Labour MP. Formerly a BBC reporter.
Charming. Women who question putting a man in charge of an endometriosis charity are bullying, while the man put in charge of an endometriosis charity and the woman who put him there are their victims. Welcome to Backwards World.
Following the resignation of a member of a Burlington Neighborhood Planning Assembly (NPA) over another member’s unwillingness to use preferred gender-related personal pronouns, the Burlington City Council Monday night approved a resolution to redraft NPA bylaws preventing ‘gender discrimination.’
You mean discrimination against women?
Hahaha of course not, don’t be so silly.
Lee Morrigan is a biological female who identifies as non-binary. Jeff Comstock refuses to use assigned pronouns at the NPA meetings because he considers them an effort to impose an agenda on individuals and society at large.
And, let’s not forget, to burden them with the duty to keep in mind a counter-intuitive use of language, which would mean being hyper-vigilant about everything one says in the presence of gender Stalinists.
The NPAs are local advisory groups intended to increase citizen participation in civic matters. At a recent meeting of the Wards 4 & 7 (New North End) NPA steering committee, Morrigan and others tried at length to persuade fellow NPA member Jeff Comstock that it’s ‘disrespectful’ to refer to Morgan with female pronouns.
Way not to increase citizen participation in civic matters! Way to send people screaming for the doors, never to return! Way to change the subject from civic matters to one person’s greedy ego.
Morrigan: So why won’t you use my pronouns? Can you explain?
Comstock: Some folks are trying to impose their personal agendas on others. One of the concepts that I think this entire gender identity issue is failing at is the recognition of the concept that your rights end where my nose begins. There is an awful lot of cultural and social imposition of some people’s agendas on others in our society.”
Morrigan: I have a responsibility to keep myself safe. So what I’m hearing is that you are not going to use my pronouns, correct?
Comstock: And how does that impact your safety?
Morrigan: I’ve been explaining this for the past 20 minutes on how this impacts my wellbeing. You’re not going to use my pronouns, correct?
Well-being is not safety. Furthermore, referring to a woman as “she” is not a threat to anyone’s safety at a neighborhood planning meeting, especially not one in Burlington Vermont.
Monday night, the Burlington City Council approved a resolution clarifying what constitutes discrimination on the NPA level, establishes a complaint process, and creates a pathway for removing members who fail to comply.
So Comstock will be booted out and petulant whiny self-centered entitled Morrigan will return. Burlington’s loss.
Kenny Farq is miffed that his staggeringly banal and clueless “let’s you compromise” column is attracting contempt and derision.
Who could have predicted that anyone would write such an absurdly clueless column for a serious newspaper?
Emma Barnett on Woman’s Hour surprises us all by telling Steph Richards and Jodie Hughes (founder of Endometriosis South Coast) some harsh truths.
Starts at 22:15.
Originally a comment by tigger_the_wing on Let’s give your rights away.
The result of giving in to the demands of narcissists and sociopaths is never peace. It always leads to another round of demands, and so on and so forth until they have absolutely everything; and then what?
First they came for the lesbians, now they’re coming after women and children simultaneously. It was ‘just’ preferred pronouns, now they’re mandatory wrong-sex (or illogically plural) pronouns if you want to keep your job. It was just “We want to live our lives in peace” and now it’s “You have to let us into ALL women’s spaces, shelters, toilets, sports, changing rooms, jobs, BIGOT”
Surely this bloke isn’t so full of himself that he didn’t do any smidgen of research into the subject, especially the history of appeasement and the results, before writing? Nah. Must be another narcissist, looking out for opportunities for himself, sod everyone else.
Oh how I love it when men say let’s do a compromise on women’s rights.
How the trans row will end in compromise
By comparison, debates about Brexit and Scottish independence are akin to a chorus of Kumbaya at Brownie camp. There is something about the trans issue that brings out the irrational, the visceral, the absolutist.
Ooh I bet I know what that “something” is. I bet it’s the crazy irrational brainless stubborn wacky stupid mindless unthinking daft witless nature of women. Stupid bitches need a big patronizing man to show them how to do a compromise.
