Women's rights general conversations - Thread 8

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 7.

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).

It's not so much beyond a joke as just too boring to read, let alone care. If someone here tells me it's worth reading, maybe I'll give it a go ... nah! Who am I trying to kid?

It's certainly not funny, @Gonners , and surely beyond any doubt indicative of an agenda by certain factions in the BBC. I mentioned it because I remarked on a while ago, probably on another thread, and at the time I idly searched the BBC site, and there were 12 pages of DQ stories in the last two years.

I'm not clicking on the BBC article (though I had noticed the thumbnail on the site) because clicks raise the article up the page, and they count clicks to see what's popular and put out more of the same. Clicks are everything

(well, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it)

Fair point, crabby, I'd love to see it raised with some BBC wallah, though. Maybe with some of those helpful visuals they're so good at, like a graph showing a massive increase in stories after a particular date, or a comparison with some other major issue of the day.

Good news from the courts this morning, Good Law Project have lost the puberty blockers case
https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1817871098853085412
and Cambridgeshire County Council have admitted discrimination against Lizzy Pitt
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1817860481832358030

Oh, fantastic news!

Great news! Thanks for sharing.

£55k compensation for Lizzy Pitt by the looks of things, as I assume an order by consent means the parties have agreed it between them
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1817919809394217469

She's also asking for a costs order though, and it looks like that'll be dealt with on Wednesday
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1817925519075377638

A shame in some ways to miss the entertainment of the arguments, but I'm glad for her she doesn't have to go through the stress and expense of a full hearing.

What is a womxn? I've just received an email which says

'[we are]...keen to recruit people of colour, LGBTQIA+, womxn or differently abled'.

Is it the same thing as a woman? I genuinely don't know

It was originally a feminist reaction against 'man' being the default humxn embedded in a lot of words, but now means 'anyone who thinks they're a woman or is a woman but thinks they're not'.

Ah, like womyn but edgier with a misogynistic twist.

Is that why lots of the anti-GC posters never write about 'a woman' but always about 'a women'. I've always noticed it without commenting because my own frequent typos make me reluctant, but it is such a basic error and it occurs so consistently that I have begun to wonder about it.

Recently, I'm noticing on this board...

1. A big push to gaslight people about preferred pronouns.
2. A big push to gaslight people about a nonexistent political or other connection between GC feminists and the far right.

I would like to think that a bat signal has gone out because they know they are losing. That's probably wishful thinking, though.

Please could somebody explain to me the "a women" thing? Thanks in advance.

Is it another way of saying A Karen?

It's the school holidays effect?

Alternatively, people who are Righteously on The Right Side of History are mendacious dissembling slippery word-salad-tossing goalpost-slithering dishonest nasty pieces of work Pious Frauds, and they believe know that doing/saying absolutely anything is justifiable to bring about Righteous Heavenly Victory.

Thanks, OP. Are you saying that use of "a women" is a clue that the poster is a youngster?

"a women"

I've been wondering about this for ages as that spelling pops up in many places.

@@Vegemiteandhoneyontoast

Really glad you say that, because for the longest time I've wondered was it just me - which is exactly what gaslighters always try to achieve - leave the victim scratching her head wondering is she crazy. I'm going to call it out in future, good nettiquette or not.

I'm not sure, but rather I think this persistent spelling error reflects how everybody who swallows this ideology is getting all their neural input from C&Ping the same few "thought" leaders. It's just the latest manifestation of each "wave" of utter bullshit wisdom from the Righteous Priesthood.

A very important and influential ‘women’ seems to be completely missing from this Guardian article about Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.

I get it, Jack Thorne wrote the script, based on a story he wrote with JK Rowling and John Tiffany. He manages to mention John in the article, but JKR, not so much; i.e. not at all, unless you count a picture caption the sub-editor probably wrote on his behalf.

Out of interest, I googled reviews of the Cursed Child from a few years ago, before JKR spoke out on women’s rights and the conflict with trans demands. Namechecks for JKR are all over these earlier articles.

I feel really uncomfortable about JKR being erased.

www.theguardian.com/stage/article/2024/jul/30/harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-jack-thorne-palace-theatre

I don't think 'a women' is an age marker, but it does seem to be a Right Side of History tell - like the 'equalities' act.

Both signs that they all shop for opinions at the same branch of Thought Terminating Clichés R Us .

I find 'womxn' more infuriating, though - that is taking a term that was meant to remove men and instead using it to erase women.

I noticed that too. Flipping outrageous.

Ah, I see! Like the "Equalities Act"?