Kirsty Blackman tweet

[greatpurplepolkadots]

Kirsty Blackman, an SNP MP who has been very critical of Joanna Cherry and GC feminism has put out a tweet demonstrating she has completely misunderstood the two sides of the argument:

"I am a woman, I live as a woman, and I dress however I like... That's why when we hear 'Gender Critical' individuals talking about 'proper women' or 'real women' I am gravely worried"

The comments are amazing.

This proposed law:

FFS what even is the relevance of all this "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'. “

There are no restrictions on how to woman. Les Dawson, bless his cotton Pretty Pollys did a marvellous job. Possible looked more womany than me these days. But the only way to be a woman is to be born one.

And the nonsense of "checking genitals" before entry. Do you know what, if a biological man thinks he can use this shit to get access to my daughters changing rooms, take her place on a starting line or as a Dr give her an internal when she's asked for a female then that's deception and lying. He is a nasty human being.

I'm so fed up and cross with all this nonsense.

Bloody hell Warrior

To be honest, that sentence is an own goal.

Making that statement and saying it's illegal will make some think, hang on, wtaf? And yes, they are biological men.

Baring in mind that trans people can receive actual transphobia in the form of hcps or the office staff etc really not understanding their biological actual needs medically.

There was a big piece on that in the guardian a while ago, all around the fact that biology must be recognised for best care.

Perhaps KB watches a lot of Kardashians, and has taken to heart Caitlyn Jenner’s observation that the hardest thing about being a woman is figuring out what to wear?

The most instructive aspect of KB’s ongoing public commentary on issues related to gender identity/trans rights is that she herself has tweeted things that are wildly transphobic. And yet she has not (so far) been called on it by those who routinely bully Joan MacAlpine, Joanna Cherry, Ruth McGuire, Jenny Marra, Rosie Duffield, Johan Lamont, et al.

For example, consider KB’s tweet - which she still hasn’t taken down - asking why women should have any input in GRA reform. Obviously, regardless of one’s views on whether, when, and how “trans women are women” it’s incontrovertible that some trans people are women. Is she implying that trans people are some third (or possibly third and fourth) sex; neither women nor men? It’s reminiscent of the Samoan Prime Minister who claimed that, for purposes of competing in sport, people should be divided into “men, women, trans, and tomboys."

One might almost intuit that transphobia, or ignorance about trans people, or saying things in the public sphere that hurt and dehumanise trans people as a group are OK with this cabal. As long as you support certain political projects - the ones that subsume and give away women’s rights, erode safeguarding, and foster a climate of rape apologism - anything else is just acceptable collateral damage.

No reasonable person thinks an MP is going to be completely up to speed on all issues all the time. There’s no need for KB to wade into this debate at all if she’s not willing and able to keep herself informed. Plenty of KB's SNP MP and MSP colleagues (including, thank goodness, my own MP and constituency MSP) keep scrupulously silent. Nevertheless, she persists. Why?

Relevant thread

Guardian will make you angry www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4173247-Guardian-will-make-you-angry

@WarriorN

This proposed law:

Not a law. The SNPs party definition of transphobia (which may well find its way into law).

On a similar note, the QC leading the investigation into whether misogyny should be included in hate crime is off to a good start...

But Kennedy is immediately clear on how she would define the scope of specific protection she is charged with: “This is about hatred. Trans women, gay women, journalists, parliamentarians, all women get a whole lot of horrible stuff slung at them – disproportionately – and I’m not narrowing down those who receive it.

amp.theguardian.com/law/2021/feb/22/ill-set-no-limits-on-which-women-to-protect-from-hate-says-helena-kennedy

I notice KB rt something about girl guiding Scotland and being for "all girls."

And also abuse of women on social media, presumably referring to the abuse she may get as a result of her blog. So, basically, no debate.

Looks like the staniland question thread may need to be directed at the Scottish parliament.

Thanks Its.

But if to be an actual hate crime then effectively a type of law? If not in stone, then in unofficial practice? This stuff becomes unofficial law in parts of society.

Maybe I've got it wrong but I thought that there were two different things happening at the same times. There's the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill and there's a proposed definition of "transphobia" to be used (at least for the moment) in the SNP for its own internal purposes.

I think "referring to a transwoman as a "biological man"" is intended to be part of the latter rather than part of the Bill that's supposed to become law.

Have I misunderstood?

Ha, ItsAllGoingToBeFine got there long before me while I was trying to pull the bones out of what was going on.

So they're hounding everyone out of their party who is actually Gc?

And then anyone who votes for them for independence will be also be voting for these ideas which will potentially then become law.

The "Quote Tweets" are fabulous

A selection attached.

mobile.twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/1363560368430145538/retweets/with_comments

Laughing at this hashtag

#IStandWithTheVastMajorityOfWomenRespondingToThisOddArticleFromKirstyBlackman

My post was reported for incivility.

Re-written here:

I'm wondering if Kirsty has fallen into the trap, that a lot of people do, in that thinking that male born individuals, presenting as women, are gender busting. Precisely because she views them as the opposite sex to women. Male born individuals, presenting eg, sartorially, as women, could easily be perceived as gender non conforming. Or gender busting. As long as you still think of them as male.

But if you add the rest of the premise, which is, 'and therefore they are women', the gender restrictions become obvious.

It's this last sentence which concretes in the gender boxes, rather than blowing them open.

I personally spoke to a woman who thought it progressive and gender busting because certain men were presenting as women. (Her husband actually taught feminism in Italy so they both viewed it as positive). The penny dropped instantly when I gave her the end of the sentence, 'and that makes them women'.

Yes, exactly so, Datun.

Eddie Izzard wearing dresses 'they're not women's clothes, they're my clothes' was 'gender busting'. Eddie Izzard calling Eddieself a woman because of lipstick/hair - reinforcing gender stereotypes.

Shit, I hope that wasn't uncivil. I was just trying to put it clearly.

without 'misgendering' - I have no idea what pronouns Eddie uses at the moment.

@ArabellaScott

Yes, exactly so, Datun.

Eddie Izzard wearing dresses 'they're not women's clothes, they're my clothes' was 'gender busting'. Eddie Izzard calling Eddieself a woman because of lipstick/hair - reinforcing gender stereotypes.

Precisely

@mnhq why was my comment deleted?!?! what rule did I break?

The article is on a new blog called The Blether, which implies some kind of conversation, and yet it is not open for any comments. I wonder why?

@Horehound just to let you know that '@MNHQ' doesn't send a message anywhere. You need to @ individual mods or just report your own post to bring it to MNHQ's attention.

Oh really? I'm sure it used to 🤔