Labour's Ben Bradshaw on the attack

I wrote a long reply but the very concept made my sentences look absurd. It still sounds ridiculous.

Essentially you're saying, men think women's vaginas should be available at their disposal whenever and however they want and if you refuse to have PIV sex (or any sex fullstop) and aren't attracted to male bodies or penises as a lesbian or otherwise, its prejudicial 'gate keeping.'

So...your vagina should be a permanently 'open gate' to all who feel they have a right to it or else you're using your vagina as a vehicle for transphobia?

Cheers to 2023! 😥

I wish you wouldn’t begin sentences with “Like” - it makes you hard to understand.

Like it is something I used to say in the 80s. Maybe it is fashionable again???

I am old enough to remember one of the campaigns in the 1980s for gay rights (as it was then termed) included the legal recognition of lesbian relationships. They did not exist in law because of a desire not to offend Queen Victoria when sex between two or more men was criminalised. Finally in the 1990s (?) lesbians were recognised in law.

It seems to me that the Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament if it becomes law and the UK government does not intervene will be one step towards almost de-recognising lesbians in law at least.

Yes, anything that these men want, lesbian sexuality, female identity, women's groups, is positioned as something that should not be 'gate kept'.

Nasty really.

“Gatekeeping our vaginas”

How dare we!! It should be a case of “Open Sesame!” when any male of any identity or sexuality or otherwise commands.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

She handed it out in 2017 when she was PM.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/theresa-may-plans-to-let-people-change-gender-without-medical-checks

Sorry. Yes. For some reason the original tweets regarding this seem to be deleted now, but lesbians scolded for 'gatekeeping their vaginas' from male people self identifying? Yes, definitely a thing. 'Gatekeeping' is a bit of a beloved term to those not into female people being allowed autonomy or sexuality of their own.

'gatekeeping your vagina'

I only hang around here on a sparodic basis so I've missed this. Surely, surely it can't be a term used in any context except jest?

Surely not with any sort of sincerity? No. Really no.

No?

Thanks for the links, @DaughterOfPsychiatrist I’ll wait until I have a stronger stomach for this!

Oh do sit down and shut up. Women are saying no to you.

All your claptrap and flat out lies won't change that.

😂😂😂 good one - I hadn’t heard that before!

Simon Edge’s thread is a proper eye opener. Makes my heart hurt - teens today (including one in my own family) are pretty much ‘culturally appropriating’ the historic victimisation of gay men (and lesbians, whose struggles were also very real but often very different, eg losing custody of children, which is a lot less glamorised).

If you were brought up when section 28 existed you’d be aware that it meant nothing in practice. And you would be able to write “through” instead of the brainless “thru”.

And many of us are lesbian or gay.

Thanks, Corgi.

The ratio on Ben Bradshaw's tweet is excellent.

archive.org/details/BBCHorizonCollection512Episodes/BBC+Horizon+-+s2000e06+-+Complete+Obsession+-+Body+Dysmorphia.avi

It’s episode 6 from the series that aired in 2000.

not sure if the link will go straight to the episode or not, added some screenshots showing the doctors involved (Psychiatrist Reid and Surgeon Smith).

There are other archived Horizon episodes that are similarly shocking re: doctors in this field including one about John Money and what he did to the Reimer brothers.

anyone Ben Bradshaw’s constituent? Maybe he should watch some of these old programs. Thanks to the internet archive, the reality of what he is endorsing is all viewable.

By the way, this isn't for EvilBee (who is beyond reason) but if anyone is interested in rebutting arguments about why "transphobia" is exactly like the homophobia of the 80s and 90s, or exactly like Section 28, here's an extremely well-argued and well-evidenced thread from Simon Edge about why it isn't:

twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1457327246042181635

I’m pretty sure @EvilBee is from the US. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but as you point out, Section 28 is part of British legal history, not American. Additionally, the liberal use of “like” in sentences places @EvilBee very firmly in the under-25s category. And therefore not old enough to have lived “thru” Section 28.

Unless of course @EvilBee “identifies as” a British time traveller. In which case, we must all bow to @EvilBee’s superior knowledge and not be “time traveller-phobic”.

Bonkers, innit?

the psychiatrist in the amputations story retired after being disciplined by the GMC for his work with trans patients. His successor/protege (a trans man doctor) was also investigated but closed the private practice without the case reaching tribunal.

There is a Horizons episode about the limb amputations saga. I watched it a little while ago on internet archive (will come back with a link). To bring this back on topic a bit this is is a prime example how our concerns re: chikdren & teens and gender transitions is absolutely NOTHING like section 28, as there weren’t batshit predatory doctors cutting bits off gay kids in the 80s.

Yes, irritating. And the constant use of which belies the assertion that the poster is old enough to have been 'brought up thru' section 28. Which, if this poster is from the US, they didn't even have.

So much bollocks, in other words.

Bingo

It’s 😅

‘Cis’ is an offensive slur. Stop using it here.