The Gender war...This didn't come from the streets

[Mmmnotsure]

Great summary/description by
Dennis Noel Kavanagh
on X as @Jebadoo2

1/ The Gender war is a class war. Trans activism was confabulated in universities where they'd run out of things to say, it was embraced by the bourgeois management types in HR and it corrupts the same in everything from unions to blue chips. This didn't come from the streets.

2/ Trans activism is indulged and has no central heroic historical point of defiance, so it steals the gay rights claim to Stonewall because at its heart, it's dreadfully aware of just how powerful and privileged it is. It's still really the only cult that can get you sacked

3/ It's the well fed goth teenage Marxist who knows where the next meal is coming from so screams "I hate you mum and dad" before stomping off to its well appointed bedroom. It's the child no one ever said "no" to and so it looks and sounds like precisely that in adversity.

4/ So often we see the low paid nurse against the well paid management or doctor. Or the most marginalised in society who have cause to actually use a rape refuge lectured by the otherwise unemployable bourgeois management class fresh from their stonewall course on pronouns.

5/ So often we see those who oppose gender ideology reliant on crowd funds and real solidarity and union ranged against the state funded, the corporate funded, the behemoth government department or indeed the actual Scottish government in the case of FWS.

6/ Trans activism lies like a fish swims from the transubstantiation sex change foundational lie the rotten edifice sits on, but the most obnoxious lie is that it is somehow marginalised or of the streets and there is nothing more contemptuous than this pretence.

7/ Trans activism routinely hires silks to vilify nurses, it cosplays protest all the time knowing the police and government will tolerate it, so it pretends to take corners on two wheels while being on guard rails. It is well fed, well appointed, well funded and comfortable.

8/ It will never match the real marginalisation of the working class nurse who needs an area to change, a female prisoner who has no choice of cell mate or the average Scottish woman fighting her own damned government. And it knows it. This, I think, is it's greatest jealousy.

And we're back in 1950 again.

You don't seem to understand the difference between facts & expectations. The facts are women do the most purchasing. Nobody is suggesting they should but that they are.

You don't understand the facts. People with a penis are not women.

So how many? 5? 10? There must be a number?

ooh are you also a #girlboss? CEO of the home? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Ok, so one of the most obvious sex typical behaviours is violence. Violence is a sex typical male behaviour. Sexual violence even more so. Does that mean men who don’t want to sexually or physically assault others are not really men?

Or is it that a man can not be violent and still be a man?

To me and pretty much every biologist, Richard Dawkins, Christiane Nuesslein Vollhard (Nobel prize in developmental biology, I save you from gogling), Robert Winston, Emma Hilton, Colin Wright, ....

There's no number. It's an on balance thing as in on balance do you have more in common with male/female typical behaviours AND do you personally relate more despite your sex. Obviously for some people their identification with their biological sexual characteristics precludes identifying with behaviours.

Very good but no one is disputing reproductive classification. It's behavioural classification that's of relevance here.

As I keep saying it's an on balance thing coupled with how relevant an individual considers their reproductive sexual characteristics to be in determining women from men.

We are talking about subjective personal reality here.

No, it's not. It really isn't, it's so restrictive to define people by what they buy and what job they do for a job. It's almost like all that freedom to be your own person that feminism was trying to achieve for women isn't something some women want.

The law doesn't really do "subjective personal reality".

We are talking about subjective personal reality here.

We cannot formulate laws and rules based on someone's subjective personal reality. Who's subjective personal reality comes top trumps in this system?

You seem to be offended by the facts. The facts are there are typical behaviours that distinguish men from women just like there are typical physical traits that do.

It might help seeing this from the point of view that people identify more with people who they have more in common with & as such categorise themselves as part of that group.

The SC judgement was the test case. A legal case was brought on a real thing, really happening, in the real world that tested the application of the Equality Act and GRCs.

So you want laws and society to be based on how people feel? But then what definition are you using for woman and man? What if one person’s definition of a woman is different from someone else’s? You realise how batshit you sound right? If there is no definition of woman or man, how can someone decide they are one?

I'm not suggesting we do. I made it clear upthread these are two separate matters. Having a commonality isn't a licence for being treated the same. A minor can be more mature than an adult doesn't mean they are entitled to be legally treated the same.

So what definition are you using for man and woman to say what interests etc are more typical of each? You’ve said they should be based on self determination. So how are you categorising interests to woman or man if no one knows what a woman or a man is?

All this twisting and turning of reality and truth, all this utterly idiotic back and forth, just so men can get their dicks out in women's spaces. I need to remind myself occasionally that this is what the TRAs want. I'm not offended by facts, I offended by the utter stupidity of this argument on behalf of deluded men.

but what if that minor “inherently knows” they’re really an adult?

A case applied to a particular scenario doesn't necessarily mean it can be translated the same broadly that's why it was necessary for legislated guidelines.

But behavioural classifications are not necessarily stable across times and places, and behaviour is not solely determined by personal preferences. What society permits or encourages comes into it too.
For example: getting a higher education would code gender neutral in the West today, but masculine here in the past and masculine today in some other countries.
Dressing in a colourful and flamboyant way codes feminine here today but would have coded gender neutral or possibly even masculine in some places in the past.
In other words, whether your bundle of characteristics tots up " masculine" or "feminine" says less about you than about the society you live in. So it's not a very liberating basis for an identity. You might just as well acknowledge your sex, as far as it goes ( which you need to do anyway for practical purposes) and your personality ( which won't be exactly like anyone else's and doesn't need a gender).

There is no such thing as behavioural classification here. Your posts are just assertions of terms that you ( or people you have read) have made up. Your only claim ‘behavioural classification’ is a thing because you made it up, and you made it up because you have to for your ideology to work.

This is the same way theological thought goes btw. The Catholic Church made up purgatory to solve the problem of heaven being perfect, but dead sinners ( all people are sinners) get into it. So how can heaven be perfect? So purgatory was invented to solve that problem. Sinners get purified there prior to going to heaven.

Same with gender ideology. Woman is a term that denotes sex of adult humans. Trans identifying men aren’t of the female sex, so can’t be women. Solve that by claiming woman no longer means sex. So what does it mean? Errr, it denotes behavioural classification. Which sounds a bit sciency and empirical but is undefined and unevidenced and just made up to shore up another unevidenced made up idea. Just like purgatory.

So totally culturally specific. Not sex specific.

As I have already shown there are objective measurable facts to determine typical sex behaviour differences (if you have been living under a literal rock & never experienced them). For most people with working senses, it's obvious that there are substantial differences so pretending there aren't is as silly as gender extremists who claim a sex change changes sex.

As I have said repeatedly it's upto the individual & their personal values who they identify more with.