We are close to a compromise on the trans issue that will satisfy neither side of a deep divide. In fact each will greet a deal with dismay. And yet a middle way is necessary on this issue that has scarred public discourse like no other in recent years.
Except who is that “we”?
It’s a different “we” depending on who is talking. When Kenny Farquharson is talking it’s reasonable decent good people like him, who all happen to be men and thus who have nothing to lose if other men do help themselves to women’s rights. When the “we” who are talking are women things look rather different…but he’s too manly and important to pause for a think about that.
What does compromise look like on the issue of trans rights? Its exact contours are still indistinct but its general shape is now discernible. A useful guide is the judgment offered by Lady Dorrian earlier this month in a case brought by For Women, a feminist campaign group.
Dorrian upheld an earlier judgment that trans women should be treated the same way as biological women under legislation to improve gender balance on the boards of public agencies. She rejected the argument that this was incompatible with the Equality Act in which, she accepted, “sex” meant biological sex.
In short, she sought to protect trans rights while upholding a biological definition of woman.
Oh that kind of “compromise.” The one where men who call themselves women still get to steal jobs reserved for women, but in return the women get…uh…nothing.
I sometimes get the feeling diehards on each side of this argument would rather lose than compromise. Defeat would require no giving of ground.
Where’s the compromise? Spell out for us exactly what the compromise part is. Telling us that putting men who call themselves women on the boards of public agencies as a way to increase the representation of women on those boards is not repeat NOT a compromise. Saying “sure, they’re not literally women, but we’re giving them the women’s places on the boards of public agencies anyway” is NOT a compromise.
A key belief of gender critical feminism is that a man can never become a woman. And yet existing laws in place for decades allow a man to gain a gender recognition certificate to help them live the life of a woman.
And yet a “certificate” does not and cannot change the physical reality that a man is a man and not a woman. Imagine if a “certificate” could allow people to live the life of Kenny Farquharson; do we suppose he would cheerfully allow this someone to live in his house, drive his car, spend his paycheck?
A strand of thought is emerging that not only should extending trans rights be blocked but existing trans rights should be rolled back. At this point the distinction between gender critical feminism and social conservatism becomes hard to discern.
Define “trans rights.” Spell out exactly what they are and say what makes them rights as opposed to demands.
The compromise required of this particular side of the debate is to accept that for most intents and purposes a man can indeed become a woman in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law.
Oh that compromise. The one that other people spell as “total submission.”
As a man, my view on the definition of woman is necessarily as an outsider. Having accepted this, I am still entitled to a circumscribed view, which I pose as a question: surely womanhood in all its glory is capacious enough, generous enough, diverse enough, to accommodate and perhaps even to welcome a small number of people who did not start life’s journey as women?
No, you’re not. You’re not entitled to jack shit when the issue is women’s rights.
There’s even more of this clueless entitled smug lecturing; read it at your peril.
This is where centrism gets you, especially radical centrism.
Split the difference, yeah? Call him “she” if you like him or think he’s a centrist or want to annoy some non-centrist pedant who knows what pronouns are. Call him “he” if he veers too far to the left or the right. Either way you’re obviously better than everyone else.
The new CEO of Endometriosis South Coast issues a “statement” i.e. a tweet.
Endometriosis South Coast (ESC) are a small local charity with an annual income of around £8000. Our team consists of six trustees and five volunteers, all of whom were assigned female at birth and myself.
None of us are paid a salary; we do it to improve the lives of those who suffer Endo.
In the UK, 10% of those assigned female at birth suffer from this awful disease, which, via the NHS, takes on average eight years to diagnose. The cost to the economy every year is £8.2 billion, but honestly, how do you put a price on pain?
Our chair at ESC suffers from Endo very severely and is currently working towards her endometriosis research PhD – understandably, she wants to take a step back.
The trustees decided that the organisation needed an activist with a proven record to drive the charity forward and advocate for a women’s health hub in our city, and when asked, I duly obliged – I feel very honoured; thank you @EndoSouthC
My birth sex doesn’t come into it …..my CV does.
