They’re not Terfs they are ‘Terds’ Senator Nick McKim announces in Tasmanian Parliament

[Xoxoxoxoxoxox]

I can’t believe the misogyny and hostility towards women.

twitter.com/strangerous10/status/1638373051061633025?s=46&t=KoykWa-IFitZMrteWP2pKA

It's comedy

Imagine having a politician in your government with a four year old’s poo-joke mindset.

Not something to be proud of.

A woman arranges for a group of women to speak.

Some people don't want that to happen and think it's not about women speaking it's about hating transpeople (it's not, it's exactly what it says it is about: letting women speak).

Anyway the people who think she's sending subliminal messages about them gather to protest the women speaking.

Another group of Angry men decide they don't like the women or the people protesting them. so they turn up with a sign about paedophiles. Now one group is mainly women. Women tend not to be paedophiles. The other group is the TRA group. There was more men in this group.

Assuming the men with the anti paedophile sign only expected those two groups to be there which is it more likely they wanted to aim the sign at?

And just because it's not aimed at the women how the hell do people make the leap that this second group of unwelcome people are there to support the women and therefore Let women speak events are in league with nazis?.

I mean logic dictates that if the TRAs and the Anti paedophile Nazi salute people both turned up uninvited then surely they are more on the same side against the women?

But..the sign was directed at the TRAs so maybe they were there to have a go at the TRAs as they knew they're be there protesting the women?

So three groups

Women: not protesting, just wanting to speak about issues that affect women

TRAs: think the world revolves around them therefore these women must hate them so turn up to protest

The other lot: for some reason think TRAs might have quite a few paedophiles in their ranks.

And it's all the women's fault and we deserve to be called TERDS and are accused of being aligned with the far far far right.

It's making me think a little bit of the Wi Spa protests. Remember the riots? Anti paedophile protestors, trans rights activists, anti fa, some preachers, police, probably various other groups.

Carnage.

Who did the media blame?

The woman who had called for the serial sex offender transwoman to be removed from the woman's spa, where he had been hanging out with an erection.

Women calling out men's bad behaviour are the problem.

Never the men actually acting out the fetish/making the nazi salutes/spitting/attacking/smoke bombing.

Just the women, talking, raising the alarm.

That woman was dragged for being rightwing, too, iirc.

"How would you suggest women can avoid being called shit when wanting to talk about womens issues and self id impact? Not talk about them, not talk about them publicly, not talk about them in the presence of KJK or not talk about them if anyone besides KJK listens as you might never know if they are neo nazis?"

Yes. This is what I am asking too. I think we will see a pivot coming.

Posie Parker is framing her tour as 'Let women speak' but quite clearly she does not speak for many, many women, and the crowds that gather in protest against what she has to say is testament to the problems many women have with what she has to say.

Wait, what? I thought the people gathering to protest were supporting her? That's what you said when the Nazis turned up.

Also, just a point of fact. KJK has organised events called Let Women Speak because what happens at these events is that she puts on a sound system and organises a place and time and security and women are then invited to come up and speak. So she's not 'framing her tour' as anything. Literally, what she does is let women speak.

I wonder why you have a problem with that.

No one thinks that Posie Parker is aligned with nazis. Quite apart from her saying I'm not aligned with nazis.

Plus the nazis calling SFW radical, atheist, feminists who promote lesbianism (I mean that's TRA talk, right there isn't it! Perhaps they don't realise 🙄).

And a senator calling raped women, and victims of sexual abuse talking about their experiences, turds, is not really very smart, let's face it. Even idiot TRAs realised the lack of mileage in that acronym years ago.
But, what he clearly doesn't realise is the direction of travel that other countries are taking with this.

And, given the rank misogyny displayed by these politicians, I'm pretty certain he also doesn't realise the toehold that gender critical feminism is gaining in other countries. Women are making waves.

Even American tw surgeons reverse ferreting on breast amputation, for instance. The Nicola Sturgeon debacle. And Keir Starmer trying to back burner the entire issue.

let's see what happens when media other than the captured Australian cohort start reporting on this.

Because, sure as shit, Posie is not going to shut up.

Did the Guardian ever get around to apologising for that shit show?

"You are weaponising the death of fucking millions for a silly political whine that women won't lie down and do what you say. It is bloody appalling. And you may not give a fuck about that, but I find that endlessly and multiply more disgusting than whether or not KJK happened to be in the vicinity of some flag flapping LARPer on a day out."

I asked " Do you understand there were Jewish women there who actually were part of the speakers and who helped organise the Standing for Women event?"

"Do you understand how offensive these claims are that you are making?"

of posters this morning... not one of the posters who are here declaring either an alignment of women discussing their needs with these men, National Socialist Network, has acknowledged this.

Not one.

It's not whether it's a woman or man, like I say I couldn't care less, plenty of men saying problematic things on the subject as far as I'm concerned.

And I wouldn't write off a person entirely, if Posie Parker turned round one day and said 'Listen I was wrong about blah blah' I would be listening, so to me it's more on what a person is saying at a point in time.

But yeah, for sure, I have problems with what Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel have had to say in the past.

But none of us have to accept or get on board with anything we don't want to, and it's important to challenge areas we find problematic.

I think there's a belief here at times that 'the means justify the ends', that it might get dirty at times, there may be casualties but so what, you do what you gotta do. I don't believe in that ...you don't know what the real 'ends' are going to be, and before you know it they are looping out of your control and into the hands of people that are able to cause immense harm.

There is an appetite waiting in the wings for the right time...to use the same rhetoric but with new groups as targets, and employing the same rationales and justifications. And it seems unthinkable but everyone is potentially at risk, everyone will have characteristics that can be seized upon if they are in the wrong place at the wrong point in time. The wrong sex, the wrong sexuality, the wrong religion, the wrong colour of skin, the wrong family, the wrong amount of wealth, the wrong amount of intelligence (wear glasses? You would have been a target for Pol Pot's Killing Fields ).

