I find it interesting the language meted out on twitter by trans rights activitists about the sticker campaign.
It's dehumanising :
I can't understand this. It's categorisation, not dehumanisation. If I state people with blue eyes don't have brown eyes, I haven't 'dehumanised' people with brown eyes, I've just placed them in a different human category.
If I state women don't have penises I haven't 'dehumanised' people with penises, I've just placed them in a different human category (of men), just as they attempted to demand and force themselves into the human category of woman.
When did categorisation become dehumanisation? (Clue: when it became a power game to displace females from the ability to group and organise without some males being present)
Scare and intimidate :
Hmm, scary and intimidating - a drawing of male anatomy and pointing out it isn't part of a woman's anatomy? Let's look at statements from trans rights activists:
"Enjoy your erasure"
"Transwomen have always been in your spaces"
"Die in a fire Tf"
"Die Cscum"
"Punch a T*rf"
See Jean Hatchet's latest DM she's received
- these are the tactics of 'scare and intimidation'.
I wonder why there hasn't been a counter-campaign of 'some women have penises' similar stickers been launched?
Surely if the trans rights activists are so sure in their message, they'd be keen to counter with a more positive and inclusive message that some women have penises rather than just rubbing off the current stickers with nail varnish remover pads? I wonder why not?
Disgusting
I find it more unpalatable to watch Jess Bradley state his vagina looks like a penis. (And PS Jess, if that is your alleged 'vagina-looking-penis' out there on that blog, a) no, it doesn't, and b) I don't find it disgusting, more just a bit pathetic and sad-looking)