CEO’s are appointed by boards/trustees because of their “skill set”, not because of their sex (note I have a GRC).
There are numerous examples of charities/organisations employing CEO’s whose sex doesn’t correspond with those they serve – look no further than Laura Kerby at Prostate Cancer UK and Simon Cook at MSI Reproductive Choices.
Many gynaecologists are men – I don’t see any headlines about them. Some midwives are men – I don’t see any headlines about them either. And how about the male paramedic who may deal with miscarriage or prolapse – there are no headlines about them either. Am I wrong?
No, I am not.
I do believe the complaints against me are transphobic @millihill @runthinkwrite @HJoyceGender @MForstater @helenstaniland will not agree, of course.
In my opinion, many charities have failed women. For example, in Spain, Japan, South Korea and Zambia, women have rights when experiencing disabling periods. Why are we not talking about this instead of publishing headlines about trans women?
We need to talk about #Endo and supporting #women much more. Women deserve ACTION – that is why ESC asked me to be their CEO.
Recently, I did an FOI to our local Portsmouth hospital, asking them how many women they treated in 2022 with Endo. The answer was 249 – I want to know why this figure was so low, so I have made another FOI digging deeper. To date, I am still waiting for a reply. This is what activists do!
Diversity should be seen as a strength. Stereotyping is wrong, and by appointing me as the CEO of ESC, I will look at the issues Endo suffers endure with a different perspective than others. Who can argue that is not a positive?
ESC are an inclusive charity, meaning we welcome EVERYONE with endo and adeno. We do not mind if you are straight, gay, black, trans, non-binary or whatever.
WE ARE HERE FOR YOU.
ALL OF YOU.
Finally, a massive thank you to the many people who have sent me messages of support (even GC people).
Best wishes, Steph
Sure, have lots of diversity – by hiring and appointing more women for instance. Hiring a man as CEO of a women’s charity isn’t “diversity” it’s “same old shit.” The fact that he calls himself a woman does not make him more “diversity.” It makes him more narcissistic displacer of women.
Julie Bindel on the latest calculated insult to women:
When the announcement was made, by Endometriosis South Coast on Monday, many of us considered it to be a parody. “We are excited to share with you all that we welcome Steph to the team as our new CEO. Supporting to move forward with our missions as a charity – we are all grateful to have Steph on board” read the announcement on X.
You know who can never have endometriosis? Men.
Steph Richards is well-known as a trans-activist, often leading the charge of protesters at feminist events, such as one I attended in 2021, in his hometown of Portsmouth. The FiLiA Women’s Rights conference, a gathering of more than 2,000 women from around the world, was picketed by a large group of protesters, draped in trans flags.
Steph was amongst them, screaming about “transphobic feminists”, whilst inside there were women speaking about being raped in refugee camps, trafficked into prostitution, and overcoming childhood sexual abuse.
How dare women talk about bad shit that happens to women instead of about men who pretend to be women?
It is utterly outrageous to employ a man to run a women’s health charity, however he identifies. There are plenty of women, including those whose lives are blighted by endometriosis, that could do the job. It is gaslighting in the extreme.
And because it is gaslighting in the extreme, it’s all too obvious that it’s a deliberate, calculated, with malice aforethought insult. It’s an intentional attack on women and women’s rights and women’s right to organize and talk and campaign for their own issues.
Thanks to extreme transgender ideology being adopted by many women working in the sector, Steph is not the only example of a man taking such a role from a woman. The chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis is a man called Mridul Wadhwa, employed by the handmaidens in order to look “intersectional” and “inclusive”. In 2021 Wadhwa caused outrage when he said on a podcast that those that believe in single sex spaces for rape victims and survivors, need to “reframe their trauma” if they are in the least bit bothered about a male person being in the vicinity of a supposed women only space.
How about men “reframe their trauma” instead? How about Steph “reframes his trauma” by not deliberately stomping all over women?
Trans “activism” can never get enough punishment of women; it always wants more more more.
Two University of Wyoming sorority alumni have been callously removed as members after more than 50 years by the national organization after supporting a lawsuit to oust the first transgender member.
