Women's rights general conversations - Thread 7

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 6.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions in the supermarket, grr"- that sort of thing).

They've done a swap!

Except the Left are still cancelling...

I think the left picked it up from the right in the first instance and that meant that the right had to go "Cancelling is for snowflakes, we would never do that!" as they metaphorically burned books. Now they both cancel but insist that they don't and it would be hilarious if it wasn't so bloody dangerous.

I've been left wing my whole adult life and I fucking despair at what large areas of it have become but it's always been possible because I've also known, for my whole adult life, that misogyny lives in the left just as it does in the right but in a slightly more convincing disguise. The whole TWAW, etc is just misogyny writ large and of course the left were going to jump on that. The right's place in the whole TWAW, but far more importantly TMAM, is misogyny and homophobia writ large. It's a clusterfuck of hating women. We are now not only less important than men but even less important than men dressing up as women and undermining every single right we've fought so hard for.

Interesting that even the Times won't allow comments on that article. Possibly they realise how angry people are and they know they'll have to delete a lot of them?

Talking to a specialist is not the same as transitioning.

If Ruth holds this to be true then it follows that talking to a specialist is not conversion therapy either.

Exactly this.

And what everyone else has said.

I've been left-of-centre (not left, to be clear) and old-definition progressive/liberal my whole adult life.

Back when the Internet was all fields, I remember being agog at the Gish Galloping Pious Fraudsters of the Religious Right who were shamelessly lying about evolutionary biology, about birth control and abortion, about gay rights, etc. Then later on I got furious about the 21st Century Right shamelessly lying about Brexit, Trumpism, MeToo, etc. I was appalled at how they all seemed to be egging each other on, to further and further extremist reality-denying positions.

Then I realised that while I was looking Over There, the people on "my" side were revealing themselves as exactly the same Gish Galloping Pious Fraudsters who were shamelessly lying about their Bundles of Beliefs and egging each other on to further and further extremist reality-denying positions.

They were allowing comments first thing yesterday morning. Maybe there were felt to be some defamatory ones. The ones I saw were all strongly critical of the lovely Baroness.

Various people on Twitter have also been providing the evidence that she's being economical with the truth, too, including someone who confirms she would only agree to be on a BBC radio programme if he had to go on first, separately and wasn't allowed a rebuttal of any points she made. Silly Ruth, she's drawn all the more attention to her failure to debate by claiming she was always up to discuss.

If anyone else can remember it, the BBC is re-showing the 1970s 3 part series on the Pankhursts Shoulder to Shoulder on BBC 4 on Wednesday. Siân Phillips was born to play Emmeline. I remember watching it when it was first on and learning about the Suffragettes for the first time.

Yes. It’s worse though, because e didn’t expect it from the left, then. Who’d ever have thought the people’s party would betray all women. Unthinkable.

If Starmer has any sense, he ought to be sucking up like mad to Rosie Duffield and Tonia Antoniazzi and giving them some prominence in the PLP.

I wish Starmer had that much spine and sense.

At the moment I struggle to see what Starmer is for. Not just his political stance, but what use is he? A leader who doesn't lead, a lawyer that can't win a debate, a politician with no political vision.

I'm stuck with Ashley Dalton for an MP.
Send help.

Mine is Rupa Huq, who lost the Labour whip for allegedly calling Kwasi Karteng an Oreo. I can think of a lot of far worse things I'd rather call him.

Mine is "Sir" Roger Gale, a man whose office only responds to emails if they begin with "Thank you so very much, Sir Roger, for being so absolutely marvellous, you truly are a miracle and we are not worthy ... " . You can then go on to add the "and oh, by the way ..." but they don't respond to that bit.

My MP is on this list:
https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1442783035389325313

I'm sure you'll all be fascinated to read this extremely well-reasoned and not at all OTT response to the Cass Review from a trans blogger and journalist: https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-cass-review-a-government-sanctioned

And also, lots of "academics" have signed this letter criticising its methodology and so on. I'm sure they'd all score 100% in a quiz on the contents!
https://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2024/04/letter-from-academics-concerned-about.html

Interesting to see Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Strategic Autism Initiative on the list of signatories. Yes, he is "that" Dr AW.

I would guess that he's one of very, very few with an actual science degree on that list. Even though he is a grifting charlatan.

Another day, another bandwagon ...

Some marvellous research on the signers (I know that's not a real word..Signaturees? Signy- people? Don't know. I'm tired and have brain fog. No matter) of that letter on pg 33 of this thread in case you've missed it:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5026968-no-more-puberty-blockers-for-children-from-the-nhs-reported-in-the-times?reply=134540987&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

I’m hoping the Cass review has punctured some of the hold by gender. The language based on lies and obfuscation- not plain English

All of it from “culture wars” to the mess we hear and see. All designed to stop women just speaking plainly and rationally.

It gets harder to use those tactics when the harms to children are exposed. Surely

I'm loving the incredulity in the responses to this tweet from Helen Lewis about Natasha Kennedy
https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1779524211083554821

"Restricting access to life-saving treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy..."

I stopped reading the Substack article there.

I like Helen Lewis, who is always entertaining on the Private Eye podcast "Page 94". The first 15-20 minutes of the most recent episode (#102) were about Scotland. The "boys" seem frankly bewildered by it all!

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast

Another article in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/apr/14/who-has-been-treated-most-unfairly-by-history

I'm tempted to tell them Graham Linehan although I think comments have closed.

I like the Guardian picks. I wonder who picked them?