Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
There may have been violence. Highly likely in fact given the anger whipped up by the hateful rhetoric from KJK, but this stuff posted up by JKR and lapped up by her followers isn't it.

And three guesses who will get a platform today on UK media with Julia Hartley-Brewer...

I thought it was just shouting? I thought it was just a bit of juice?

People should go online and watch the footage for themselves, including the film of a 70 year old woman getting punched in the face by a man.

Yes, KJK will be in a lot of newspapers and on TV quite a bit, I expect. I read she's got a few thousand new followers on Twitter too. Just proves how counterproductive this kind of transactivism is.

This was you yesterday:
Violence? A woman poured some tomato juice in your hero's hair. And some other women (and men) did some shouting. Your hero's hired thugs grabbed some other women by the throat and pushed them to the ground

Now you've seen the footage and been forced to acknowledge there was violence and aggression. But you still won't condemn it. People will watch the stuff online and decide for themselves fortunately.

Screenshot_20230327_090900_Chrome.jpg
 

multitool

Guest
Oh so it was Saint Kellie-Jay's blood after all. Practically a crucifixion, wasn't it.
 
It's not a lesbian group - it's a hate group.
Not only is it not a lesbian group, it's not even a group for lesbians who happen to be feminists. Membership is not qualified by whom one sleeps with, it is qualified by a shared hatred.
Lol. Why should you have to be a feminist to join? It's for lesbians - same sex attracted women. That's all. Women having boundaries isn't hateful. This is so odd. Nobody would dream of coming on here complaining they it was hateful that they weren't allowed to join a trans advocate group when they weren't trans.

Not only do these people want the right to look under doors in public loos hoping for the sight of a 'penis' to object to, but they want the right to pry into my bedroom to see whom I sleep with and what they have in their knickers. Sick farking perverts.

Classic.
 

matticus

Guru
Transactivists now have Clarkson writing a column in support.
(Mind you, this is the same guy using the headline "2-wheeled Stasi" for his column in a different paper this week, but let's move on ... )
 

monkers

Legendary Member
I'm not sure that is entirely true. For example, if you murder someone your human right to liberty may be taken away.
A biological definition does not take away your human rights. It is essential.

When your surgeon looks at your medical record they don't give a shoot if you dress as a woman and call yourself Barbie, What they care about is your genetics and the layout of your internal organs.

It's true that 'liberty' is included in Article 3.

Some human rights are 'absolute' others are 'qualified'. There is a need to interpret rights by balancing. When a tension exists between absolute rights and qualified rights, the absolute right wins out. For example, the right to practise one's own religion is an absolute right, whereas freedom of expression is a qualified right.

The right to a fair trial is an absolute right. The right to effective right remedy from abuses of the state is an absolute right. When the outcome of a fair trial leads to a sentence of internment, it is not an abuse of the state. The right to liberty is a qualified right. The state reserves the right to liberty, therefore under that circumstance it is a freedom. The prisoner preserves all rights reserved as absolute rights including the right to effective remedy should the state abuse those rights.

Article 3 could not function as an absolute right. It could not guarantee liberty while at the same time guaranteeing security of the person. The state reserves the right to maintain a balance of those rights.
 

multitool

Guest
You seem to have an issue with reading sometimes. @AuroraSaab has already told you that KJK is not her hero. Why continue with such obvious snide invective when you have been informed otherwise unless you wish to silence women. Are you the male chauvinist pig that comes across in this thread? On other topics you seem to be able to debate with thought and intelligence.

Aurora seems to be awfully keen to defend KJK.

That isn't what @AuroraSaab stated. What she stated was that there seemed to be a lot of men trying to silence women. As usual.

You've missed the point. She was completely ignoring the huge numbers of women trying to silence/drown out KJK, and focusing purely on the men, trying to present it as a patriarchal position.

Just because you disagree with something, it doesn't make it a lie. Again you try to patronise and silence people. There is a word for that,.

Except when it is a lie.
 
Transactivists now have Clarkson writing a column in support.
(Mind you, this is the same guy using the headline "2-wheeled Stasi" for his column in a different paper this week, but let's move on ... )

Haven't seen that. Perhaps trying to regain favour after his horrible comments a few weeks ago.
 

multitool

Guest
'It didn't happen.....'
'OK... it did happen but it doesn't matter'.

Says Aurora who yesterday was presenting a counter-factual argument that KJK was killed by transactivists :laugh:
 
Aurora seems to be awfully keen to defend KJK.
I will happily defend her right to meet in public with other women and say what she likes (within the law).

You've missed the point. She was completely ignoring the huge numbers of women trying to silence/drown out KJK, and focusing purely on the men, trying to present it as a patriarchal position.
No, simply pointing out that aggression and violence from men is an age old tactic to stop women meeting. Hard to claim it was mostly just women shouting when you see the footage.

Says Aurora who yesterday was presenting a counter-factual argument that KJK was killed by transactivists :laugh:

Nope. I never said this as you well know. You've dismissed and minimised the violence and the footage of the event has shown you to be wrong.


 

multitool

Guest
Female TRAs are invisible to Aurora.

All TRAs must be men, because only then can they be dismissed as just 'men shouting down women as usual'.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
You never disappoint Monkers.

It's true because the outrage is manufactured. Given the nature of women's loos, women do their business behind a closed and locked door. What they have in their knickers is an irrelevance. A teacher friend of mine is 6ft 1. She is tired of TERFs and GCs assuming that she is a man because she is tall. She is a married woman with children grown weary of idiotic women worrying that she has a penis. On one occasion she caught a woman looking over the top of a cubicle at her suspicious that she might have a penis.

Once out of the cubicle an argument ensured, with the protagonist claiming that as she is a woman another woman shouldn't object to another woman 'checking her'. She went on to say that only 'women have a cervix', to which my friend replied that 'if her cervix is visible then she really should see a doctor'. This situation escalated until my friend had had enough and gave her a fat lip. I should have mentioned that this woman had an accomplice, together they were 'checking women'. It would have made their day no doubt if my friend was a 'penis haver'.


My friend's experience is not unique among tall women. Miranda Hart did a skit in her show about being mistaken for a 'transvestite' which was based on her real experience. Jodie Kidd is the same height as my friend - I must check her for the presence of a penis - she's obviously, you know, dodgy, and I'm sure she won't mind me spying on her.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
TERF genital inspector.

Possible new career for Aurora.

Testing everybody everywhere for the presence of a prostate would be a more reliable test. Nobody would be able to manufacture outrage against her for having their genitals interfered with. This of course would be a public service, guaranteeing everyone's safety from interference.
 
Top Bottom