Anyone else stunned at the hypocrisy they're witnessing?

[yourhairiswinterfire]

I really shouldn't be surprised by now, but...

I'd just like to point it out (hopefully the screenshots attach).

There's also David Lammy who wants violence against women and girls to be treated as terrorism. Thanks Dave, agreed. But didn't you just recently call women who want to protect their rights, who are trying to stop safeguarding for women and girls being dismantled, ''rights hoarding dinosaurs''?

Keir Starmer also so sad about VAWG. The same Keir Starmer who just said that women's reality is something that ''shouldn't be said''.

How are you going to protect women and girls from male violence when you're so terrified of backlash from males that you're pretending you don't even know what a woman or girl is?!

🤡🤡

I’m not stunned. I’m not even slightly surprised.

This piece says i5 all

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/02/if-labour-is-afraid-to-fight-those-who-stifle-free-speech-it-will-pay-dearly?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Poor Sarah didn’t know that he wasn’t ‘really’ working that night anymore than she’d have known he didn’t ‘really’ identity as a woman.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

How can we tackle male violence against women when the word women is no longer allowed to mean 'adult, human female?

Women should be kind and stop complaining about men in their toilets, changing rooms, prison cells. But be vigilant on the street because it is not safe!

Never been a more important time for feminism.

twitter.com/DavidPaisley/status/1444229533864009733 today

mobile.twitter.com/DavidPaisley/status/1411028639777316867 5 minutes ago/sarcasm

Google ‘david paisley marion millar’

transwomen really are women

Let's just pop that into realism, shall we - "men who would like to be women really are women."

Not read thread yet so may have been mentioned.

OJ has disappeared all the comments from his Sarah e posts. And restricted who can comment.

No reflection.
No consideration that he may have missed something.

And it's everywhere.

This has been the approach all the way through by loads of TWAW orgs and individuals and news outlets.

Sometimes woman means gender
And sometimes it means sex

Glaring hypocrisy.

Because they know if they follow the rules they themselves insist on.

Eg violence against people with vaginas by people with penises needs to be addressed.

It would look crass, appalling. There would be outrage.

So they carry on switching back and forth depending on context. And blithely ignore (or delete) the massive number of people pointing out their

SELF SERVING, INCONSISTENT, ILLOGICAL, MISOGYNIST BEHAVIOUR.

They think no one notices? If that's what they think then they

A. Are thick and
B. Dishonest and
C. Think everyone else is thick and won't notice.

Or maybe they're so drenched in the idea of their own infallibility, and so steeped in entitlement and misogyny that they just don't worry about doing this.

Hold on s sec mishi.

You seem to have missed something with your statement.

'
Trans people really are not a threat. Any predatory men, in general don't put on a dress and pretend to be women to do their awful deeds. It just rarely happens, that its not relevant. Anyway my opinion'

Ok so if TWAW and as soon as they feel that inside then the level of risk of doing any of the massive range of things males to to females from lechery to rape immediately decreases to that of vagina people.

Then it must follow that trans men are as big a risk as penis people as soon as they feel that inside.

That means that vagina people need to be worried about EVERYONE. because a trans man may not have altered their appearance or anything yet.

So.

We need to treat everyone as a possible sexual threat. Except trans women?

That's right I think?

And if trans men are the same risk level as penis men. Then clearly by your own logic. Some trans people are a threat.

Yes?

Should we check the internal ID of everyone who seems male. As who knows, you can't tell from appearance. They may not be out yet. And anyway. Presentation and internal gender are unrelated.

Wouldn't that go against the idea that outing anyone is wrong? And will they answer anyone? If they aren't a woman inside. How will they react to the question?

Please can you explain how vagina bodies are meant to navigate this.

Trans people really are not a threat

I don't know how you can make a blanket statement like this about any group of people, especially when the definition of trans has been expanded so widely to include anyone who doesn't conform to gendered stereotypes.

has been expanded so widely to include anyone who doesn't conform to gendered stereotypes.

And many who are completely gender confirming.

Do not upset the men. Be kind.

Those who brazenly spout the trans BS such as TW ARE W, clearly hold others in such contempt for being stupid, it is not even worth wasting your breathe to engagement or debate.

Same with politicians, not only do the show themselves to be spineless, virtue signalling misogynists, they clears signal that they treat all voters as stupid. That many politicians are liars is a given, but this, this is far far worse than just being a liar.

That poster is such a shocker, Devon

TRA hyperbole at its finest: if you challenge somebody for being in the wrong loos, what you're really saying is they don't belong "in the world".

All the gender-conforming men who use the men's loos might be surprised to hear that not using the women's loos = total banishment from the world.

TRA hyperbole at its finest: if you challenge somebody for being in the wrong loos, what you're really saying is they don't belong "in the world".

Yeah.

So if you tell women that if their faith, culture, beliefs, disability, PTSD or need for privacy and dignity means they have no right to be in single sex women's loos what are you saying to them and what you think about their right to belong in the world I wonder?

I'll start listening to this kind of claim when I see TRAs able to treat everyone else as equally human, and do as they would be done by. If it's ok to just exclude a lot of women from women's loos without conscience while calling them a lot of names and shouting how much you don't care, then please don't ask me for empathy about excluding male people.

But what I really came on to say is that The Guardian's hypocrisy on this is beyond belief.

"Women are facing an 'epidemic' of indecent exposure" according to a headline in Saturday's print edition (essentially this article: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/01/police-log-10000-indecent-exposure-cases-but-fewer-than-600-reach-court )

This is on the same page as harsh criticism of a police commissioner who indicated it was up to women to keep themselves safe by memorising what powers police may exercise: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/01/sarah-everard-murder-police-commissioner-apologises-for-saying-women-should-be-more-streetwise

And yet the Guardian's own stated position is that when indecent exposure occurs, it is up to the victim to look inside the mind of the penis-owner to discover whether it is actually a crime or just a lovely 'all women together' experience.

@DevonTF

Do not upset the men. Be kind.

FFS that is such nonsense, it makes me so angry - it's basically propaganda.

What it's really saying is: 'women, if you are uncomfortable or feeling threatened, you are wrong'. Be kind only goes one way I guess.

And yet the Guardian's own stated position is that when indecent exposure occurs, it is up to the victim to look inside the mind of the penis-owner

Quite.

Women must predicate their response on what the penis owner says he is.... except apparently if the penis owner happens to be lying as Sarah's murderer was, then they ought to know this too. After you've been murdered you can definitely report it to the police though.

I honestly don't know at what point we descended into this absolute farce. Just NO. No, I am totally done with all this.

Another excellent response to OJH's hypocrisy: