Student Lucy responds to James Kirkup

[WandaWomblesaurus]

www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-should-my-student-paper-report-on-an-anti-trans-documentary/

So all I can basically get from this is that she thinks it's hate speech.

My response to her is that I think she's an idiot.

"After all, journalists shouldn’t be obliged to report on things that might cause harm to others."

Ok Lucy.

so we can watch it online and that is ok.

what a load of codswallop

Aren’t there special newspapers for people like Lucy who only want to read “good news”?

Lucy: "I'm not against free speech."

Also Lucy: "The rights of men claiming to be women are not up for debate."

I can see that world-class university training in how to manage logical, non-contradictory claims is really bearing fruit.

After all, journalists shouldn’t be obliged to report on things that might cause harm to others."

Activists constantly saying that trans people kill themselves if people don't believe they have changed sex would definitely fall under this category. Suicide reporting guidelines weren't just plucked out of the air - they are designed to prevent further harm. But TRAs know better of course.

Let’s be clear: nobody, regardless of the beliefs they hold on gender, is denying the existence of biological sex.

Oops, cocked up on that there, Lucy!

In case it wasn't obvious, I was paraphrasing above. Lucy doesn't think trans women are men CLAIMING to be women. She thinks they're LITERALLY women because... because... oh no. Wait, we're not allowed to debate why she thinks that.

It's always the same question - is she deliberately lying, or has she not bothered to look into this?

Why? Because it falsely implies that the rights of trans people are up for debate.

Rights to do what? Refund a purchase under distance selling rules?

"Rights" is up there with "links" in that it's rarely actually defined. (And "woman", of course).

Anyway, Lucy has used her links with The Spectator to argue against women's rights, that much is clear

What Lucy thinks of as journalism is actually activism.

As for this: "After all, journalists shouldn’t be obliged to report on things that might cause harm to others."

I just don't even know what to say about this other than what an absolutely extraordinary claim.

Lucy will be surprised to learn that according to some trans activists, trans men are male and trans women are female.

Whatever I think of Lucy's article, I have no wish to deny her a platform for her views. What a pity she doesn't seem to want to extend that right to others. All credit to The Spectator for publishing both sides of the argument and leaving readers to make up their own minds.

That summary suggests that being transgender is nothing more than a belief system
What else could it be?

and that trans people are apparently undeserving of rights.
Bit of a reach. Nothing about the summary even implied that.

Why shouldn't AFH reject Butler's theories?

nobody, regardless of the beliefs they hold on gender, is denying the existence of biological sex. Penises and vaginas aren’t figments of the imagination. But to argue that the difference between the two sexes is based solely on biology dangerously neglects the distinction between sex and gender.
Hang on a sec, That summary suggests that being transgender is nothing more than a belief system

Total incoherency and inconsistency.

Lucy appears to have missed the irony that James Kirkup disagrees with her and not only thinks she should have a right to reply but actually invited her to do so and she accepted. It's almost like he's a proper journalist who really understands the concept of balance rather than only platforming voices he agrees with. It's very kind of James to show Lucy, by example, what balanced journalism looks like.

The rest of the film – which features an uncomfortably long clip of two squirrels copulating

This is hilarious. Lucy apparently needs trigger warnings for nature documentaries but presumably has all the usual TRA attitudes towards porn.

Have to admit when I watched the film the 2 squirrels copulating didn’t bother me - basic reproduction. Have to say the bit looking at how men eroticise womanhood did make me squirm.

"Penises and vaginas aren’t figments of the imagination. But to argue that the difference between the two sexes is based solely on biology dangerously neglects the distinction between sex and gender."

What utter nonsense. The only danger here is that Lucy doesn't understand basic facts of life and will push for women to be erased from medical literature causing actual harm to women and children.

But you know - penises aren't figments of imagination.

Maybe it was an imaginary penis that raped me Lucy. Attached to a non specific human.

What a fucking charlatan she is.

