KJK is standing against Lloyd Russell-Mole in the General Election

[BoreOfWhabylon]

https://www.youtube.com/live/vHudcvW0bSQ?si=kj-pX6z_ioL6l3nj

If you are campaigning for women's rights and your starting point is that transgenderism is rooted in misogyny (be it internalised or externalised) then it logically follows that you will dismiss the claims for specific rights of, and protections for, transgenderists on the basis that they are in direct opposition to your own principles and values.

I wouldn't want to give a job or rent out my house or a room in my home to a misogynist either, however they identify.

He’s under no obligation to debate her. Hustings aren’t a given. Someone needs to organise them. Not all candidates need to be invited. And candidates can choose not to attend.

Well yes, I'm sure you don't.
Some Christians famously feel they don't want to engage with gay people. It is illegal to act like that though.

KJK has preternatural abilities of remote triggeration, in both space and time dimensions. She's like Peroxide Doctor Who!
I think she'll be winding thon man up already... before she's even said a word.

Ha probably

She certainly manages it with a couple of posters on here!

I was thinking that too 😬

That's not comparable. The existence of one does not impact the other.

AdamRyan · Today 13:12

She also openly says she's transphobic (see video I linked above) which is straight away going to alienate a large proportion of the population.

I note with interest that you chose a few words, without the context of those few words were.

I just linked the clip - not my video. But if someone say they are transphobic, and then also says transphobic things (like the rent/job stuff) - then surely the conclusion is clear?

It's directly comparable. The EA exists to make discrimination against certain groups illegal. In part I'm sure so that it doesn't become the state's problem to house/financially support certain groups because they are discriminated against. Trans people are one of those groups.

Her point was that since everyone and everything, including transw, are transphobic, then she probably was.

I yes, I do think that she blundered, by saying that they should be kept of of jobs and accommodation.

Hmm.
I've seen enough of her to be pretty clear myself on her views. I don't know why they get explained away so much.

I agree @SinnerBoy , I didn't agree with her there.

On the other hand, look at her estimate of the number of British Women with Penises (zero) vs Kiers Fetcher-Dervish's (35,000) so yanno, swings and roundybouts.

ETA : long walk off a short Kier didn't specify how many of the women had two or more penises... so he should probably clarify there

Misogynist isn't a protected charateristic.

Which Christian are those?

Famous ones? Or infamous ones?!

Maybe dead ones...

It is but only when you dress it up in a cheap wig and frilly knickers.
👨 + 👗 + 👠 = PC

Maybe it's about the icing of the cake case in Northern Ireland?

I understand that the court held that people in the United Kingdom could not legally be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagreed with. The case became known in the British and Irish media as the 'gay cake' case.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/18/christian-gay-couple-ordered-pay-damages

I was thinking of this kind of thing

Adam said it was illegal, where the bakers were found to have acted legally, so it can't be that. 🤷‍♀️🤔

I wonder if there are any instances a bit more recently? Going back that long is scraping the barrel somewhat!

Not really.
Cases like that are why we have the laws. It shows what people will do if we don't.

Cases like Maya Forstater/bakers also are important to show how the law prevents discrimination and protects people with reasonable views.

That's why I think moves to get rid of the Equality Act are dangerous.

I've not seen anybody campaigning to repeal the EA, just amend it. It's the GRA people want to repeal.

I think the country was a very different place when the B&B discrimination took place. That's why I want a more recent case, to show recent examples of it happening. I don't think it's the law preventing further instances, in the main, just a more tolerant society.

Cases like Maya Forstater/bakers also are important to show how the law prevents discrimination and protects people with reasonable views.

It’s not doing a very good job of preventing discrimination atm. Every other month there’s seems to be a new case crop up. I think the rot runs deep and it’s going to take a lot of time to undo the harm caused by the spread of misinformation by the likes of Stonewall.