A negative association, a negative connection will be made with that characteristic you happen to have, and you can be targeted next. So to my mind it's important to challenge this rhetoric that delights in prejudice and bigotry.

She’s being put on a pedestal and that makes me deeply uncomfortable.

This is an interesting interpretation.

I wouldn't have described being compared to excrement, lied about, and trashed by the mainstream media in Australia as being put on a pedestal.

No.

This is the most recent article I can find on the Guardian website.

Note the lack of apology. The glossing over of the fact that the person who exposed himself is a convicted sex offender. And the ridiculous slant on the reporting.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video

Yes.

And there was that poster, I think we all remember who that was, that declared the woman standing in the reception complaining was more egregious in her actions than the naked male with a semi-erect penis who got into a spa with a nine year old girl and other women.

It takes outstanding lack of logic to make any such statement....

Who was it that insisted that the little girls just 'shouldn't look'?

so to be clear.

"It's with the gradual erosion of values people once believed in through the convincing rhetoric of people who can justify harm to an outgroup under the guise of protecting an ingroup. It's the normalising of those new attitudes in society."

You would not make this statement about Kathleen Stock if she took over organising the Standing for Women events? And ran them as a completely open event, where any woman of any belief could come and talk in public?

You think you can convince us that you would not make the same comments about any woman who ran the events that Kellie Jay Keen runs.

And to be clear further, if other women are running them and running them along the exact same model, if she is not Kellie Jay Keen you would not make the comments you made in that post about them?

Laurie Penny.
Sally Hines also said similar, as did many others.
Blaming little girls.

And there was that poster, I think we all remember who that was, that declared the woman standing in the reception complaining was more egregious in her actions than the naked male with a semi-erect penis who got into a spa with a nine year old girl and other women

Who was it that insisted that the little girls just 'shouldn't look'?

Yes. Just like women pointing these things out are far worse than neo-Nazis.

Tney'll go out of their way to stop women talking about boundary erosion.

Invoking nazism is pretty extreme, though. What next? Satan worshipping? I honestly wouldn't put it past them.

Eventually they'll run out of things to compare women to.

A negative association, a negative connection will be made with that characteristic you happen to have, and you can be targeted next. So to my mind it's important to challenge this rhetoric that delights in prejudice and bigotry.

Yes. Politicians using dehumanising rhetoric, such as referring to feminists as 'TERDS' is dangerous. I agree.

I still read this as:

'women, you have to be very careful in what you say in case you inspire a male with no self control to go and harm people'?

You are telling women that what they say will inflame male's with no self control and with warped ideas that they should not saying anything, or that they have to say it quietly, or nicely, or not in public, or only when the time is right, or in ways that cannot be twisted by people who have deep seated prejudices against them, or however you want to position it.

You are still shaming women for disagreeing with you that males can be women and should be treated as such in law and in also aspects and for trying to protect children's needs.

It's making me think a little bit of the Wi Spa protests. Remember the riots? Anti paedophile protestors, trans rights activists, anti fa, some preachers, police, probably various other groups.

Carnage.

Who did the media blame?

The woman who had called for the serial sex offender transwoman to be removed from the woman's spa, where he had been hanging out with an erection.

Women calling out men's bad behaviour are the problem.

Never the men actually acting out the fetish/making the nazi salutes/spitting/attacking/smoke bombing.

Just the women, talking, raising the alarm.

YY. The media coverage was disgustingly biased and inaccurate.

I think there's a belief here at times that 'the means justify the ends', that it might get dirty at times, there may be casualties but so what, you do what you gotta do.

For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely don't subscribe to this and I've never heard feminists on here say this.

I'm tediously fucking moral. I bore myself rigid being so pedantic. But I will not ever, EVER think it's okay to dehumanise those we disagree with.

"I think there's a belief here at times that 'the means justify the ends', that it might get dirty at times, there may be casualties but so what, you do what you gotta do. I don't believe in that ...you don't know what the real 'ends' are going to be, and before you know it they are looping out of your control and into the hands of people that are able to cause immense harm."

Yet, thread after thread you are here telling us that males should be allowed to access female single sex spaces at the very least. I think I remember you support affirming only treatment pathways too.

You seem to do this, shaming women who disagree with you, with no thought for the 'casualities' that are already happening.

You can attempt to present yourself as taking the 'reasonable' approach that doesn't harm people. But the reality is, that we already know there are casualities that if my memory serves me correctly, you dismiss. I apologise if you do not support affirming only treatment and do not fully support male access to female single sex spaces. Please, by all means correct my misinterpretation.

So, I see this paragraph as hypocritical and dishonest.

They are complete gits.

How they can minimize their role in misreporting the events without an ounce of shame is beyond me.

Painting women as right-wing rent-a-gobs for not falling in line with the gender orthodoxy seems par for the course. But it's a tactic that many seem to delight in, affording them a satisfying ticket to exercise some righteous anger - even when they know it to be an accusation built on bollocks.

For instance Suggestions just how many women having unwanted pregnancies, or being raped, or just having their trauma triggered or feeling unsafe day after day because male is present do you calculate are acceptable 'casualties' to males being in female prisons?

Or are these women not 'casualties' in your mind because you explain it away some how. Like that they are a 'minority'. Or, that the male's needs need to be prioritised here. Or one that you have used numerous times ..... there is little recorded statistics from countries with self ID.

Or is it because 'you don't know what the 'real' ends are going to be'?

"before you know it they are looping out of your control and into the hands of people that are able to cause immense harm. "

What is out of control? n=1?