Kappa Kappa Gamma sisters at University of Wyoming alleged earlier this year that the 6ft2, 260lb trans member would ‘peep at (the other girls) while visibly aroused’
Patsy Levang and Cheryl Tuck-Smith, who had been with Kappa Kappa Gamma for more than 50 years, were expelled after they allegedly fundraised for the lawsuit contesting the sorority’s admission of a transgender woman.
That’ll show those evil bitches.
A district court judge found in favor of the sorority and Langford in Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma, ruling that the sorority’s bylaws – as a private, voluntary organization – don’t define who’s a woman.
The six members had raised safety concerns and detailed allegations against Langford, but said they were told to ‘change our definition of woman’ in the September 2022 lawsuit
Women are told to change their definition of woman to mean the opposite of what it means.
That’s like being told to change your definition of “day” so that it includes “night” or your definition of “on” so that it includes “off.” You have to change your definition of this word so that it includes its own opposite. Let’s do that with all the words, and see how it goes.
At the heart of the lawsuit was the issue of defining a ‘woman’, with the sorority sisters arguing that because KKG’s governing documents define it as a space exclusively for females, the organization broke its own rules by admitting a biological male.
The sisters claimed that the sorority changed its criteria to allow Langford to apply, while KKGs lawyers said the definition of ‘woman’ has evolved since the sorority’s founding 150 years ago.
Yeah right it’s “evolved” to include men.
Ok so then can we have a word that means what “women” used to mean? “Wimen” maybe? “Wominn”? Something like that? Because we do still need a word that means “women” – not “women plus any men who feel like calling themselves women.”
‘The term (woman) is unquestionably open to many interpretations,’ the sorority’s filing claimed.
Yeah? Like what? Can it mean seal? Trumpet? Cheese sandwich? Moon? Luxury yacht?
Also that “unquestionably” is a bit of a laugh. Hello, I’m questioning your assertion.
Although the plaintiffs offered a definition in their lawsuit as an ‘adult human female’, KKG said this was restrictive, and were seeking to dismiss on the basis of changing views around what constitutes a ‘woman’.
No, let’s not do that. We all know perfectly well “what constitutes a ‘woman’.” We have not consented to changing the meaning of the word so that men can use it and then push us out of it.
This guy is so infuriating.
He’s the one who booted Joan Smith from her unpaid role as co-chair of his commission on violence against women and girls, without a word of explanation, and without ever replying to her questions or anyone else’s. It’s disgusting and he’s disgusting. Ungrateful, unfair, cowardly, sneaky, contemptible…and he’s a misogynist.
He turned off replies, but he can’t turn off quote-tweets, which are very angry. He ignores women and slobbers over trans people, and tries to shut us up when we object. He needs a very serious talking-to.
What does that mean though?
What does “present that way” mean though?
It can’t mean dress up as the other sex in private, because obviously anybody can do that any time. So what it means is dress up as the other sex in public, i.e. involve other people, including total strangers, in one’s “desire.”
People don’t get to do that. I don’t care how “tormented” they are. Sorry, but I don’t. Everybody is “tormented” by something. When someone’s putative torment can be soothed only by enlisting strangers in that someone’s fantasy life, that becomes a problem for everyone.
It’s never not Trans Awareness something – month, day, year, week, century, decade, whatever – they’re all Trans of them.
No no Fred, it’s never enough, never never NEVER.
Each year between November 13 – 19, people and organizations around the country participate in Transgender Awareness Week to help increase understanding about transgender people and the issues members of the community face.
Trans Awareness Week takes place the week before Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20. Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR), is an annual observance on November 20 that honors the memory of the transgender people whose lives were lost in acts of anti-transgender violence that year.
Transgender Awareness Week is a week when transgender people and their allies take action to bring attention to the trans community by educating the public about who transgender people are, sharing stories and experiences, and advancing advocacy around issues of prejudice, discrimination, and violence that affect the transgender community.
As is every other week of the year. Transgender people and their allies never stop taking action to bring attention to the trans community. They literally never shut up about it for one second.
