Crispin Blunt: Strident women's rights campaigners provoked trans people to be angry and confrontational.

[yourhairiswinterfire]

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/after-his-furious-public-spat-crispin-blunt-liz-truss-trans-rights

From the article: “You've had strident women's rights campaigners... who have provoked trans people to respond often in an angry and confrontational way, and that is unsurprising because this is a central assault on their identity,” Blunt says.

Yes. "Look what you made me do!". The catchphrase of abusers everywhere. If only we'd done what we were told girlies, we wouldn't have been threatened with rape.

This article has some right gems in it. Apparently women just haven't looked into this deeply enough, not as deeply as Blunt, who has been on it since the summer.

“Unless you get quite deeply into this and think this through and have both the empathy and the time to get yourself into that place of understanding it's quite easy to think that there are real problems here about men pretending to be women in order to assault women. That men will seek to take improper advantage of rights afforded to people to take a particular gender identity for improper reasons,” he explains.

Karen White who, guys?? Blunt reckons women aren't at threat from transwomen, and men aren't going to pretend to be women to harm women. Either Karen White is a transwoman, and therefore women are at risk from some transwomen, or Karen White was pretending to be a woman, and therefore women are at risk from men pretending to be women. Maybe you should have done some more 'studying' before opening your gob, Blunt, that's not the only case of this happening. There's no acceptable number of women harmed before we say enough is enough. One is too many. Maybe try looking 'quite deeply' in to that, and the trauma sexual assault victims are left with in the aftermath.

My personal favourite quote is that some religious zealots are "manipulating" women's rights groups to stop people self identifying, because God wouldn't agree with it I wonder if he did this studying with a tinfoil hat on?

He also voted against gay rights when he knew he was gay. I think that a lot of Torys are trying to make up for their awful stance on gay rights by backing trans rights.

What gay rights did he vote against? Marriage or others? Quite of lot of gay people voted against marriage. I think it is important to be clear by what is meant by ‘gay rights’ - generalisations such as this just help with the false equivalence of gay rights = trans rights.

There was me thinking his Hollywood actress neice might have influenced him towards woke, silly me, silly silly me.

All those years pretending to be something he was not, clearly turned him into a raging misogynist. Voted against gay rights, whilst secretly gay eh?

Also this

*HecatesCats

For anyone who may have missed it Crispin Blunt praised Mark Field MP for grabbing a female Greenpeace protestor around the neck and pinning her to a pillar during a Mansion House speech*

His figures are ridiculous, his hyperbole is ridiculous and I pity his female colleagues.

Is that strident enough for the women hating creep do we think?

I think if it were clearer what exactly the gay rights in question where then it will be more obvious than transgender people already have these rights.

Crispin Blunt is baffled by the strident suggestion that women are human, isn't he? Misogynist threats and violence are fine by him, so why on earth are women objecting to being exposed to more male violence? We're saying no to men, and this cannot be permitted.

Love and solidarity to his ex-wife - she's well rid.

@Aesopfable

I think if it were clearer what exactly the gay rights in question where then it will be more obvious than transgender people already have these rights.

This is his voting record

I think he’s an absolute arse but generally he’s voted in favour of same sex equality except back in 1998

www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10051/crispin_blunt/reigate/divisions?policy=826

He's an extraordinarily nasty piece of work. And I think Kantastic raises an interesting point upthread, about his own (offensive) self-declared conflation of homosexuality and exploitation of youth.

He certainly does seem to be an individual who is guided to an unusually large extent by self-interest.

I know many of us on the FWR boards (me included) say we couldn't vote Labour in their current guise, but if Crispin Blunt was my MP I'd certainly make an exception.

Magdalen peaked loads of people. She's not at all 'strident' in my opinion. 'Strident' doesn't equal loud or brazen, or rude, or passionate (although it does always indicate that the user is a misogynist IMO). Magdalen was all of those things, and also gorgeous and cool and funny. I'm sure she turned some people off, but probably only because what she did was very bluntly and effectively point out the ridiculousness and contradictions of gender identity and that's very uncomfortable to devotees I should imagine.

I think it's very poor form to bring her into this thread as exhibit A for this misogynist idiot and his stupid woman-hating Peter Principle argument.

Actually he's more of a Dunning Kruger kinda guy on reflection...

“Unless you're trans or you have a trans person in your family, you're very unlikely to be familiar with the implications of this. And that was my position until frankly, until the summer,” he explains.

What happened in the summer? Did one of his young relatives 'come out' as trans? That seems to be what is implied here. TRAs have told us how important 'trans kids' are to their cause because it's harder for people to argue against transgenderism in children without it looking like an attack on the children themselves. And some of the most evangelical proponents of gender ideology are those with trans kids in their families.

And some of the most evangelical proponents of gender ideology are those with trans kids in their families.

