We aren't the popular girls according to The New Statesman

[WandaWomblesaurus73]

www.newstatesman.com/internet-social-media/2022/01/gender-critical-feminism-is-not-as-popular-as-its-supporters-may-want-you-to-believe

I'm just laughing at the idea of someone writing in the New Statesman and calling others "unpopular".

It's like when Lib Dem supporters have called GC feminists "a tiny, irrelevant minority".

Galileo? Pissed off the Pope, convicted by the Inquisition, spent the last thirty years of his life under house arrest. Don't think you can get much more unpopular than that. Still bloody right, though, wasn't he? If it's a choice between the likes of Galileo, or Martin Luther King, or those heroic women brutalised under the Cat and Mouse Act, or too many more to count, then I'm going with the people who champion heliocentric celestial mechanics, or drag their country out of a barbarically racist collective mindset, or ... You get the picture. Indeed, being unpopular is almost an inevitable consequence of being right about something this important - stupid people will never thank you for pointing their stupidity out to them, after all.

(And if being popular sticks me in with Jolyon Maugham, Nancy Kelley, Aimee Challenor, Adrian Harrop.. I like it over here with the rejects, thank you very much).

Says more about the author’s motivations than any GC women. It’s always projection isn’t it.

A good look in the mirror would help, but they’d be too afraid to.

Maybe she should rewrite her article as “no one gives a shit about women’s rights and why I’m cool with that.”

Nailed it.

It's like when Lib Dem supporters have called GC feminists "a tiny, irrelevant minority".

Oh, cruel and hurtful!

Well I bloody love you all.

Me too, Jay.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Well I bloody love you all.

Me too, Jay.

Me three.

I bloody love you all too and you're all very popular with me.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus I stopped listening to File on Four because of that. I lost all trust in the accuracy of their reporting, which is a real shame because they had covered some really interesting topics.

When will More or Less look at the gender identity stats?! (We can dream)

More or Less is great but occasionally, when they find themselves in a politically contentious area having a right side of history aspect, they will toe the line.

Oh no, I'm not in with the 'in crowd'!

Except actually, not being twelve, I'll stick with what's right instead of running wherever the lemmings tell me to. Fgs, is this really all this political lobby have got?

Transgender people are twice as likely to be victims of crime than cis people’.

Drive by stickerings and misgenderings, perhaps.

I see that NS trotted out the YouGov poll and say " Most Britons do not harbour anti-trans views – surveys have shown for years that people in the UK are largely supportive of trans rights." Yes, people in the UK are largely supportive of trans people, even GC people. However, this journalist conveniently ignores the section of the poll where opinions change when people were asked "When specified that the transgender person in question had not had gender reassignment surgery" and the responses were not in favour of transwomen using women's changing rooms or toilets.

Honestly? I'm very popular and the only TWAW person I know of isn't. In fact, ive found the TWAW position is mainly espoused by isolated people whose main contact with the world is via screens and MMOs.

@nauticant

More or Less is great but occasionally, when they find themselves in a politically contentious area having a right side of history aspect, they will toe the line.

When will More or Less look at the gender identity stats?! (We can dream)

They'll look at it the day that Full Fact do, so around the 12th of Never.

@CompleteGinasaur

Galileo? Pissed off the Pope, convicted by the Inquisition, spent the last thirty years of his life under house arrest. Don't think you can get much more unpopular than that. Still bloody right, though, wasn't he? If it's a choice between the likes of Galileo, or Martin Luther King, or those heroic women brutalised under the Cat and Mouse Act, or too many more to count, then I'm going with the people who champion heliocentric celestial mechanics, or drag their country out of a barbarically racist collective mindset, or ... You get the picture. Indeed, being unpopular is almost an inevitable consequence of being right about something this important - stupid people will never thank you for pointing their stupidity out to them, after all.

(And if being popular sticks me in with Jolyon Maugham, Nancy Kelley, Aimee Challenor, Adrian Harrop.. I like it over here with the rejects, thank you very much).

I would like to second this (e)motion.

Unpopular views compared to the hollow eyed consumers of TikTok glitter culture maybe. However the majority of humans who aren't mentally ill understand basic biology.

