Dignity for others, never for you
Oh have they now.
Girlguiding, an organization for, as it says on the tin, girls, must use its power to terminate itself for the sake of being incloosive of boys in an organization set up for girls. It must do that. Girls must not be allowed to have anything for themselves. It’s imperative to take away everything that is for girls only.
Meanwhile…
No Women’s Institute for you, bitches! You have to let men in. You are not allowed to say no. Shut up, move over, make the refreshments.
Pride in Surrey? Shame of Surrey more like.
Pride in Surrey has it all wrong.
The Women’s Institute’s reinstatement of its original policy is not “a departure” from its core values of women’s community, women’s solidarity, and empowerment of women. Rather, it was a restoration of its commitment to those values.
Pride in Surrey’s letter says that restoring the Women’s Institute to a women-only membership model, “signals that some women are not recognized as women.” That’s flatly untrue. The restored women-only policy “signaled that men are not recognized as women.” That’s exactly as it should be, because men are not women. There can hardly be a more basic brute fact of reality than that men are not women, and vice versa.
TRAs love to scream at TERFs, ” why do you always ignore trans men?” [The answer is that men in women’s spaces pose an inherent risk of harm to women, in a way that women in men’s spaces do not, and that trans-identified women in women’s spaces also do not.]. Well, Pride in Surrey has committed the same error of omission that they accuse TERFs of. Pride in Surrey asserts that excluding trans-identified men from a women’s organization “exacerbates the isolation faced by trans people,” but that isn’t really true. The Women’s Institute limits its membership to women, and that presumably includes trans-identified women, ie, “trans men.” Trans-identified women’s participation in the Women’s Institute would alleviate, rather than exacerbate, the isolation often experienced by “trans people,” so long as those trans people were actually women. How come Pride in Surrey ignores the “trans people” who are actually women? “Trans people” are obviously NOT excluded from membership in the Women’s Institute. They just have to be “trans people” who are actually women. Pride in Surrey’s complaint rings hollow; the interests of “transgender people” are within the mission of the Women’s Institute, so long as the trans people are real women.
Goddam right.