Talk

Advanced search

Jennifer Pritzker strops

(75 Posts)
gcscience Mon 14-Jan-19 23:34:45

Oh I know "family action" sounds a bit traditional and so on, but put your prejudices aside and you might find yourself, like me, agreeing with every word of this most refreshingly phrased article!

illinoisfamilyaction.org/2019/01/the-trans-identifying-pritzker-issues-ultimatum-to-gop/

boatyardblues Mon 14-Jan-19 23:49:54

It is refreshing to read an article for a change where the writer has a solid grasp of the difference between sex and gender. I removed the quote I originally posted above to reduce the chances of my post being deleted.

womanformallyknownaswoman Tue 15-Jan-19 00:30:53

Maybe the Democrats will need to be reminded of "careful what you wish for, you just might get it".

Funkyfunkybeat12 Tue 15-Jan-19 02:48:46

Put your prejudices aside? This is a group who says on their ‘about’ page that they do not believe that the family includes same sex couples. So excuse me if I say fuck off when heterosexual people expect me to put my prejudice aside and embrace a group that fundamentally hates me just because they wrote an article that the op agrees with. Is it just gays that are fair game or would you expect BAME people to put aside their prejudices to read articles by Britain First?

FWRLurker Tue 15-Jan-19 05:00:06

It is actually upsetting to read this article alongside the rest of the unscientific drivel re: climate change denial, “gay families aren’t families”, the evil satanic public education system, etc on that website.

Makes one immediately associate actually reasonable arguments with that other trash. Well Any stopped clock is right twice each day I suppose. Still, ick.

PineappleSunrise Tue 15-Jan-19 06:13:57

It is a timely reminder that, along with the reasonable agreement on two sexes/no limits on behaviours various political tribes have found on this issue, there is likely still a split between people who think that gender nonconformity is FINE actually and are brindling against being forced into a binary by a bunch of well-meaning fools who think that non-conformity to stereotypes needs to be pathologised, and people who actually think that gender stereotypes ARE sex and want everyone to conform.

I'm not a member of the latter group, you may have guessed.

RiddleyW Tue 15-Jan-19 06:22:47

Please don’t direct people to that poisonous website.

RiddleyW Tue 15-Jan-19 06:24:41

Also what are the prejudices you want me to put aside? My prejudices against homophobia?

QuentinWinters Tue 15-Jan-19 07:27:46

Great post lurker

frazzled1 Tue 15-Jan-19 07:58:00

In addition to his strong, persistent desire to masquerade as a woman, he apparently has a strong, persistent desire to have others not only see that he wants to be a woman but treat him as if he were a woman. But that’s a bridge too far because it requires of others that they deny both reality and, in many cases, their religious beliefs.

This.

gcscience Tue 15-Jan-19 09:06:47

So excuse me if I say fuck off when heterosexual people expect me to put my prejudice aside and embrace a group that fundamentally hates me just because they wrote an article that the op agrees with. Is it just gays that are fair game or would you expect BAME people to put aside their prejudices to read articles by Britain First?

Also what are the prejudices you want me to put aside? My prejudices against homophobia?

I suggested you put your prejudices aside regarding the website name as I did.

FYI I didn't read anything else on the website and didn't suggest you did so either. I accept no responsibility that you did so, you're an adult. I was completely unaware of any repellant content on the site. I suggested reading an article which I agree with. To suggest that I agree with statements which I have never read is not on, and makes you look extremely stupid. If you have legitimate concerns about homophobic content on that site I suggest you direct your anger/comments to the writers or publishers, not to me who has never even read said content. When I stumbled across the article I saw no reason to conduct a hazard analysis just in case anyone went further than I did.

Funkyfunkybeat12 Tue 15-Jan-19 09:19:29

Right. Sure. I mean it’s the name that’s the problem, not the very obvious viewpoint they take. Family action by itself means very little, but it’s extremely obvious just from clicking on the ‘about’ button what they’re about and where they make the lovely statement that they don’t think same sex couples count as families.

Why would my concerns about homophobia not be valid? I thought that was clear in my post but if you need me to spell it out, I am a lesbian. So you telling me to put my prejudice aside actually grates on me and I find it upsetting. As I asked before, would you link to eg Britain First and tell BAME people to get over their prejudice about the name? I really hope you wouldn’t.

