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

[BoreOfWhabylon]

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

People really hone in on women in politics don’t they, with attacks

It’s so counterproductive

We've got a plan. Have you now-who the fuck are you?-the provisional wing of the boy scouts?

We've got a plan. Have you now-who the fuck are you?-the provisional wing of the boy scouts?

Or Baldrick.

.

Okay we should all just ignore KJK calling trans people lazy and entitled and encouraging people not to employ them or rent them homes because KJK is a woman 🙄

People tend to hone in on politicians in the run up to a general election.

I imagine the other thread was deleted due to transphobia. It seemed pretty split though with about half agreeing with or excusing KJK and the other half calling her vile.

Are you talking about this thread? https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5082014-does-anyone-agree-this-is-a-step-too-far-now?page=12

Apparently they are ‘taking a look at it’. Seems it got reported by KJK detractors when they weren’t able to control the narrative. The timing.

Okay we should all just ignore

Given the interest some posters have that’s pretty unlikely

The candidates on the site don’t deserve to be undermined as ‘TR types’. I doubt they’re anywhere close

And let's not forget how JKR wants trans people erased too

Eh what? Are you being sarcastic, or do you actually believe that bollocks?

They love reporting posts / threads. It's really quite petulant and pathetic. It seems they have a different set of talk guidelines agreed with MNHQ too, as a fair few things get deleted which don't breach the published guidelines.

A cunning one.

Secret too.

Yes.

I do think the EA is a bit weird with the protected characteristics. Why isn’t pregnancy and maternity covered by ‘sex’? If marriage and civil partnership are essentially about not discriminating against civil partners over married couples, why isn’t it covered by ‘sexual orientation’?

’Gender reassignment’ is covered by ‘sex’, ‘sexual orientation’, ‘religion or belief’ and it could be argued ‘disability’ because of the high prevalence of ND, so why was GR added when there is no verifiable definition?

I wonder what the rationale was for adding more and more overlapping PCs. It has the effect of obfuscating core issues - eg - much of the sexism women face is because of our capacity to get pregnant and bear children.

Gender identity / reassignment has nothing to do with sexual orientation though. So that PC wouldn't cover it.

Yep sounds like a threat to me

‘Sexual orientation’ covers perceived sexual orientation. So much of the harassment people who try to present as the opposite sex face, is actually homophobia.

‘Gender identity’ isn’t a protected characteristic, but it could be covered by ‘religion or belief’.

I doubt it was the KJK detractors that reported the thread.

There was plenty of extremely well articulated criticisms from posters who previously supported her. I imagine her fans wanted them gone.

I think you must have been reading a different thread from me.

I know it's not. And no it won't be, as it's not WORIADS.

I was just linking the two to say that sexual orientation is nothing to do with it. At all.

I don't agree with you re the homophobia comment.

MNHQ don't randomly delete posts - they delete things that break guidelines.

Do you not think that cross dressing is often linked with homosexuality - eg ‘butch’ or ‘drag’? If people harass a cross dressing person, you don’t think this is anything to do with their perceived sexual orientation?

Even though I don’t believe in GI myself, I do think it is WORIADS. People should be free to believe everyone has an essential ‘gender’ which can be ‘born in the wrong body’, just as people should be free to believe every one has a soul which needs salvation by whichever religious deity they worship.

As you well know!

The interpretation of the guidelines can be wrong, however, IMO.

Agree

Yes. Indeed.