RoseanneDownton

Adult human female.

[Anna Maria Junus @JunusAnna]

Free speech does not mean you get to shut down someone else's speech.

Or that you get to prevent people from listening.

If you don't like what someone is saying, you are free to disagree politely - or stay away.

A lecture is not the place for a tantrum.

[Katie - Restore Britain @Katielou86x]

Yesterday i was called a bigot, a facist, a c*nt, and worse because i want a safe country for my son.

Wake up this morning to see a savage trying to cut a mans head off in the street!!

Save your words you poisonous rats. Nothing you say will make me accept that this is normal

[Colin Wynter KC @QcWynter]

Enough has been enough from first day a man was shipped into a women's prison.
There is no reason at all for men to be imprisoned with women.
Men's personal issues have nothing to do with women & they should not be foisted upon women, especially not in enclosed, confined spaces.

[Stuey Beef 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @stuey_beef]

Henry Nowak was 18 years old.
He was unarmed.
He was walking home.

He was stabbed five times by a man carrying two blades — one of them a large dagger — who then filmed him dying on the floor.

The police arrived, handcuffed the victim, told him “I don’t think you have, mate” when he said he’d been stabbed, and dragged him across gravel.

Three days later, their official statement described Nowak as the aggressor.

That statement was only changed after his family’s outrage.

Now the NPCC chairman says this “should make us pause and reflect.”

Pause and reflect.
Three summers of anticipated disorder.
Three summers of the same cycle — a violent incident, a broken public trust moment, protests, arrests, government platitudes.

The question isn’t whether the police are ready for the next eruption.

The question is why we keep manufacturing the conditions for one.

[RoseanneDownton @terfland]

@SimonFoxWriter Single lady OAP Hastings went to police asking them to remove a male who had got into her house, slept there, dealt drugs, insulted her, intimidated her, and refused to leave. They declined to visit cos trespass = civil matter. Told her "apply to the county court to evict him."

[Simon Fox @SimonFoxWriter]

If you were a law-abiding citizen, the UK’s police forces used to be your allies. That’s no longer true. If you’re an ordinary white person, you’d better just stay out of their way, if you know what’s good for you. In their view, you’re a criminal, just for being who you are.

[Benonwine @benonwine]

Mass immigration is NOW the biggest THREAT to all our countries we must all STAND together or we are finished for good.🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇨🇮🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇬🇧

[English Gardener 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @Richard_1942]

@MartinSellner_ If you've seen the horrific Belfast video – remember that in 2020 a fake asylum seeker did the exact same thing to 7-year-old Emily Jones in a Bolton park.

She was 7.

Let that sink in.

Our government and police are not going to protect us. Please be fully aware of this.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

Be angry, but use that anger. Direct it for change. Radical change, through the ballot box. The only way.

Vote. Volunteer. Participate.

Make a difference.

Restore Britain.

[TERFs ‘r’ us ©️ @Terfs_R]

It’s time to say NO.

NO to men in women’s safe spaces.

NO to men in women’s sports.

NO to men in women’s prisons.

NO to adults transing children.

NO to adults gr@@ming children.

Ya hear???

[Alastair Hilton @London_W4]

It’s almost as if when you import the third world, you become the third world. Who’d have thought that importing savages would result in people getting their head cut off in public, thousands of girls getting raped and others getting stabbed and deliberately run down by cars and vans. But let’s just keep importing the third world because, um, racism.

[David Shaw @David90shaw]

🚨 You have all seen the Belfast footage by now. A man nearly beheaded on a public street in broad daylight. Only saved because three brave locals ran in and stopped it themselves.
The police were not there. The government was not there. Ordinary people saved that man's life.
And while that was happening Keir Starmer was in Westminster figuring out how to arrest you for posting about it. Open borders. Two tier policing. Unarmed citizens fighting off attackers alone. This is the Britain Labour built. RT if you are done. 🇬🇧

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

If a migrant comes to our country and attempts to saw a man's head off in the street, a Restore Britain Government will not deport.

With the British people's approval, that savage will be put to death.

But that is not enough - these atrocities will keep happening. The barbarians are already inside the gates.

Immigration will end from countries that are proven to supply us with these monsters.

Third world migrants who hate our way of life will be removed from our country. Restore Britain will deport millions.

