Gender again. Sorry!

[theclaud]

I've decided to lighten this up with beer gender problems, before we all kill ourselves.


View: https://twitter.com/moylato/status/1631987540017250305?t=IylZdd-q1nxzxtD_IyLttA&s=19

 

[monkers]

Disingenuous rewriting of what I have said as per usual. I'm not prepared to cave in to the demands of transactivists just to look like I am being kind. The kindness you demand comes at a cost to others. You could be kind and campaign for third spaces and extra provision for trans people rather than demanding access to women's single sex facilities, services, and sports.

You talk about 'disingenuous writing' and then provide the perfect example of it, by repeating the lie that I am making 'demands'.

The truth is I've made no demands, this is yet more of your invention. It doesn't stop though does it? You just go on and on making all this stuff up.

I did not give you an opinion on sports either. In fact I said this ...

Neither do I know much about sport. On that basis I recuse myself from this topic area.

So that's another porky you are telling.

I've never said there are more than two sexes. I've never said that by default all trans offenders simply go to a prison of their choice, or that I support the idea that they should. I made a clear post about this again today. How can you carry on keeping up these lies about what I say? Do you not understand just how this makes you appear? You appear irrational and obsessive.

I don't share your views of what it is to be a woman, because you demand that all women model themselves on your own set of ideals. I don't want to be anything like you. I have more own preferences; these are based on who I am rather than who I am not. Women are not women because they are not men, or because they lack a penis, or only because they have a vagina, have gametes, marry men, bear children or whatever. We are not the sum of a random set of body parts that we didn't select, we are who we are due the contents of our heads, that is where identity lies, not between the legs.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Women are not women because they are not men, or because they lack a penis, or only because they have a vagina, have gametes, marry men, bear children or whatever.

They are women simply because they are born female. Which is a much more sensible basis for a definition than a feeling in your head, or a set of stereotypes of dress or behaviour.

We are not the sum of a random set of body parts that we didn't select, we are who we are due the contents of our heads, that is where identity lies, not between the legs.

Woman isn't a feeling in the head. Woman isn't an identity that can be adopted. A man has no frame of reference for what a woman feels like so cannot 'feel' like a woman, and vice versa. Gender identity is based on stereotypes and without stereotypes of what a woman is there would be nothing for a man to identify with. All covered at length in this thread already.

 

[monkers]

Woman isn't a feeling in the head. Woman isn't an identity. A man has no frame of reference for what a woman feels like so cannot 'feel' like a woman, and vice versa. Gender identity is based on stereotypes and without stereotypes of what a woman is there would be nothing for a man to identify with.

Try telling that to Shania Twain!

Next you'll be telling me that you are colour-blind and that is your biological reality, life without colour, and that colour is based on stereotypes and are concepts existing only in other people's heads.

Most people don't have to think about their gender identity because it is congruent with their genital sex. Most people don't have to think about their sexuality, because it is congruent with their sexual identity. For those of us in the LGBT community we have to spend time wrestling with this stuff to make sense of ourselves. That is our reality.

 

[multitool]

Not sure what thread to put this in, so I'll put it in here, because there is a link.

US watchers are getting a preview of what is to come in the UK, an attempt to roll back rights for a number of groups including women. Trans rights are the wedge issue, but just the tip of the wedge. Already in the US we can see outright banning of abortion, the "don't say gay" laws, and a direct attack on the ability of trans people to live their own lives as they wish.

In the UK we have what looks like a concerted push to bring back Section 28, with 'urgent PMQs' from the likes of Miriam Cates claiming that primary children are being taught sexual techniques and so on.

Total bollocks, of course. Its almost as if these people think we've never met a primary school teacher


View: https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1633531980733186048?s=20

 

[multitool]

And here is good old Kellie going to Australia to campaign against teenage contraception, accompanied by an anti-abortionist


View: https://twitter.com/ICanSeeForever1/status/1633479544916045824?s=20

And for a bit of context, UK has always had a ridiculously high rate of teenage pregnancy...but, between 1993 and 2020, the under-18 conception rate in England and Wales decreased by 69%. Can't think why...

 

[theclaud]

And here is good old Kellie going to Australia to campaign against teenage contraception, accompanied by an anti-abortionist


View: https://twitter.com/ICanSeeForever1/status/1633479544916045824?s=20

And for a bit of context, UK has always had a ridiculously high rate of teenage pregnancy...but, between 1993 and 2020, the under-18 conception rate in England and Wales decreased by 69%. Can't think why...

Actually just openly coming for Gillick competence. It's not yet too late for anyone hitherto taken in by this antifeminist grift to hold their hands up. And to maybe reflect on their position on related issues!

Not that I'm holding my breath.

 

[AuroraSaab]

KJK is one voice among many. There are plenty of us who disagree partially or wholly with her position, both on this and other issues. She gets a lot of airtime but I wouldn't say she is representative of most UK gender critical feminists. There's no organised, united UK feminism. Nobody's in charge. KJK is free to follow her own path on these issues just as other groups/organisations do.