Journalists failed to tell the Russian people about the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. Doing so might have caused panic, or mistrust in the political system.

Perhaps Lucy should have a job in 1980s Pravda

I suspect she doesn't watch the whole film but instead got a tummy ache when she saw the squirrels shagging and then had to lie down in her cosy bed because she felt triggered and unable to cope.

My first and main response to that is wtf education has been provided to this young adult that they've reached the point of doing a degree with a total lack of critical thinking, basic common sense or independence of thought.

I keep referencing it lately because it is so depressingly bloody relevant: the book 'Come to this court and cry' by Linda Kinstler references the historical records that the Nazis intentionally selected 16-24 year olds to the teams sent to commit the very worst atrocities in Eastern Europe. Because they knew young adults of this age were oh so easy to manipulate, indoctrinate and feed dogma to without the life experience or maturity to ask difficult questions or protest. Particularly as they were fresh out of an education system where they'd been trained to do what they were told, believe what they were told, and an educational system that had been carefully pushing propaganda and political indoctrination.

"Penises and vaginas aren’t figments of the imagination. But to argue that the difference between the two sexes is based solely on biology dangerously neglects the distinction between sex and gender."

Someone is going to have to spell this out for me.
Surely saying a biological difference (sex) is purely a biological difference (and people can be free to act, feel, etc however they fancy) is reinforcing the distinction between sex and gender?

I suppose she might be saying that men and women are socialised differently, so some biological females might have a "masculine" set of behaviours etc that isn't caused by sex? But... that's a gender-critical view.

Her belief as to what "The difference between the two sexes" is seriously needs spelling out here. I had assumed she meant biological differences but does she subscribe to "men act like THIS, women act like THAT"? Apart from a marked increase in violence and aggression in males as a class I don't think there are many complete distinct differences between the sexes - this was hashed out on another thread where people were saying 'but women are more sociable' etc.

Shame she feels she has to handwave away important distinctions when she's been given a whole article to try and set out her claims. A lot of it is the same old cliches that don't really have any relevance.

I can't read the full article, I must have used my free article stipend, but frankly I don't want to. I know what it will say, the usual contradictory babble and lies. I did manage to read a Ron Liddle article on wokeness , which was a bit of a curate's egg. Anyway, link to the twitter

twitter.com/spectator/status/1605880854001205248?s=20&t=sZuXFnwYQBC3aJSj6619Dw

Popping up below that twitter thread was one for the pillock of the year! Jeremy Clarkson and Kweer Starmer both showing strongly. I was sorely tempted to sign up for twitter just so I could nominate Sturgeon, except 'pillock' does not come close to expressing my feelings about him and the rest of the Scottish N*nce Party enabling their shitshow.

I suppose she might be saying that men and women are socialised differently, so some biological females might have a "masculine" set of behaviours etc that isn't caused by sex? But... that's a gender-critical view.

Exactly. Pushing back against socialisation, i.e. gender stereotyping, is what gender critical means.

And I wouldn't mind so much, if there was a single, solitary transwoman, to my knowledge, who displayed even the slightest nod to female socialisation.

It's not much of an argument claiming that a man's inner gender identity is female, when they only display the gender stereotypes of a man, all the damn time.

It's not biological, it's not innate and it's not even female socialisation. It's rampant, toxic male socialisation and male biology from start to finish.

This is what happens when someone's internal sexism is so instinctive, they can't see it, even when their arguments go up in a puff of smoke because of it.

To me it seems that Lucy Jackson views the concept of sex existing independent of gender is hateful and the only non-hateful way to think is in terms of a combined sex/gender concept. It would be interesting to explore that were Lucy able to provide a logically coherent idea of what she thinks is "gender".

But she says it's dangerous to neglect the distinction between sex and gender.
So we're all agreed they're entirely separate - "woman gender" has nothing to do with breasts, body parts etc - yet one side thinks the world should be organised by gender (which they can't define) with sex ignored, and one thinks it should be organised by sex (where necessary) with gender ignored.