It’s HuaMANists not Huwomanists
Humanists UK are going with “men are women if they say they are.” Women are going with “Goodbye Humanists UK.”
Sex Matters explains.
Tip Jar
Humanists UK are going with “men are women if they say they are.” Women are going with “Goodbye Humanists UK.”
Sex Matters explains.
The reason that sex was never previously defined in UK law was that, before the Gender Recognition Act sought to change the definition, a definition wasn’t necessary; the word only had one meaning: biological, real, actual, physical, immutable, sex. The idea that it’s possible to create in law something which is contrary to reality is the new idea. I would prefer that the GRA be repealed, so that people can’t take advantage of the confusion which they have created using it.
I can’t quite believe that the humanists, of all people, are preferring a faith-based legal fiction over facts.
Mind you, religions have always found it highly desirable to create in law something which is contrary to reality, in fact it’s pretty much their core mission. Humanism is supposed to be the reverse of that, and the antidote to it. No there are no SuperNatural beings who rule over us, humans are on our own.
That T have been accessing women’s spaces and services “without concern or complaint” is a god-damned lie.
Wellllll you have to understand they mean “without concern or complaint from anyone who matters.”
Aaand, you better obey OR ELSE. ‘Cause WE make the rules now, see.
[End of trans-mission.]
I read the whole thing. They’re very good at seeming reasonable, unlike many of the TRA Twitter posts that get rightly mocked here for incoherence. The key slip-up is the failure to acknowledge that many of the instances where single-sex spaces are desirable are associated with smaller charitable organizations (shelters, some hospitals, etc). Starting with ‘inclusion’ as the baseline essentially opens up these organizations to costly litigation if they don’t want to admit transwomen to women’s-only spaces. Even if they ultimately win, the financial damage wrought from mounting a defense is considerable, and essentially can be used as a form of blackmail–let transwomen into your rape shelter, or close your doors.
To add, the Humanists UK are also campaigning for a legal ban on “conversion therapy”, to cover both gay conversion and trans conversion. In the former case it is simply not needed, and in the latter case it is a very bad idea, given how undefined “gender identity” is.
I’ve interacted with some of those involved, to try to disuade them, but not got far. I get the impression that they simply haven’t thought much about trans issues, and are just presuming that the trans activists are the good guys.
I think that’s the case for most of the people buying into this. This reflects the outcome of adding the T onto the LGB. Since homophobia is bad, it follows logically (to some people) that questioning trans about their perceived reality is bad, and that constitutes transphobia, and that must be bad.
Of course, don’t get me started on the automatic assumption that gay people are always the ‘good’ guys. You should hear some of the things I hear when someone asks me about my divorce and I explain that my husband realized he was gay and walked out. He also took almost everything we owned, and tried to commandeer 80% of my salary through the divorce, which would have left me too little to live on and forced me to move in with abusive parents. Many years later, he admitted that I was a good wife, and it was completely his fault we broke up, but no one will believe that…because gays are the ‘good guys’.
Sorry, but to assume there are no unpleasant gay men is to assume gay men aren’t really human like the rest of us.