Oh they’re not asking for much, only everything.
See it? “Codify trans-inclusive meanings of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in law” – thus obliterating women’s rights.
That’s “doing better” is it? I would hate to see what doing worse would look like.
Oh they’re not asking for much, only everything.
See it? “Codify trans-inclusive meanings of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in law” – thus obliterating women’s rights.
That’s “doing better” is it? I would hate to see what doing worse would look like.
Comments
8 responses to “Just redefine women, that’s all”
How can anyone “scrap the ban on puberty blockers” at the same time as they “scrap plans for chemical castration” when in both cases it is the same drug?
“Ensure same sex access to IVF treatment” is going to work out so well for the gay couples, isn’t it?
And finally, “scrap the spousal veto” so that women have even less power.
“Recognize non-binary, agender, and intersex (sic) folks”.
One of these three things is an offensive term for a suite of very specific medical conditions, particular to one sex or the other (Disorders of Sexual Development, or DSD), while the other two are incoherent, luxury identities that conflict with the “usual” gender identities. These two posit that one can be either a) neither of the Big Two, or b) no gender at all. Neither of these “gender identities” is aligned with the sex that one is not. (Where this leaves all the rest of the 70+ other purported “identities is anyone’s guess.) DSDs have nothing whatsoever to do with supposed “gender identity”, but are appropriated (under the inaccurate “intersex” label) solely in order to help bolster the twin lies of sex being a “spectrum”, and humans being able to change sex.
The beauty of all of this is that they don’t care if it is self-contradictory, and makes no sense, so long as the clout of the cobbled together “trans umbrella” gives them what they want, which is the power to allow men to take over women’s spaces. If this was a movement driven and controlled by female desires rather than male ones, it would have gotten precisely nowhere.
What do they mean by abolishing the spousal veto? I’m missing something.
Rob, that’s where one parent, usually the sane one, objects to having a child subjected to unnecessary medical interventions and can stop any “treatment”.
My understanding is that the “spousal veto” is about the legal position and rights of a transitioning person’s spouse, not anything to do with children. Here’s what A woman’s Place UK had to say about it in 2019:
https://womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/
Well, that’s a damn lie. That’s precisely what was not “originally intended,” as the UK Supreme Court took great pains to explain in its recent ruling.
Always with the lies. The entire T enterprise is lies based on lies, wrapped up in lies.
All perfectly true, of course. I’d say “agender” is as close to an accurate term for what the rest of us are as Genderspeak allows. Of course that’s still not very accurate, since even “agender” is supposed to be an “identity” (*shudder*) and presupposes that “gender” is indeed a valid concept that really does apply to almost everybody else. It’s roughly analogous to how the idea of being “clear” of “body thetans”, even if technically true (since there’s no such thing as “body thetans”), hardly makes sense outside the ontological framework of Scientology.
Still I think it’s fair to say that every other label in the Genderspeak dictionary is even less applicable. I always cringe when supposedly “gender critical” people accept the “cis” label with all its implicit ideological baggage. As I keep saying, “cis woman” does not mean the same as “adult human female” (once again, referring to adult human females, as an identifiable group in its own right, in Genderspeak is no more possible than referring to political or intellectual freedom in Newspeak). A “cis woman” in Genderspeak is someone who thinks / feels / identifies / “presents” etc. in the same ways as “Lia” Thomas, “Veronica” Ivy, “India” Willoughby, “Jolyon” Maugham, Eddie Izzard etc.* while “assigned female at birth”**. Biological sex has nothing to do with it. Once again, if trans women are women, they are the only “women”. If trans men are men, then I am not.
* Of course by now there is probably no shortage of women out there who are so heavily invested in Gender Ideology that they would gladly identify as walking inflatable dolls if that’s what it takes to validate the
identitiesjerk-off fantasies of autogynephiles.** Technically, Gender Ideology is perfectly compatible with a biological female being a “trans woman”: If one of the apocryphal “biological females” was “assigned male at birth” (which must happen all the time since the “assigning” process is completely arbitrary anyway), but identifies as a woman, then, by definition, that makes her a “trans woman”.
Sorry for self-quoting, but:
Or, perhaps more to the point, as “an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes”.