Kirsty Blackman SNP on diversity

[andyoldlabour]

Well, Kirsty Blackman has finally said it. If a public board had 50% men and 50% trans women, then that would equate to the board being "gender balanced".

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1375030663305367552

Yes... it is confusing. In one post I was giving my view and in another trying to imagine the genderist view.

My first point was that a transwoman isn't usually perceived as a woman - so rightly or wrongly, especially historically, a transwoman would have had male privilege by virtue of being generally perceived as male.

If the patriarchy "incorrectly" perceives TW as men and tomboys as girls, that means oppression is sex-based, right?

Good grief...

So how does she explain sex selective abortion then?

Or how women In hospital gowns in comas get raped ....

What perceived gender are those victims

Simple🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽

Hmmmm! It almost makes you wish there was some simple, straightforward way to decide which was which...

Offensive

Her tweet asking if there is research to prove that discrimination is sex based is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Not a fucking clue

Jane Clare Jones on point

Have you got any proof that omelettes are made of eggs rather than perceived eggs?

Perhaps the origin of this whole terrible business is the existence of 'perceived cheese?' [pic of some American "pasteurized prepared cheese product]

There is actually an article in the LA Times of someone who had 20 attempts to work out how to make a replica of mass produced processed cheese at home America what is going on with you seriously you need help

Rattlecans: I watched my American workmate make omelette from yellow stuff he poured out of a carton

JCJ: This might explain this whole clusterfuck.

Reported my last post because I made a stupid typo. Mumsnet have kindly deleted it and this is what I meant to say:

If, when you were a (biologically female) tomboy, you identified as a girl but were mistaken for a boy then you'd be a girl perceived as a boy.
If you identified as a boy you'd be a boy perceived as a boy except when people correctly identified your sex, in which case you'd be a boy perceived as a girl.

Or, if the tomboy didn't identify as a boy, but assumptions were incorrectly made that because they were female and dressed like a boy that they were trans, then they would be a girl perceived to be a boy perceived to be a girl.

Simple right?

This woman is incredibly dumb.

I think it is difficult for people when they buy wholeheartedly into the ideology without thinking through the implications, and then end up trying to defend it.They've been fully stonewall-trained and told what they must think, and often IMO do believe it because they swallow the idea that being trans is just like being gay – you're born that way, you have a right to exist as your true self, and the true self of a TW is being a woman, just as the true self of a gay person (as was, in the era when gay rights were won) is being same sex attracted, and that cannot be erased or denied.

It takes a long path of thought from that point to realising that unlike being gay, genderism makes no rational sense when logically analysed. So people are stuck in that mindset and will say anything to try to explain it, making them come out with all kinds of breathtaking statements. When you really think about it it's horrifying, but people are not really thinking about it. (Well they are in increasing numbers, but in the meantime we get this kind of thing.)

It's helpful in some ways, in exposing the unviability of it all.

When you really think about it it's horrifying

It is because it means she's blind to the difficulties facing so many women. Many of them incredibly vulnerable.

From a personal perspective I read it knowing that my wage dropped dramatically after a series of events connected to having kids and I just think - give your head a shake love, women are tired of this crap.

Oh balls I just lost a really long reply. I'll do it in chunks this time!

There's a thread on here that explains some of this.

How it goes is.

Anything which refers to or identities things that happen to female (cunty) people as a group are problematic and exclusionary. Anything.

In the UK there are generally big differences between how male and female people present themselves externally.

The next bit is.

In the UK people cover most of their primary and secondary sex characteristics. So other things are at play.

Option 1 is that gendered presentation is so ingrained that it means that is what people use when assessing sex. Long groomed hair, makeup, skirt etc signals woman so strongly that people think yep woman female and proceed accordingly with any discrimination etc

Or

Trans women who pass will be subject to the same as the cunty ones

On the second, hate crime law in E&W and I would assume Scotland as well is on the basis if perception. As it should be.

If a person is attacked for being gay or Muslim it doesn't make it less bad if the attackers made a mistake.

That's where the perception bit comes from.

Logical end points.

Sexism doesn't exist as genitals are covered. Perception is a thing. Therefore transwomen can experience the same things as women. Therefore it is based on what your face and clothes look like not your sex.

Thus sexism doesn't exist.

Discrimination based on how you present yourself according to gender norms is what it is.

But to think that you have to think that no one can tell a man dressed as a woman is really male. In fact most people can tell.

Some women have historically passed as men and managed to work as doctors etc.

Questions.

Can cunty people evade oppression by trying to look like men?

Interesting question.
Pre pubescent girls in some parts of Afghanistan have this done by their parents to avoid certain things. I can find an article if anyone wants.
Around the world and through history women have pretended to be men in name (authors) or in dress etc so they could do things they were otherwise barred from.
So is this idea a step forward?
And how would it work in reality for eg me a 5'3 boobukar woman with a female build and high voice etc. I have short hair but in my consideration no one is going to think I'm a bloke just because I've got men's clothes on and maybe a beard and am speaking as low as I can.

And the BIG QUESTION. if presenting as male can massively reduce your chances of sexual assault, rape, child marriage and mean in some parts of the world you have more rights and freedoms then why the FUCK are all women and girls not doing it?

Because we're thick? Because we secretly like it? Because we're so attached to our clothes that it's too high a price to pay?

The idea that transwomen who pass have certain insights and experiences that are the same as cunty people and so can represent females.

Is a pretty harsh thing to put on the ones that don't.

Where is be kind here then?

Is the idea that a transwoman can count as a woman on a board if she is pretty enough?

I mean come the fuck on.

And this is a big thing for transwomen. To put that on them is awful. Could encourage surgery etc. Essentially they aren't woman 'enough' because of what they look like... (Heard that before...)

Even before you get to the fucking revolting fact of a female mp saying is there any evidence of oppression based on sex.

Fuck me.

Doesn't she read the news? Is she not interested in what's going on around the world? Does she know no history?

And she's a fucking MP!!!!! Who thought it was reasonable and sensible to ask that question in public.

Have to say, as a tweeter pointed out, she's actually recognising

Actual sex

In that tweet.

It's just she doesn't care about women, xx actual women.

If a man were saying all this how would it go down?

I think this is starting to change but being an MP she should know that women are discriminated on the basis of sex/ pregnancy here:

From Invisible Women.