The Blether - from Scotland

[OhHolyJesus]

I'm writing my submission to the Justice Committee ahead of tomorrow's 10am deadline on the consultation but I got distracted reading this...

"Absolutely, biology is real, but it is not possible to tell what chromosomes or genitals someone has by looking at them. I do not believe there should be restrictions on how to 'woman'.

Any move in that direction is reducing the freedoms I, and my daughter, have. I believe my daughter, and all children growing up across Scotland, should be able to express themselves in the way they want, dressing how they choose to, playing with the toys they'd like to and achieving the goals they want to achieve. We should be supporting them in those goals, not restricting them"

This would probably be a hate crime if this crazy nonsense is to be allowed to proceed much further...

www.theblether.scot/modern-feminism

All you have to do to be a woman is be female. You can like whatever and whoever you like, do whatever job you feel suits you, have so-called 'masculine' or 'feminine' hobbies or presentation or a mix of both and act however you please. That's our position, not that if you look and act uber-feminine then you're a 'proper' woman and if you're a tomboy then not so much. We're fighting against that! Most of us are/were tomboys anyway or at least have a mix of qualities and hobbies traditionally seen as masculine or feminine. Many of us are gay, bi or lesbian too. Is she wilfully misrepresenting GC views to rile people up or is she woefully misinformed?!

I just...I despair. The second paragraph is absolutely GC! Obviously no comments allowed on the blog post but there's some pushback on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/1363560368430145538

I hate Twitter, it's vile but it's not real life and is best ignored, toxic as hell.

Anyway...as you were...

"Absolutely, biology is real, but it is not possible to tell what chromosomes or genitals someone has by looking at them. I do not believe there should be restrictions on how to 'woman'.

This is privileged nonsense. If it weren't possible to judge sex with a very high degree of accuracy, sexism wouldn't exist.

Meanwhile she seems completely unaware of the impact of biology.

Is she wilfully misrepresenting GC views to rile people up or is she woefully misinformed?!

Maybe the latter, given what she has written?

Is she wilfully misrepresenting GC views to rile people up or is she woefully misinformed?!

I honestly cannot tell anymore. One of her colleagues recently tweeted that TWAW is the law. There's certainly a collective belief in the doctrine of gender identity, and in the misinformation about the beliefs of those critical of the doctrine in the wing of the party. But it is difficult to understand their pronouncements sometimes. Does TWAW is the law refer to the doctrine now being enshrined in law, or does it refer to who has women's rights under the law? Does the minister saying this think it is a crime to disagree with the belief or that it is a crime to deny access. Or is it both?

Like with Kirsty, we cannot ask for clarification. We cannot even talk to these politicians. I know people who have tried. There is no willingness to listen, even to a constituent with relevant personal experience. There's much accusation of bigotry and hate though. So we cannot even tell Kirsty that she is very much mistaken in what she thinks a gender critical position is.

She's my MP. 🙄

She's so close to getting it in that article. But I am beginning to think she never will, because she doesn't want to.
How can she misinterpret GC feminism so wilfully? She criticises restrictive gender roles, agrees that being a woman is nothing to do with what you wear or how feminine you act, and then claims that GC feminists define womanhood by clothes....??
What does she think being a woman is, if it is neither biology nor stereotypes?

How can she misinterpret GC feminism so wilfully?

You would think the clue would be in the name!

Yes. Criticises the concept of gender (without actually naming it as such).
Then says she is gravely worried by "Gender Critical individuals" (note she will not use the word feminist here) and accuses us of trying to "police what women wear". But that's the exact opposite of GC feminism!
Everything else she writes in that article is entirely aligned with gender critical feminism.

It would be analogous to carefully setting out your reasons against eating animal products. Then saying "and that's why I am gravely worried by vegan individuals. They want to force us to eat meat and dairy for every meal".

Or... "I think wildfires are awful. That's why I'm gravely worried by firefighters. They want to burn everything because they're obsessed with fire."

If she's your MP, Squishy, could you write to her on the subject? I'm totally astonished at how wrong she has got this.

She has just described herself as a gender critical feminist.
The only bit which isn't is saying it's not possible to tell what sex someone is by looking at them. Which isn't GC as such, but just isn't the case for the vast majority of people. But, equally, unless we're talking about access to single sex spaces, really doesn't matter anyway.

She's so close to getting it in that article. But I am beginning to think she never will, because she doesn't want to

And that is the crux. People do not want to understand because exposure to reasonable views might threaten their established platform.

I think it is a good thing that the voices of young people are listened to; but in recent years these voices seem to have been elevated above the rest. The thing is youth is often naive and idealistic, and inexperienced in the world. And furthermore, there seems to be a tendency not go back and read about the history of movements; not to have read classical texts....and so there is no grounding.

Everything is mediated via social media and through one's on-line tribe.

Yes @SquishySquirmy, please write to her if you can! It sounds like she could use someone setting out the actual GC position.

I'm not sure she's the full shilling.

I will try to write when I have time.
But it feels pretty pointless tbh.

I could spend ages attempting to get the wording just right - as concise and clear as possible, leaving no room for misinterpretation and avoiding going off on tangents (I love a tangent).

And then... what? It probably wont even end up in front of her. And if it does, will she read it? Or will she stop reading as soon a she realises I'm GC, dismiss me as one of those awful bigotted GC women who want women to get back into the kitchen, a dress and the 1950s.

I don't expect to agree with my elected representative on everything.
In fact, I think I would have more respect for her if she disagreed with the GC position, but understood it properly. At least then she would know what she was disagreeing with, and that would give me some confidence in her reasoning skills if nothing else.
But she DOES seem to mainly agree with the GC position. And yet completely midunderstands and demonises it.

It makes me less likely to contact her about other issues, even those unrelated to womens rights. Because to be this wrong about the views of a group who have been trying to be heard takes effort. It's quite an achievement. She (and others) have turned not listening into a skilled artform and this makes me deeply pessimistic that she could comprehend my problem, let alone help.

I would love to believe that she can change her mind though. Or at least listen. Because the tragedy is, I agree with her on a lot of things and I think she is someone who genuinely wants to make the world better. But she is throwing herself behind a movement that will make things worse for our daughters and I can't forgive that.

See, what you've just written would, I think, be useful for her to know. I don't mean write to attack, at all. She seems to be labouring under a pretty enormous misunderstanding.