Glinner Bullseye comment on X

[Thatcatsaflippingnightmare]

Always trying to explain Glinner to DH, today he showed me on X JD Vance defending murder of the woman by ICE. Glinner had replied something like 'bullseye', as in agreement. I tried to comprehend with "satire?" but he said no he's on Liz truss show these days. I said well he's always been about protecting women and children, he's not suddenly supporting femicide, but the post convinced DH otherwise. Any insights? I'm not on social media

If there was a block function I would block you so that we can be sure that we never interact again, but as far as I know there isn't.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of me remembering that you have told me that you do not want me to reply to you public posts (less so if you name change), so apologies in advance if I do so in future.

Quite a few years ago, when all this kicked off (probably about 2018 or thereabouts), I remember one of my hard-left chums on Facebook berating me for my sex-realist views because they were "right wing". This man knew my long history of left-wing activism, so I suppose he imagined it was some kind of clinching argument - that I would be so horrified at the thought of being right-wing that I would immediately agree that men could be women, that cross-dressers should be allowed in women's changing rooms, female prisoners should share cells with rapists and teenage girls should be encouraged to cut their breasts off.

Amazingly, I didn't agree those things. It astounds, but also amuses, me that the misogynistic male left are still using this argument.

Why do they deploy it? It's because it's the only one they have. They know that no rational person believes humans can change sex, and they know that no one with a functioning brain and/or moral compass wants to allow transvestites into women's changing rooms or for young women to have double mastectomies. So they resort to a sneering "You're right-wing!" as if this is going to somehow make us change our minds.

Did I mention that these people are stupid? Boy, are they stupid.

I think it's a case of actually following it up in your actions and not centering yourself in discussion. It's perfectly possible for men to be feminists and proudly state it while taking the lead from women and listening to women's voices before centering their own. Again, it's even more concerning when men don't even claim feminist and centre their voice in discussions and I'm suspicious of men who don't care to learn enough about feminism yet claim to care a lot about women's rights.

That is my view. I support what I see feminism as being - women fighting for the rights of women. I "agree with feminism".

I'd like to think it is respectful for men to leave feminism to women (whilst also, where possible, helping to amplify their voices).

It is somewhat ironic that some people think men should shut up on FWR whilst also thinking they can be feminists

I don't think you can link to a retweet because I would have done so if there was an obvious way. Shame because I was getting fed up wading through his X feed 😾

I think we've established he did retweet a call for women's right to vote in the USA based on her political views.

If thinking you shouldnt use misogynistic jabs at women who don't share your opinion or declaring your sex on threads you're posting on where women are opening up about vulnerable experiences means shut up well it doesn't sound like someone is taking very kindly to being reminded that as a man maybe your voice doesn't matter as much as women's on this topic. Listen to women doesn't automatically mean shut up, but then again maybe you're regularly responding to men such as yourself anyway.

I guess so. But I’m not the one telling other women how to behave in altercations with aggressive men.

Because they are not a single entity.

Left wing GC feminist here. I agree there are men on here shutting people down. But I could not see the point of your comment. Hand up, I have not read all the thread, though I did trace back before I made my comment. I agree that it is getting hard for Left wing feminists to speak on here - and it is much worse on some boards.

I've just been thinking back to the past few years, and things like Woman's Place UK meetings, or FiLiA conferences, where women inside were talking about their harrowing experiences of rape or child sexual abuse. In some cases these were immigrant or refugee women, who had been through the most distressing experiences imaginable.

And outside, you'd groups of trans activists, shouting abuse, banging pots and pans and screaming "bigots", drowning out these vulnerable women's voices.

And we're supposed to believe that these people are left-wing?

Then they wonder why women don't want to vote for them any more.

I don't really understand the point of your comment tbh? I raised an opinion and then responded to someone who responded from my post because they're an example of the posters I was talking about that regularly aggressively disagree with women in the same way Glinner does and who doesn't seem it necessarily declare their sex for some reason. If you didn't find it relevant fair enough but you deemed your own thought of it being irrelevant relevant enough to post without any other contribution, which is a bit odd.

Did I mention that these people are stupid? Boy, are they stupid.

Maybe it's not stupid. They're trying to stop people from listening to what gender critical feminists say. Certainly in certain friendship circles of mine, they've been remarkably successful in that.

Ironically these TRAs are taking a leaf out of Trump's book here. They don't give a damn whether what they say carries any truth, as long as it makes people behave the way TRAs want them to behave.

Other thing maybe worth mentioning is that I do think there are slightly divergent versions of "gender critical" out there.

The description of gender critical views that was used in securing protection under the EqAct was quite a pragmatic one, so that it protected any woman who doesn't want to share her changing room with a man. It was broadly "Sex is real and sometimes it matters."

That is more general than the original meaning of gender critical - it includes the third corner of the triangle - the "sex is real and women should comply with sex stereotypes" corner as opposed to the actually critical of gender "sex is real and gender stereotypes are harmful" corner.

I mean fair enough, conservative women shouldn't have to undress in front of men any more than feminists should. I guess it's just the way the legal argument had to work.

Look, I don't know what's got up your nose about pragmatic advice based on extensive personal experience.

I (and everyone else where I live) had decades of dealing with armed men on a daily basis. The streets of cities in the USA and GB are nothing like Northern Ireland during The Troubles. People being shot, and blown up by bombs, was a regular occurrence until the ceasefires. People died during those decades at the hands of the army, the police, and the terrorists.

Don't try and tell me that someone aggravating armed men is safe because I know for a fact that it's anything but safe.

