Peter Tatchell tries to school women on who can be a woman and Rosie Duffield reminds him that we don’t need him to tell us who can be a woman. Go school yourself Peter.
Peter Tatchell tries to school women on who can be a woman and Rosie Duffield reminds him that we don’t need him to tell us who can be a woman. Go school yourself Peter.
Comments
9 responses to “To mansplain and patronise”
How does Tatchell propose to “fight” the misogyny directed at women by TiMs and their allies for the crime of defending women’s rights, and women’s single sex spaces? Has he responded to Lewis Warner’s characterization of the message “FEMALE SINGLE-SEX SPACES ARE NOT YOURS TO GIVE AWAY” as “transphobic bile?” The responses in opposition to it (like Warner’s) are certainly misogynistic.
Isn’t it curious that trans activists immediately see this statement as “transphobic” despite the fact that the word “trans” appears nowhere in it. That’s because they know that TiMs are not women. As soon as we’re talking solely about sex, and sex alone, the activists know that waffling about “gender identity” is not part of the equation, meaning that “trans women” are being “excluded.” This immediately puts the lie to the claim that there is “NO CONFLICT!” between women’s rights and trans “rights,” and verifies the fact that if women’s rights are “transphobic,” then trans “rights” must be anti-woman, i.e. misogynistic. How does Tatchell square that circle?
@YNNB – because he has bought into the unification of allyship for LGBTQ, so it he questions it, he daren’t do so out loud because he is afraid of the backlash. And also, women’s needs for safety and security don’t apply to him so he can afford to be cavalier about them.
Peter Tatchell says:
To which brilliant insight by him / her / it I would add:
Tatchell’s tendentious lesson on womanhood doesn’t strike me as mansplaining, or indicative of his sex. I wish it did. But every line of it could have been written by a woman, and has probably been written or stated thousands of time by women. They do so while feeling progressive and virtuous, as if they were breaking sex stereotypes or defending the right of marginalized women to be accepted as equals. That’s because they sincerely believe that’s exactly what they’re doing. There are a hell of a lot of such women.
Why and how we’ve gotten to this place is an interesting (and frustrating) exercise in psychology, group dynamics, and propaganda. But the fact that we are here means I just can’t jump on “he’s revealing his male privilege/attitude/sex” when a man repeats what the women around him are saying. My own analysis of the roots of gender ideology doesn’t show the primary blame rests on either sex, and recent surveys show that women are statistically much more likely to put approving little check marks next to Tatchell’s recitation than men.
Sastra. it seems like women have often been feminism’s most formidable enemies.
It has been reported that Rosie Duffield has been left off the Labour Party’s list of approved candidates for the next election despite twice winning Canterbury, a seat which had never before returned a Labour MP.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr
He posts this every few days. I wonder who he thinks he’s going to convince.
Lady Mondegreen @ #8
Over the years I have come to the conclusion that Peter craves attention. He wants to be noticed, whether by supporters or critics.