Just Fear of the Unknown, says Alan Cummings

This might be the death knell for my Times sub. India Knight and them not allowing any critical comments on vacuous articles like this combined. Yuck

Oh lord I'm so sick of that vacuous saying. I'd love to track down the originator of it and go full "WELL, ACTUALLY" on them.

It's such a stupid saying. And people repeat it mindlessly, without any thought for whether it's true or not. I think that's what makes me so angry, because if you even spent two minutes thinking about it you'd realise it's not true.

I mean, take one of the simplest examples. The 1974 Sex Discrimination Act ended quotas to medical schools. Up to that point, medical schools applied quotas limiting the number of female students. It meant that large numbers of mediocre males took places that should have gone to bright women. But once the quotas were stopped, women flooded in, taking up the places, so nowadays the majority of medical students are women.

The right to go to medical school is a pie. You can't share it out amongst everyone. Once you allow more women in, fewer men can go. That's why some men fought the ending of quotas tooth and nail, just like they fought allowing women into other professions or giving women equal pay.

Three of my attempts at commenting on that article have disappeared into thin air. I can only hope that people see the article for why it is - the best argument in favour of self ID, which boils down to “women should be nicer” and “women are making a fuss about nothing”. Times readers who have been paying attention (and there are many) will see it for what it is - an incredibly weak response to the many issues with gender ideology that The Times has drawn attention to over the last few years.

Am still awaiting response on my detailed complaint about Mark McLaughlin’s articles and behaviour BTL the other week. However, they did get in touch to point me to Margaret Lynch’s piece the other day in case I hadn’t seen it. I hope that means they’re taking the complaint seriously.

Smug little worm.

It does piss me off when idiots people harp on about how feminism should be inclusive and kind to all and sundry.

No. It means centring women and girls first every time. Often feminism will then mean other disadvantaged groups are protected/looked out for, whether it's because us feminists are good eggs who look after the underdog or because a system has changed and can cater for others now too. Or we've still got time and energy left after challenging numpties like this to see what other good can be done. But this isn't the primary goal of feminism rather a happy consequence.

But feminism centres biological women and girls first and foremost. #NotApologising.

And god, as for the whole "rights aren't a cake/pie" obsession, that's a phrase guaranteed to make my eyes roll like a pinball due to its total nonsense.

The cake line. How original 😒

It always takes a man to explain feminism to us.

By the way Patrick Harvie of the greens is on radio Scotland now if anyone want to ask him if he knows what a woman is!

Well that was embarrassingly stupid. I thought he was a bit smarter than that.

Sapphos

Another wokey bloke talking shit as usual!

Sturgeon enjoys flashy supporters, celebrities, filmstars etc. Her govt is all about fashion, spin and soundbites. There's very little of substance or use in her politics, I'm afraid.

Another little twit who hasn't done any research or bothered to engage with or understand what their concerns might be, and to address those.

All he is saying is "Silly women. If you gave me the subject any thought then you wouldn't be so fwightened."

Pal of the first minister, is oor Alan (well, as pally as one can be given the distance between New York and Glasgow). One of the values I live by is that women are never responsible for men's actions, however the company Ms Sturgeon keeps sometimes makes it difficult for me to truly live this value in real life.

I’ve had a couple of comments allowed - I’ve used some of the comments on here. I’m splitting them up in case part of it is rejected. I know it’s a created news event but I’ve found the comments to them more illuminating and educating than the article. I think lots of people are commenting to keep on raising the issue and adding to what has been included in the article. It is really useful to other readers so p,ease don’t give up commenting.

I can never understand why people use cake to demonstrate this point. Wasn't the Asher's Cake Company case all about balancing the conflicting rights of two groups both with protected characteristics?

Quite. And rights come into conflict all the time. The right of a Christian B&B owner to refuse admission to a gay couple, for example, comes into conflict with the gay couple's right to have equal access to services.

Similarly, the right of trans women to access women's changing rooms conflicts with women's right to have a single-sex space to change in.

But it's quite easy to think of dozens of instances where two groups with protected characteristics have clashing rights. I'm sure people can think of their own.

I am sure some agoraphobes yearn to be able to embrace open, crowded spaces

Alan, mate, you have obviously tossed this ditty off without the barest whisper of contemplation, critical thought, or research.

You've just uncapped your pen and made a series of vague, re-heated platitudes that you think sound awfully nice and vaguely stirring, safe in the knowledge that the rights you are so gallantly handing out are not yours to give, and the consequences will have zero impact on you.

Maybe best stick to campaigning on foreskin health, eh?

So many people use the ‘rights aren’t like cake/pie’ argument. Lots of them are actually because they conflict with one another. Press freedom vs privacy for instance. If you have strong privacy laws, you encroach on press freedom. Freedom of expression vs respect for religion is another one. If you have strict blasphemy laws to respect the beliefs of religious people, it means that others cannot freely express themselves about religion. Of course many rights are like pie.

So - The Times creates an "event", and then immediately reports that event as if it's news? Bit odd.
Yes, it is a bit odd. At least it gave an opportunity for the quote from Marion Calder,

This is the natural conclusion of the stupid "feminism is for everyone" and all those men wearing those awful "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirts. Because if feminism is for everyone, why of course men can tell women we're doing feminism wrong by expecting our rights to be protected.

I agree. I'm always very wary of self declared "feminist" men.