Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Cambridge Union debate - This House Believes modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community

235 replies

ItsCoolForCats · 15/05/2026 07:15

I'm starting this thread mainly so I can post this link because Maeve Halligan is a force to be reckoned with:

https://x.com/i/status/2055119527914938412

They lost the debate, which was to be expected given the state of universities on this issue, but Thea Sewell said they got a respectable number of votes. Hopefully they have planted some seeds in people's minds.

Other speakers were Buck Angel and Helen Webberley (for the other side).

Full debate is here https://www.youtube.com/live/wE0JY9d7f-w?si=4ZIVmcxyevo0DQvB

Thea Sewell (@theasewell05) on X

lIf you do anything today, watch @MaeveHalligan at the Cambridge Union. I genuinely think this was the first time many people in that room were confronted with the hard reality of the trans debate, rather than the slogans that usually surround it. @Bu...

https://x.com/i/status/2055119527914938412

OP posts:
DrBlackbird · 17/05/2026 16:32

'transbian' lol 😜

most of the British public is confused by ‘transwoman’ or transfemme…

you have to give it to the TRAs, they don’t give up without a fight. A dirty, jargon filled, word salad fight, but a fight all the same. Like Medusa’s head, they just keep popping up with some new angle when the old one is rebuffed or disproven.

Tatatan · 17/05/2026 16:34

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 09:13

Indeed.

According to figures from the last census in the UK, most people don't believe in god. Only 46% of the UK population does:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

As for the ghosts bit, who knows? All we've got on that AFAIK is personal anecdote. Personally, I do because of an experience that I've had. When I share my experience, I'm met with a mix of "me too", open-mindedness and people thinking I'm mad.

Whichever way you look at it, beliefs are personal and nobody should force or coerce others to adopt practices of their own belief. Yes, people might empathise with me that my mum passed away 5 years ago, yes they might understand why I sometimes talk to her out loud... but I'm not so entrenched in my belief in ghosts to demand that they should talk to her too (and tell them that if they don't, they are being unkind invalidating my belief)**. However, that's exactly what happens when trans(-identifying) people guilt-trip everyone into using opposite-sex pronouns, accepting transwomen in women's sports and so on. They are forcing their belief onto others and calling them heretics (transphobes, bigots, Nazis etc) if they don't comply with this demand.

**I'm yet to hear anything back from her TBF. Mildly annoying, given I really didn't need to hear from the random woman that did engage with me. So I'm left in a position where I do believe in ghosts but haven't actually had any benefit from it. FFS.

If you meant the UK, you should say. Top Google hit just now says 21% ‘believe in neither God nor any higher spirit’. That is not ‘most people’!

Apparently, ‘40% say they believe in God as described in holy scriptures, 20% believe in a higher spirit but not as described in holy scriptures, another 21% believe in neither God nor any higher spirit, while 19% are not sure or will not say’.

www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-05/Ipsos%20Global%20Advisor%20-%20Religion%202023%20Report%20-%2026%20countries.pdf

Taztoy · 17/05/2026 16:41

Oh I know. It’s the other persons internal cognition that matters. Not their actions towards me. Rape included. Lolz.

which is why I’m so concerned about the dismantling of consent. This movement is, in my opinion, a slippery slope to rape apology and removal of women’s right to object.

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 16:47

Tatatan · 17/05/2026 16:34

If you meant the UK, you should say. Top Google hit just now says 21% ‘believe in neither God nor any higher spirit’. That is not ‘most people’!

Apparently, ‘40% say they believe in God as described in holy scriptures, 20% believe in a higher spirit but not as described in holy scriptures, another 21% believe in neither God nor any higher spirit, while 19% are not sure or will not say’.

www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-05/Ipsos%20Global%20Advisor%20-%20Religion%202023%20Report%20-%2026%20countries.pdf

TBF I don't actually mind whether most people do or don't believe in god, a higher spirit, Allah, ghosts or anything else. It doesn't bother me at all that some people believe we all have a gender identity. I don't believe it, they do believe it. All good.

