Bizarre questions and an all-male ‘jury’: woman strangled by US pilot in Britain tells of airbase trial | US military | The Guardian https://t.co/DkTGCmYfwF
A small but fearless group of women from Afghanistan is protesting in the streets of Kabul on International Women’s Day, demanding their basic rights and calling for an end to a gender apartheid regime.
I see Nicola Sturgeon is once again complaining that I posted a picture of myself wearing a T-shirt with her name on it and the legend 'Destroyer of Women's Rights.' Apparently this didn't 'elevate the debate.'
Is there a clinical term for an individual who has extreme thinness of skin when it comes to their own perceived hurts, coupled with a rhino-hide when it comes to the fear and suffering of others?
I'm thinking in particular of the two women Isla Bryson raped, who had to watch their First Minister squirm and smirk on TV as she tried to avoid admitting he was a man; of the five survivors of male violence who were ready to give evidence to Sturgeon's committee on gender self-ID, but were told to put their concerns in writing while seventeen trans-identified people appeared in person; of the mother of a young girl with a learning disability who campaigned against self-ID because she wanted her daughter to be guaranteed same sex intimate care, should she need it (the mother was presumably one of those female opponents Sturgeon calls 'shrill' and 'hysterical' in her memoir); of the ten-year-old girl sexually assaulted in a public bathroom by a 6'5" paedophile who served his jail sentence in a women's prison because he called himself 'Katie'; of Sandie Peggie, forced to discuss her own menstrual history in public to justify not wanting to undress in view of a 6ft straight cross-dresser in the nurses' changing room; of Marion Millar, dragged into court because she tweeted a picture of suffragette ribbons; of the Scottish rape crisis centres reliant on government funding who were pressured to admit trans-identified males into their services if they wanted funding to continue.
When Sturgeon refers to an 'elevated debate', she means a discussion that takes place within a tiny, smug bubble from which regular women suffering real life consequences of her policies are firmly excluded. These faceless ants are loftily dismissed as bigots, or, to be more precise: 'transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, maybe racist as well.'
Nicola, you hated the T-shirt picture because you couldn't ignore it, as you'd ignored so many other women trying to make you understand their concerns. Appeals to your empathy, your intelligence and your compassion all failed. Apparently the only way to get through to you is through your vanity.
@LBC Good Sugar, Bad Sugar (and Stop Drinking Now) - Allen Carr books should be compulsory reading (and exams) in schools - would solve massive percentage of society's health problems in one fell swoop.
Spare a thought today for the UK employers, government departments, health boards, academic institutions and sporting bodies who've been breaking equality law to appease activist groups. So many HR manuals to pulp. So many out-of-court settlements to pay. #SupremeCourt
Any journalist who avoids reporting on gender because they’re scared of “the toxicity of the debate”, by which they mean “getting shouted at on Twitter”, should just hand in their badge. You have shown you care more about popularity than reporting and the exit is that way
The fact that so many UK trans activists are shrieking about injustice says it all. You never had the rights you claim you've now lost; you had demands. Your sense of entitlement grew unchecked because cowards and idiots bowed down to your campaign of intimidation. No longer. 2/2
To those celebrating the fact that I'm smoking a blunt: it's a cigar. Even if it decided to identify as a blunt for the purposes of this celebration, it would remain objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar.
@michaelpforan The key part is that they never had the right to women's private spaces. Women are owed an apology for what we've been put through by governments and organisations who were salivating at the prospect of handing over our hard won rights to whoever wanted to claim them.
That this post has had 1.2M Views but only 2K thought that it was worth sharing tells us a lot about society and the rights of women these days. 1 million people just scrolled by looking for something else to read or post rather than call out the injustice that is meted out to females all over the World but especially in places like Afghanistan. They didn't have to make a post about this article but they could have reposted it as a show of support. This news from @AfghanistanTime is devastating for the young child brides that had escaped their captors (I don't say husbands) who forced marriage on them and will do so again because the Government says that it's ok to do so.
Afghanistan 1970s 👇
How it's going How it was
Taliban have invalidated all divorces granted under previous Afghan government, forcing divorced child brides to return to their former husbands. Thousands of young women, some of whom married as children, are now legally bound to return to adult husbands they had been freed from. The new rule is being widely condemned as a grotesque violation of women’s rights, trapping many in abusive marriages.