Restoring Sanity Takes Time - Helen Joyce

[RethinkingLife]

A bracing read. I am still in a state of some despair about how long this will take. As several people have observed, in the last 10 days, the BBC (in common with other media) disseminated unscientific propaganda that male galactorrhea is better than mother’s milk, repeatedly called a deeply disturbed killer a woman while disdaining to acknowledge the alternate reality as a cat, and has publicly reprimanded Justin Webb for plain speaking that was probably helpful to many listeners.

What will it take to bring bigoted employers to heel? Part of the answer is time. During the past decade, the trans lobby has been stunningly successful in selling false analogies to HR departments: that separate toilets for men and women are like racial segregation; and that insisting people can change sex is “gay rights 2.0”.
Lazy, power-hungry HR managers and staff working in “EDI” (equality, diversity and inclusion) pronounce that the arc of the moral universe is bending towards denying sexual dimorphism, and relish imposing their will on others.
…
Imagine you’re an HR professional belatedly wondering if you’ve got the wrong end of the stick on the whole sex-gender thing. You might turn to A Practical Guide to Transgender Law by two barristers, Nicola Newbegin and transwoman Robin Moira White.
But that might not save you from serious missteps. The first edition, published before the binding Forstater judgment, enthusiastically endorsed the faulty lower court ruling. The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t.
Even before the recent string of judgments to the contrary, that was obvious nonsense. The law about freedom of belief expressly includes “manifestation”. And anyway, it takes but a moment’s thought to realise that the law can’t possibly concern beliefs that are never manifested, since it can’t reach inside the privacy of our heads.
…
At bottom, the mindset of the narcissistic identitarians joining in workplace witch-hunts is that of the Crusaders, who made converts at the point of a sword. They do not respect other people’s sovereign consciences, nor accept that their belief system is just one among many. And like the Crusaders, they need to be consigned to history.

https://thecritic.co.uk/restoring-sanity-takes-time/

Adding in a good read about the Meade and Phoenix rulings:

Well said @emmsee
Same here

ForCoral said: 'I'm not interested in whether sex is or isn't binary in nature. I respect people's gender identity, whatever that means to them.'

Do you mean that reality is of no interest to you and that fantasy is much more important?

How you have used 'respect' appears to mean that you consider 'identity' to be far more imprortant than the reality, that anyone who thinks otherwise is 'disrespectful.' We all know that that usually means a 'far-right bigot' in TRA newspeak.

Do you think that laws should be based on fantasy rather than reality?

What could possibly go wrong?

ForCoral said: 'I'm not interested in whether sex is or isn't binary in nature. I respect people's gender identity, whatever that means to them.'

Thats nice. To have that level of privilege is special indeed.

Shame your brains fell out and didn't consider the impact of this on lots and lots of other women.

Why didn't you respect those women and how it affects them?

Or are they just poor, too non-British White, too disadvantaged in another way or not loud enough to shout about how they don't get to have much of an identity and are just trying to survive because those above them in the pecking order are too busy shitting on them?

I am still rather perplexed how two posters who seem to declare that they are feminists wrote shite about how women with religious needs should be deprioritised against male people's demand on account of how misogynist other people view the religion those women follow.

That those two posters felt proud to do that thinking they were fighting for women and the somehow their view was feminist was very fucked up. But that is how 'kind' they are. They will shun women and girl's needs because of the poster's own views about those women and girl's religion. How very kind and tolerant is that?

Oh please. Radical feminists were not advocating for religious women until the increase in trans visibility and the rise of trans civil rights meant that they were useful to them. Back in the 90s the redfems were the ones scolding and patronising women for wearing the hijab, and we were the ones in solidarity, advocating for their right to religious expression. It's very transparent.

In 20 years time, when the fight on gender has been won, do you really think radical feminists will be defending the freedoms of religious women in any other context? Of course not.

Receipts or it didn't happen.

Feminism means fighting for all women. Left wing women, right wing women, religious women, atheist women,old women, young women, women you don't like and women you don't agree with. What it doesn't mean, is making any category of women the sort of women you can throw under the bus to appease men.

HTH.

True.

^ true story ^

Something for you to read and reflect on from the Jewish Women's Archive.

Although I'm sure you won't because you seem strangely proud of the fact that you don't read any of the sources posters have provided for you. Ignorance really must be bliss.

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/feminism-in-united-states

There were countless initiatives addressing the exclusion of woman from different faith communities both involving feminists and society in general back in the 90s. Many of them involved setting up resources / spaces for specific groups of women.
It wasn't until the dodgy men arrived demanding access to these initiatives and turning them in to mixed sex groups and spaces that many of these resources disappeared.

Radical feminists were not advocating for religious women until the increase in trans visibility and the rise of trans civil rights meant that they were useful to them.

How very Peter Tatchell. Didn't he try running that line in 2018? And then having C&P'd his claim over and over in responses effectively had to say, "Except for Julie Bindel. Jenni Murray. Yes, except for [X] individuals and [Y] organisations…And who cares what Hibo Wadere thinks…"

https://x.com/bindelj/status/1060583516398911491?s=20

https://twitter.com/HiboWardere/status/1060795654589558784

And yet.... did any radical feminist deny the resources that those women and girls needed? Please present evidence to substantiate your accusations. You so far seem to not be able to present any evidence at all for any single thing you claim.

So, come on. Link us up with the evidence that radical feminists as a group denied the resources and the support that those female people with religious needs required. I am very keen to see what has prompted you to make this declaration. And by that, I mean other than discussing clothing options.

I happen to know radical feminists who were indeed fighting in the 90s to protect women with religious needs. They were fighting to provide services for women who were raped and abused by men within that religion, they were fighting to have laws changed to offer equality, they were fighting to have better health care options. In the UN and in those country's that needed it. They were also working where they could to encourage self sufficiency within those communities that needed it.

But hey.... if you were in solidarity with those women and simply fighting for their right to religious expression only... good for you. I am sure you feel most proud to have been doing what reads to me as a virtue signalling exercise. I could be wrong, but then maybe you can start backing up your claims to make them start seeming credible rather than constant ad hominem attacks.

In an article in the Torygraph today one of their journos refers to India Willoughby (in the context of her pointless and now dismissed report of JKR to Northumbria Police for the non-crime of "misgendering" her) as a
"An attention-seeking time-waster". I do think light is beginning to dawn.

An attention-seeking time-waster

There's a lot of them about. And so many of them want mummy's attention specifically.

"An attention-seeking time-waster"

How handy that the abbreviation can remain the same, TW.

Fact

God yes.

When are the police going to act and do IW for police time wasting....?