(Why aren’t more people bored by this? Seriously. Why isn’t there a saturation point. Why haven’t more people had enough yet? Even if you agree that trans people are the most blah blah aren’t you sick of hearing about it every second?)
Human Rights Campaign confirms.
Honor Transgender Awareness Week and Transgender Day of Remembrance with HRC
Transgender Awareness Week and Transgender Day of Remembrance is a time for the LGBTQ+ community to celebrate, uplift and honor our trans community.
By publicly demonstrating support while challenging anti-trans legislation and negative rhetoric, we can turn our solidarity as LGBTQ+ people and allies into a collective power to advance equality and justice.
What equality and justice do trans people not have?
Never you mind. Get busy celebrating and uplifting.
Conservative lawyer says why Trump is disqualified.
[Michael] Luttig, however, has a plan to stop him. In August he joined with the liberal constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe to publish an article in the Atlantic magazine under the headline “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again”.
The pair argued that section 3 of the 14th amendment automatically excludes from future office anyone who swears an oath to uphold the constitution and then rebels against it. Irrespective of criminal proceedings or congressional sanctions, they contended, Trump’s efforts to overturn the election are sufficient to bar him for life.
It makes sense. If you, as president, swear an oath to uphold the constitution, and then rebel against it, you’ve pretty much shredded your own allegiance to the very thing you want to be the boss of. You’ve also demonstrated that you’re an oath-breaker. If he did get elected he would have to swear the same oath again, and this time no one would believe him, so where does that leave us?
Luttig elaborates by phone: “The former president is disqualified from holding the presidency again because he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the United States when he attempted to remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted to confer the power of the presidency upon Joe Biden.
“That constituted a rebellion against the executive vesting clause of the constitution, which limits the term of the president to four years unless he is re-elected by the American people. I cannot even begin to tell you how that is literally the most important two sentences in America today.”
He tried to steal it, using force and violence, and now he wants to try to get it by legit means.
Luttig this week helped form a new conservative legal movement, relaunching an organisation formerly known as Checks & Balances as the Society for the Rule of Law. The move was billed as a nationwide expansion aimed at protecting the constitution and defending the rule of law from Trump’s “Make America great again” movement. Its leadership includes Luttig, the lawyer George Conway and former Republican congresswoman Barbara Comstock.
“We believe that the time has come for a new conservative legal movement that still holds the same allegiances to the constitution and the rule of law that the original conservative legal movement held but has abandoned,” Luttig explains. “There’s a split in the conservative legal movement that mirrors the split in the Republican party about Donald Trump.”
On other side of that split is the Federalist Society, a group that for decades has played a crucial role in grooming conservative judges – its prominent figures have included Leonard Leo, who advised Trump on his supreme court picks – but has said little about the threat posed by the former president to the constitutional order.
Luttig, who, unlike Conway, has never been a member of the Federalist Society, said: “We believe that the Federalist Society has failed to speak out in defence of the constitution and the rule of law and repudiate the constitutional and legal excesses of the former president and his administration and, most notably, failed to repudiate the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.”
What ever happened to law and order?
Residents of India’s capital, Delhi, woke up to smoky skies as air quality dropped after the festival of Diwali. People in the city burst crackers late into Sunday night despite a ban on fireworks due to high pollution levels.
Delhi has been battling toxic air for weeks, with the government announcing an early winter break for schools in an effort to protect children. The city has high pollution through the year due to factors including vehicular emissions and dust.
So let’s definitely make it worse by making loud bangs to celebrate a religious festival. That’s an excellent reason to make more people have worse lung damage.
The same thing happens in Seattle with the 4th of July and/or New Year’s Eve. Gotta make a lot of bangs, no matter what the weather and air quality are. Making bangs is a human right. Bangs are people too.
On Monday afternoon, according to the federal government’s Safar app, the Air Quality Index (AQI) in Delhi was 445, with some places recording readings above 520. The AQI measures the level of PM 2.5 – fine particulate matter that can clog lungs and cause a host of diseases – in the air.
But totally worth it for the bangs!
Fair Cop is on the job:
Just the police terrorizing women for knowing that men are not women.
