I love being on HRT so much, but being happy about it is just making me cry more" says Green Party Women's leader

[FreshFreesias]

The new chair of Green Party Women, a transwoman going under the name of Kathryn Bristow, one of whose personal pronouns is `fae' (no me neither), is really thrilled at the effects of her HRT (that's where it all is! No shortage for some!) recently tweeted:

twitter.com/KathrynBristow/status/1343259759701618688?s=20

"Just started crying for no particular reason.
It's so wonderful, I've always just wanted to be able to feel my emotions. I love being on HRT so much, but being happy about it is just making me cry more".

The casual and offensive sexist stereotyping is off the scale of course.

A quick glance through her tweets shows absolutely zero interest in er, Green stuff. No tweets about climate change, animal welfare, recycling... anything remotely environmental at all.

I know the Green Party's innate misogyny is nothing new here but I had to vent. They are going from bad to worse. The trouble is, those not active on Twitter or social media are not aware of the danger this Party poses.

I'm not even sure if Kathryn is even transitioned?

And why do so many transwomen have an annoying little `cute' smile in their profile pics? It's just annoying.

I used to have a position of responsibility in the Green Party in the noughties and there was none of this rubbish. We were completely consumed with environmental concerns and animal welfare. People used to make fun of us because we were beardy and sandal clad and unworldly but at least we were authentic.

Does Bristow never ask themselves why? Why are they unsafe in the gent's?

Bristow knows this perfectly well; this conflating two separate things as one is done solely because it is very useful to achieving the goal.

Issue 1) Absolutely correct and justifiable: NGC males are vulnerable to toxic masculinity being policed, male violence, harassment and discrimination, and many do not want to have to use facilities specific to a sex they don't wish to identify themselves as.

These very justifiable needs can be meet by provision of additional gender neutral facilities under law.

However suggest this and you get to issue 2:

2. TW don't want to be segregated, this is an unacceptable 'othering' and discrimination because there is a desire to be in female single sex spaces with females . Unpicking this desire is in many threads, I won't explore that here.

Needs and wants.

Needs - yes. Absolutely that need can and should be met, by law, with a fast tracked process to achieve it in all new builds and public spaces asap. Very doable.

The want - well what do female people want? If want matters, it has to matter to all. Should male people's wants to be with female people trump the wants of many female people to have female only spaces, with the female people happy to use mixed sex spaces having their needs met by gender neutral provisions available? If male wants trump female wants, how is this not sex based sexism and discrimination?

Should female people be compelled to participate in something they do not believe in or agree with, however much they may fully support someone choosing to believe and live this in an alongside space?

What do we do with the female people who will be excluded from the spaces and resources provided for female people so that some male people can have their preferred choice of spaces? How is this not sex based discrimination in which female people are subordinated?

What about the rights and needs of half the human race to be recognised and permitted to set their own boundaries, have their own spaces and associate as a group? Why are these rights and needs being discussed as if it's something normal and right that this is in the power of male born people to decide and gift or take away as they see fit depending on male people's wants and needs getting serviced first? Doesn't this just see female born people (sex based thinking) as subordinate to males and female spaces in the ownership of males?

Isn't this just as sexist as all fuck?

When you unpack it, you see very clearly why Bristow and many others, want these issues all conflated nicely into one bundle that puts the valid needs on top and hides the very questionable wants well inside.

So it's OK for her to feel unsafe in a man's space, but it's not OK for us to feel unsafe with a man in our space.

How does that work then? Her feelings are valid, but she gets to say ours are not. It just makes my head ache, why don't people see the hypocrisy.

[quote SunsetBeetch]Oh heck, I hadn't relieved that Kathryn works for Gender GP!

www.gendergp.com/changing-my-gender-marker-was-easier-than-i-expected/

Interesting thread about Gender GP here - expect more horror stories to come:

twitter.com/DanialWebb/status/1343815417417101312?s=20[/quote]
Inspirational poem on the Facebook page about women who have erections:

Here's to the women who stand
The women who take their lives in their hands

*What do we do with the female people who will be excluded from the spaces and resources provided for female people so that some male people can have their preferred choice of spaces?

Just to add here:

If male people cannot use female spaces, they have the male spaces to fall back on.

You cannot tell female people that mixed sex spaces are available to them and them not wanting to use them, not feeling safe, wanting privacy and dignity etc is stupid, unreasonable and something they have to get over while at the same time using those exact reasons as why male people can't just get on with using male spaces available.

Total logic failure. Unless of course you believe that male feelings and needs are superior and matter in a way that female ones don't.

The GC women's response to this is to say ok, third way, we hear you, third spaces that can look any way you want: single cubicles, you tell us. What do they look like, and we'll help you campaign to have that alternative.

What are the trans lobby offering to females who say they can't use mixed sex spaces? Where is their alternative provision?

It doesn't exist, does it? (Please prove me wrong!) It's obey or lose everything and serve you right.

Which again is very much an attitude reflective of a sex based hierarchy.

And is based on wanting to be in female spaces with females: this is the one thing that can't be provided in third spaces.

How females feel about this or whether they consent to it is irrelevant to Bristow.

And you'd think, on reflection, that the varied needs, voices and feelings and intersectional interests of women would be of interest and something Bristow would care about and be passionate about, considering that the point of this is that TWAW?

Is Bristow interested in all female people as a women's officer?

When Challenor was interviewed for the inquiry report, they thought that safeguarding was something to do with data protection, and that was after they had - presumably - been through some form of training as a party officer.
The party has a chronic problem with safeguarding, transparency and credibility. The wider membership needs to pay attention and get some sensible motions through at the next conference to start undoing the damage, and not sit on their hands waiting for women to do something.

Isn't this just as sexist as all fuck?

Yes. And if you question it, the co-leader tells you to "never join, thanks".
It's basically a club for people who see women as an identity/stereotype/feeling/attitude that can be claimed by anyone.

Just going to add here out of the way, I bloody love you lot.

I've been drawn into looking on AIBU, Chat and the coronavirus boards in the past few days following news threads, and am just at the viciousness, rudeness, nastiness and random spite all over those threads. I'm too used to FWR where everyone is naice, civil, has actual evidence and sources, makes reasoned and explained points, are not randomly spiteful, and those behaving less well tend to get their behinds handed to them. (Naicely, with doilies.)

Possibly the additional policing here has its benefits.

@MichelleofzeResistance

And is based on wanting to be in female spaces with females: this is the one thing that can't be provided in third spaces.

How females feel about this or whether they consent to it is irrelevant to Bristow.

I really don't believe that KB feels anything other than enjoyment at baiting women and any men who refuse to capitulate to the trans-activists' demands. The chat emanating from him and a few others during the Green Party Autumn Conference on Zoom recently, was horrible.

You cannot tell female people that mixed sex spaces are available to them and them not wanting to use them, not feeling safe, wanting privacy and dignity etc is stupid, unreasonable and something they have to get over while at the same time using those exact reasons as why male people can't just get on with using male spaces available.

You’re so good at logic and reasoning Michelle - I’m still trying to improve mine and your posts make so much sense :-)

thank you

Just going to add here out of the way, I bloody love you lot [on FWR]

Me too, Michelle. I've been posting here about looking after a dear relative with cancer -- on FWR because of the issues that have arisen as she nears death. I have had so many thoughtful and caring responses, at a time when I've needed some comfort. A reminder that the best thing women have is each other.

Bristow is increasingly claiming to be Black/Mixed.

It’s this true?

Just had a look at Bristow's twitter feed. Going back a month, dozens of tweets, there is, quite literally, nothing about the environment. Nowt, nix, nada.

Their profile certainly ticks all the boxes though.