Adjunct Terf

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@SamBarber1910 @jessesingal Maybe this was a not a great place to stake a moral claim:

"These emails should never have been published. Anyway, here they all are, they're fascinating!"

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

"the flamboyant fox-finisher" 🤣

[Julie Burchill @BoozeAndFagz]

Jolyon Maugham and the rise and fall of the celebrity lawyer https://t.co/DLbncpSzY4 IT'S ME IN THE SPEC! @GoodLawProject

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@FondOfBeetles @RayAlexWilliams Agreed, I spent much of the '90s on E. Totally changed my weekend, not my sex.

[Cervixen of the Clitorians @cervixen]

Correct. Left-handed people were harmed because society treated a natural trait as something that needed social, physical and medical correction, largely because of superstition and negative stereotypes around left-handedness.

But the solution was not to redefine left-handed people as right-handed.

It was not to change the meaning of left and right, socially or legally affirm left-handed people as “right-handed,” suggest they could be "cured" by handedness-affirming surgical interventions, or force everyone else to describe them as right-handed, even when they can clearly see which hand they prefer.

The solution was to stop pathologizing left-handedness.

That is the lesson.

Being left-handed is not a physical, moral, or psychological human defect. It is a normal human variation. It is a description of dimorphic human physiology.

Likewise, being a gender-nonconforming male or female person is not a defect. Sex is normal human variation. It is a description of dimorphic human physiology. Our sex is not a physical, moral, or psychological human defect. It is not a problem. It does not need your "solution."

A person being gender nonconforming does not mean a person's sex is a mismatch with their "gender". Sex and gender are different. They don't have to match and they often don't. That does not prove sex is wrong, it proves that gender is socially constructed and not an essential human trait.

Gender nonconformity does not indicate a person's "gender identity" is mismatched with their sex. It does not mean their pubescent state is a mismatch with their aspirational gender presentation. It does not mean language must be rewritten so it matches with the belief that a human can be mismatched with their own body. It does not mean material reality disappears and true believers don't have to experience the cognitive dissonance inherent in their beliefs. Changing the meaning of words does not change the physical reality the words describe.

The problem is not gender nonconformity. The problem is not sex. The problem is not gender. Just like with left-handedness, the problem is that there is no problem. The problem is the people who treat it like a peoblem.

The actual problem is the solutions imposed on everyone for a problem that only exists because of people pathologizing and problematizing normal human variation. And, the problem is made worse by people who profit and politic by pathologizing normal human variation with unnecessary, intrusive, and dangerously stupid, abusive and evil medical, psychological interventions. And, it becomes everyone's problem when social and legal policy that rests on a foundation of pathologizing normal human variation.

The actual problem is treating a human's sex as a mistake to be socially, legally, psychologically, or medically corrected. Tha actual problem is telling someone theybwere born wrong because they do not fit their internalized stereotypes about masculinity or femininity. The problem is forcing others to believe that a person's sex can be defined as socially, legally, psychologically or medically "wrong".

Your analogy identifies the problem correctly. Unfortunately your analogy also points out nicely that the solutions you think are justified are only justifiable to sociopaths, and those with no scruples or sense.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@JBlackstarcat You're a handsome man. Try not to worry, you look great.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@PompeySteph @red_mutant_eyes @akuareindorf @stellacreasy There was an old man who lived in a womanhood. Yes, much harder to rebut.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@pk13510 But all straight people marry for true love and then stay happily married for life.

[Read some Piaget please! @prof_curiosity1]

https://t.co/3FqzNWdukN

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@g1c2 @HelenWebberley Is it when you don't identify with the joy you were assigned at birth?

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@Glinner Congrats on the verdict Graham. Aware it's no laughing matter, but I cant stop giggling at the sheer improbability of this tweet.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@MattWallace888

[Seán Ako 🇮🇪 @TheAkoFiles]

Nadia Whittome told Parliament that a “tiny radicalised minority” is not representative of women or the LGBTQ community before insisting it is her duty to amplify trans voices.

