I’d be very interested to see some data and analysis on this, because it feels true to say that certain figures have become persona non grata who have either been denounced publicly, or organisations have simply “lost their contact details” after saying the non-approved thing. It feels like a strong trend, but I feel like I only have anecdotes to back that up. The other major corollary trend seems to be that when trans ideology is opposed, that’s done by religious, or right wing figures, rather than secular or left wing figures. Although again, all I have is anecdotes there too. Another corollary trend is portraying a false consensus by locating agreement from theoretically diverse corners, such as having a trans person, the parent of a trans person, a doctor of a trans person, the school principal of a trans person and the trans person’s religious leader all say that the young trans person should absolutely have medical intervention.
It’s possible that Prof Winston doesn’t feel like reiterating biological realities over and over to silly presenters and trans cult activists over and over at the Beeb, he is in his 80s. It could be some other reason altogether. I think assuming ‘social engineering’ (obviously in the old sense of the term) is a bit of a stretch.
But thinking it could be BBC engineering is much less of a stretch. They do have a record in this area, to put it mildly.
Add the UK courts, police, prison system, multiple government ministries, the NHS, rape crisis services, most corporations, sports organizations, etc., and it looks a lot more like social engineering on multiple, mutualy supporting, and reinforcing fronts. Think of it as the state version of trans-activist, academic citation mills that we’ve noted here at B&W.
Had it not been for the courageous women and men who have sacrificed so much to oppose this coup, things would be far worse. What if the Supreme Court ruling had been more like that of the first employment tribunal judge, which determined that Maya Forstater’s gender critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”? It’s frightening to think that the judgement depended upon the temperament of the judges. Given the number of judges, courts, and tribunals that have ruled against women during this whole surreal, nightmare affair, it was a near-run thing. Having truth and reality on your side can only work when people see and accept truth and reality. There are far too many (as we have seen) who are more than happy to ignore and bury truth and reality in favour of men.
And it’s not over yet. The Labour and SNP opposition and hostility to the Supreme Court decision (because that’s what all of these “delays” “careful readings” really represent), show that these engineers aren’t willing or prepared to give up on their beloved, “progressive” Stonewall Law, even though it has been judged illegal. Women, it would seem, remain politically ignorable, dispensible, and disposable.,
I’d be very interested to see some data and analysis on this, because it feels true to say that certain figures have become persona non grata who have either been denounced publicly, or organisations have simply “lost their contact details” after saying the non-approved thing. It feels like a strong trend, but I feel like I only have anecdotes to back that up. The other major corollary trend seems to be that when trans ideology is opposed, that’s done by religious, or right wing figures, rather than secular or left wing figures. Although again, all I have is anecdotes there too. Another corollary trend is portraying a false consensus by locating agreement from theoretically diverse corners, such as having a trans person, the parent of a trans person, a doctor of a trans person, the school principal of a trans person and the trans person’s religious leader all say that the young trans person should absolutely have medical intervention.
Has anyone gathered data and analysed this?
It’s possible that Prof Winston doesn’t feel like reiterating biological realities over and over to silly presenters and trans cult activists over and over at the Beeb, he is in his 80s. It could be some other reason altogether. I think assuming ‘social engineering’ (obviously in the old sense of the term) is a bit of a stretch.
But thinking it could be BBC engineering is much less of a stretch. They do have a record in this area, to put it mildly.
Oh right, you’re referring to Cleese’s reference to BBC social engineering – sorry, I’d forgotten that!
I just think it’s a little assuming, not that I disagree with him. The Beeb’s been notorious on this issue.
Particularly when it comes to platforming the likes of the venomous Willoughby.
Add the UK courts, police, prison system, multiple government ministries, the NHS, rape crisis services, most corporations, sports organizations, etc., and it looks a lot more like social engineering on multiple, mutualy supporting, and reinforcing fronts. Think of it as the state version of trans-activist, academic citation mills that we’ve noted here at B&W.
Had it not been for the courageous women and men who have sacrificed so much to oppose this coup, things would be far worse. What if the Supreme Court ruling had been more like that of the first employment tribunal judge, which determined that Maya Forstater’s gender critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”? It’s frightening to think that the judgement depended upon the temperament of the judges. Given the number of judges, courts, and tribunals that have ruled against women during this whole surreal, nightmare affair, it was a near-run thing. Having truth and reality on your side can only work when people see and accept truth and reality. There are far too many (as we have seen) who are more than happy to ignore and bury truth and reality in favour of men.
And it’s not over yet. The Labour and SNP opposition and hostility to the Supreme Court decision (because that’s what all of these “delays” “careful readings” really represent), show that these engineers aren’t willing or prepared to give up on their beloved, “progressive” Stonewall Law, even though it has been judged illegal. Women, it would seem, remain politically ignorable, dispensible, and disposable.,