What is in the water this week?! Glinner now making a mockery of the cause

[RobynMiller]

I know I know I should just get off twitter but this week is just back to back GC news and not in a good way.

If you haven't seen, Glinner posted a video mocking Green Leader Zack Polanski, understandable plenty of material for a comedy writer there, but the video is so unhinged and unfunny.

Some speculating Graham was drunk when he made it but it's been 24 hours and he's left it up so maybe not.

I feel like we are finally gaining real ground in this fight and this makes GCs look like a bunch of lunatics.

I know there is no formal hierarchy but like it or not, for better and worse, we do have public faces and 'spokespeople' for this fight and this is just embarrassing.

I just feel so helpless because there can't be any accountability for this kind of thing but my God.

Thanks for listening to my rant, just been a very frustrating week.

Video here: https://x.com/Glinner/status/2047187374699126873?s=20

Not only that, but there seems to be a commonality in the incoherence in the arguments presented.

Once you see the pattern, it is there.

I'm getting fed up of people smearing by association the legal representation available for GC cases: ADF, Christian Concern, and the Free Speech Union are the only UK organisations who will assist with legal cases involving gender critical people.

The trades unions have refused to perform their basic function of legally defending members from employer overreach, the Police + CPS are overly fond of prosecuting people for legal speech, and professional associations are also shirking their responsibility to defend members' rights.

In the face of this mass shirking of responsibility where are ordinary people supposed to go to seek help in defending their legal rights, how are they supposed to seek redress from their employer or defend themselves against punitive behaviour from their membership bodies or the state???

haven't there just - I assume it's another of their totally fool proof cunning plans

there a large number of local elections happening in England, wales and Scotland in May and labour are under serious pressure

<Whiny Bill Paxton in Aliens voice>

Oh man, spring and summer of 24...It was hell, man. It's the local elections, those things are gonna come in here just like they did before. We're on an express elevator to hell, going down!

🙃😬

Who defines 'kind' and 'badly' please? And who authorised you to judge people? Remember, there is a simple answer for you if you don't like GC people. Don't go where they hang out! A click of the trackpad or mouse, and we will all disappear from your life. Instead, you seek them out to insult them, which is not my definition of kind.

In your opinion. Other opinions are available.

No love, it's an adjective.

I'm afraid trans people exist, whether you give them permission or not. Existence is not violence.

Christ almighty.

I'm afraid the word's in common usage. Objecting to a perfectly normal adjective is a complete waste of time.

Perhaps you should question why the existence of trans people has become the central issue of your life? It's a bit weird.

Of course they exist, they occupy a mass in time and space

men still aren't women though love

I'm a cis mum of three, sweetheart. And a survivor of childhood abuse who's helped several people escape domestic violence.

But carry on, you were objecting to me reporting my experience of paedophiles hiding in the anti-trans movement, and warning other women?

I'm a violence survivor, of course I care about anyone who's been attacked.

You're more concerned about a violent trans woman than paedophiles? Uh huh, okay.

And you're more worried about (entirely fictional) adults forcing children to transition (!!) than what I've said?

Okaaay.

Hope everyone who read that projection also read my original post.

Good to know who to avoid. Brr.

Of course trans pople exist. They are people who identify as trans.

What they are not is any closer to the opposite sex than anyone else of the same biological sex.

"Cis" as a catch all word for "everyone of a sex other than those who have declared themselves trans" is meaningless outside the Genderist belief system. Female people do not have more in common with trans "girls" than they do with other men or boys.

"Cis" as a self defined identity whereby a small subset of people want to recognise personality similarities with "trans" identifying member of the opposite sex would be meaningful, but that is not how genderists use it. And even in that instance, all that would result in is a mixed sex group who have some personality traits in common. It is still, nothing to do with the "trans" group having genuine aspects of the opposite sex that others of their sex do not.

So, given that "trans" people do not have any legitimate claim to the resources, language or rights of the opposite sex, while it may not (always) be an act of physical violence to demand these things, it is certainly an act of social aggression.

No love, it is not simply an 'adjective'.

Denying a group of people's demanded changes to language is not denying they exist. Existence is not violence, yet you have immediately used an empty mantra about reminding me that a group of people that obviously exist do exist and then declared that existence is not violence.

All you seem to have is empty platitudes and emotionally manipulative reasoning to support your posts.

A group of people cannot expect society to change the language just to suit their specific and subjective belief that doesn't reflect material reality. That group do not get to change the language to make some terms absolutely fucking meaningless just because they want to and they reject common English.

But it is ok, love. Because every time you post, others will simply keep posting to explain to you and others why language will not change to suit a group of people in this way simply because making commonly used terms describing human sex categories that are also then used in laws will ultimately not be accepted by society.