Funny how that duty never extends to gays and lesbians who don’t recognise themselves in the ever-expanding acronym.
Because if you’re going to talk about representation, it should apply to everyone, not just trendy identities.

Instead, what we see from politicians like Nadia is selective amplification. Some voices are elevated, others like myself, are treated as inconvenient.

She describes herself as a “queer woman” who feels indebted to the trans community for the rights she enjoys today.

Be for real like.

The rights gay people fought for were grounded in the reality that we are same-sex attracted. Not same-gender. Not same-identity. Same SEX.

Those rights weren’t won so that homosexuality could be redefined into something ideological.

When politicians rewrite that history, at a parliamentary level, they are repurposing it.

She then asks, “What kind of person would I be to pull the ladder up now?”

The answer is, you already have.

When you blur the definition of homosexuality beyond recognition, you don’t extend the ladder. You make it disappear for the next generation.

Young gays deserve clarity about who they are. Instead, they are handed a vocabulary so abstract it now means nothing at all.

Despite what gets repeated in Parliament, there are plenty of us who do not feel represented by “Big Gay”, queer theory, or by political movements that speak over us while claiming to speak for us.

As a normie young gay, I would rather listen to people like @BevJacksonAuth and @DreyfusJames whose histories are dismissed because they still understand what homosexuality actually is.
I’d rather look to them, and the likes of @AjaTheEmpress and @MrMennoTweets, the people who, despite all the abuse and death threats, are still defending the meaning of same-sex attraction.

That takes more courage than repeating the same safe talking points from inside an ideological echo chamber. 
That shouldn’t be controversial. Yet somehow it is.

Whittome insists “there is no LGB without the T”, that “we rise together and fall together.”

But gays and lesbians did rise. Long before this mandatory ideological merge.

The tension today isn’t coming from people asking questions. It’s coming from the growing expectation that we must all agree, keep quiet or otherwise lose our careers.

That mindset will be our downfall.

And when we attempt to create our own spaces, events, or even language, what happens?
Protests. Smears. Disruptions. Conspiracy-laced accusations.

For a movement that talks endlessly about autonomy, there is a striking refusal to let same-sex attracted people define themselves.

“No LGB without the T” doesn’t sound like solidarity.

It sounds like a demand. Almost like an abusive-ex who refuses to accept the breakup.
“If I can’t have you, no one can.”

No one speaks for me because of who I’m attracted to.
No party. No ideology. No acronym.

Representation isn’t self appointed. You either have it granted, or withheld, by the people you claim to speak for.

And if increasing numbers of LGBs are stepping back and saying, “You do not represent us,” maybe the responsible response isn’t to silence them, but to finally start listening.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@NadiaWhittomeMP Gay man here, fuck right off.

[Sex Matters @SexMattersOrg]

We are not “infiltrating” the Council of Europe’s vote.

We are asking our elected representatives to vote to protect children.

Will you add your voice to ours? https://t.co/5k4aJIjLBK

[James Dreyfus @DreyfusJames]

*PLEASE RT* Account restricted.

Nah @KaskaJessica

I’m not reevaluating a damn thing.

I’ve seen firsthand what your spiteful, misogynistic, homophobic movement has done.

I watched you slowly , but surely, destroy every single thing we built.

Stop trying to gaslight me.

You insisted on violating women’s spaces & sports.

You insisted on involving other people’s children.

You insisted on being as vile & despicable to every single person who attempted to debate with you.

Your ‘movement’ is going down the pan.

People are wising up.

You want to drag us all down with you.

Ain’t gonna happen. 🤷

PLEASE RT. Account restricted.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@basilYam "I’ll certainly give that some thought." which means I will never think of this again.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@DreyfusJames Thanks a million for everything. From the 90s and beyond, but especially of late, you’ve been an absolute tonic through all of this.

