Why him?
Why would any radio personality bring in India Willoughby of all people to talk about hate?
James O’Brien spoke to former Loose Women panellist and trans woman India Willougby after two men were stabbed outside a Clapham gay bar in a homophobic attack, as police hunt for the knifeman.
Why? Why not talk to a gay man rather than a man who calls himself a woman? Especially when the man who calls himself a woman is the venomous misogyny-mongering horror show that is India Willoughby?
India said to James: “You see attacks on drag queens, drag queen storytime. Now drag is not trans. Drag is gay culture and for me, thugs and bullies, they do not differentiate when you’re out and about whether you’re gay or trans.
“They’re not checking who you are before throwing a punch, you’re all the same.”
Why get him in to change the subject to trans? Why get him in to bring the conversation around to himself?
India went on to say: “It’s all the responsibility of, to me as somebody who is trans, it’s the government, it’s British media who stand these flames in a horrendous way and unfortunately the gender critical movement.
“So it’s those three components that have all come together and you cannot control hate. Once you give permission to hate one group it goes elsewhere.”
Why bring him in to blame feminist women for male gay-bashing?
“Drag is gay culture and for me, thugs and bullies, they do not differentiate when you’re out and about whether you’re gay or trans.”
Odd, the thugs and bullies in Iran definitely do differentiate between gay and trans. And I suspect many of the thugs and bullies in Britain and the US are no different. Indeed, one of the characteristics of thugs and bullies is that they tend to be quite discriminating in who they abuse. Surprising that.
So Willoughby insists there’s a definite distinction between gay and trans, yet the trans cult demands to add the T to every instance of LGB. Inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy.
I think he’s saying they’re not the same but they are related. It’s not quite an inconsistency, but it is very convenient.
I think Willoughby is undercutting his own claim about TERFS being responsible for trans ppl being beat up by thugs. For this to be the case, the thugs must be able to differentiate trans from gay. The implication is that if the GC supported the idea that TW are women, then the thugs would leave the TW alone and attack only gays. They’re not out to attack women, they’re out to attack “girly men.” If absolutely everyone agreed TWAW, thugs pick this up, and note the distinction. “Girls” are allowed to be girly.
But if the thugs put trans & gay in the same group and don’t differentiate between them, what the GC say is irrelevant.
That implication is hilarious. Yes, definitely, gay-bashing thugs would absolutely pay keen attention if gender critical feminists supported the idea that trans women are women. They hang on our every word. Wills is right on the money here!
Right I think I’ve finally got the rules figured out:
Transwomen can speak for everyone.
Everyone* can speak for women.
Women are not allowed to speak for anyone**, even themselves.
*excluding women
**unless they are grovelling to transwomen