Stella Creasy says women can have penises

[WhereAreWeNow]

Stella Creasy has doubled down on her TWAW position in today's Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/stella-creasy-jk-rowling-wrong-woman-can-have-penis/

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️I’m done with this world this shit. It can get on with it I simply don’t care anymore. Keep your sexual preferences in your bedrooms I don’t care if you gay lesbian stop shoving all this woke crap down our throats.

How can you ‘recognise’ someone as something they objectively are not, without telling lies?

Can anyone interpret this for me?

Saying "no" to men makes them sad.

‘Saying "no" to men makes them sad.’

So her argument (if I have this right) is that people deserve to be ‘recognised’ as things they are not? That’s it?

It's word salad. Classic sign that someone is talking pish but believes using big words strung together incoherently will make the listener believe they're not talking pish. I think we're meant to be impressed by the intellectualism on show.

Doesnae work.

"sometimes you have to break cover and be controversial"

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Right now, 'breaking cover' is saying you believe in biological reality. Not telling people ladies can have dicks is the approved position.

Breaking cover. 🤦

I didn’t think Creasy was undercover.

Ignore the 'not' there.

Telling people ladies can have dicks is the approved position.

Puts me in mind of this bold experiment in Germany.

Some hear ominous echoes of another time when well-meaning adults in thrall to an ideology put children in harm’s way. The post-1968 sexual-liberation movement on continental Europe sought to overturn sexual taboos, and some thought that meant starting young. In German kindergartens run along radical-left lines, teachers encouraged children to fondle them, look at pornography and simulate intercourse. Contemporaneous accounts show how parents repressed their moral qualms by focusing on their beliefs about how an unrepressed child should behave.

Such child-abuse was motivated by political conviction, not sexual desire…The radical left was led by men focused on legalizing homosexuality and smashing the nuclear family. Though they did not intend to endanger children, they gave them little thought. Many leftwing groupings tolerated organizations such as Britain’s Paedophile Information Exchange—not least because they had the same sworn enemies: traditionalist Catholics and evangelicals; hardline conservatives and fascists. The paedophiles made most headway in Germany’s Green Party, which for several years operated as their de facto parliamentary front.

quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/

My final comment on Creasy within the decorous standards to which I aspire:

"I found myself remembering the day in kindergarten when the teachers showed us Dumbo, and I realized for the first time that all the kids in the class, even the bullies, rooted for Dumbo, against Dumbo's tormentors. Invariably they laughed and cheered, both when Dumbo succeeded and when bad things happened to his enemies. But they're you, I thought to myself. How did they not know? They didn't know. It was astounding, an astounding truth. Everyone thought they were Dumbo.” ― Elif Batuman, The Idiot

"The hate campaign reached its peak when she said she found herself cornered in a room where she had been playing pool with a group of lads, only for one to joke about gang raping her."

I applaud Ms Creasy for talking about her experience of sexual intimidation and the threat of male violence that is used to silence women. More high profile people need to highlight the visceral fear females experienced when they are in a space, outnumbered by males and have to make a value judgement of are these males joking, are they harmless or do they represent a genuine threat to my safety.

If some of those lads now say they are lassies, is Ms Creasy going to say she was threatened with gang rape by a group of male and females? Is she going to have to say she misgenered her would be attackers? Is she going to have to reframe her memory of being frightened by a group of males and now think, it was a mixed sex group? Oh will she continue to remember that horrible event as it truly was, a lone female being threatened into silence by those that understood only too well what a woman is.

I think she is a good person. I'm sure she believes what she says and thinks she's doing the right thing.

She's a little too manipulative for me, in the way she conducts these things on Twitter. She will say something outrageously TRA pandering, and then complain of "abuse" and retweet anything she can spin as that.

Absolutely agree with this, I live in an 11+ area and you can see the effects of stepford wife, clone training by Yr 6. They're all intellectual zombies by year 13 and are easy to mould and believe any shite at UG level. There is no critical thinking at all, it's scary.

FGS. No, Stella. Not engaging in this silliness and trying to negotiate through the salad any more. No more pretending, no more trying to reasonably argue, enough now.

TW are TW. There is nothing shameful about being a TW. And the one single qualifying characteristic required to be a TW is to be male.

