And getting back to the bizarre takes and twists from yesterday.
Interesting isn't it that the woman who have put themselves on the line and endured the stress of court cases have been largely women of colour whilst their often rather privileged white compatriots cheer them on from the sidelines consequence free.
When posters started to point out that they themselves are not ‘white’, barley you pivoted to focus on class. And tried to posit that working class women don’t care about these issues. Because none of your female working class friends discuss it with you.
You point out yourself that often working class women have other priorities. And I agree they do. But it is in no way accurate to state that they do not care. Because I happen to know that they do.
They just don’t necessarily discuss it and why would they discuss it with someone who exhibits clear disrespect and derision for people who believe that sex should be prioritised when needed.
Then you come out with ’It is this prioritising of this issue over and above everything else which appears to negate the realities of working class lives and political objectives’.
And
’Just another example of how out of touch the gender critical movement is with the reality working class women are facing on the ground.’
WTAF? This is what the framing of upholding women’s rights as ‘anti-trans’ and ‘a single policy interest’ does.
Your attempt to avoid acknowledging that there are well known feminists who are fighting for every aspect of women’s needs is so ludicrous. I have twice mentioned Julie Bindle and Rhona Hotchkiss. No one could accuse Julie of being single focus, unless that was all you ever read of her work. Do you know Rhona’s background? There are many more feminists who prioritise sex over gender when needed. Tell us again, why would we name women to score points, thereby outing them which could mean them losing their jobs?
There are many women who don’t call themselves feminists who prioritise sex over gender when it needs to be that are also working tirelessly for all women.
This is the result of attempts to detach women’s rights from females to include males. All the rights protecting females are being fought to be upheld. You have attempted to portray the rights to female single sex spaces as luxury beliefs that working class women don’t seem to have. Because they don’t talk about it with you or post about it online.
You have attempted to portray some prominent feminists as being single issue and ‘out of touch’ when in fact that ‘single issue’ (the conflict in rights) actually impacts just about every right set up to protect females. So, yes… I will say I am ‘single issue’- that issue is females of all ages.
The arrogance that comes across in posts such as this is rather outstanding to see.
And just who are you barley to tell any woman where they should be directing their attention anyway?
You made sweeping generalisations on behalf ‘working class women’ all through your posts here last night. (Not unlike your sweeping negative generalisations on other posts) Based on what? What makes your working class knowledge and experience different from other posters? What do you even define as working class vs middle class?
Are you so entrenched in your prejudiced belief that posters here are white, something that was immediately denounced, and have a middle class background that you cannot understand that posters here come from a very broad spectrum of backgrounds. As do all women who hold feminist values?
It is just bizarre take after bizarre take. All formed around the prejudice (often sneering) displayed in your posts against women discussing and actively campaigning to uphold their rights against the conflicts of another group’s rights.
Women saying ‘no’ seems to really infuriate you. Why?