This is why the New Statesman no longer has my subscription.

Always feel I have to pipe up for NS on these threads. They publish Louise Perry, Harry Lambert and Rachel Cooke, all of whom are GC or at least (in Lambert's case) willing to give the GC side a fair airing. They're a lot more even handed than any other publication I can think of actually, in that Times, Spectator etc never air the 'TWAW' position.

That's misleading, The Times has given a platform for people to speak out against the gender critical position, see this example a month ago:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-the-harry-potter-generation-turned-on-jk-rowling-9gz3bpk2t

I also don't think it's fair to compare the coverage by The Times and articles that look like propaganda and contain clear falsehoods.

@CompleteGinasaur

Galileo? Pissed off the Pope, convicted by the Inquisition, spent the last thirty years of his life under house arrest. Don't think you can get much more unpopular than that. Still bloody right, though, wasn't he? If it's a choice between the likes of Galileo, or Martin Luther King, or those heroic women brutalised under the Cat and Mouse Act, or too many more to count, then I'm going with the people who champion heliocentric celestial mechanics, or drag their country out of a barbarically racist collective mindset, or ... You get the picture. Indeed, being unpopular is almost an inevitable consequence of being right about something this important - stupid people will never thank you for pointing their stupidity out to them, after all.

(And if being popular sticks me in with Jolyon Maugham, Nancy Kelley, Aimee Challenor, Adrian Harrop.. I like it over here with the rejects, thank you very much).

Hear hear!

I like the Times and the Spectator, I have a sub to both and I appreciate their courage in breaking the omerta on covering this issue from the GC perspective years before most other publications had the guts. But it's not misleading to say both have a GC slant. Danny Finkelstein is the only editorial voice I can think of at the times who has a 'TWAW' position and he doesn't weigh in on it often, it's not his field. Whereas Janice T will have columns on the topic at least once a month, plus a few of the their education and crime correspondents return to stories that highlight the GC perspective regularly.

I'm not having a go at them - I pay for them! - just saying they're not neutral. Whereas I think the NS actually is and it's quite refreshing. I assume Jason Cowley (the ed) is insisting on it, probably in the teeth of pressure from all sides.

I've got no time at all for Manavis, I think she is deliberately misleading on this topic and is actually a genuinely terrible journalist. Others at the NS, eg Ailbhe Rea, are obviously TWAW but remain good journalists, in that they interrogate things and don't sling insults around.

@Zandathepanda

Rachel Muller Heyndyk who did the Logically report link has done a couple of trans reports. Unfortunately the data that she uses can be linked to and it can be seen that she draws illogical conclusions. For instance, in one article it implies there were 375 murders of trans people in over 2020-2021. She has corrected this just now to say this is not a U.K. figure but a worldwide figure. It can also be seen it is not a ‘neutral’ response from her ‘cis’ language. There were 0 murders in the U.K. of trans people according to her datasource. In the U.K. a man kills a woman every three days; a woman is killed by a male partner or ex-partner every four days. This figure hasn’t changed for years. So how can her Logically report reference murders and headline with ‘Transgender people are twice as likely to be victims of crime than cis people’.

You are forgetting that some people can be the victims of horrific and emotionally damaging crimes when their needy feelingz are very badly hurt by seeing demeaning ribbons, or stickers about male violence towards women , or are forced to read medical leaflets that contain the words cervix, woman or mother, or are asked very simple questions about their presence in women only spaces. When you start to compare these horrific experiences to those of women merely killed, beaten, or raped by their partners you can start to see how those “twice as likely to experience crime” figures are arrived at.

I had to google the author's name after following the link to her tweets. I was convinced that she would be a transwoman because I was so shocked at the vitriol directed at women standing up for their rights... :(

Come on, fucking MILLWALL were even scared to host gc feminists! www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5487525/Tough-Millwall-football-club-caves-transgender-activists.html

Whaaaat????!!!!!! Oh I will never see Millwall in the same light again. What a bunch of wusses. That gives me even more respect for the women who do stand up to transactivists.

I'm just dropping by because of my username & because I want to say I love you all. You're my best mates, you are.hic.