Furor, I tells ya
Poor India. He never thought he would see the day when we went back to that kind of language. What kind? The kind that calls men “men”. Shocking, isn’t it.
Tip Jar
Poor India. He never thought he would see the day when we went back to that kind of language. What kind? The kind that calls men “men”. Shocking, isn’t it.
Oooh, that’s slippery. Equating the tabloids calling “Lucy” a pervert and a deviant to the Beeb calling a transwoman ‘a biological male who identifies as a woman’ is kind of telling, in a way. Most GCFs I’ve seen don’t describe transwomen as intrinsically evil or corrupt, merely as ‘men’. But apparently, India thinks all men are actually perverts.
He thought that once captured, the BBC would stay captured. Poor lad. The BBC calling a man a man is not impartial, but them calling a man a woman was? Get a grip. Distressed to see the Beeb’s aggressive trans partisanship unravelling? Good. Its movement back towards clear, accurate language is a good thing. Willoughby wants the continued, calculated confusion of loaded language that favours his delusional belief. Being deprived of that prop is coming as a shock. He should try imagining the shock of women having to put up with the BBC’s pro trans stance for all these years. Willoughby talks about “women who are trans.” To me “a woman who is trans” is a trans identified female. That would be a woman like “Elliot” Page. Willoughby is not “a woman who is trans.” A “transwoman” is a trans identified male. That’s Willoughby. But he needs the obfuscatory language to hide that fact, otherwise his imposition on women becomes even moreshockingly clear than it already is.
Willoughby is not a woman. He’s trying to pass himself off as one, but he he never will be one. He will always be male; he will always be a man. No effort on his part will ever change this. It’s not malicious, it’s just a fact. His “protected characteristic” of “gender reassignment” does not mean he’s a women. It should, of course, protect him from gross violations of the human rights he shares with everyone else. But it should not get him into women’s single sex spaces. For that purpose, his “gender” should have as much validity as a unicorn licence. Willoughby’s insistence on accessing women’s single sex spaces, forcing his way on the strength of the illusory “rights” he believes he has been granted by his “gender identity”, violates women’s rights. This is malicious. That was Stonewall Law, not the actual law. Stonewall’s “guidance” was not legal, it was malicious and misogynistic. The Supreme Court decision clarifies this beyond any doubt or ambiguity. Sex is the only protected characteristic relevent with regards to the provisions of the Equality Act, as originally intended. Willoughby’s ballyhooed “protected characteristic” is no longer the all-access pass he has always claimed it was, and that trans activism has always tried to force everyone (especially women) to accept, or else.
Mr Willoughby, you are a man. Your unicorn licence is no longer valid here. The men’s room is right over there. That’s your space there. You can use it. You should use it. Not only that, you must use it. Get used to using it.
As a newsreader, Willoughby would know that suicides are seldom reported as doing so encourages copycats. Yet here he is dredging up a 13-year-old tale of woe to imply that suicide is an appropriate response to people refusing to go along with gender fantasies. He’ll argue on the one hand that “trans kids” are vulnerable and at suicide risk, and encourage it on the other. What a reckless, manipulative POS.
It highlights the big problem with gender ideology, and it’s a problem that I think even the best-intentioned psycholgists and psychiatrists didn’t quite understand as their profession became increasingly warm to the idea of sex changes for their patients. The problem is that it’s not about these people’s personal private ideas or their personal bodies, and it mostly never was. It has always been about getting everyone else to play along. People don’t go off and change their names and get surgeries so they can content themselves in solitude with their newfound “womanhoods” and “manhoods”. They do it so they can move through the rest of the world as though they’re the opposite sex. It’s all about everyone else’s cooperation, participation, obeisance to it.
Clinicians treated “gender identity” treatment like a simple, zero-sum thing: patient feels bad about their sex; patient gets sex change, patient feels better about their sex. In reality, it was more of a three-body problem type thing: patient feels bad about their sex because they see that there’s all these newfound “trans identities” everywhere; patient gets “sex change”; patient is happy because he is in a social environment that is rah-rah for trans; the landscape has thus shifted and this action leads to more patients coming in. Then eventually there’s a backlash in the social environment — the very one that drew so many people into “trans” culture in the first place — and now that environment is non-cooperative with their fantasy, and now the fantasy doesn’t seem at all worth the cost.
But there are no refunds on sex change operations.
The difference between trans people and detransitioners isn’t that they’ve reversed what’s been done to them; it’s that they’ve had a change of perspective on the world around them and how they fit into it. The vast majority of people who’ve already adopted trans identities and medicalized themselves would never have done so if they’d known that the cultural climate over the past few years was only a blip, and that the rest of the world was not going to go along forever with their pretend identities.
The only people happy about their trans surgeries are the ones for whom the penny hasn’t yet dropped. But it will soon enough for most of them.
It’s a tragedy, ultimately. Not so much in Willoughby’s case — he’s clearly a narcissist and he’s out to lunch — but for many others, it is.
[…] a comment by Artymorty on Furor, I tells […]
@4 I remember hearing a woman on a podcast it must be decades ago now who was ‘transitioning’ and the interviewer asked her what she liked most about being a man, and she said ‘being called sir’. It’s always been about how other people treat them, or I guess in most cases whatever fantasy they have about how people treat the other sex.
@guest
“…or I guess in most cases whatever fantasy they have about how people treat the other sex.”
So well put. It’s the idea in their heads about one sex versus the other. Mind you, they do have half a point: there IS a difference between men and women, how they’re treated and how they’re perceived. And half of that difference is legit sexism, but the other half isn’t!
There are ways in which men and women are treated differently that aren’t rooted in sexism, and there are ways in which it is. Sometimes, distinguishing the sexes is sexist, and sometimes it isn’t. This, I always thought, was what everyone knew, and what every feminist advocated.
Turns out: not so much!
(I am uniquely lucky, I guess, because my single-parent mother was an extremely outspoken feminist, and she laid that shit out for me early on. And something about systemic sexism is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it! It burns into your retinas and you spend the rest of your days going, WHAT THE FUCK WHY IS THIS STILL HAPPENING? LET’S STOP IT)
But there’s also non-sexist distinction between the sexes. That’s a puzzle the kids have failed to solve.
For example: I’m a gay man who has no sexual attraction whatsoever to women, but my local men-only leather-man gay bar has been horrifically overrun by young straight women, and young male autistic “they/thems” who promote “queer” trans extremism.
(I recently dropped in during a “pup night” and it was a horror show of young autistic women basically being SAd by autistic men. I maintain that these kinds of extremely sexual spaces where casual, public sex happens, are no place for young impressionable women. the logic of that degree of casual sex is locked into gay male mentality and physicality. Try to translate it to young autistic girls and all you get is, frankly, rapeyness.
I’ve been around casual male-on-male sex for decades. Fine, no problem. But since the women were drawn into the gay sex clubs, what I’ve seen has frankly traumatized me. I thought I’d just have discomfort over, you know, wrong sex, wrong genitals. But my discomfort was more along the lines of WHOAH THIS SEEMS BLATANTLY COERCIVE AND EXPLOITATIVE. THESE WOMEN LOOK TERRIFIED AND NOT AT ALL HAVING FUN. I genuinely don’t know what to do anymore, now that the sex clubs have gotten… rapey.)