Stephen Whittle accusing GC feminists of being funded by the 'evangelical right wing'

Sick of hearing this shite tbh. Its misogynistic really, assuming that women cannot raise funds of their own accord, and must actually be finded by shady characters behind the scenes.

Yeh yeh yeh we get it Stephen, you came on MN waffling your pseudo intellectual waffle and making your misogynistic little jokes and thought we'd all coo over you, and when it didn't go as you hoped you got the hump and now your tragically frail sense of self can only be restored by smearing us and telling outright lies.

Well everyone here remembers very clearly that you said it was fine for girls as young as 11 to share mixed sex sleeping arrangements without parental knowledge because Girl Guide leaders should be carrying condoms and emergency contraception.

So Stephen, you can go fuck yourself. HTH.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter and I didn't even have to type it myself - thanks ByGrabthar... (what a name ) . So this ^ and the final line with bells on.

How does the accusation even have merit?

It's implying that what women are saying, doing, or concerned over isn't true. And that they are being harnessed for an entirely different reason altogether.

A reason that's not really clarified. Or engaged with.

And women's actual issues aren't addressed, because someone is going to miss the 7.30 from Paddington.

It's just lazy nonsense.

Well, Stephen - given that you are cheering the rollback of women's rights, safety, privacy, dignity and actual status as human beings independent of what men decide we can think and feel, I am telling YOU that YOU are representative of the evangelical right-wing. And I am right.

It's striking how many "transmen" had violent abusive fathers.

And yes, Whittle is so steeped in internalised misogyny. Weren't they banging on about all sorts of sexist tropes on that thread?

Whittle was brought up in a very sexist environment. Whittle doesn't seem to have been able to break away from the sexism and misogyny Whittle was surrounded by as a child.

"[My father] was very much of the view that girls were girls and women were women," says Whittle. "I remember being on a holiday when I was about 13 and he hit my mother because she came out of the caravan wearing slacks and refused to change back into a dress."

www.theguardian.com/society/2007/apr/17/socialcare.highereducationprofile

dolorsit

Excellent summary.

It's quite extraordinary that the entire issue relies upon them pretending that no one can read, write, or remember.

And everyone has to leave before questions are allowed. And those questions must be framed in certain ways. For a certain duration. And certain subjects are taboo.

And yes, Whittle is so steeped in internalised misogyny. Weren't they banging on about all sorts of sexist tropes on that thread? Painting themself as some kind of 19 century gentlemen - or women prior to transition? I can't quite remember, but it came across as the musings of someone who was inhabiting a role and needed to detach themself from reality.

People are waking up at last.
We must never forget the deception.

They deceptively used the word gender in place of the word sex.
The outcome of that deception is the shit show we find ourselves in today.

dolorsit
Spot on

We didn't make a fuss in 2004 because we were lied to, and the lies were barely reported and commented on.

Further to this, all parliamentary business is online now so it can be monitored for future debates, committee sessions, etc and then followed live via the parliamentary TV channel.

Gone are the days when others can sneak their business in under the public radar.

Women are watching!

Whittle is dangerous.

And should be referred to as female. Use correct pronouns.

Her internalised misogyny is so strong that she seems to believe that women choose to be female, unlike 'him' who sensibly identified out of this shithole.

*The feminists who did participate in the original GRA discussions were lied to.

We were told that it would only apply to a cohort of 5000 max.

As a result it would have no impact on the collection of statistical data.

We were told that it would only apply apply to people who were then thought of as transsexuals. It explicitly did not include males who like to present/dress in a stereotypical feminine manner either because they like the aesthetic or because it makes them feel sexy.

We were told that single sex services/spaces could be preserved and that even with a certificate someone could be excluded.

We were told that sports would be exempt, I think at the time every sporting body in the country applied for an exemption.

We were told that GRCS were needed so that a transperson could apply for passports and driver's licences and not risk outing themselves.

