatory.
Another lie. That’s at least the third lie in this shambolic editorial. Nobody claims all trans women are violent or predatory; feminists point out that all trans women are men. We point out that just as with other men, we can’t know which ones are violent and predatory in advance, so we need some privacy away from men when we’re vulnerable.
Please, tell us more about “rotten irony.”
Well, that should be everyone, because it Is. Not. Possible. for anyone to change their sex.
I saw a quotation once, perhaps two or three years ago now, from one of the surgeons who performs so-called sex reassignment surgery, who said, quite plainly, that “we are not changing anyone’s sex,” or words to that effect. I have searched in vain for that quotation since then; wish I had copied and bookmarked it.
It was also pitched in my face numerous times by TAs that sex and gender are wholly different things, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I should not “conflate” the two. That particular chastisement — not to conflate sex and gender — was howled at me like a criminal accusation, when in fact it was the gender ideologues who were doing precisely that: equivocating sex and gender. It’s a classic DARVO move: accuse others of what you are doing yourself. The entire transgender enterprise is meant to conflate and confuse sex and gender, to pretend that “trans women” (gender) “are women” (sex), when that is patently, blatantly, profoundly, and even molecularly, untrue. It’s the big Lie: “we’re not claiming to change sex,” when that’s absolutely what they are doing. They are lying about lying, and the thing that they are lying about lying about is a fundamental, basic fact: human beings in fact cannot change their sex. It’s not possible. Since that’s the actual case in reality, absolutely everyone should be included in this category — those who do not believe human beings can change sex — of “opponents of the bill.” Parliamentary bills cannot change the laws of nature.
Did she mention the women who wanted to speak to the bill and whose applications were rejected?
Also: “Those opposed to it do not want delays to improve it, they want to use them to dilute and defeat it.”
So the bill can’t be improved by “diluting” it to accommodate the genuine concerns of women? It can only be improved by adding new rights and privileges for trans people?
“and those who simply do not believe changing sex is something that is possible.”
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard a (formerly) elected official say, and I was around when laughing at dumb things republican politicians said about science was the atheist-skeptic communities N01 pastime…
Never thought I’d see the day when left wing science denialism would beat right wing science denialism.
maddog1129 @ 1
Here, perhaps? Writer is Walt Heyer—
Thank you, Night Crow.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You must be sitting somewhere with your head up your ass because I can see FROM A WHOLE FUCKING OCEAN AWAY that women who have tried to question or slow down this fait accomplit have been demonized, vilified, threatened and, yes, silenced.
What fractious debate? Your side was all “NO DEBATE!” You couldn’t afford full and open discussion. Trans activism never can. If you think the “fractious debate” is going to end with the passage of this bill, I’m afraid you’re in for a disappointment. Disagreement and resistance will only intensify as its enforcement takes a greater toll on more women and girls. I get the feeling that you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
Way to simultaneously poison the well and step around the fact that, if described in plain, honest language, most people would likely oppose this bill.
Well the supposedly “non-predatory men”, TiMs, are also pretending to be something they’re not. They’re all lying about who they are, so how can any of them be trusted with their intentions? Short answer, they can’t. Refusal to swallow the fundamental untruth of “gender identity” makes it impossible to go along with any of this. You’re not going to change many minds, so you’ll be forced to steamroll over any resistance. And resistance there will be. You’ll be seeing more channeling of Sufragette Power than you’ve ever seen before. See point above about the end of “fracious debate.”
The amount of consultation says nothing about its quality or breadth. For a movement banging on continuously about “inclusion,” It’s funny how many women’s voices were excluded.
Only if the dilution were to a homeopathic level of non-existence. Defeat is the only rational choice for a bill that cotravenes reality. You cannot legislate the impossible; the attempt itself is dangerously corrosive to the legitimacy, authority, and respect of any institution that dares try.
Aren’t trans activists and allies routinely claiming GCs aren’t silenced so long as there is a single venue where they can speak? And isn’t Kezia voicing her opinion through the loudspeaker of the Times?
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The symbols of what did you […]