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

What? Glinner himself is a clairvoyant and personally knew a poster or two would attack her for her disability? He knew that? Really? I think that is absolute batshit crazy! I doubt it entered his mind, it never would have entered mine.

The Democrats attempted to win a second term for a man who it became clear no longer had all his faculties. Very difficult to come back from that.

They did a very good job of turning Trump’s flaws - dishonest, erratic, self seeking - into 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

How exactly are males 'vulnerable'?

It's the female sex that are vulnerable!

I admire your innocence, and I also recommend you look up the definition of gaslighting (because this isn't it).

Partly that's how Twitter works though. The retweeting system invites that sort of pile on. It always did, before Musk owns it, even if the pile ons come from the right not the left now. The algorithms seem to encourage that as well.
Its why I don't use Twitter because it's hard to avoid those dynamics. It's hard for politicians/public figures to make that choice without being accused of flouncing or not trying to connect with people of different views. But there comes a point when you have to cut your losses. Musk has now exacerbated those patterns by adding an AI which will also facilitate online harassment.

What has happened to Glinner is he is completely sucked into the dopamine hit of posting and being retweeted and retweeting other people's often very unpleasant posts. It is not healthy.

What would you have us do? Have NO support, NO visibility, NO publicity? Where womens rights are in such grave danger, this is no time for political purist spirals. We can't afford that. We don't have the capital to choose. Beggars can't be choosers. And we are beggars for our basic human rights.

This reminds me of the TRIP US election podcast where Dominic Sandbrook was the ONLY person who called the result. Explaining why droves of left leaning Americans were compelled to vote for Trump because of the messaging they were receiving from the Harris/Democrat campaign.

The they/them campaign by Trump was genius but he was only able to win votes on that because Harris was so poor.

I can't believe people are still refusing to learn from that and are still arguing that this was because people really wanted to vote for Trump. Of course some did, but a lot of people were swayed by the Democrat's failings.

This is total nonsense.

People were swayed by the fact that Harris/ The Democrats refused to listen to a wide range of concerns including the concerns of women and parents regarding women's rights/ the medicalisation of children.

Of course right wing women also deserve single sex spaces but defending the rights of all women doesn't mean defending the right for women to uphold patriarchal or supremacist standards to be considered a feminist act. Women can criticise other women's political meanings and still defend their equal rights but again it seems that people who support the right to be be derisory or critical about any political wise get very defensive on right wingers behalf.

GC views are that there should be no sexist stereotypes. That is FEMINIST theory. It is not remotely right wing, and if you think it is, you need to do some hard reading. GC views are blooded in left wing feminism.

Germaine Greer spoke of the threat of transvestites in female spaces in....1979. Way ahead of her time. So did another hard left feminist at the time whose name escapes me. Janice? Something with a J, I think.
The UK Communist manifesto is Gender Critical.
Are Greer and the Communist party 'right wing'? You have a lot to learn about the history of feminism. The GC community is overwhelmingly left wing, probably around 85% to 90%.

Trans people are the political football gay people were in the 80s. First they came for the trans people..........

Er no! Trans is NOT 'Gay 2.0'. They are not even stratospherically the same. Gay people took nothing from women. They didn't seek to enter our spaces. They didn't seek to convert gay and lesbians or sterilise and castrate them. Please do not use this false equivalence. From a gay man himself:

The comparison between gay rights activism and the TRAs is indicative of the laziest thinking going. They are not even remotely the same.

The oldest U.K. trans association, the Beaumont Society, was initially at pains to distance itself from homosexuality.

The linking of T to LGB came long after gay people won rights to civil partnerships and protection from discrimination.

Sure, sure. Nothing like a convicted felon and sexual offender that loves to grab em by the pussy hey? He knows what a woman is, what a guy!

The fact you think this is about trans instead of WOMENS RIGHTS, shows where you ignorance lies.

It is left wing to support the retention of our foremother feminists hard won sex-based rights.
It is right wing to erase those sex-based rights and spaces. Trans Ideology is actually this century's re-emergence of Male Supremacy. It's entire goal is to erase all womens hard-won gains. To re-define women. To take away our identity, our language. Our tools. Our spaces. To have male crimes listed as female crimes, which skews data. Data that is needed to protect vulnerable groups such a DV victims.

Trans Ideology is the most far right, Male Supremacist and Mens Rights Movement to date. It is truly malignant and pernicious. It is a movement that encourages people to go to the graves of our foremother feminists and to drop trousers and take a giant shit on their headstones.

Gender Critical means being Critical of Gender stereotypes. That is literally what it means. That there is no 'right or wrong way' to be a boy/man. That there is no right or wrong way' to be a girl/woman. It defends the gains the feminist movement has achieved. You really don't have even the slightest idea whatsoever about the history of feminism. That GC is left/hard left wing, and Trans Ideology is right/hard right wing.

As I keep saying, the extraordinary thing is not that Trump knows what a woman is (almost everyone does).

The extraordinary thing is that the Democrats are pretending they don't. If they lost votes because of that, it is entirely on them. No one forced them to give this open goal to Trump.

What is shocking is that he was seen as the BETTER option than Harris by people who normally voted Democrat,

But it will be rinse and repeat with failures of introspection of the left. Rather than consider why they lost voters to someone who should have been un-votable they will blame the voters or claim they were really right wing.

Reminds me a bit of Brexit in a way. When you call people idiots for not voting for you rather than considering the reasons they have voted elsewhere you have a losing strategy,

I think that is exactly what has happened! The left left us, the left left feminism.

In 2008, my friends on the right weren't advocating for the repeal of the 19th Amendment or using ethno-nationalist rhetoric, labelling protestors on the left as "commie race traitors"

Feminism is by females, for females. It's literally in the name. A male cannot be a feminist. Most feminists are in agreement on this. It's basic common sense. What men can be, is feminist allies.

You've clearly never heard of Dr Beth Upton, or India Willoughby. Both of them are biological male who claim they are now biologically female via taking female hormones. That it has changed their biochemistry or something. India, who fathered children, now claims he has a cervix.... Like it or not, there are nutjobs out there who genuinely believed taking Estrogen/HRT has changed them into an actual biological female. Another example:

I do think a related issue has been the severe reluctance to criticise KJK for going on podcasts & posing for selfies with white nationalists like Jean François Gariepy.

I have read that she didn't know about their white nationalist beliefs and only found out post podcast. It seems like cheap Guilt By Association to me. A lot of us have probably worked with, or appeared at a dinner with a function with etc someone who may have nazi ties and completely not know it.

What point do you think he’s making by retweeting that post without comment?

He is on x why not go ask him there?

They said Gender Critical is right wing...

And just like homophobia, apparently.

She was very clear on her position - don’t you think it is reasonable to take her at her word? Or are you accusing her of lying about all of it?