A pleasant surprise

[APleasantSurprise]

NC for this as very outing.

I came across a number of Tweets from a user whose profile described him as a serving officer with the Met. This is the complaint I sent yesterday:

Jon Killen, a emergency response officer in the MPS and LGBT+ officer, is issuing Tweets that I consider misogynist. His Twitter account (@LDNResponseCop) clearly identifies him professionally, so he cannot argue that he's only offering personal opinions. I cannot think his social media presence is doing anything good for the Met. It seems highly unprofessional. Certainly I would have less confidence were I involved in an incident and had to deal with Jon Killen than I would in a generic officer. Please look at what he's saying - and the response from many LGBT Twitter users who find his Tweets offensive. The police must be seen to be impartial.

I got a call from an inspector this morning. He'd gone through the officer's Tweets and agreed with me. He said it wasn't a disciplinary matter as there were no personally offensive Tweets but that the Tweets definitely overstepped the bounds of what a serving police officer should be saying on social media. A conversation was in order and he would be talking to the officer soon.

Only a small step, but I was pleased the Met seems to have taken it seriously.

Never forget, dear sisters here:

UK case law defines biological sex as "a congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitals".

Beyond that the GRA acknowledges it creates a Legal Fiction when it grants a GRC to anyone. [And that the granting of a GRC is restricted to the purposes of marriage [to achieve same sex marriage, which since 2013 is law anyway]; claiming benefits and claiming state pension [ both of which are now also redundant since we have universal benefit plus equalisation of pension ages between the sexes].

Beyond that, the Equality Act 2010 defines the sexes as:

man = a male of any age
woman = a female of any age.

Nothing anyone says can change those three Legal Facts.

Thanks Jacky. It's good to get a report from reality after the afternoon we've had here.

personally, if my ideology left me unable to answer simple questions like 'how do you know you're a woman?' for fear of appearing sexist, I would wonder if I was, indeed, sexist.

I know we're all into self improvement here

I’m immensely proud of my thoughtful, informed, balanced, respectful and supportive feminist education and the strong women that have influenced me all my life. I was taught to question, research, evaluate, and consider the human experience (humanities!) because hey, I am not a robot.

Trying to apply objective terms and measures to parts of identity which are so subjective and alive is like trying to measure the length of a piece of string with litmus paper. You can’t quantify the unquantifiable.

Basically, if everything was as simple as you would like to believe it is, there wouldn’t BE transpeople. There wouldn’t be queer people either. Just heterosexual cave people hunting and gathering along biological sex divides. That probably sounds like an ideal society for misogynists but it doesn’t sound appealing to me.

Suddenly I am hungry again!

Well if no one has the imagination and/or motivation to put themselves in another’s shoes
There is a thread here where a whole bunch of us said what we would do if we woke up as men suddenly.

There was a lotta lotta wanking 🤣

Lolololol.

Jacky swoops in with some quantifiable reality, and our erstwhile pomo academic lays some 'it's unquantifiable' waffle down in an amusing x-post incident. Fab.

continuing from the above, you'd think it must be glaringly obvious to the Sally Hines's of this world that they are defending a belief that all women are

submissive
interested in appearance
kind
less capable

do you think that is what they actually think women are like, including themselves?

Trying to apply objective terms and measures to parts of identity which are so subjective and alive is like trying to measure the length of a piece of string with litmus paper. You can’t quantify the unquantifiable.

Perfectly expressed, Zoe. This is exactly why no law should ever be based on such subjectivity or anything else that is unable to be objectively quantified.

Thank you for agreeing with us here.

(Btw I have no idea what some of your acronyms and references mean but I’ve just been assuming it’s something gross and misogynist and swooping straight over cos I don’t feel the urge to look up more negativity to add to my life)

Basically, if everything was as simple as you would like to believe it is, there wouldn’t BE transpeople. There wouldn’t be queer people either. Just heterosexual cave people hunting and gathering along biological sex divides.

you forgot gay people Zoe. there would definitely be gay people. what with it being a thing

there would also, indubitably be people who felt compelled to comply with the appearance stereotypes of the opposite sex. of course the stereotypes they'd be complying with would vary wildly by society. what with them being socially constructed.

Laws should be based on equality and thankfully they increasingly are (however slooooowly).

Just try to avoid getting into trouble with the law for hate speech or any worse actions you take targeting trans people in future.

Well, to assist, AWA means Anti-Woman Activist. It's used because it fits all manner of misogynistic patterns, from MRA incels, to those who use the trans issue to try and wedge women away from their rights and protections by including men in the sex category 'woman'.

Queer includes gay.
Can’t believe I have to explain what queer means!

Laws should be based on equality

Laws should be based on fairness [ie: justice] to all parties affected by any law, be that civil or criminal law.

why wouldn't there be gay people if sex were defined by biology and not feelings Zoe?

you've lost me I'm afraid

Queer includes every little personality quirk known to humanity. Some of us remember it being flung at us, with fists, and are less glib about the whole thing.

anyway Zoe, you're very sad about my vagina being all that makes me a woman

you were going to tell me what makes you a woman

and how you're definition of what a woman's brain is like is different to some Jordan Petersonite's definition

Queer includes gay. Silly girl. It also includes trans. But you gave them an individual shout out... made them 'other'. We only have what you post to go on, we have to judge you on what you type.. as I said, we do se you!

Queer is a slur as far as I’m concerned.

As I previously said, anti women activists would be ones who don’t support all women.

I support the rights of all women.

I don’t think incels really deserve any association with the word activist as they’re more like terrorists really, they’re managed quite a few mass murder sprees. There’s plain misogyny (coming from men) and the far more insidious internalised misogyny (women-on-women hatred and self-hatred).

I don't think I'm going to learn how queer theory and genderism are not sexist today am I?

what does 'woman' mean?

such a small question to be impossible for some people to answer

Who said what now?

Why do you keep on bringing Incels into this?

People have a right to reject the word queer, lots of gay men of a certain generation can’t get on board with it. We also have a right to accept the reclaimed version, most of the younger generation do, including me. You don’t get to call it a slur unless it’s used about you without your consent.

ah the word activist is a benediction, rather than just a description. it infers goodness, so incels can't have it

weird

Yes, as you said. That unquantifiable 'woman' that you can't actually define. But some men are part of if they really believe they should be. I'm pleased you mentioned internalized misogyny, though. You've got some of the vocab you need to stop selling your sisters down the river.