The Daily Mail [sorry] on putting a man in charge of an endometriosis charity:
Endometriosis South Coast (ESC) announced on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Labour activist Steph Richards would be leading the organisation.
Ms Richards has previously claimed trans people can change their biological sex ‘a little bit’ and boasted about running a ‘safe space’ where men could dress up as women in secret, including as ‘schoolgirls’.
He can combine the two! He can run his safe space for men who dress up as schoolgirls out of his office as CEO!
The charity explained that
‘Steph is a huge advocate for what people on the endo community go through.’
The what? It’s a community? Is every disease a community? How are diseases communities?
‘This is why they were appointed, not because they have their own endo journey.’
Oh please. The point is that he can’t possibly have his own “endo journey” while women can and therefore it’s 1. pointless and 2. wildly insulting to jump over all the women who could have done the CEO job and appoint a man instead. Wildly and, let me add, deliberately. There’s no way the people on the board didn’t know this was a calculated insult and taunt. They didn’t just happen to appoint a man, they did it on purpose, to make some kind of stupid sick twisted point. “This is incloooosion, so suck it up, you cows.”
Feminist author Milli Hill also took issue with Ms Richards’ appointment, arguing on X that it was no different to the case last year where a man was appointed Scotland’s first ever period dignity officer.
That position, controversially given to tobacco salesman turned macho personal trainer Jason Grant, was axed following the furore.
So let’s do it all over again!
But it’s women who know that men are not women who are the source of all evil.
It’s funny though that women who are feminist and gender critical don’t say things like that. Even about a man who gloats about being made CEO of an endometriosis charity.
Oh yay, a new way to insult women. People are so resourceful.
Steph Richards, that is. He’s a man. Endometriosis South Coast is excited to insult women by appointing a man CEO of an endometriosis charity. I wonder how many female CEOs of testicular cancer charities there are.
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on No escape for women ever.
Why are you so obsessed with hating trans people?
Who here is hating trans people? Having seen far too many linguistic word games and novel, unilateral, ideosyncratic redefinitions of basic terminolgy, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t immediately trust your definition of “hate.” There is much questioning and criticism of gender ideology and trans activism here. This is not hatred. The actual results of acceding to the demands of trans activism have harmed women. Trans identified males remain males** for life, whatever they wear, whatever surgeries and treatments they’ve had, whatever they claim to be. It is not hateful or bigoted to say this. To say it is hateful to call a male human being a male devalues the word “hate” to meaninglessness. Being male is not in itself a hateful state. But males, however they identify, have no place in women’s facilities.
As for claiming trans folks have the most privilege… Trans folks get murdered, harassed, and fired. Do you think we should stop having the government talk about indigenous rights because if they do that means indigenous people have the most power?
Trans activism has attained a remarkable degree of power and influnce in an incredibly short space of time, much of it on the back of questionable claims of being “uniquely” marginalized and downtrodden. A great deal of this has been behind closed doors, beyond public scrutiny or accountability, and without the input or consent of women, whose rights were being eroded or given away to men who demanded them. If they really were as powerless and persecuted as they are made out to be, trans identified males would not have the power and support of so many government departments and business organizations. For example, they’ve managed to get UK police departments to investigate the mildest statements of fact as “transphobic hate crimes.” Yeah, that’s marginalization and powerlessness. Have women ever had that degree of police attention for rape let alone Tweets? If misogyny was as much of a concern as “transphobia,” the police would be investigating absolutely nothing else at all.
What trans activists are demanding (recognition as the sex they are not) are not “rights” at all. Humans can’t change sex. “Gender identity” does not override sex. Women’s sex-based and sex-segregated (not “gender-segregated”) facilities (prisons, hospital wards, rape shelters, sports teams etc.) should not be made available to men, however they “identify.” Trans identified males remain males for life, whatever they wear, whatever surgeries they’ve had, whatever they claim to be. It is not hateful or bigoted to say this.
