Dr James Barry was trans, apparently

[RoyalCorgi]

For a taste of woke stupidity in full flow, read this thread:

twitter.com/RTEOne/status/1228673565324505089

Lots of TRAs angry at a television channel referring to pioneering surgeon James Barry as a woman. Even though she was, you know, a woman.

Show them Mulan, that's the same story but for children.

So was Joan of Arc apparently
I've decided that once the super woke get on to Dr Stephen Ward, they'll decide that he was trans as well...

RoyalCorgi
Thank you for posting this. It's actually quite chilling. Professor Selina Todd requires bodyguards because trans activists don't like her historical research conclusions. Namely that women living in the 19th century disguised themselves as men either to pursue a career which was barred to women or because they were lesbians or because disguising themselves as men protected them from the violence and discrimination widespread in a patriarchal century. Those conclusions are not acceptable to the new totalitarians. Academic research is one of their targets.

History is full of women who had to pretend to be men to gain their dreams... And who opened doors to allow women to be women and achieve the same dreams.

She was a brave woman... If she was found out they wouldn't have cared if she had gender dysphoria or was just pretending to be a man. She would have been vilified just the same.

We all know women were incapable of being doctors, surgeons or military personnel, so if a biological women happened to join any of these careers it must have meant they were simply male.

And we're the ones erasing history.

Oh dear. Some fritter people have missed their nap time. Are we not allowed to call any woman and woman these days - is that the goal?

I’m sure as a doctor she was well aware what sex she was. Someone on twitter also mentioned she had given birth - so there’s another clue.

You're right, BovaryX - it is chilling. Under normal circumstances, this display of stupidity would just be very funny. But now, as you say, Dr Selina Todd has to have bodyguards because of this stuff. It's like Galileo's battle with the church brought up to date for the modern age.

And Aroundtheworld hits the nail on the head - Dr James Barry would have been vilified as a woman whether she thought of herself as really a man or not.

So if as they argue this person was a man

There's no story and nothing to discuss

And no one ever hears about what they did

I find it interesting that they say any female who stepped out of the intensely restrictive roles of the time, in either dress or behaviour, was really a man.

This means that no women has ever struggled against restrictive sexist norms, ever. That women were happy corseted, barred from certain jobs etc etc

The sexism in this movement is front and centre it really is.

It makes me so angry that they appropriate historical figures. No understanding whatsoever of why a woman might have to pretend to be a man in order to succeed. They can't see beyond their own extremely limited experience of the world and realise women didn't have the same opportunities then. So utterly sexist.

You're right, BovaryX - it is chilling. Under normal circumstances, this display of stupidity would just be very funny. But now, as you say, Dr Selina Todd has to have bodyguards because of this stuff. It's like Galileo's battle with the church brought up to date for the modern age

Sadly, I think that is a good analogy. Both Harry Miller and Douglas Murray have spoken about the disproportionate responsibility they feel to speak out because many people do not have the luxury to do so. It is really shocking that an atmosphere of totalitarian intimidation has advanced so quickly in Western democracies in the 21st century. We live in bizarre times.

It’s because they are pretty ignorant - they don’t understand history or sociology. Their little imaginations can’t see beyond their one track minds and they absolutely lack empathy and understanding. It’s all memememememe.

A bit like a teenager discovering sex for the first time.

Wow, misgendering and deadnaming are terms being bandied about in that thread. All our strong, brave, risk-taking, pioneer women being erased by a re-writing of history...

I agree with all of you

It’s ridiculous, I don’t understand how the complete rewriting of women’s achievements has managed to get this far

Any yes when I see a trans woman advertising a woman’s cosmetic product on TV we are to say ‘there’s a woman!’. But a woman who has jumped gender stereotypes is historically transed?

How does that work?

The thing is, these people must know (well, Im assuming they do!) that careers as doctors etc were not accessible to women historically (you know, what with having a pesky vagina and all).

So there are two possible options:

1. woman pretends to be a man in order to access the career she wants.

2. woman is actually a man in a woman's body. Because no actual woman would ever want to be a doctor....

Which is more plausible?

Why do they think the Bronte sisters used male pseudonyms? To release their 'manly essence'?

On the IWD 'all genders' thread I commented

...history is so yesterday. Now it's all about Making Women History'

Unfortunately I wasn't joking.

Was bonnie Prince Charlie trans too?

It’s ridiculous, I don’t understand how the complete rewriting of women’s achievements has managed to get this far

I’ll give the TRAs this: they are incredibly thorough in steamrolling and erasing women’s achievements. As someone else said, sure shows up the underlying aims.

woman is actually a man in a woman's body. Because no actual woman would ever want to be a doctor....

It's worse than that, they seem to be saying that no woman then could have been a doctor. But either way, despite the fact that loads of women now want to be doctors and successfully become doctors.

So the first women to go to, say Oxford were men? Well whodve thunk it?

I was recently watching a history (lite) programme about QE1 and it did skate close to some our landing theories on her being a boy or intersex. Because a woman couldn’t possibly be a rules and didn’t marry because, well y’know (even through she said it would be signing her own death warrant).

By this logic JK Rowling (who they all hate) is one of their own because she published using a gender neutral pen name to avoid being pigeoned holed as a writer for girls.

One of us one of us one of us...

Honest to god, some of those Twitter profiles read like Titania McGrath wrote them.

I want to be in the front row with a bucket of popcorn when this lot are all grown up with mortgages and bills; and they stumble across their old social media profiles and posts like these.

I mean, I was amused when I read my Friends Reunited profile years later, but the sheer level of cringe coming down the track is going to be glorious (for us, not so much for them).

Why do they think the Bronte sisters used male pseudonyms?

Shhhhhh, don’t give them any ideas. George Eliot will be next, and it’s only a matter of time before Toad of Toad Hall is claimed.

Well my sister did always think that Andy Pandy was a girl.