@she_obey@HagFeminist Terf doesn’t mean female human being. If it did then tras who are female would be terfs, as well as conservative women who would not describe themselves as feminists.
@bourne_beth2345@WomenAreReals Women don’t earn womanhood through obedience, kindness, or agreement. They don’t lose it by being difficult, outspoken, or unpopular.
The attempt to shame women into accepting an ideology by suggesting that disagreement makes them not women is manipulative and deeply sexist.
This unqualified bore says his secondhand opinions are “not up for debate.” Yes they are. At a university all opinions are up for debate. If you cannot defend your opinions rationally, either they are indefensible or you are too stupid to defend them. In either case you have no right to force them on students who have expressed their wish to attend a lecture by doing so.
https://t.co/2HqOx6x2TP
@JAMES_BLOWER01@jess_ann_pin@Ash_Lee_IRL But she’s not. Saying that men are not women, no matter how feminine or pretty they are, is not jealousy. And it’s not hatred either. Women are not reduced by being female and human. The only way one could think that is if they think female is less.
@JAMES_BLOWER01@jess_ann_pin@Ash_Lee_IRL He doesn’t mog her. And she wasn’t talking about beauty anyway. Why is it so common to default to that? Women are not women because they’re beautiful.
“Why do you care?” is not an argument. It is an attempt to shame and scold people out of discussing policies that affect language, law, sport, prisons, safeguarding, medicine, schools, and women’s rights.
If it shouldn't matter to me then it shouldn't matter to anyone, so what are you doing here? Women are allowed to care about the definition of women. Lesbians are allowed to care about sex-based boundaries. Parents are allowed to care about safeguarding and medical ethics. Women and girls are allowed to have boundaries, to have those boundaries respected by men and boys and to be concerned when their reasonable concerns are ignored and shot down by some random woke scold with "Why do you care?"
Calling that “obsession” is just a way to avoid answering the actual arguments or engaging ingood faith.
And if this is supposedly no big deal, then it should be no big deal to say sex is real, women are female, and gender identity does not override everyone else’s rights, language, or boundaries. If it's no big deal for women to be redefined, then it's no big deal to not do that shit, too. It really should be no big deal to say sex is real and the infalsifiable gender identity of a tiny monority does not override everyone else’s rights or boundaries.
Speculating about my psychology instead of answering the argument is just name calling and bad faith concern. Women are allowed to care about laws, language, safeguarding, sport, prisons, medicine, and sex-based rights.
"Why do you care?" is yet another deflection, ad hominem, and attempt to suppress the argument rather than addressing the concerns in good faith. Thank you for demonstrating my point about common rhetorical tactics of trans activists in this exemplary example.
Mr. Davies,
For a brief, fleeting 10-15 years, WE ALMOST HAD IT. The years between 1998-2012, roughly, we were very close, when no one really gave a damn either way. I remember it distinctly. An enormous shift in attitude’s & acceptance had occurred, after the horrors of being gay in the 80’s to the early-mid 90’s.
I was NOT alone in feeling this, even amongst the upper echelons of the ‘Gay Mafia’ I used to hang around with said the same.
The original aim was EQUALITY & we were, more or less, there.
Then along came identity politics, gender ideology & Que*r Theory, which screwed everything up.
Stonewall’s CEO, Ruth Hunt, said in 2014/15, & I quote, that their shift in focus was “known to be controversial, that it would be difficult, that people would LOSE by that & that herself & the staff thought THAT WAS A PRICE WORTH PAYING.” In other words, they KNEW this would receive pushback, yet were unwilling to listen or engage with those of us who had serious concerns.
A subsequent Stonewall CEO, Nancy Kelley, called lesbians “sexual racists” for not including men in their dating pool.
Michael Cashman called for those who had questions, predominantly women, about this shift to be “defecated upon” & there was “no debate” to be had.
And NOW look where we are.
Look around at the utter mess we’re in.
If you’re going to “look at yourself as an idiot”, at least be aware of WHY you might feel that way & what part you, yourself, played in it.
You cannot cheerlead & encourage an ideology that has caused so much destruction & damage, & then pretend to be flummoxed as to the reasons WHY everything has got so much worse.
Just so we’re clear…
@sappholives83@Lfromthenorth Scarcity. When they cover everything they make it scarce and so covet more. Men in our own culture used to get hot around the collar seeing a woman’s ankles or shins, 100+ years ago. And that was because they were always covered. They create the obsession.
Yes, period huts are back. Because girls just aren’t embarrassed and awkward enough about menstruation.
But what happens when the trans-identified boy feels excluded from the period hut? What if he feels less of a girl? Perhaps it would be easier just to tell girls to stay home.
I personally can't stop thinking about how Monica will live forever in Lizzie's Stormy Weather novel, because she gave her the quotes, the courage to write it and live it #Rivals
the fact that monica and lizzie started the conversation by saying they aren't brave enough to divorce because of the kids and end it determined to fight for themselves because they want their daughters to be free 🥹
there was a storm raging outside AND inside the characters too
“It is undeniable that there are women who are against women on this issue [trans]… I’ve always likened these women to the women who were against women getting the right to vote. Women’s rights have always been won against opposition from some men & frankly far too many women.”