It's an absolute disgrace that, in these situations, citizens can't insist on their rights being respected but that's the reality of having an armed police force, they can make you comply via threat of state-sanctioned lethal force and you're at the mercy of their temperament in any fraught encounter.

Guilty as charged, @Irkeddancer . I didn't want to comment on Glinner because when I looked at X I could not work out what was being said. If Glinner believes in any way the shooting in Mineapolis was a win for someone he has gone down considerably in my estimation. Afaik ICE have no jurisdiction to order people out of their cars and the two ICE agents were giving contrary instructions, one saying 'get out' the other saying 'move, move' - which is a debatable word since it could mean 'get out' or it could mean 'move the car'. Both should be indicted, but Trump's comments make a fair trial impossible. Not sure who is more insane here but I am truly sorry for the woman who was killed.

I don't think anyone's saying aggravating armed men is safe, just that this kind of comment on the wake of a death can be perceived as victim blaming. A family member of mine was murdered in the troubles, and I don't know anyone else who loved through that who would say anything even bordering on "well what were they doing?" Because we know it's rife that armed men with power in charged situations often abuse their power and use excessive force. And we also know this often still happens even when people, especially women, do comply so I think a lot of people are sick of any comment that even borders on sounding like a victim is in any way responsible for someone shooting them to death. Women get killed by men in position sofa authority and either are blamed for not complying enough or for complying and not challenging authority. It seems however we are murdered by violent men it's our fault or our behaviour is questioned.

Also using words like aggravating. They told her to move and she was moving her car slowly as requested to "get the fuck out of the way.". She then says "I'm not mad at you" and gets shot to death at close range and then called a fucking bitch by the man who killed her. The talk of checkpoints and the troubles is whataboutery and victim blaming and typical devil's advocate attitude that women are sick of hearing everytime one of us is murdered.

Well, Bridget Phillipson is a single entity. She could get moving and release the EHRC guidance on single sex spaces now. And then the Labour government could support it instead of undermining it by letting people get away with ignoring the law.

Wes Steering is also a single entity. He could pause or cancel the ethically dubious puberty blockers trial, and insist that whoever is sitting on the data about the cohort who have already used puberty blockers must release it, and that the data is thoroughly analysed before deciding what to do next.

Neither of these moves will solve the whole problem, but they would do a great deal to reassure people about the Labour party, at least.

Afaik ICE have no jurisdiction to order people out of their cars

From my knowledge their jurisdiction to do this depends why they're stopping you, but then most of the legal stuff I've read on it is about more routine ICE stops say operating in an area and stopping cars to check IDs in which case you can ask them for info to know if you need to comply but none of that really applies when you see how quick it all was. Completely agreed about the conflicting instructions,you're correct one it's saying get out while one is saying move your car. From the way they are pointing a gun at her already and attempting to open her car, it just be absolutely terrifying and even if they had jurisdiction to order her out of the car I can understand not following an order when panicking and afaik even if she was attempting to "flee" they don't have jurisdiction to execute her on the spot.

They know that no rational person believes humans can change sex

TRAs don't think people can change sex. They think people can change gender, which is not the same thing. I think you are aware of this.

GC people continually pretending that trans people and trans allies are talking about changing sex is disingenuous and deploying that argument so you can call people stupid just makes you look foolish. And not worth engaging with.

But if it's about changing 'gender' why is there any ambiguity at all about whether men should have access to women's single sex spaces?

That argument is a complete and utter non runner if TRAs are genuinely talking about changing 'gender'.

What is actually happening is that TRAs use the terms inter-changeably, with the aim of creating confusion. You know this very well.

It also begs the question, how does a person change 'gender'. I though gender was an innate, internal thing. How does it change?

Why does Dr Upton claim to be a biological female then?

'Female' is one of the two sexes. Dr Upton is a male person.

I thought trans'women' had a woman gender since the day they had the wrong sex assigned at birth? I thought people "came out as trans'women'? I thought it was transphobic to suggest a trans'woman' was a man who later decided to become a woman?

Also, if TRAs don't think trans people change sex then why on earth are they demanding sex based rights based on gender?

Do you think of FWR anymore as a feminist GC space?

No. Its a forum on Mnet that has some interesting feminist content but I do not consider it a feminist, gender critical space.

Of course they're talking about changing sex.

Genders are feminine and masculine. Sexes are male and female.

If TIMs were talking about changing gender, they'd call themselves 'feminine men', and stay out of women's spaces, because they know they haven't changed sex.

But they don't. They call themselves 'transwomen', or sometimes even 'women', and pretend they think this gives them the right to be in women's spaces as though they have changed sex.

I think that, as in the US, the "right" in the UK are increasingly aligning themselves with this post truth, everything is possible and nothing is real, facts are what I want them to be position. It worked really well for Trump and its very hard to counter. Basically it lets people believe what they want to believe and hear what they want to hear. E.g. If Vance says immigrants are eating cats who are you to disagree? Lots of people have really strong feelings about immigration and you are showing how out of touch you are by not sharing their concerns. And on and on
That surreality is also, and I don't want to involve Godwin's law in vain but it's important, a feature of fascism.
Its really hard for reasonable voices on the left and centre to push back against this, especially when people are disillusioned with mainstream politics and media. Especially when most people get their news from social media sights run by people like Musk. I think that in the face of all that arguing "women can have penises" is a really bad move. It's making an already difficult jobs 10 times harder. I can understand the need to protect trans people from discrimination and I can understand that for a trans person it's deeply painful to have people misgender them maliciously etc. But there have to be better ways to protect their rights than getting bogged down in arguments about the nature of reality. Because the right will always win.