Women are female. There's nothing shameful about that either.

What is shameful is insulting and erasing the entire female half of the population for head pats from male people. That's bloody shameful. Get a grip for pete's sake.

How can she not see it's an illogical, unworkable ideology when she supports it, but then uses the very word she says has no meaning under it, 'women', and fully expects everyone to understand what it means.

It's a self serving pretence at support. And you see it and over. Trans ideology enthusiasts resorting, unthinkingly, to words they say have no meanings, or different meanings, in order to communicate. Homophobia, lesbian, women's spaces, sex segregation, the word patriarchy itself. Constantly used with the meanings they deny they have.

She clearly understands sex and sexism. And misogyny. She's been the victim of it. She talks about it.

Why doesn't her lack of logic make her head explode??

Can anyone interpret this for me? I’m desperately trying to understand.

Word soup but for me the key part is: contestation isn’t just about categories but recognition which would suggest that the meaning is decided by who has the power to declare what the meaning must be and then everyone has to go along with that, although I doubt she would accept that interpretation. I think it's a variant of the post modernism/critical theory mash-up in operation that people are talking about elsewhere.

And adding to the long list of idiots in the Labour Party. Here's Ben Bradshaw:

twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1530429392136044544

Why do Labour not want to be in government?

Looking good against this government should be the easiest thing in the world instead they spout this nonsense word salad that alienates large numbers of the electorate. She sounds like an appeasing idiot and if they are so easily manipulated on this issue how can they be trusted on anything else

This is perfect. I am all for trans equality, equality of all but I object to being pushed down as a woman for it to happen. that is not equality.

Her latest attempt to explain why she is using woman and female interchangeably to mean either male or female person who has a female identity. Apparently it’s because those horrible gender critical women insist on having a word for themselves:

‘this may make sense if categories weren't contested and that being a power issue. The abusive emails now pouring into my inbox reflect both woman and female used interchangeably. And a refusal to recognise transwomen as either.’

Because they are not women. Women are female.

They're all intellectual zombies by year 13 and are easy to mould and believe any shite at UG level. There is no critical thinking at all, it's scary.

Article from the US on that subject (via Bari Weiss' substack):

We Aren't Raising Adults. We Are Breeding Very Excellent Sheep.

I taught English at Yale University for ten years. I had some vivid, idiosyncratic students—people who went on to write novels, devote themselves to their church, or just wander the world for a few years. But mostly I taught what one of them herself called “excellent sheep.”

These students were excellent, technically speaking. They were smart, focused, and ferociously hard-working.

But they were also sheep: stunted in their sense of purpose, waiting meekly for direction, frequently anxious and lost.

[...]

Eventually, I recognized the deeper continuities at work. Excellent sheephood, like wokeness, is a species of conformity. As a friend who works at an elite private university recently remarked, if the kids who get into such schools are experts at anything, it is, as he put it, “hacking the meritocracy.” The process is imitative: You do what you see the adults you aspire to be like doing. If that means making woke-talk (on your college application; in class, so professors will like you), then that is what you do.

That's disappointing to read. I would have thought local people were more sensible, perhaps the Facebook demographic is more 'woke'.

Just seen this tweet, she's on a hiding to nothing if she thinks she can get more than a tiny % of the population to nod along with her new definition of female

Slightly off topic but I'm always amused by the babble art critics come out with, and found this online phrase generator to create the impressive sounding but meaningless phrases.
www.pixmaven.com/phrase_generator.html

I wonder if Stella is using a tweaked version for her new definitions? Seems plausible to me.

I’m desperately trying to understand.

Ever read any of Chump Lady's blog?

She frequently counsels bewildered, unhappy women trying to make sense of their ex's stories and complexities and reasons for why they are treating her in this way, and leaving and coming back, and finding themselves, and trying to work out whether to pick her or the mistress they had an affair with, and why they needed to have an affair....

and her advice is, will you look at the space this person has managed to take up in your head? The time and energy you are devoting to try and work out the wonder of them? How complex they are?

And how much drama and verbal muddle is working really well for them to dominate you, your time, your attention, your energy like a puppet on a flipping string?

This is what is depressing, she's my MP and otherwise a good one.