We were led to believe that intention to transition meant for males an intention to have their penis removed.

They lied and we were fools to believe them.*

The 2004 GRA was also debated and put into law in the days before social media. The reason there's been so much pushback this time round is because women are aware of what is happening and the implications of it. We see what happens when self-id is implemented in other countries without thought to the consequences for women: you get paedophiles like Jonathan Yaniv dragging bewildered small businesswomen in front of a kangaroo court for not wanting to wax his lady balls. We can see, track and archive the boundaries being erased and safeguarding being ignored left, right and centre. And we've been able to co-ordinate our resistance to it.

We didn't make a fuss in 2004 because we were lied to, and the lies were barely reported and commented on.

Here is a helpful Venn diagram for Stephen and all the other conspiracy theorists among extremist genderists.

It is not rocket science.

GC feminists and right wing evangelical Christians have sooo much common ground. It's makes perfect sense 🙄

Badly worded, I hope it is clear what I mean? Almost like a favourite colour or happiest memory category- completely arbitrary and unnecessary for many, but somewhere to write it down for those who need to.

dolorsit that is so telling. And is why it is so important now not to concede anything at all.

I am really starting to want gender recognised everywhere, but as a separate category to sex - not legally binding, with a gender free or no gender option, so that when the other demands keep coming in, they are seen as the ridiculous things that they are.

Well everyone here remembers very clearly that you said it was fine for girls as young as 11 to share mixed sex sleeping arrangements without parental knowledge because Girl Guide leaders should be carrying condoms and emergency contraception.

Yes, Stephen, yes we do.

For anyone who missed it, this thread is very revealing.

Stephen did, indeed, suggest that the solution to mixed sex overnight accommodation involving young teens was to supply guide leaders with stocks of emergency contraception.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3212371-Where-are-all-the-trans-men-An-Answer

Keep hearing this mental health trope about men who rape/assault/want to assault women. People having been using the excuse for Jonathan Yaniv too. Just another way to let predators off the hook.

This attitude drives me up the freaking wall.

My brother in law suffers paranoid and disorganised schizophrenia. He is currently enjoying an indefinite sojourn in Carstairs (Scotland's Broadmoor) due largely to the usual catalogue of systemic failures in the mental health system. He is a dangerous man. Not because he is a bad person but because when the delusions take over he perceives threats that simply do not exist and responds to them flight or fight style.

He has NEVER sexually assaulted anyone.

Sex offenders do not offend sexually because of mental illness. They may happen to also be mentally ill but that would be incidental, not the cause of their sex offending.

It would never occur to my brother in law to rape someone, even in the worst throws of delusion, because he isn't a rapist.

The feminists who did participate in the original GRA discussions were lied to.

We were told that it would only apply to a cohort of 5000 max.

As a result it would have no impact on the collection of statistical data.

We were told that it would only apply apply to people who were then thought of as transsexuals. It explicitly did not include males who like to present/dress in a stereotypical feminine manner either because they like the aesthetic or because it makes them feel sexy.

We were told that single sex services/spaces could be preserved and that even with a certificate someone could be excluded.

We were told that sports would be exempt, I think at the time every sporting body in the country applied for an exemption.

We were told that GRCS were needed so that a transperson could apply for passports and driver's licences and not risk outing themselves.

We were led to believe that intention to transition meant for males an intention to have their penis removed.

They lied and we were fools to believe them.

Whittle is a deeply unpleasant human being

I’m not even gonna read, the idiots keep saying this. I’m an atheist Māori vegan, and voted left all my life. It’s a stupid claim.

Her internalised misogyny is so strong that she seems to believe that women choose to be female, unlike 'him' who sensibly identified out of this shithole.

With bells on.

Stephen Whittle is talking out of Stephen Whittle's arse and Stephen Whittle can take Stephen Whittle's musings and proceed to fuck the fuck off to the far side of fuck and then fuck off some more.

Oh do fuck off Stephen.
Nice try.