What I do mind is when people force their beliefs onto others in a way that demands active participation with the practices of their belief.

Tatatan · 17/05/2026 16:52

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 16:47

TBF I don't actually mind whether most people do or don't believe in god, a higher spirit, Allah, ghosts or anything else. It doesn't bother me at all that some people believe we all have a gender identity. I don't believe it, they do believe it. All good.

What I do mind is when people force their beliefs onto others in a way that demands active participation with the practices of their belief.

Amen to that! :-)

Tatatan · 17/05/2026 17:02

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 16:47

TBF I don't actually mind whether most people do or don't believe in god, a higher spirit, Allah, ghosts or anything else. It doesn't bother me at all that some people believe we all have a gender identity. I don't believe it, they do believe it. All good.

What I do mind is when people force their beliefs onto others in a way that demands active participation with the practices of their belief.

It's an important comparison, the Trans ideology and the God ideology. God-botherers have killed and harmed others down the ages, witch-burnings in medieval Europe being among the worst. But some of us who have a sense of the divine are also people who reject the intolerance of most organised religion, which is, I think, what you were trying to highlight.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 17/05/2026 17:27

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 13:25

You realise the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is by one's intimate partner & sexual violence mostly occurs in the victims or perps home & as such is known to the victim? Exactly how will women's private spaces preventing trans women entering fix that?

See where Gender Critical ideology is going? Nowhere that's helping women's safety in a meaningful way. In actual fact it prevents it by dominating the media & political space effectively silencing the lion's share of where violence emanates from.

The Patriarchy couldn't have wished for more useful idiots.

If you think that allowing men to enter women's spaces without let or hindrance simply by declaring that they are women, and thus have the right to do so, is progressive for women's rights, you are either being disingenuous or naïve. For men to respect women in domestic settings, they need to be brought up to respect women. And even then, it's not enough without societal pressure to behave in ways that recognise women's needs and wishes.

Men have tendencies to aggression and power wielding; the well intentioned ones fight against letting these tendencies have free rein. Seeing other men getting away with bad behaviour doesn't help in that fight to behave better. I expect feminists don't entirely like the concept of chivalry, but it was one example of societal pressure on men to treat women with respect.

Heggettypeg · 17/05/2026 17:34

MarieDeGournay · 17/05/2026 15:16

It's been interesting observing how many versions of trans-ness there have been, from 'TWAW, 100% women, just like any other woman, no difference at all, how dare you be such a hateful transphobe as to suggest I'm not a woman just like you?' to 'I have a piece of paper that says I'm a woman, that's all that matters' to 'My testicles don't make me any less a woman' to 'Obviously I haven't actually changed my biological sex, I've changed my gender and that's what matters' to ...oh who knows what the current iteration is!

On reflection, these haven't replaced each other over time, I think they are all still in circulation - Dr Upton for instance claimed that he had in fact become a biological female, at the same time as other trans-IDing men were making different claims.

(You missed "I'm a woman because other people treat me like one"! )

This is the infuriating part. We're told over and over that we must believe, we must affirm, no debate, no questions. But they can't even agree amongst themselves what the story we're supposed to believe actually is.

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 17:36

Tatatan · 17/05/2026 17:02

It's an important comparison, the Trans ideology and the God ideology. God-botherers have killed and harmed others down the ages, witch-burnings in medieval Europe being among the worst. But some of us who have a sense of the divine are also people who reject the intolerance of most organised religion, which is, I think, what you were trying to highlight.

Yes, exactly that ❤️

Although I must admit, I had not heard the phrase "god-botherer" before and had to look it up. Well, I had heard it, but not very often and had never stopped to think about what it meant.

This was the definition I found:

"A person who persistently promotes religious beliefs to others, even when unwelcome."