There is no right to be taken as what you claim to be, otherwise we would be forced to bow to the (self-declared) fact that Donald Trump really is a stable genius. Naively accepting all claims people make about themselves is not a thing, and certainly not a “right.” In fact society usually protects itself from malicious claims of this sort through laws that punish fraud and identity theft. Men claiming to be women is fraud against, and identity theft of an entire sex, a practice which is celebrated, aided, and abbetted by far too many in society, including the same governments that have otherwise outlawed harmful, false identity claims.
I have never seen any trans activists admit that Self-ID opens the doors of women’s facilities to opportunistic predators using this carte blanche as an all access pass. NOTE: I am not claiming that trans identified males are all “opportunistic predators.” But males as a group represent, statistically, a threat to women’s safety. Trans identified males remain male, and thus, part of that potentially threatening demographic. How do women tell the difference between a “harmless” male and one who is a predator? They can’t. The best rule is to keep all men out of female spaces. Period. Women have every right to consider any male entering their sex-segregated spaces as a potential threat, as they’ve already demonstrated a propensity to violate female boundaries. Gender Self-ID undermines this safeguarding measure by allowing men who declare themselves to be women unfettered access to women’s spaces on their own say-so. All a man has to do to bypass this usefull and valuable rule is to say “I identify as a woman.” Suddenly it’s now the protesting woman who is supposed to be viewed wth suspicion as a hateful, “transphobic” bigot, rather than the man demanding entrance to a place where he does not belong. Somehow, women are supposed to trust this man, no questions asked. Women should be under no obligation to tolerate such a gross violation and threat to their health, dignity and safety.
Women defending women’s rights (like Maya Forestater, JK Rowling, Allison Bailey, Julie Bindle, Kathleen Stock, Rosie Duffield, etc.) are routinely tarred as hateful transphobic bigots. Meetings that women organize to discuss their rights, or to just talk about things of importance to women, are routinely mobbed and picketed by trans activists and their allies. We are told that “women’s rights” is nothing but an anti-trans dog whistle, and that any such discussions that do not include men who claim to be women are hateful and bigoted. WE are told, despite the protests of many women, that there is “no conflict” between women’s rights and trans “rights.” These women have a different opinion, which is not allowed. Well, if women’s rights are “anti-trans,” it follows that trans rights are anti-woman. They are profoundly so.
Women’s concerns are real. These are not far-fetched, hypothetical, preposterous, irrational “phobias,” but the result of real harms that are actually happening. To paraphrase a venerable observation, men who claim they are women are afraid of being misgendered by women; women are afraid that men are going to kill them. Men who are violent sex offenders, who claim they are women, have been moved to womens’ prisons, where they have assaulted prisoners and staff. Men, claiming to be women, have been placed into what were originally meant to be exclusively female hospital wards. When women have complained or protested about these and other such occurrences, they have been accused of “transphobic” prejudice and bigotry. I shouldn’t have to say this, but I will: it is not hateful or bigotted to point these instances out; nor is it hateful or bigoted to oppose the disastrous consequences that these ludicrous policy decisions have had. It is not bigoted or hateful to seek to end the policies that have allowed these outrageous incidents to occur.
Trans activists have repeatedly stated that women resisting this invasion of their spaces have no legitimate self-interest in doing so, and that their supposed concern for their own welfare is a just a thin pretext to persecute trans identified males out of sheer malice and bigotry. I beg to differ. Women have every right to prevent harm to themselves at the hands of any , including those men who claim they are women. They have every right to oppose and overturn the legal and regulatory decisions that have so put them at risk, resulting in harm to women subjected to this ill-advised, ill-conceived and unjustified exercise in so-called “inclusivity.” All of these outcomes were foreseen by women whose counsel and concerns were ignored and ridiculed, and who are still ignored and ridiculed. Not all “inclusion” is good. Not all “exclusion” is bad.