If you are going to start medicating your child and setting them on the path to surgery etc you will have to suppress any doubts and go headlong into this. You must believe in the impossible (changing sex) and that after all everything you are doing to your child they will be able to live a normal life in the opposite sex. To think this is all an illusion, that they can never change sex, that the treatment you are pushing causes real harm, increases suicidal feelings rather than decreases them, that if left they may have desisted etc etc just can not be considered.

@vermeil it's unlikely he'll stand down.

When he threw his strop about expenses he was living in Fulham, He's rarely here AFAIK.

What a despicable misogynist this man is.

I wonder how many people Magdalen Berns managed to alienate with her strident, hectoring, patronising "I'm so much more clever than you" videos.

Do you disagree with what Magdalen Burns said in those videos?

Sorry I might have been a bit sweeping with the 'voting against gay rights' statement, I was enraged. He voted against in 1998, lowering age of consent. Then absented himself for the next 4 votes, including the GRA. Then in 2007 began to vote in favour. Basically when it was in his interests to increase gay rights he did so.

So still a Crispin Blunt (move over Jeremy).

'Hectoring' isn't a word you hear much about men either is it? 🤔

"Strident women"

I'm really not sure what relevance Magdalen Berns has to Crispin Blunt. I very much doubt Crispin was on the verge of speaking up for women and girls but only put off by the strident nature of feminist women.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I'm really not sure what relevance Magdalen Berns has to Crispin Blunt. I very much doubt Crispin was on the verge of speaking up for women and girls but only put off by the strident nature of feminist women.

I doubt he's even heard of her. Most odd.

@Aesopfable

And some of the most evangelical proponents of gender ideology are those with trans kids in their families.

If you are going to start medicating your child and setting them on the path to surgery etc you will have to suppress any doubts and go headlong into this. You must believe in the impossible (changing sex) and that after all everything you are doing to your child they will be able to live a normal life in the opposite sex. To think this is all an illusion, that they can never change sex, that the treatment you are pushing causes real harm, increases suicidal feelings rather than decreases them, that if left they may have desisted etc etc just can not be considered.

I wasn't really thinking of the parents here, but of the wider family who are also affected.

How easy would it be for someone whose young niece or nephew identified as trans to speak out publicly in their own name against 'transing children'? This would look like an attack not just on the child, but also on the parents.

If you see that child as harmless and vulnerable, it's easy to become an evangelist for the cause, especially if you have no deeper understanding of the harm that is being done to the child by the ideology and have not understood the difference between confused children identifying as trans and what is happening when middle aged men transition.

How easy would it be for someone whose young niece or nephew identified as trans to speak out publicly in their own name against 'transing children'? This would look like an attack not just on the child, but also on the parents.

My niece identifies as a transman and to start with it nearly broke my family apart. I only speak about these issues anonymously because I don't want to hurt her.

Blunt and others on the backbenches are not yet ready to give up their fight, which he sees as being over a fundamental conservative tenet – freedom to live how you choose.

Blunt has actually done us a favour here, reminding everyone that there is a Conservative case for this bs.
They call it freedom, but as is so often the case, they nearly ended up giving freedom for a select group of the most persistent lobbyists to do what they want, with no analysis of wider societal impacts.
And it's interesting and terrifying that Penny Mordaunt, Liz Truss's predecessor, appears to have been the secret genderist in the cabinet hinted at by Andrew Gilligan.

It's interesting how the family member thing is used as a trump card by people in positions of power and influence when it comes to 'trans rights'. (I'm also thinking of the fox slayer here.)

You'd have thought that those well educated, highly-qualified people would look at important issues thoroughly and dispassionately from all angles, regardless of their personal circumstances. Indeed, you'd hope they would actually set aside emotion and their own family interests in order to reassure people (especially when if they are the elected parliamentary representative of those people) that they were acting in a way that their extensive, careful research had led them to believe was the best interests of wider society.

But he's not being strident?

And the political lobby with threats, death threats, rape threats, kittling and screaming and kicking on windows to prevent meetings.... they're not strident?

Just women who want to retain their legal rights?

We've reached a point where the gloves are off now, the misogyny and double standards are right out there in plain sight, and frankly it's a really good thing. The more the general public see of this sort of thing, the more they're going to experience for themselves the difference between the words and the facts and the actions.

Incidentally everyone has a female person in their family group somewhere.

This whole 'if you knew first hand you'd understand' holds no weight. No matter how desperately sympathetic you may be with a loved one, it is not reasonable or acceptable to remove rights from half the human race for their benefit. That cannot be the answer to anyone's need no matter how distressing you may see that need as being. It's not an acceptable solution.

It shouldn't even be a solution anyone gives a second thought to: the fact it's actually argued for shows you exactly how precarious and conditional women's rights are, and where the power lies.