"Gender Ideology" - new film from State Media coming soon

I get that NRatched and I can think of other reasons too - but in the context of the film, it wasn't clear.

The part where Lisa Nandy's audience loudly applaud putting child rapists and sex abusers in a women's prison 🤮

who can applaud this? who can vote for this?

time stamp 2:00:29 in video 'The State Media - Gender Ideology - Full Version'

A lot of black people I know disagree with BLM. Not the message as such, but the political goals of the 'group'. Abolishing the police..would NOT be a good thing for anyone really, least of all black people (and especially women). Or thats how its explained to me, though I don't pry too much for obvious reasons!

Thanks Inflamatory. I’m not sure this was well explained. In other words it wasn’t clear why the black woman shown didn’t agree with BLM.

mind, the BLM white activists attacking black women..was sort of relevant. But not really at the same time? Was a weird addition IMO.

Neither the war stuff nor the BLM stuff made much sense to me in all honesty.

I guess they are saying Stonewall are using sneak. 'Sneak' is allowing it to look like a just, well meaning human rights group rather than an authoritarian left political group.

To take that further, black people who do not go along with the BLM stance are accused of not really being black, just as some transwomen are called truscum or "not really trans" if they maintain that they remain, in fact, males.

... there does not seem to be a fetishisation of other female dominated health concerns...

..yet.

What I took from the comparison (with war) was this:

Men really like flags.

There's probably 137 flags for each of the 137 genders?

I didn't quite grasp the bit about BLM at the end. It wasn't contextualised very well. Can anyone explain?

It almost needs a monthly update

Yes.

So, who are State Media?

I assume they have a background in politics and that is why they included the war stuff. Agree, it's a bit of a distraction. These issues don't exactly need beefing up.

Would love to see them do an episode on the fetishisation of pregnancy and periods. Especially if they pointed out that there does not seem to be a fetishisation of other female dominated health concerns like breast cancer, menopause or hip fractures...

I think they could have used a more simple example to say the same thing - and one that is maybe less contentious and a bit less complicated.

I'm also not sure about the Maoism bit.

I think they might also need to be clearer that they are making analogies and not suggesting links. They do this, but not terribly clearly.

The war comparison did not explain much to me either, but the definition and redefinition of alliances was. Maybe the war comparison was useful if you didn’t have much background already?

The war was confusing... I want to go back and watch it for its own sake but I don't think it added anything.

I'm curious that they are exploring alt-right but not antifa and the alt-left who (although arguably US-Based), I think, are pulling a lot of strings in this via social media and som eon-the-ground groups.

I thought it was really good, informative and to the point for the most part.

I wasn’t 100% convinced that the references to the war were well advised although I suppose it did help with making the point about the factions involved and they did put caveats in about not wanting to liken the situation to an actual war...

I suppose the point to take from that is that there are many distinct groups some with overlapping interests and some who have been deceived and captured. The gender extremist agenda is not coming from only one source.

The film is definitely worth a watch and like others say, needs several sittings but does lend itself to that.

Did anyone else have to progress through at least three warnings about offensive content before getting to the actual film?

Of course, many people will not like it and some will seek to discredit it as ‘conspiracy theory’. Maybe because it pulls it all together and shows the behaviour, the dishonesty, and the disjointed arguments of those who seek to demolish the boundaries securing women’s rights one item, one event, after another. There is no hiding from it. None of the real life footage has been falsified, it is pull from public sources. Seeing it all together is certainly impactful. The only thing left is to discredit it as conspiracy theories, I guess.

It almost needs a monthly update.

It was very very good.

Well. That was great. Of course, certain people will hate it as it lays it all out. Maybe if TRAs think its too selective, they can make one of their view, with all the horrible abuse and such they recieve on a daily basis from women? Or might that show up that the abuse is actually from men, then blamed on women..hmm.

The ending made me fill up a bit tho Not generally an emotional person at all.

before, not anymore Half asleep now, was going to watch in bits and sleep, but nope, watching it all it seems

Good god, had never seen that Lisa Nandy/Piers Morgan sports 'discussion' anymore..that was shockingly bad from her. All just 'be kind, we need more light' whilst advocating for 'different rules' that basically allow males to compete with females because 'nice' When pulled up, it becomes 'you are attacking vulnerable people!!!!!'. Totally out of the TRA playbook that one tbh.

Oh, that last one - all those brave women speaking up (and a few men, thanks, chaps) and then, the last word...

halfway through it. v. good summary of everything!

... narrator sounds like one of the triggonometry guys?