If male facilities are unsafe or threatening for trans identified males to use that is not women’s problem, or responsibility to solve. Somehow, trans identified males’ feelings of distress or unease are more important than women’s feelings of distress or unease at sharing their facilities with men. Men’s feelings are to be respected and catered to; women’s feelings are to be ignored and over-ridden. Why? Why must women be forced to surrender their spaces and their comfort for the sake of men who don’t want to use the spaces set aside for their sex? Instead of demanding safety and dignity from their fellow men, they’ve focused their energy on degrading the safety and dignity of women, and slandering women who have the temerity to speak oiut against these efforts. It didn’t have to be this way, but it is. Had trans activists had directed their efforts on opposing male violence rather than invading women’s spaces, the relationship between trans activism and feminism would be very different than it is now.As it is, trans activists and their allies, along with the captured institutions whose power and authority have been wielded against women who say “No,” have much to answer for. It is not hateful or bigotted for women to demand those answers, or demand redress for the actual harms done to women in pursuit of a these misogynistic policies. It is not hateful or bigotted to demand the rollback and removal of those policies.
And in the end, intersex people also exist…
Yes, and?
My understanding is that the preferred trm is DSD, or Differences in Sexual Development, and that “intersex” is considered offensive by many people with DSD conditions. These people are not a “third” or “intermediate” sex falling between male or female. They are still male and female. Their particular conditions are, as far as my understanding goes, specific to one sex or another. Their existence does not render the concept of the sex binary invalid or unclear. It does not turn sex into a “spectrum.” It does not mean humans can change sex. The only relevence the existence of DSD conditions has to gender iideology and trans activism are the strategic appropriation of its “assigned X at birth” phraseology (as a way of diluting and muddying the concept and definition of sex to a degree sufficient to allow men to fall within the definition of “woman”), and the addition of the “I” to the forced-teaming LGBTIQetc. alphabet soup “community.” So for me, the deployment of the “Intersex Gambit” is a sign of either ignorance or bad faith. Should you choose to respond, I’ll thank you in advance for not using any of the following ploys. I’ll save you the trouble by responding to them in advance:
– “Transwomen are Women; it’s right in the name!” If that’s the case, then seahorses, saw horses and pommel horses are all Horses.
-“Clownfish can change sex!” Humans aren’t fish. No mammals can change sex.
-“Transwomen are just another kind of Woman, just like Black Women, Disabled Women or Tall Women!” No’ they’re not. Trans identified males are male; everyone else on that list is female, and no less female for being Black, Disabled, or Tall.
-“By defining women by their biological role in reproduction, you’re saying post-menopausal or infertile women are no longer female, no longer women!” I’ve only ever heard trans activists make this (strawman) argument. That would be like saying that a car that had run out of gas was no longer a car, or that a clock that had stopped was no longer a clock. Trans activism is just so very, very desperate to decouple the concept of “female” or “woman” from their reproductive role in sex in order to gloss over the inescapable material fact that no male will ever produce ova, and that the male body can never be turned into a female one. One might end up with a crude approximation with which some might be able to pass, but none of the work that these men have had done to them will turn them into an adult, human female.
If you want to defend your right to be non gender conforming and occasionally pee or use a change room at the gym, principles like those you’re disparaging are there for you too, whether you agree with the current language around gender or not.
Trans activism obliterates gender non-conformity by reifying gender roles rather than dispensing with them. One’s “gender identity” is supposedly more basic and fundamental than one’s sex. Yet a man is male whatever he wears or whatever he likes. Same with women. A man in a dress and lipstick is no less male than any other man; he is also no more female than any other man. If the basis of “gender identity reinforces the idea that liking “girly” things makes you a girl, then the patriarchy is safe and secure; genderism is serving it, not smashing it. To paraphrase another venerable observation:
Patriarchy says “If you’re a woman, you must wear a dress.” Gender ideology says, “If you wear a dress, you must be a woman.” Feminism says, “if you’re a woman you can wear whatever you want.”
There’s also the inherent homophobia in “transing away the gay,” which is exactly what Mermaid’s founder, Susie Green did to her son when he showed unwelcome signs of effeminacy. Her husband couldn’t stomach the idea that their son was gay, but they were happy to mutilate him in a misguided and impossible attempt to turn him into a girl.
I’ve already said too much, so I’ll stop here. If there’s a TL;DR it’s “Show me the hate.”
*Trans identified males are not women and can never be women. A man can no more identify out of being male any more than he can identify out of being a primate, mammal, or tetrapod. It’s just an unalterable fact of material reality.