Other people’s identities…
…and if your views on other people’s identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure, and cause them such discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.
What does that even mean?
At this particular moment we know that “people’s identities” means the raging insistence of a small number of men that they are women and that women must not say they are men.
So it seems she’s saying that if the views of women that men are not women are displeasing to men who say they are women, then those women must be forcibly silenced.
So then what about the safety, security, and comfort of women?
What if men’s insistence on invading women’s sports and women’s spaces and women’s literal (not fantasy) identities makes women’s lives insecure and unsafe and causes them such discomfort that they cannot live in peace?
I’d love to know, but I don’t suppose Senator Pauline O’Reilly will ever say.
Comments
4 responses to “Such discomfort”
The utter one-sidedness of the assertion (you can hardly call it “reasoning” or “argument”) is so incredibly stark. It’s astonishing that they can never see it.
To paraphrase that scene in A Man For All Seasons, she would cut down every law in Ireland to get after those devil TERFs.
One irony is that if these men were really women, as they maintain, no one would be pandering to their fantasies quite like this.
Meet the new priests. . .