Sandi Toksvig "doesn't get it", poor love....

Yes, this is why the whole thing sounds like it has been dreamt up by an abuser.
Avoidant behaviour - just spouting that kind of crap makes people appear spectacularly dimwitted.

Not only "not trans", but specifically...

Women. Predominantly women. (The "of the female sex" kind).

How very peculiar!

Almost like the entirety of "trans" ideology is being driven by misogyny, that hatred and denigration of the female members of society is a specific thing, that those carrying it out seem to have NO difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing which of the humans are the actual biological females when it comes to directing their hate and telling everyone which humans can be safely ignored.

And isn't it funny how adherents to this ideology appear to subscribe to suspiciously regressive patriarchal attitudes of the kind that suggest actual female people aren't full humans who deserve quite the same attention and care as male humans. Particularly when they don't prioritise males or say no to them, because of course, actual female people's entire purpose in life is supposed to be to serve and make life easier for males. The only time they are tolerable is if they make sure they pander sufficiently, or better, throw other women under the bus to show they will always look after the men.

It is of course pure coincidence that the women who say NO the loudest are the most hated and vilified, and threats of violence against them most minimised, while it is the males who do the threatening who are pandered to and told they are "vulnerable" and the women are big meanies and "literal Nazis".

Yes, most odd.

Funny isn't it how microaggressions like leaving a toilet, or not lying, kill trans people and must be legislated against. But "decapitate t*rfs", "choke on my girldick", being called an evil bigot, actively discriminated against and told to shut up, are apparently fine for people who aren't trans to suffer.

That's awful. And potentially would have landed them in hot water if they'd employed someone who took them to court over any sanctions applied based on some kid's manifesto that they just signed off without questioning whether it was defensible.

micro aggressions which include "avoidant behaviour" and "transmisogyny". It spoke of "death by a thousand cuts". The usual stuff like "misgendering" but also the encouragement to report micro aggressions as bullying behaviour to HR.

This gives me witchhunt vibes all over again. Goody Hawthorn looked at me with an evil eye.

The trans toolkit introduced at my workplace a few years ago spoke of micro aggressions which include "avoidant behaviour" and "transmisogyny". It spoke of "death by a thousand cuts". The usual stuff like "misgendering" but also the encouragement to report micro aggressions as bullying behaviour to HR. Bullying was defined by the perception of the complainant rather than the intention of the accused. Employees were encouraged to become allies to report this bullying. Anonymity was assured.

So we were told that we had to say what we were told, not doing that was a crime reportable to HR, moving aside to not have to lie was also considered a workplace violation.

The toolkit was written by a young intern and then disseminated through the organisation. I think to be honest most people ignored it. There was a little performative pronouning in email signatures, but not much. I'm not actually clear that management even read it. It was tickboxing. But I have zero doubt it would have been enforced at the drop of a hat if there had been a complaint. They may have back tracked a little since. I actually can't bear to look!

Cor blimey. Anyone who can’t spot that this is a controlling weirdo’s dream probably shouldn’t be allowed out by themselves

there are far too many things like this for it to be a bug, rather than a feature.

Most women who post on here know that.

It's quite unbelievable that men have got as far as they have in convincing other women that it's not the case.

And here is that Australian ad.

https://www.vic.gov.au/theunsaid

This is the state of Victoria’s government showing that a woman leaving a lift, when a male person with a transgender identity enters and she is alone there, is transphobic and hateful.

And calling it a microaggression is also about not allowing you to have your own motivations, like not wanting to lie, or having religious principles etc. No, the only reason you wouldn't use a preferred pronoun is because you want to be mean and hurtful - it has to be all about the trans-identifying person.

It's inevitable that controlling types do this. See also, calling it a microaggression when people use "they" pronouns rather than she. You can't be allowed to disbelieve.

Avoidant behaviour such a moving away or leaving out of a group

This absolutely gives me the rage. It's well known that women take steps to avoid men and the dangers they may present and the discomfort and fear the woman may experience even if the situation is actually safe - such as when there's a man walking behind you at night. You don't know if he's safe and it's perfectly reasonable to dodge into a late night shop or detour via somewhere more populated to avoid him.

This rule tells dodgy men women now aren't allowed to avoid them - they'll fucking love that and use it to the max.

I wonder if women, or people in general, are allowed to avoid someone because they don't like or trust them? Because I don't feel warmly towards a male whio is appropriating my female identity and making false claims, and who I have no way of telling whether they genuinely in some sense think they're a woman and mean well, or if they're exploiting a very large and worrying loophole.