[James Dreyfus @DreyfusJames]

Mmmm. Very pretty & professional looking, I’ll admit…

I’ll also admit I wasn’t instrumental in LGB activism, like Bev Jackson, Kate Harris or Fred Sargeant, but, if I may, I’d like to correct the multitude of errors that litter this statement (again, very pretty, all typed out neatly, by Miffy The Whiffy Gamer… either from some bot or his imagination)

But let’s get a few facts straight, shall we?

I’ve been a vocally out gay actor since 1990. In those days, if you were gay, & open about it, you were only cast in gay parts. And it was bloody difficult.

I worked for The London Gay Theatre Company in 1992 & 1994. I was in many different LGB plays throughout the 90’s, & was interviewed & spoke about being “openly gay” with Gay Times, Attitude, The Pink Paper & many other gay publications. In every interview I gave, it was mentioned (much to my eventual boredom & to the irritation of the gay press, who seemed to be frustrated at me for not believing that being gay was the most interesting thing about me.)

In 1993, I was part of the West End cast of “Elegies for Angels, Punks & Raging Queens”, alongside Regina Fong, Simon Fanshawe, Trudie Styler, Kim Cresswell & many others. The show was about those who’d died from AIDS, & every night, we raised a significant amount of money for AIDS charities. We also all performed on the main stage at Pride that year.

In 1994, I was in New York during the Gay Games, where I made a film about lesbian ice skating, which we shot on location. I marched with Ian Mckellen (who was also in the film) & Martin Sherman, to celebrate the Games.

In 1996, myself & 6 other openly gay actors were part of a successful little indie film called “Boyfriends”. Again, we all vocally supported gay rights in various interviews.

In 1997, Stonewall invited me to their Equality Show at the Albert Hall, to high kick with the Tiller Girls, as part of a small group of out performers, including Stephen Fry, Jimmy Somerville, Simon Fanshawe, to encourage others to come out & be proud. Yes, we were actually “celebrated” by Stonewall back then, believe it or not.

In 1999, I played a controversial, purposefully vile gay character in Jonathan Harvey’s sitcom ‘Gimme Gimme Gimme’. It was controversial because it was one of the first gay characters that was entirely comfortable with his sexuality, was vulgarly open about it & wasn’t always portrayed in a positive light. The gay press were not happy, initially, but it apparently grew on them. The series continued until 2001. Again, I did interview after interview discussing & championing gay rights.

In 2000, I played Bette Midler’s ‘openly gay’ musical accompanist, Oscar, in the short lived sitcom ‘Bette’. Being a series regular, I used my voice in interviews to speak up for gay rights.

In 2004, I took part in the first series of Gordon Ramsey’s Hell’s Kitchen, raising £40, 000 for my chosen charity The Terence Higgins Trust, which I publicly supported & endorsed endlessly.

Do bear in mind, there was no social media as we know it now.

I joined Twitter in 2014. From 2000 to 2014, LGB people had achieved equality & for the first time, it seemed to be ok to be gay.

I rejoined the fight online when I saw the damage the TQ+ was now was doing to the rights we’d, as gay people, had already won, at much cost. I was reluctant & angry, as I’d thought we’d been there, done that, bought the t-shirt etc. But no.

So if you mean I played no part in the fight for LGB rights, you’d either be wrong or lying. The world didn’t start with the advent of the internet.

Perhaps if I stuck on a red beret, a dress, held an Antifa flag & hollered at a crowd through a megaphone to “punch terfs in the f**king face”, I’d already be lauded as a “champion of LGBTQIA+ rights”.

Maybe that was my mistake…🤷

Please RETWEET as my reach is yet again severely restricted. Thank you.

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@elonmuskTN 12

[Adjunct Terf @fielddayfergus]

@MichaelRosenYes @childrensbkshop Please confirm, if my niece reads the book twice does this count as double-dipping?