David Tennant: women should "shut up"

[jacksonlamb]

As a (now ex) David Tennant fan I was so disappointed to hear his speech yesterday. Whilst talking about trans rights he told his audience that he wanted a world where "we wake up and Kemi Badenoch doesn't exist anymore. I don't wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up."

(There's some devious doublespeak here: if you wish someone didn't exist, you obviously wish them ill).

But more importantly, how dare he tell women to shut up about women's rights. Yet again powerful and privileged men tell women what they are and are not allowed to say. They must shut up whilst men speak. Their views are wrong, men are right.

Anyone has the right to believe that the rights of trans people are more important than the rights of women (although I believe this is profoundly wrong). What they do not have the right to do is bully, belittle and threaten women who disagree with them; who are trying to protect their hard fought rights.

I despair.

I don't get the whole 'oh I know men are harmful, but trans women are not'. How does one arrive at this?

Exactly

Deeds not words.

Their deeds are to be horrible bullies to women like Rosie Duffield.

And to - in a sort of Dad's Army way - try and 'hoodwink' women by using terms like 'safe spaces' rather than 'single sex spaces'. We all know what that means. I'm sure the definition of 'safe' isn't something most women would agree with either.

I don't like it when actors get political. I used to admire David Tennant (he's a brilliant actor) but I don't want to hear his political views, thank you. Especially when they're expressed so rudely and crudely. It's fine to say something general and positive about supporting LGBQT people, but once you say you wish someone would disappear...not on, sorry.

This kind of virtue-signalling and politcal posturing has disillusioned my about lots of performers.

I don't but I find getting the actual facts about what's gone on very difficult.

Me too.

@Meetingofminds don’t have anything back to say to me? Like ‘sorry for being so rude’. No? Ah well, you didn’t seem like the type to apologise

Ok so you don’t want male criminals in female prisons, @MrsSkylerWhite doesn’t want men in female sports, and there’s a low appetite for Self ID

If women didn’t speak up as you wish why would politicians change things?

Added to that there are some highly invested men and supporters who will use anything to get what they want, which would be Self ID etc where would we be without counter to that?

There's a couple of posters on this thread expending an awful lot of energy and their time assuring us this is a topic no one cares about. I'd have just scrolled past if it was me

Me think the 'ladies" doth protest too much

So these rapists in female prisons. Happened while your poster girl KB's party were in charge.

In Scotland yes whilst the SNP were in charge.

And to add I think DT is a misogynist prick.

That's not true.

Data collected in 2019 shows that there were 129 transgender prisoners in the male estate and 34 in the female estate. In 2017, a rapist whose birth name was Stephen Wood, but who changed his name to Karen White, was placed in a women’s prison where he sexually assaulted two women. In 2021, FDJ, an anonymous woman who had been sexually assaulted by a male prisoner in a women’s prison unsuccessfully challenged the MoJ’s policy in court.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html&query=(4198/2019

One of them has form for that.

@cupcaske123 soz I forgot about Karen White. I was specifically thinking about rapists BTW I know there are way too many men in the female estate.

Very, very odd take on it. It's ok that they actively made it happen because at least they aren't labour?

TW present a threat to the same degree as any other kind of man. Any 'suspicion' is about them a) being men and b) in specific cases, behaving in a way that engenders suspicion (like the current thread about the man wearing a dress talking to a stranger's child about his 'willy', which I'd put money on getting the same reaction if it were a man in traditionally 'male' attire).

'hatred' I dispute.

Nobody's trying to silence you. I wish you'd be a bit more vocal actually - let's hear your thoughts about the Tories actions over the past 14 years and how they've harmed women in more ways than just the trans issue. Or even on how they allowed men into women's prisons, about how your girl KB votes against safer abortions?

Or, do you actually think the tories have been beneficial for women?

Abstract ideas like 'undermining family values' and 'cheapening what marriage means' are impossible to meaningfully or neutrally define.

Concrete events like a man entering a women's changing room and having his genitals out (which is indecent exposure) are very possible to define and, in this example, have an indictment attached to them in English law.

'lazy trope' is exactly the right phrase.

Just caught up on this thread.

Any fragment of a speech can easily be posted out of context.

I don’t agree with Kellie-Jay Keen on everything but I’m grateful for her tenacity in highlighting women’s rights.

I listened to that clip because I wanted to hear what she ACTUALLY said rather than one word being used as a sound bite.

I’ll post the screenshot transcript below. She talks about the fact that women don’t have to commit physical violence to try and silence her as they do it in other ways. Then she says she’ll annihilate any woman who tries to do that and that they can watch her arse while she walks away as she doesn’t ever lose.

As per the dictionary, annihilate also means to defeat utterly. Also screenshot attached.

The fact that KJK refers to them watching her leave them in her wake makes it bloody OBVIOUS that she’s referring to a victory and refusing to be silenced. There is nothing in her speech whatsoever that threatens physical violence of even alludes to it. If she’s referring to her opponents watching her walk away victorious then clearly they’ve not been “annihilated” in the violent sense, have they?!

The whole speech reads VERY different to the fragment quoted earlier.

If you’re on the opposite side of the debate to me that’s fine. Happy to have an honest exchange of views. But using clips out of context is deeply disingenuous and suggests you don’t actually have a valid point.

And also, I haven’t found JKR retweeting this but reading the whole transcript, IF she did, there’s nothing wrong with what KJK said.

We're not talking personally, though, are we?
A majority of people in the UK do not want people of the opposite sex in single-sex toilets.
Your comment about men in female changing rooms is circular and highly disingenuous.

I’m the person you quoted.

Again, you’ve quoted part of my post but left out the part where I said EXPLICITLY that we know most trans women aren’t violent.

As I said earlier and you’ve ignored, most men aren’t violent either.

But some men are. And some trans women are. And as trans women have male bodies the ones that are violent can do great harm to women.

Violent offenders don’t walk around with a sign on their head. So as a society we protect our women from the threat of violence by keeping men out of spaces where we are more vulnerable.

Exactly the same principle applies to trans women.

You treat men as a group but object to trans women being treated as a group?

Not every shared space has cubicles. Some pools, gyms etc have changing in open spaces. Are you comfortable getting changed after a swim in front of a man? Because if you think trans women, with their male bodies, should be allowed into every shared space then we might as well do away with sex segregation and make everything unisex.

Of course, statistically that means there will be more assaults on women. But there I go with that damn grouping again, right? Unfortunately statistics don’t lie and some groups are statistically more at risk than others. Statistically trans women have the same offending patterns as men. That might not sit well with your opinions but it’s a proven fact. And women are the ones at risk. Again, fact.