''people with a uterus have been silenced'' - The latest Guardinista comedy article

[EarthSight]

Oh lol. Just read this paragraph.

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/15/the-idea-of-too-much-information-is-bad-for-our-health-its-time-we-ditched-it

Throughout history, people with a uterus have been silenced and sidelined for being too emotional.

Now, we all fucking know that it was WOMEN who were silenced like this.

I am really tired of people trying to twist history to suit their political agendas, and I don't care where it comes from.

I've seen enough nonsense on Tumblr - people trying to trans the past, trying to 'transify' women who might have just wanted to break out of their suffocating roles. Every women who did not want to wear dresses is now a figure to be transified and celebrated for being trans to suit current political fantasies, and I think there is little to suggest that any of these women would regard themselves of trans in the modern sense.

Honestly this is such appalling double standards it's probably worth a complaint. The Guardian never fails to disappoint.

Cmon women.

We are invisible. We are just random people lurching about with our uteruses floating slowly somewhere perhaps th3 outer atmosphere

Who knows it’s a mystery on who has the the uterus

We need science to help us while we drift like wee snowflakes

It's pathological, this reflex (privileged, 'educated') younger women have to literally erase themselves and all other women for the sake of 'inclusivity'.

It's an illness.

Kylie will be a guest of Guardian Australia’s next book club: Women v the Medical System, with Katerina Bryant and Gabrielle Jackson. The event will be held at 1pm on Thursday 17 September 2020 over Zoom, hosted by Australia at Home. To register click here, or stay tuned for the video highlights

How’s she going to cope with the title of this? Surely she should be complaining.

Or is there another rule, which says that if a man says it, then he can call people whatever he wants (including 'b**ch', 'witch', etc), but if you're a woman, whatever you call a trans person will be inherently wrong?

And if you are JK Rowling, a few thousand transwomen will apparently be murdered every time you open your mouth to sneeze, and it will be all your own fault.

@xxyzz

Or is there another rule, which says that if a man says it, then he can call people whatever he wants (including 'b**ch', 'witch', etc), but if you're a woman, whatever you call a trans person will be inherently wrong?

And if you are JK Rowling, a few thousand transwomen will apparently be murdered every time you open your mouth to sneeze, and it will be all your own fault.

Well, part of that is covered by rule 8

www.facebook.com/RadFemCollective/posts/14-rules-of-misogyny1st-rule-of-misogyny-women-are-responsible-for-what-men-do2n/1610688362390104/

I admit to owing the 'whatever' concept to this great blog entry here (don't be put off by the title - it is taking the piss out of the idea, not recommending it):

excelpope.net/2020/09/16/why-j-k-rowling-must-die/

In fact, that blog post probably deserves a thread all of its own. Now I come to think of it.

And sorry for mini derail, but this one is very entertaining too. excelpope.net/2019/03/08/transubstantiation/

Even if it is written.by a prostate haver.

But if you’ve had a full hysterectomy you are not a cervix or uterus haver. So she means people with Uteruses and people previously with a uterus? Uterus havers and Ex-uterus havers? It is often older women so I can see why they would be forgotten but gosh, just maybe it could be upsetting for an ex uterus haver to have to point out that having had a critical reproductive organ removed (possible meaning they cannot have a much wanted child) that they don’t fit into this category?

I think the rule is you cannot comment on the body or appearance of anyone that in any way identifies; men are men and ‘shut up Karen, nobody cares.’

[quote xxyzz]I admit to owing the 'whatever' concept to this great blog entry here (don't be put off by the title - it is taking the piss out of the idea, not recommending it):

excelpope.net/2020/09/16/why-j-k-rowling-must-die/[/quote]
Excellent diagrams! Whatever indeed.

[quote xxyzz]I admit to owing the 'whatever' concept to this great blog entry here (don't be put off by the title - it is taking the piss out of the idea, not recommending it):

excelpope.net/2020/09/16/why-j-k-rowling-must-die/[/quote]
I love his style - sharp! Bookmarked, thanks for the suggestion and the resulting laugh!

The 'whatever' diagram ties in with James Kirkup's recent article re JKR.

Yes. It's not a new observation, and I'm sure we've all noticed it a hundred times.

Just that seeing the graphic representation brought it home, that's it's not women being accidentally overlooked, happening to be invisible or a bit faint; rather that the silencing of women and refusal to listen to women speaking about their own lives is deliberate policy.

Hence the edition of GMB which brought on entirely male guests to debate if what JKR wrote could be viewed as transphobic.

Women are not invited to the table. We may not discuss our own oppression. A transwoman stands in both for transwomen as well as women.

Meanwhile, that essential guest, George Galloway, WTF, who represents that essential group with a stake in all this, the hjfjkgrefeguaewjwdwehuwhiIW group, gets airtime to give his views (on this, unique occasion, rational, but only in a stopped clock sense).

See rule 14 in my link below.

Let's talk about conditions affecting our reproductive systems that only FEMALES can suffer horrifically from and continue to be ignored as they have zero impact on the male half of the species.

But under no circumstances must you refer to those suffering as women in case it upsets a tiny % of adult males who tell you it's your fucking privilege to suffer in scilence....

How the fuck can we fix our health issues if we can't even use our own sex descriptors? How can this 'person' not see that by refusing to use the word woman when referring to women's health issues, she is enabling them to carry on ignoring us.

The whole premise of the article seems to be that not talking about stuff is damaging to both our physical and mental wellbeing. Except for talking about being a woman.

Righto.

I bought the Guardian for 40-odd years. Now I will click for Hadley Freeman, Suzanne Moore, sometimes John Harris or John Crace. Otherwise it's just to point and laugh.

That is both ironic and depressing.

Do you think someone should suggest to her that uterus owners should band together as some kind of class and find language to describe themselves as group so they could organize for better provision and then it would be harder to silence them?

(Unless, of course, there was a hugely organized attempt to claim those words for something else and take the organized power to fight for other causes leaving uterus owners scrambling again - but who would do that?)