Sister Outrider is not submitting.
And Oger is still gloating and bragging and lying about it today.
What laws? What law is there that makes “transphobia” a crime? How can there be any such law when “transphobia” is so broadly defined (or more like undefined)? How can there be a law saying we must not say that men are not women? Oger considers it “transphobia” to see him as the smug entitled bullying man he is, but less ideologically warped people do not.
Oger is all too obviously getting a sick twisted thrill from forcing women, especially women who have been raped and women who provide services for them, to agree with him that he is a woman. He’s failing to force us all though, so nyah.
That’s sad. It’s a program for women, but the women in the program had to put up with Morgane Oger inserting himself (yes) into the meeting.
Comments
3 responses to “With three “other” women”
I see what you did there.
And I approve.
In what way are the experiences of women in government (running for office, facing voters, functioning within systems that have worked to keep them out) similar to the experiences of transwomen in government?
Or, more broadly, in what way are the experiences of women similar to the experiences of transwomen?
What is it they have in common—besides the string of letters w-o-m-e-n—that results in them properly belonging to the same category of people?
Reminds me of the photo of Charlotte Clymer facing his diminutive, female colleague.
But the overall optics of this photo are even poorer.
Speaking as a photographer, I know how the camera can capture innocent, unplanned, and fleeting configurations of expression and gesture that look unfortunate, awkward or embarassing. This could be one of those instances. Nevertheless, posed or not, it doesn’t look good. This doesn’t look like a “team” photo at all. It looks like Oger with a couple of assistants. The portraits of several other men (see, we can use that sleight-of-hand construction too, but this one’s more accurate) look on as Oger, who is (natually) “centered”, mansplains how women should do politics; the woman to his left is dutifully writing down his pearls of wisdom; the woman to his right looks like a deer in the headlights, trapped between the table and the wall, waiting for an opportunity to bolt, perhaps through the window if necessary. I might be reading too much into this, and letting my distaste of and animosity towards Oger cloud my judgement and colour my interpretation, but I still think it shows him in a poor light. I would have advised him not to use it, if I wanted him to be seen in a positive, collegial light.