How British feminism became anti-trans - according to the New York Times

I did wonder whether she'd actually read anything on here, because I assumed she'd be better informed if she had.

Too scary I imagine.

Might have face up to the horrifying reality of biological sex.

Och no floral. They just idiots. Being educated doesn’t mean you can’t be an idiot

that would be assuming that she had written her article from a position of ignorance, rather than simply lying.

It's always a bit depressing to me to realize, as I do more and more frequently, how willing people are to lie, especially women who absolutely must have come across the truth. I'm still quite naive in that part of me believes that once someone honestly examines the situation, they will see what our points are and how we are not at all bigoted or unreasonable, and every single day that is being knocked out of me by people who must have addressed these things and are willing to bare faced lie to shore up their own position in the cult of Genderism.

Pleased to see Amanda Foreman calling it out too:
Every aspect of this one-sided opinion piece is a slur against British feminists
twitter.com/dramandaforeman/status/1093533382343094274?s=21
Odin the Wolf also asks if Sophie wants some cheese to go with her "I cant handle the truth" whine. I think I might adopt that phrase! . Sobs slightly at lack of cheese emoji.

I did wonder whether she'd actually read anything on here, because I assumed she'd be better informed if she had. But that would be assuming that she had written her article from a position of ignorance, rather than simply lying.

Tl:dr.

POMO bollocks.

But when I say "indigenous" in my piece, I mean the colonised people from places Britain colonised (colonises).

That’s not quite what the article said though was it?

Anthropological validation of a single group even being Celts aside (wink wink) , I do wonder of Sophie is aware of the ‘forriner’ content of Roman city/large town cemeteries? Almost twenty percent not from these sceptered isles. Many of whom would have stood a chance of adding to the gene pool.
But I’m sure she knows that, and can define precisely the genetic makeup of an ‘indigenous’ Brit. We are, and probably always have been, mongels.

It is cult like waffle, and I’ll repeat what I’ve said on here before (and what others in various professions have.) Which is that jargon should be a tool to express clearly what you mean. It should be accurate AND precise. You should also be able to explain your work clearly, and simply, for any audience. From schoolkids, to students, to the woman on the Clapham omnibus to experts in your field.

If you can’t, the suspicion lingers that you’re either not understanding it yourself, or you’re deliberately muddying the waters.

Of course she lurks. She's the type who retweets all the fawning adulation for her bag of crap propaganda piece, she's so going to be the type to vanity search.

Plus, you know, powerful radicalization portal. She'll get a wee trill up her spine just scrolling through among the dangerous women.

Oh, OK. Hello Soph. Hang around, you might learn something. You certainly need to.

She Probably lurks or posts, it's an extremely mainstream site after all.

Is Sophie lurking on here? She tweeted this earlier

1/ please do keep your great jokes about Picts & Celts coming. But when I say "indigenous" in my piece, I mean the colonised people from places Britain colonised (colonises).

twitter.com/reproutopia/status/1093929843685814272

I start reading Sophie's words, but my eyes glaze over and brain shuts down before the end of the first sentence.

I'm in awe of those of you actually trying to understand and analyse what she's saying.

nauticant has it. The reason we feel like we've read it before is because it's just combination of random slogans and jargon that has been repeated ad infinitum.

That's how cults use language - it designates who is in and who is out based on their acceptance of the cult jargon. If you don't understand the deliberately impenetrable waffle, and you say it doesn't make sense, you have signalled that you are outside the group.
If you don't understand it and keep quiet, you can be part of the group by virtue of not rocking the boat, often due to the fear of being put out of the group, a powerful tactic used on a number of high-profile questioners in recent times.

Of course, the way to ensure you are not a target is to vocally support the jargon. You don't have to be especially erudite, you just have to intone "Trans women are women" and you will deflect the Eye of Sauron.

It's not meant to be understood. The more incomprehensible the better. So long as it dazzles the unthinking while giving them a sense of a progressive message. They can then approve of the article and feel intelligent. This might not understand what it's actually on about but their feelings are right so they were intelligent enough to understand at some level.

It has things in common with propaganda speeches of the past hundred years or so. If you read them rather than listen to them they usually make little sense. But man, the feels for the receptive audience!

I think there is truth about it being like free-form jazz or beat poetry. There seems to be a school of thought that weaving words around, sprinkling images and pleasingly mashing ideas together contains a version of 'truth' that is in some way comparible to logic, evidence, deduction, testing, rigour and reasoning.

Can't people see this belongs in the arts and not in science? It's embarrassing.

Another good take-down of Sophie the Twit’s NYT piece, this one by Madeleine Kearns:

www.freezepage.com/1549590951FBIVWCYBES

It’s like Private Eye’s ‘pseuds corner’ has expanded into reality.

If working in a call centre and fucking are completely interchangeable, how come no one does a shift at British Gas for fun?

PMSL here

It's an art form really. Like free form jazz. A bit wanky.

This!

All her writing sounds like something which would be submitted to Real Peer Review for a puerile laugh like the ones about "trans-hippos" etc.

'How was your weekend Ella?'

'Fan-bloody-tastic. The Vodafone call centre at Newbury were letting people go on the phones. It was a bit of a trek from Manchester, but so worth it'

If working in a call centre and fucking are completely interchangeable, how come no one does a shift at British Gas for fun?

is it possible that the two activities are not completely analogous Sophie?

a man (here defined, problematically, as someone with a dick)

Good grief. What a load of crap Lewis's work is.

If she hadn't had an opinion piece in the NYT, I really would have trouble believing she actually existed outside parody.