You will think what we tell you to think
What a massively creepy intrusive You Will Think What We Tell You To Think letter.
“I am disappointed” – oh shut up with that passive aggressive crap. You’re not her mother.
“after last week’s workshop on inclusion and gender diversity” – as if having a “workshop” means people have to believe everything they’re told there. Guess what: not all women are delighted to be told we have to be “inclusive” of men who claim to be women. Guess what else: you can say something, but other people can think what you say is horseshit. The fact that you said it doesn’t make it true. The fact that a workshop said it doesn’t make it true.
You (the acting Lord Mayor) rebuke Councilor Elliott for saying the workshop was imposed on her, and then remind her that it was a Council decision. It was a Council decision that there would be a workshop that she would have to attend, no? So it was imposed on her, no? So what’s your point?
You ask a fatuous question about being “disrespectful” to the bullying deluded bureaucrats who are trying to force everyone to deny the reality of mammalian sexes. Did you mean to be disrespectful to the Councillor? You certainly are bullying and intrusive to her.
Refusing to pretend that men can be women is not “speaking out against” any people, it’s just awareness of reality.
Thanks for the misuse of “refuted” though. Nice inadvertent admission of reality.
You’re right about “refuted”. I noticed the solecism, but thought it was just incompetent writing. However, it makes sense to regarded it as an unintentional moment of honesty.
Makes sense and/or is a nice passive-aggressive insult. That’s pretty much how I meant it, of course.
Her lawyers will have a field day with that ‘refuted’.
“So, you admit in your letter that she has proved to be false the notion that men can be women, yet you continue to expect her to lie about it?”
eppur si muove
I find the turn of phrase “a public display of attack” amusing. It brings a peacock to mind. It doesn’t quite parse, and leaves me wondering what it was intended to mean and what it should have said. I wonder if Helen Burnet was scraping the bottom of her word-barrel to write this letter. She seems altogether dumbfounded that someone would persist in thinking for herself after the party line has been thoroughly explained to her.
The whole thing is clumsily worded at best. She seems barely literate.