@TransParentlyAnnoyed

Sharron Davies in her apparent attempt to scare gnc women out of running in parks

Which gnc women is Sharron Davies attempting to scare out of running in parks?

Well I’ve seen evidence of everything I’ve said. Seen no evidence of your er… allegations from your fever dream. I mean, if you know lots of men with pictures of naked children…. Maybe try a new friend group. Guilt by association and all that.

I don't think there's a pipeline. I think far right ranters are (obviously) GC, and realised this is the one area where they would garner wide spread support from people who would otherwise dismiss them. They are not GC people turned right wing, they are right wing people using GC as a trojan horse to gain a platform in spaces they would otherwise be unwelcome. They have very loud voices.
It suits TI to pretend there's a pipeline because it discredits GC people as right wing lunatics.
It suits some right wing people to pretend there's a pipeline because they can then blame 'the left' for pushing people to extremism.
However, thinking you can't change sex and a woman is an adult human female does not turn people right wing. If it did, there would be no moderates left.

I disagree far right ranters are GC.

They are sex realist, which is the very broad church of everyone who thinks biological sex should not be replaced by gender identity, but anyone who believes traditional gender roles are better than giving women free choices and opportunities is not GC.

They like gendered behaviour, they just don't like trans-gendered behaviour.

Whereas GC feminists are against gender for everyone: we see it as society imposing outdated sexist assumptions that have no innate basis, just habit and assumption.

.

You're absolutely right. Sex realist and GC are two different things.

THANK YOU!!!

I'm so tired of Gender Critical being taken as Transgender Critical.

Feminist critique of 'gender' is diametrically opposed to transgenderism, which elevates sex stereotypes above everything. But it's been around for a very long time, reaching much further and deeper. Sex realism, of course, goes back even further to before we were humans. It deals with fundamental biology, while 'gender' describes a system of social control.

I agree with conservatives on the importance and inevitability of sex recognition. We disagree on the desirability of sex stereotyping. The American religious conservatives I've spoken with have no problem understanding this: it's the transgenderists who can't seem to grasp it!

Gender Critics don't believe clothing, hair & makeup styles should be limited to one sex or the other, for instance. This looks like it should be a plane of alignment with transgenderists, who often think we're opposed to men wearing skirts.

In fact, they're more aligned with the conservatives on this - both feel it's important to delineate 'male' and 'female' styles of appearance. But religious conservatives and GC feminists are stoutly united against any idea that sex is changeable, whatever you're wearing.

There is a third group and it’s the biggest group. The third group is transgender critical. They (we) know there are only two sexes but we accept that masculinity and femininity exist and men are more likely to be masculine and vice versa. Yes not all, yawn yada yada. this group does not think regressive crap like boys shouldn’t cry nor does it subscribe to radical crap like we should abolish gender/ there is no such thing etc etc

I literally said parents of trans kids get these men replying, unsolicited, all the time. We are sickened by and block them.

But sure. Ignore my lived experience as a cis woman, and my desire to warn others, in favour of weaponising the trauma of child abuse. Wish I was surprised.

Nah.

Ah yes. We call those people "sexist". And they are indeed the biggest group.

And just in case you are a little confused, gender critical feminists know gender exists, just like we know sexism exists. We just think it's mostly or even entirely socially constructed and we'd be better off without it.

I really don't see any argument for closing off some ways of thinking, being or expressing from one sex or the other instead of allowing both sexes the maximum range of human possibilities.

Currently, the average wait for a rape prosecution is so high, some cases are taking eight years to reach court.

I have friends whose exes have been bailed after attacking and raping them - and both are being terrorised by them. No court date in sight, no police intervention.

Every secondary school contains dozens of kids whose report of rape was dismissed, and who are now falling apart because they were given no support either.

There is unchecked street violence against women and LGBT people.

Why on earth someone would consider the word "cis" an emergency for women at this horrific time is beyond me.

Trans people existing is not an attack on women. But it is a useful distraction from rape culture and the very real crisis in our underfunded court system, schools and (deeply corrupt) police forces. Not to mention from the manosphere & far right.

One in ten Metropolitan police officer has been investigated for sexual offences for pity's sake, get some perspective.

Protesting a commonly-used adjective is shaking-fist-at-clouds behaviour.

It's all part of the same sexist shite. The sexism that allows rape culture to flourish springs from the same root as the sexism that thinks women can be simplified into a costume men can wear.

It all starts by men making their beliefs about women and their requirements of women the only thing that matters when it comes to women.

I could ask you why, given all the above, it's so crucial that male people be accorded female language and access to female-only spaces right now? Why not get women (female people) into a better place first, then start the TWAW push?