 

[theclaud]

KJK is one voice among many. There are plenty of us who disagree partially or wholly with her position, both on this and other issues. She gets a lot of airtime but I wouldn't say she is representative of most UK gender critical feminists. There's no organised, united UK feminism. Nobody's in charge. KJK is free to follow her own path on these issues just as other groups/organisations do.

LOL she's literally managed to persuade you she's a 'women's rights activist' - you said as much upthread - and got thousands of people who spout rhetoric identical to yours to go to rallies, share her content and buy her merch. Has it sunk in yet that she is actively working against women's rights, gay rights and the sexual liberation of everyone as well as transgender rights, and that the interests she represents are way more dangerous to all of us than even the knottiest problem of who gets to compete in which race or which horrible corner of the prison industrial complex is the least worst place to keep Isla Bryson? Your face won't be first on the leopards' menu, Aurora, but they will eat your face in the end.

 

[multitool]

Yup...

Tangible threat versus AS's intangibles

 

[AuroraSaab]

LOL she's literally managed to persuade you she's a 'women's rights activist' - you said as much upthread - and got thousands of people who spout rhetoric identical to yours to go to rallies, share her content and buy her merch. Has it sunk in yet that she is actively working against women's rights, gay rights and the sexual liberation of everyone as well as transgender rights, and that the interests she represents are way more dangerous to all of us than even the knottiest problem of who gets to compete in which race or which horrible corner of the prison industrial complex is the least worst place to keep Isla Bryson? Your face won't be first on the leopards' menu, Aurora, but they will eat your face in the end.

I could say the same about many transactivists, ie. that they have a more extensive agenda. But if I did you'd call it pearl clutching, dog-whistling, alarmist, or claim that they are outliers.

You continually go down the guilt by association route as though KJK represents every gender critical feminist in the UK. She doesn't. This idea that women shouldn't talk about any of the stuff that concerns them because other people, whoever they might be, might latch on to the same stuff for other reasons is very odd though. It's just another way of getting women to shut up.

'If you women don't shut up about prisons and sports you'll lose your abortion rights' is just old school misogyny repackaged as being progressive.

It's a protection racket argument. 'Stay with me. I'll look after you'. Women are told all the time that we are protected from the abortion/contraception denying Right by sticking with the sex denying Left, when in reality neither group truly has women's interests at heart.

Aside from this, the idea that women are unable to make their own analysis of whatever it is that KJK is offering and are all idiotic sheep following her blindly is insulting. It's also insulting to suggest that women aren't allowed to be concerned about more than one issue at a time. They don't have to abandon concern about males in prisons and sports because other rights might be under threat.

 

[theclaud]

I could say the same about many transactivists, ie. that they have a more extensive agenda. But if I did you'd call it pearl clutching, dog-whistling, alarmist, or claim that they are outliers.

You continually go down the guilt by association route as though KJK represents every gender critical feminist in the UK. She doesn't. This idea that women shouldn't talk about any of the stuff that concerns them because other people, whoever they might be, might latch on to the same stuff for other reasons is very odd though. It's just another way of getting women to shut up.

'If you women don't shut up about prisons and sports you'll lose your abortion rights' is just old school misogyny repackaged as being progressive.

It's a protection racket argument. 'Stay with me. I'll look after you'. Women are told all the time that we are protected from the abortion/contraception denying Right by sticking with the sex denying Left, when in reality neither group truly has women's interests at heart.

Aside from this, the idea that women are unable to make their own analysis of whatever it is that KJK is offering and are all idiotic sheep following her blindly is insulting. It's also insulting to suggest that women aren't allowed to be concerned about more than one issue at a time. They don't have to abandon concern about males in prisons and sports because other rights might be under threat.

Right, so seeing as you can make up your own mind, perhaps you could reassure us that you understand why girls need access to contraception without their parents permission, and can confirm that you support this right and will oppose any attempt to restrict it? Thx.

Just trying to nudge you towards some kind of recognition of the importance of bodily autonomy.

You do what you can. You plant seeds...

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not sure why you imagine I share the same view as KJK on contraception for under 16's. I don't. I support UK law as it currently stands, which balances the welfare of a child under 16 with parental rights. Similarly I support the UK law on abortion which balances women's autonomy with the rights of the developing foetus. Both the contraceptive pill and hospital abortions are mostly safe and with few long term side effects so it's reasonable to think that those under 16 can (usually) demonstrate informed consent.

Bodily autonomy is important but none of us truly have it, even adults. Bearing in mind that they now reckon that your brain doesn't mature until 25, we should be cautious about extending the 'bodily autonomy' argument further in order to push treatments to under 16's that are irreversible, do have detrimental side effects, and for which there is limited good quality long term research on their effectiveness. (If that is what you are alluding to; you weren't clear).

And of course, our rights to do what we want with our bodies doesn't allow us to ride rough shod over everybody else's rights.

 

[theclaud]

parental rights

Sorry, what?

 

[Ian H]

Sorry, what?

Probably an autocorrect for 'responsibilities'.