The article doesn’t even say anything that others haven’t said in a more polite and measured way.

gcscience Tue 15-Jan-19 09:30:15

I told that I didn't click on the about button (I was on my phone, the only thing I remember seeing was the article itself).

they make the lovely statement that they don’t think same sex couples count as families.

I told you I didn't read this.

As I asked before, would you link to eg Britain First and tell BAME people to get over their prejudice about the name? I really hope you wouldn’t.

You are falsely insinuating things again and I feel you need to apologise.

I failed to realise a site called family action was a site containing homophobia that is all. That is the sum total of my sin. Stop making my actions be more than what they are.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed Tue 15-Jan-19 09:31:07

Oh I know "family action" sounds a bit traditional and so on...

It sounds a bit 'traditional' because it's part of the name of a group that support 'traditional' values like homophobia and racism.

It is not always the case that my enemy's enemy is my friend. These people may agree with us one issue, but they do so for very different reasons, so we really should not be cosying up to them because they do not have the best interests of women (or gay, or BAME people) at heart.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed Tue 15-Jan-19 09:33:16

When I stumbled across the article I saw no reason to conduct a hazard analysis just in case anyone went further than I did.

You should have done! It's a good idea to check exactly who or what you are endorsing when you share a link you wholeheartedly agree with.

gcscience Tue 15-Jan-19 09:39:40

You should have done! It's a good idea to check exactly who or what you are endorsing when you share a link you wholeheartedly agree with.

I endorsed the article only and still do. I did not endorse the writer (who) nor did I endorse the website (what).

I personally feel it is peoples' own responsibility if they click on something which I didn't even mention, not mine. (ie the about button which was not to my recollection visible on my phone)

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed Tue 15-Jan-19 09:48:42

Oh I know "family action" sounds a bit traditional and so on, but put your prejudices aside and you might find yourself, like me, agreeing with every word of this most refreshingly phrased article!

Your OP. Where you told us to put aside our prejudices about the name of the organisation and we might agree with the writer. Did the name not ring any alarm bells?

It is a good idea to check the veracity and credentials of a source before you recommend it in such glowing terms, especially when the name of the source pretty much tells you the agenda.

albumcover Tue 15-Jan-19 09:59:22

This debate can lead us into shark infested waters. Rod Liddle is another example of citing repellent commentators because they happen to share an opinion on one subject matter. I think funkyfunkybeat12 makes a really good point and I agree with her in this instance.

gcscience Tue 15-Jan-19 10:06:04

No, Family Action did not ring any alarm bells.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed Tue 15-Jan-19 10:12:04

No, Family Action did not ring any alarm bells.

I'm very surprised by that because terms like 'family action' are usually only seen as part of the name of fundamental Christian organisations who promote racism while opposing gay rights and, ironically, the rights of women.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have led a particularly sheltered life so aren't aware of this.

gcscience Tue 15-Jan-19 10:12:23

Do you think I'm homophobic and racist?

gcscience Tue 15-Jan-19 10:13:54

I havent had a sheltered life at all but do not know much about religious fundamentalism, why would I?

albumcover Tue 15-Jan-19 10:15:55

Anything with ‘family’ in its name usually has the fundamentalist Christian and Far Right alarm bells ringing for me!

OldCrone Tue 15-Jan-19 10:17:06

It is not always the case that my enemy's enemy is my friend. These people may agree with us one issue, but they do so for very different reasons, so we really should not be cosying up to them because they do not have the best interests of women (or gay, or BAME people) at heart.

I think this gets to the root of why we are where we are. The division of ideas and policies that align or don't align with other ideas. If you're left wing, it's expected that along with not being homophobic or racist, you will be totally accepting of trans ideology. Conversely, if you are sceptical about trans ideology (because it's anti-woman and regressive), there is an assumption amongst some people that you must also be homophobic and agree with any number of other offensive ideologies.

What needs to be worked on is the idea that a number of ideas 'go together', and that if you agree with one you must agree with some or all of the others.

Of course the other real problem here is that trans ideology seems to have been swallowed whole by both sides as being progressive, instead of being seen for the regressive, homophobic and misogynistic bullshit it really is.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed Tue 15-Jan-19 10:21:00

Do you think I'm homophobic and racist?

I'm assuming you aren't, but if you post links like this with a positive endorsement and a request that people put their 'prejudices aside', a lot of people will think you are.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: