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

Good grief.

Oh well, so she's sold her soul then.

OK, well I did already argue that her position looks irrational:

She still seems to be using very strange "logic" here.

It was wrong to exclude lesbians from feminism.

Does that mean you can never correctly exclude anyone?

It's wrong to exclude a group of women, so it's wrong to exclude men? Or we know that trans women are "really women" because of how lesbians were treated?

From the quotes we have, it's just a very bad argument and nothing more than an emotional reaction from her.

Good post OP. I despise women who say things like Sandi has.

But not the same as actively opposing marriage rights.

Gay people actively picketed and protested people who were campaigning for same-sex marriage. They were being listened to by Stonewall. So I think it's not as clear cut as that. They were certainly conflicted about it - as are the COE as a group of people. I know for a fact that not everyone who identifies as COE opposes gay marriage.

Of course you can. Sandi Toksvig has been called much worse on this thread than a bigot by the way - all in the same of checks notes standing up for women.

Of course the main difference is that a claim that the COE's position on gay couples is bigoted is, in my view, backed up by the facts but the claim that Sandi Toksvig is bigoted is not.

Did they?

Or did they choose not to prioritise campaigning for it while it was so obviously unattainable and other more attainable goals were more fundamental? You're right, that is an interesting debate about how best to prioritise change. But not the same as actively opposing marriage rights.

Or you might be referring to a broader view that marriage is a heteronormative institution which gay people shouldn't be interested in. But that's quite a way from the COE position of gay couples (or at least gay couples in sexual relationships) are sinful and therefore should not exist and should not be married.

Presumably you would say that the Christians are wrong in their moral views, and causing harm?

So with someone like Sandy, can we not say that they have an irrational viewpoint that is causing harm?

Can we say that Sandy is a "bigot" or whatever else? Would that not be fair?

I agree, btw, that same- sex couples should have the right to marry, of course. I also agree that Stonewall are bigoted.

They did actually deem that subject worthy of debate at the time, at least. I wonder if things would be different if their stance was "marriage is heteronormative, no debate"?

I started listening to this, if anyone's interested, that touches on the history of it and why gay people opposed it, and goes on to gender (need to finish it!)

No, she's not raising money for Stonewall (not that that would be terribly surprising if she, like the majority of lesbians, doesn't buy in to anti-trans thinking).

She's raising money for Stonewall Housing.

It's right there in the text you quoted.

Didn't quite a lot of Stonewall oppose the right to marriage between same-sex couples? It was an interesting debate at the time.

I mean if you want to argue the toss about whether opposing the right of gay couples to marry is bigoted or not, go right ahead.

I think it is self-evidently bigoted.

You think it's 'hard right' to criticise centrism? How so?

I'm a centrist and probably always will be. But the centre is not morally neutral. Sometimes the centre is actively harmful, as in instances where they try to suggest a 'middle ground' between 'oppression' and 'not oppression'.

Well, she's raising money here for Stonewall, so ...

'I am delighted to be hosting The London Gay Men's Chorus at Cadogan Hall tomorrow Saturday 25 November - it promises to be a glorious evening supporting the incredible charity Stonewall Housing'

https://twitter.com/sanditoksvig/status/1728019764109361594

Choosing to lock women in with rapists is much, much worse than simply happening to be born (like 50% of the population) with below-average intelligence.

Clear enough?

Peas and Queues

https://www.waterstones.com/book/peas-and-queues/sandi-toksvig/9781781250334

OK I will assume she is correct.

She still seems to be using very strange "logic" here.

It was wrong to exclude lesbians from feminism.

Does that mean you can never correctly exclude anyone?

It's wrong to exclude a group of women, so it's wrong to exclude men? Or we know that trans women are "really women" because of how lesbians were treated?

From the quotes we have, it's just a very bad argument and nothing more than an emotional reaction from her.

If you are going to get involved in this stuff publicly, shouldn't she have a real argument?

However educated she is, maybe logic and rhetoric isn't her strong point. Or maybe she is being a politician with her words.

When sandi is saying she doesn't know what the problem is, she is lying. She knows the problems around sports, prisons. She knew including izzard wasnt just another woman being included in her TV show.

She's just dismissing other womens experiences. It is twatty behaviour.

This is hilarious reasoning - so you're not insulting, just describing...how convenient.

A bit like me calling a man in a dress a man in a dress - I'm just describing him, not insulting yes?

*And the posts on here calling her a twat, a traitor, and numerous other insults are doing what, exactly?

I don't agree with her but this thread is very in the vein of the TRAs. Woman has wrongthink opinion, how dare she*

Agree with this

*Which means she must simply think marginalised women, like rape victims, imprisoned women, survivors of CSA, religiously observant women, disabled women who need intimate care (i.e. they need someone to wash them) should put the comfort of men above their own mental and physical safety.

I think that's worse than thick. Some people aren't intelligent. That's not a flaw that they can be held responsible for, any more than it would be my nephew's fault if he's colour-blind. It is his responsibility if he kicked a football into next-door's greenhouse though.

Sandi is intelligent, so she's knowingly choosing to condone trampling over some of the most vulnerable women in the country.*

Please explain

In the vein of TRAs is it? Where are the posts calling for Sandi to have her eyes gouged out and her face carved up? Where are the posts calling for her to be punched in the fucking face? Where are the death threats, the rape threats the sexual violence threats?

Insulting Sandi's intelligence, yes absolutely it is hardly a sign of intelligence to start a political party called The Woman's Equality Party where the policies are for men and written by men and then wonder why women are not flocking to join it and support it.

I remember, probably on QI, Toksvig saying, of herself, something like 'posh voice, no money'. A throwaway line, it got a laugh, but it stuck with me. With all her anecdotes she always seemed terribly privileged; boarding school, in mission control during the moon landings, friend to so many luvvies, etc. A quick glance at Wikipedia (I know) left me impressed at her achievements but fairly certain that she has never known poverty. Her 'no money' crack was obviously in comparison so the very wealthy circles she moves in, relative to which she probably sees/saw herself as quite poor.

Tldr - she lives in such a bubble. She really doesn't get it but she hasn't an inkling of the 'it' she's not getting.

Its the casual, extreme end 'othering' that you see so often in the middle class luxury beliefs movement.

If its not about them and their personal friendship group (or their current patronised awww bless special pets groups) it's not happening to anyone who matters. So whatever.

It's snobbery of a kind and extreme not seen since the 1970s, the Margot Leadbetter kind of snob who thought anyone beneath her didn't matter and wasn't really human.

And lets compare the two beliefs shall we?

Women: Men freely identifying into all women's spaces doesn't work for all women. It is not right that vulnerable women have nothing so that men can have more choice, that just subordinates women as a sex class to men as a sex class and is just basic seeing male people as more valuable and important, which is obviously not ok. What we need are third spaces, where women who are delighted to undress in mixed sex spaces and lesbians who are thrilled to date male people identifying as women can enjoy themselves, plus leaving the female only spaces for the women who need them and those who wish to be homosexual. Everyone's needs met, everyone's equality catered for, no one left without provision, and it's not unreasonable to say to male people that they need to accept that women need spaces and their right to their feelings and identities too.

TQ Activist view: male people must be able to be women at all times, with no limits, and if they harm a few women that's a fair price (I think an activist said 100 a year would be appropriate) because it's not fair to say no to some men being free to be with women in women's spaces because some men will exploit it. And any woman who will not abandon her faith or get over her disability and trauma and does not feel safe to get undressed with any male who wants to is a bigot who doesn't deserve equality and services and should be hurt or worse as punishment, <insert highly disturbed sexual violence references here> and women who are homosexual must learn to cope with straight sex rather than harm a TW by rejecting their identity, or else they are sexual bigots not welcome in society who again deserve exclusion and harm. It is fine for non compliant women to be excluded, subordinated and hurt so long as male people's gender identities can be freely expressed.

You do not need a PhD to see the very obvious issues here. You really don't.

Wow! She's such a good writer.

These men never seem to have noticed all the times you’ve been kind and conciliatory in ways they’ve never had to. To them, that’s not a gender norm; that’s just you not being an evil witch. To them, gender norms are dress codes and pronouns. It’s not all the shitwork that goes on in the background without their noticing or appreciating it (at least not until there’s some malfunction in the smooth delivery of female-coded goods and services).