Private eye - back to a boys club

[greenwoodentablelegs]

’why the obsession with what’s in people’s pants’

the writer has obv been living under a rock for the last few years and has no interest in the concerns of women for women only spaces.

and snarky article about JKR.

might write in but doubt it will make any difference……

Using JKR to draw readers in to read a smear piece on KJK. We see you hislop.

When men were given female birth certificates and HR policies let them into female nurses changing rooms, journalists didn't notice.

When women started to talk about it, but where being ignored by all politicians, journalists pretended it was culture wars, and not worthy of their time.

Now women are organising politically to stop these men going into changing rooms, its politcal extremism.

My opinion on Hislop has gone through the floor in the last 6 months, I used to love Private Eye.

Sloppy tarrying-by association re: Orban. Even a broken clock, etc.

she supports repealing the Gender Recognition Act 2004 altogether, removing any legal recognition for trans people

Not even accurate, the EA prohibits discriminating against gender reassignment. That's the only legal recognition that should matter. Not the legal fiction that men are women and vice versa.

Yeah you can feel the misogyny drop off the page. My guess is the writer is either a portly posh non passing trans woman or has a a thing for being fucked up the arse by a pre op transexual.

but only a guess

Private eye used to be quite good on this topic! Was my go-to magazine for a regular long work train journey. How disappointing.

Did they really use this phrase…

“why the obsession with what’s in people’s pants” ?

Because that is a direct quotation from the TRA handbook.

Also a dead giveaway as every accusation is actually an admission.

JK Rowling really annoys so many men just by (awesomely) existing 🙄

Shes the engagement booster for so many men who exploit her for clicks.
Even those ostensibly on her side.

I think that second piece needs full context and the pants line is arguably deliberately flippant for effect. It is actually a good outline into Labour's muddled thinking on the issue, I'd say?

I agree the full article context makes a difference.

But on the frequently asked question of ’why the obsession with what’s in people’s pants?’, we could start with the regrettable tendency of what's in people's men's pants to stray beyond their pants.