Today’s witch burning - Rosie Duffield MP

It represents a real dilemma doesn't it. Politicians either centre men or are ousted and bullied on trumped up charges of transphobia when it's really for not being a handmaiden.
I think I actually prefer gilliad, at least they were upfront with their misogyny and homophobia instead of hiding behind a woke shield.

EVEN if you are a genderologist and believe that gender is a real thing and a 50:50 (why?) gender split would be good, how do you get from there to thinking that a 100:0 sex ratio would be fine?

Some of these people either don't recognise biological sex as a meaningful category, because TWAW, or they simply haven't thought anything through and are just clapping it like performing seals.

The suffragettes needn't have bothered, the answer to fairer representation was staring them in the face all along.

It’s the women who have reached their goals for being an Mp or minister pulling up the ladder behind them for women hoping to get to their goals

To keep men happy

Well, women are just faulty men, after all.

What are they saying?

That an all-male parliament can be well-balanced provided that half of the men are, what - dysphoric?

Where does the idea of a 50:50 split come from? If it's not based on the (nearly) 50:50 sex ratio, how do you justify that ratio in particular?

Plus...

EVEN if you are a genderologist and believe that gender is a real thing and a 50:50 (why?) gender split would be good, how do you get from there to thinking that a 100:0 sex ratio would be fine?

Would they equally be happy with 100% white? 100% black? 100% straight? 100% Catholic? 100% English? 100% non-scientists? 100% privately educated? 100% over-60? 100% under-30? 100% townies?

Is it only specifically 100% male and 0% female they'd be happy with? Surely 0% representation of any group is bad?

I can only assume that they're under the imperious curse to collude in their own oppression like this.

At the launch of 50:50, female MPs from all political parties were asked if they would be happy with a 50:50 parliament of men and transwomen.

They all said yes. Every one of them.

So signed up members for their own political erasure in plain site??!! No female born people allowed. It would be funny if it wasn’t so deranged.

Just a thought but are they mixing up transmen with trans women?
Probably not, but still... I think a lot of people not read up make that mistake. Could it be that's why so many sensible people tweet twaw blindly?

No, they weren't. A friend of mine was there and it was clear who they meant.

But you have a point with people less familiar with this issue.

Absolute clowns.

They are still in the this'll never happen camp.

At the launch of 50:50, female MPs from all political parties were asked if they would be happy with a 50:50 parliament of men and transwomen.

They all said yes. Every one of them.

a group even more marginalised and vulnerable than themselves

But they're not.

Indeed - and a reminder that horrifically, the most vulnerable group in society at risk of injury and death is the under ones. But they don’t count..

Male born

a group even more marginalised and vulnerable than themselves

But they're not. Their insistence on anyone who says they are a woman is a woman makes a mockery of that anyway. That means it includes rich white make born people like Pip Bunce and Eddie Izzard who are not among the most marginalised and oppressed in our society by any stretch of the imagination. These people have no grip on reality, they just trot out untruths for the credulous. In addition the stats for Transwomen in the UK do not put them at greater risk of murder than women. They're trying to annexe a movement through manipulation.

Yes he has pronouns as well

Yes - oh the irony!

'A feminism that does not use personal experience of violence to pick a convenient group of outsiders to punish, a group even more marginalised and vulnerable than themselves.'

Another gem from the letter on medium

And how do we know they are ‘marginalised and vulnerable’ without using personal experiences?

The difference is that words are violence, but actual violence towards women - well that’s irrelevant...

'A feminism that does not use personal experience of violence to pick a convenient group of outsiders to punish, a group even more marginalised and vulnerable than themselves.'
Another gem from the letter on medium.

gardenbird48

Thanks for the link. She writes:

"It’s all well and good standing up for your ideals, but when people are hurting because of them, what good are you actually doing in the world?"

The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking...

Woman’s rights to and for political representation anyone?

The woke shite is working out so well for them, can see why they're sticking with it.

The Dalai Lama did actually suggest the next DL might be female.