Colin Montgomerie is confused.
Same with “equality”. Being labeled or recognized or endorsed as something you’re not has nothing to do with equality.
Also there’s his dimwitted question about an appeal. Onlookers are wondering if he grasps the meaning of “Supreme” in “Supreme Court”.
Comments
10 responses to “A bunch of men eh?”
It looks like Colin doesn’t consider this ruling a victory for feminism. Because it very much is.
We are even being granted a bonus right by the gender movement: the right to push into female spaces by declaring themselves women. Nitpickers will say that this is simply the mirror image of the same right gained by women to push into male spaces, but this is wrong for the simple fact that men are on the beneficial side of both the physical and societal side of the man/woman divide. Thus the rights may be reciprocals of each other, but the threat posed to those occupying those intruded-on spaces is not equal.
‘a bunch of men’ – two of the justices were women?
Holms
That’s true, but changing their value doesn’t change the number of bonus rights. It’s still one bonus right for each sex, or alternatively, a single bonus right for both, with differing significance to each.
@Twiliter #1
Not all Colins!
It’s not quite that simple, really. It is, in principle, possible to appeal the case to the European Court of Human Rights, a.k.a. the Strasbourg Court. It is not abundantly clear, however, what would be the eventual outcome if a decision there went against the UK Supreme Court.
So much wrong!
1. As guest @#3 noted, “A bunch of men” evidently included 2 women. Montgomerie is so blind that he really doesn’t know what sex is, or what “man” or “woman” means.
2. “who have never even met a trans person . . . ”
In the first place, how the heck do you know? Y’all have been so insistent on butting into everything, and making everything about you, that they know you pretty well. In the second place, it’s not necessary to have met a trans person for them to understand facts. And they have certainly met both men and women.
3. “talking to people who have openly said they want to wipe us out . . . ”
Liar. Nobody has said anything remotely like that. You having to use facilities for your sex is not even remotely the same thing as “wiping [you] out.” Your transperbole is showing again. Always with the lies!
4. ” deciding if we are as deserving as them . . .”
You’ve got that backwards. The question — as always — is whether women are as deserving of . . . ANYTHING . . . as men.
5. ” And concluding
noyes.Fixed that for you.
Ah, I missed that he was talking about the Strasbourg Court. Thanks for the clarification Harald!
Is it petty of me to take a certain grim satisfaction in seing Stonewall thrown under the bus by its captors? Turns out no amount of effort to destroy women’s rights is ever enough to stay on the right side of these people.
We have earned that grim satisfaction.