I think I could win a legal case on that basis in fact.

"Insipid dinner party feminism" sums it up perfectly.

Jo Bartosch wrote this a couple of years ago

Even seasoned Westminster watchers could be forgiven for not having heard of the Women’s Equality Party (WEP). Co-founded by luvvie-extraordinaire Sandi Toksvig, the group works towards the laudable, if somewhat woolly, aim of making “equality a reality”. But their brand of insipid dinner party feminism is sinking into irrelevance; washed away by a wave of grassroots women’s rights activists who are tired of playing nice.

To date, the most notable achievement of WEP’s leader Mandu Reid has been to stand next to a woman who was offended by the late queen’s lady-in-waiting. On Wednesday, Reid seized on the faux pas of Lady Susan Hussey at a Buckingham Palace event – dashing off an article for The Guardian and complaining about “institutional racism” to a litany of eager news presenters.

Perhaps this is fair enough; wringing political points and publicity out of the news is part of her job. But it is worth noting that neither Reid, nor indeed any of the class of professional feminist, have found a media slot to defend the ordinary women who have been vilified for saying that biological sex matters.

This is because WEP reject the definition of “woman” as simply an “adult human female” in favour of the idea that any biological male who says he’s a woman should be treated as such. This was confirmed at last month’s conference, where delegates voted to support a system of gender self-identification; transforming the slogan “transwomen are women” into policy. This is about as logical as the Communist Party failing to define ‘worker’ lest it upset industrialists who identify as proletarians. And arguably the impact is already being felt, less than two weeks on and Toksvig is holding out the online begging bowl, earnestly telling supporters the party is “fighting for survival” and needs them to “fund its future.”

archive.ph/2024.10.08-093358/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/02/ordinary-women-rejecting-elite-feminism-cannot-even-define/

I wonder if women like sandi understand the womens rights more generally as much as i would assume?

I can imagine her being very vocal about women represented on TV or in the boardroom, but thats very superficial and also its been widely acknowledged for a while - its not an attitude that goes against establishment, is it?

After hearing her talk about WEP when it was launched, and was chuffed but once a looked at the aims, i was underwhelmed. Nothing to shock the pants off the establishment.

And the list of microinvalidations basically translates to ‘do NOT ask me to think seriously about my behaviour under any circumstances! I will LITERALLY cease to exist’

Cor blimey. Anyone who can’t spot that this is a controlling weirdo’s dream probably shouldn’t be allowed out by themselves

among the no-no’s:

Avoidant behaviour such a moving away or leaving out of a group

Blithe, dumb privilege.

Feels sure nothing will happen to her.

Doesn't give a shit about other women.

🤷‍♀️

Appears to still be University policy - see 'avoidant behaviour' -

https://equality-diversity.ed.ac.uk/students/microaggressions/lgbtq-microaggressions/trans-and-or-non-binary-microaggressions/commontrans-and-non-binary-based-microaggression

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/01/university-staff-given-list-banned-microinsults-cannot-say-trans/

I enjoyed Catherine Mayer's bk until that chapter.. She's clearly smart, & then believes 'Simone' Wilson's claims that he's no longer aroused by wearing women's clothing bc it feels right. Hmmm.... 🙄

Also I think a lot of these people have bought into at least some of the propaganda or maybe have friends with "trans kids" or whatever. They think their doubts aren't healthy scepticism but some form of moral failing.

I'm not suggesting that they always fully process what's going on. They don't want to confront it. They do however know deep down it's mostly bollocks but I think there's an element of self deception. Also some people have thought about the nitty gritty more than others.

Because they'd rather not think about it at all because it's easier that way.

But when you're in a state of huge discomfort because you're being forced to confront your own cognitive dissonance, why don't you wonder why you're under huge pressure to spout genderwoo that makes no sense? And benefits men and harms women?

It's like when politicians are asked "what is a woman" and flounder around and won't answer. Why not? If you really believe the answer is "a woman is anyone male or female who says they are" which is what these allies are pushing for in law and institutions, why not just say that? If you know it's because you'll sound like a traitor to women and a gullible twat, why not wonder why you're going along with it?

If most people are only going along with out of fear of bullying, and not wanting to be called right-wing, then I hope when this dam bursts it will be quick.

And they've seen what happens to people who don't want to go along with it. They don't want to be an out of work social pariah. They want to stay in the cuddly bubble, not be painted as some mad feminist who is "unkind" like JK Rowling when they don't have her money and influence.