GQ Article spectacularly misses point

[Gncq]

www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/transgender-meaning?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Gems in the introduction include
On one side is a marginalised community who simply want the right to identify how they want, to have their lives be easier. On the other is a group who sees potential consequences to this decision, who see this decision as one that ignores the voices of cisgender women
"To have your life be easier" shouldn't involve expecting others to collude in a lie and put women and girls at risk of imposters.
Also, wealthy white students, or white men putting on makeup aren't exactly "marginalised".

Kate Harris is the founder of the LGB Alliance, founded in October 2019, protesting Stonewall's continued inclusion of trans rights
LGBA resist the way trans activism is centred not it's inclusion.

Harne [of Lesbian Rights Alliance] says they believe “trans ideology is a socially constructed invention… invented to legitimise male cross dressers’ perverse and abusive sexual practices of gynophilia” and “make feminine gay men more acceptable”
The last line is written to look like they think feminine gay men should not be acceptable....

Although this admission within the Q&A is good because they seemed desperate to use it otherwise...
In what can be seen as a small victory considering we’re only four questions in, while defining “terf” as a slur was far from unanimous, it was universally condemned by everyone I spoke to on both sides of the argument as antagonistic to further debate

Article hints at "balance". It's Infinitely better than the usual "stunning and brave, stunning and brave, icky evil Terfs" narrative.

[nauticant]

The best admission to me is this:

Stonewall’s Toryn Glavin pointed out that while the ways we expect people to behave because of their gender are indeed a construct, she doesn’t think that means gender itself is a construct. “I hope it’s not, because otherwise my five years of transition were an interesting waste of time,” she said.

[Wonderbag]

“I hope it’s not, because otherwise my five years of transition were an interesting waste of time,” she said.
Eeek

[zanahoria]

There are flaws in that article but at least it attempted to cover the issue in a balanced manner, which is not easy when one side believes in no debate. I bet Stonewall and Mermaids are mighty pissed off that they even featured in the same article as the LGB Alliance and Women's Place.

[Strangerthantruth]

“Gender is something that has been constructed, specifically in Western society,” said Jake Edwards. “It’s actually become a lot stricter in the last hundred years or so. After the war, it became more financially viable to have more than one child

This is just mindblowing. This is the Mermaids communications assistant.

Of course pre 1918 hardly any women had more than one child..er wait.....
stricter in the last 100 years?....absolutely, giving women the vote really did for our rights, didn't it.

How can GQ print this stuff and not be embarrassed.

This is the level of stupid employed by Mermaids. It's beyond parody.

Helen, if you are reading this, Jake's classic pile of BS is why we laugh at you. Clueless.

[Kantastic]

that quote Stranger!

I don't think I have ever seen so much stupid packed into so few words. And I am familiar with much of the collected works of Donald Trump, besides being something of a connoisseur of TRA BS.

Jake, I take my hat off to you. You have stunned me utterly.

(Doesn't GQ have any kind of journalistic duty to point it out when they're printing nonsensical drivel?)

[TabbyStar]

My nan had 8 children, all before the war. Not a lot of contraception going on then....

[Goosefoot]

I am really curious about what it's supposed to mean.

[2ndStar]

FFS. What happened to journalism?

A group who hold a protected characteristic are being enabled to obliterate or reduce the legal rights and protections of other protected groups

The groups objecting to the obliteration or reduction of their legal rights and protections are being castigated and vilified. This is the reality of where we are.

Enough of the “oh but look at this sad transchild, look at this pretty transwoman, look at this masculine transman.”
Tit for tat is pointless, this is not a card game where we reveal our hand - “I see your sad trans child and I raise you one female victim of child on child sexual abuse, one autistic child who doesn’t understand gender but knows what sex is and a child whose religion requires sex segregation.” It’s ridiculous.

This is not about individuals it’s about the fundamental overall balancing of rights and protections for all as is laid out in the Equalities Act. One group is not entitled to override these to their benefit when it creates a detriment to other groups.

The government has to held accountable for their part in enabling the decimation of the practice of the Equalities Act and be forced to take meaningful action to remove and prevent every misinterpretation of the law.

[Thinkingabout1t]

“Gender is something that has been constructed, specifically in Western society,” said Jake Edwards. “It’s actually become a lot stricter in the last hundred years or so. After the war, it became more financially viable to have more than one child”

After really seriously trying to work out what this meant, I conclude that it’s just random words strung together.

[stumbledin]

I was gong to post this link a couple of days ago and then didn't because I thought it would be embarrassing for the GC women who took part!!

What were they thinking?????

[BatShite]

Interested in how its apparently so hard for trans people in lockdown? I don't see why it would be different than it is for anyone else?

[2ndStar]

It must be terribly hard having fewer opportunities to be validated or to find transphobia.

[MoleSmokes]

Goosefoot - "I am really curious about what it's supposed to mean"

BS that can be referenced on some Wikipedia page as part of rewriting "History According to Trans" ?

"He/She/It And All That"

Just because something is insane does no mean that some people will not have a use for it.

(Apparently David Icke is gathering a cult following with the young'uns - and they are not being ironic! Scary!)