I have had enough. The British people have had enough.

We do not have to live like this - there is another way.

Death penalty, mass deportations, end mass immigration.

That is what Restore Britain will do.

[Cervixen of the Clitorians @cervixen]

Good. Please move on and stop lying.

You never actually responded to my position. You do not seem to understand a very simple argument. And, you keep replacing my argument with one I do not hold. I'm not here to waste my time with bad faith actors. My position has been stated. Engage with my actual position or move on. But stop lying in a context where your lies are obvious.

I did not define women by presence or lack of human organs. I did not define women by femininity. I did not argue for biblical or conservative gender roles. I did not argue that women should lose rights. I did not say trans people should be mistreated. Those are all your invention, and again, I should thank you for demonstrating the point of my thread so perfectly.

My position is simple: women are adult human females; sex is a material reality; atypical female development does not make someone male; and male people are not female people by identity.

That is not conservative or religious. It is materialist.

The ideological, anti-materialist claim is that an inner gender essence overrides the body, that words must be reorganized around that belief, and that everyone else must affirm what cannot be materially demonstrated. That is what gender essentialists have in common, whether they are religious conservatives on the right or ideologically indoctrinated "progressives" on the left.

You can disagree with me. But calling my feminist, atheist, and materialist argument “evangelical” because some conservatives opportunistically use the issue as a beat stick against the left who championed nonsense uncritically, is not an analysis of my argument. It is guilt by association and a lack of self-awareness on your part. The intellectual void created by a highly contested nonsense ideology backed by low quality evidence was an obvious target for the right seeing their opponents make stupid and divisive mistakes against their own party and principles.

If you want to know why president pussy-grabber was re-elected, despite a failure of a first term, take a look in the mirror and know the majority preferred a clown president over your ideological Shibboleths. That is the lesson you should have learned, bit instead you will continue to attack actual anti-authrotiarian, liberal feminists on the left for "reasons." I can only imagine it's because you like losing or are indoctrinated beyond reason.

I oppose conservative and religious control of women.

I also oppose redefining women out of sex-based rights.

Those are not contradictory positions.

Pretending they are is doing real harm to children, women and girls, lesbians and gay men, liberalism, and the left.

[Queen Bee @KingBobIIV]

I genuinely believe this government and previous governments have deliberately allowed the mass invasion of foreign men, allowed the mass r*pe of our women and children by foreign and homegrown men, to make us so angry, we would happily accept restrictions on our lives and privacy, if it meant ending it.

Watch the news of the coming weeks. Their argument will be, if you oppose these restrictions, you basically want children r*ped.

This is what they will say.

Bookmark this and watch them emotionally blackmail you and shame you in to submission.

[Pat @KhunPat27]

Children seeing nudity online? Unacceptable.

Men parading through British city centres in leather fetish gear during “Pride” pretending to be dogs? Teaching primary students about anal sex? Stunning and brave.

Got it 👍

[Bev Jackson @BevJacksonAuth]

The activists who disrupted the talks given by @michaelpforan may have had a little short-term success in stopping him carry on. In the longer term, however, they can be sure that more people will now hear and read his talks than before. That’s how these things work.

Furthermore, every action of this kind is counterproductive in a broader sense. In displaying the belligerence and intolerance of the gender identity zealots, it bolsters the movement that promotes freedom of speech and the restoration of sex-based rights worldwide.

[Eloise… dynamite with a laser beam! @WorldWearyWoman]

There is no evidence that trans inclusion is systemically harmful to women nor lesbians, gay men and bisexual people.

It’s an issue on “the right” because they recognise that relying on (simplified) biological definitions - which have been explicitly rejected by UK Parliament -

[Cervixen of the Clitorians @cervixen]

The Core Differences

The central conflict is this:

Gender-critical feminism treats sex as material reality and gender as a social hierarchy to be dismantled.

Gender-identity ideology treats internal identity as primary and asks law, language, institutions, and sometimes other people’s boundaries to reorganize around that identity.

Gender-critical feminists argue that a just society can protect trans-identified people from cruelty and discrimination without erasing sex, redefining women, weakening safeguarding, or compelling everyone else to pretend that sex is irrelevant.

The Core Similarities

Despite the conflict, both sides often begin from several shared moral concerns.

Both generally agree that people should not be punished, abused, or excluded from ordinary life because they are gender-nonconforming, trans-identified, homosexual, bisexual, masculine, feminine, or otherwise noncompliant with sex stereotypes.

Both generally oppose rigid sex stereotypes. Neither side, at its best, wants boys and girls forced into narrow roles of masculinity and femininity.

Both generally recognize that trans-identified people can face cruelty, harassment, family rejection, employment discrimination, social isolation, and violence, and that such treatment is wrong.

Both generally agree that people should be free to dress, speak, behave, and present themselves in ways that do not conform to traditional expectations of their sex.

Both generally claim to be defending dignity, autonomy, and safety.

The disagreement is not over whether people deserve humane treatment. They do.

The disagreement is over whether subjective gender identity should override objective sex in society, culture, language, governance, law, safeguarding, medicine, sport, data, and female-only spaces.

The Core Contradiction

Gender Critical sex realist treats sex as a material fact and gender stereotypes as irrelevant to whether someone is male or female. A masculine woman is still female. A feminine man is still male. Personality, clothing, behaviour, interests, body modification, and inner feelings do not determine sex.

Trans activists and genderists claim to reject sex stereotypes, but actively reintroduce and endorse them by treating a person’s relationship to masculinity, femininity, social recognition as male or female, body discomfort, or “inner sense of gender” as evidence that a person is "trans" and that they belong to the opposite sex category.

This is why gender-critical feminists argue their position is less sexist: no stereotype can make a man a woman or a woman a man, and no rejection of stereotypes can make a woman less female or a man less male.

The gender-critical position is that gender stereotypes tell us nothing about a person's sex or identity.

The gender-identity position is: stereotypes are not supposed to define sex, but somehow a tiny minority's internal relationship to those same gender stereotypes must become the basis for redefining sexed language for the overwhelming majority.

[Cervixen of the Clitorians @cervixen]

Thwse are common misrepresentations of the GC/TERF position:

Misrepresentation: “GC feminists think women must be feminine.”

Actual GC Position: GC feminism rejects femininity as a requirement of womanhood. A woman is female whether or not she conforms to feminine stereotypes.

Misrepresentation: “GC feminists hate trans people.”

Actual GC Position: The position is about defending sex-based language, law, safeguarding, and feminism, not trans people. Disagreement with gender-identity doctrine is not hatred of individuals.

Misrepresentation: “GC feminists want to police bathrooms by appearance.”

Actual GC Position: The sex-based rights of women protect gender-nonconforming women from harrassment. Female-only means female-only, not performatively-feminine only.

Misrepresentation: “GC feminists erase intersex people.”

Actual GC Position: GC feminists argue that DSDs are real medical variations within sex development, not proof that sex is imaginary or self-definable.

Misrepresentation: “GC feminists reduce women to reproduction.”

Actual GC Position: No. The claim is not that women exist to reproduce. The claim is that women are oppressed because of the material reality of female embodiment versus the material reality of male embodiement, and the sexist assumptions and stereotypes constructed around the material reality of human sexual dimorphism.

Misrepresentation: “GC feminists deny trans people exist.”

Actual GC Position: GC feminists deny that gender identity changes sex. A person can identify as transgender or gender nonconforming without requiring sex categories be rewritten around their gender identity because sex and gender are different. When people equate gender identity and sex, they are being gender essentialist and sexist.

Misrepresentation: “GC feminists are conservative.”

Actual GC Position: Not necessarily. The position is rooted in materialist feminism, free speech, safeguarding, bodily autonomy, and opposition to sex stereotypes.

Materialism and free expression are not “right-wing.” They are historically central to left-wing politics:

- materialism analyzes power and social constructionism through real, material conditions rather than ideology or mysticism, and

- free expression is necessary to counter fascism and populism ecause dissenting movements cannot challenge power without the right to name reality, argue openly, and criticize institutions.

Gender-critical feminism is not a conservative backlash against progress. It is a continuation of left-wing principles: material analysis, opposition to stereotyping, defence of women’s sex-based rights, freedom of conscience, and resistance to institutional propaganda and language controls.

That does not mean every GC person is left-wing, or that the left has always been consistent on free speech.

But materialism, anti-essentialism, free inquiry, and dissent against institutional orthodoxy are all historically compatible with the left, and arguably foundational to the left.