Glad I know now as it's the perfect analogy for a TRA who sees refusal to accept transwomen in women's sports etc as "intolerance". Given I don't share their belief (that transwomen are women), there is no way I'd accept them in women's sports. It's very frustrating that the TRAs are framing it as lack of acceptance on my part too... when all I'm actually doing is saying don't enforce your beliefs on me.

Tatatan · 17/05/2026 18:05

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 17:36

Yes, exactly that ❤️

Although I must admit, I had not heard the phrase "god-botherer" before and had to look it up. Well, I had heard it, but not very often and had never stopped to think about what it meant.

This was the definition I found:

"A person who persistently promotes religious beliefs to others, even when unwelcome."

Glad I know now as it's the perfect analogy for a TRA who sees refusal to accept transwomen in women's sports etc as "intolerance". Given I don't share their belief (that transwomen are women), there is no way I'd accept them in women's sports. It's very frustrating that the TRAs are framing it as lack of acceptance on my part too... when all I'm actually doing is saying don't enforce your beliefs on me.

Maybe we can coin a new word, the Trans-Botherer!

moto748e · 17/05/2026 18:15

I thought the idea of these debates was that people were 'supposed' to vote according to which argument was better presented, not on their personal views. Insofar as that is possible.

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 20:22

EmilyinEverton · 16/05/2026 02:45

Whilst lesbianism was only considered same sex attraction in the past, Maeve makes the categorical error (among many) that definitions are set in stone when they aren't given they are at the mercy of social usage. 'Transbianism'/same gender attraction becomes legitimised because of its existence & usage.

I appreciate some same sex attracted lesbians find this problematic particularly in terms of free association but conflicting rights doesn't delegitimise the existence of a phenomena. These (rights & existence) are two separate issues.

It's not a legitimate lesbian phenomenon, though, is it? A transbian is not a lesbian, and a woman attracted to a transbian isn't either.

It's not actually that complicated. People only make it so because they don't like the conflict it brings up between reality and their own self-image. It's like the people in same sex relationships who claim to be "straight with an exception". It all just translates to "I'm bisexual but I've got hang-ups about it".

Which isn't anyone else's problem, and is no reason to deny the rest of us clear language.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 17/05/2026 20:41

I want to know how you can be attracted to someone's gender. If it is their own, personal inner identity how can we see it to know if we are attracted to it or not? If it can change, what happens if it changes halfway through a date? What happens to those of us who don't have a gender identity?
Attraction to male and/or female seems a much simpler way to categorise people.

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 20:46

Did @EmilyinEverton derail the entire thread with this "lesbianism includes penis, actually" nonsense?

That's a shame. I've just made it through the whole of the debate and came here to say how wonderful Maeve was, and how pleased I am her speech is going viral.

Serena also dropped some incredible home truths about how the movement fails lesbians. I can understand why she framed it as an abstention - her argument being that actual lesbians (not what we might call Emily "lesbians") have been all but kicked out of the movement long ago. But I think it would have been better to stick to the movement betraying failing lesbians as her point. Because while this debate was a good showcase of all the gay men who are ignorant of (or flat-out indifferent to) the struggles lesbians are facing, it is a sad reality that there are many actual, bonafide lesbians who are prominent activists but have proved themselves quite happy to sell out their sisters and quote the party line on trans. The Megan Rapinoes and Cynthia Nixon's of the world. I can't remember her name, but wasn't the leader of Stonewall, who pushed the trans stuff the hardest, a lesbian herself? These women should be held to account. They're failing their own community by any metric

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 20:57

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 17/05/2026 20:41

I want to know how you can be attracted to someone's gender. If it is their own, personal inner identity how can we see it to know if we are attracted to it or not? If it can change, what happens if it changes halfway through a date? What happens to those of us who don't have a gender identity?
Attraction to male and/or female seems a much simpler way to categorise people.

In my experience, if you try to drill down into it with people who believe this, what you arrive at is their belief that all human beings are bisexual deep down.

They don't care about the homophobia inherent in that belief.

Amusingly, they also get very uncomfortable when you ask them how an oppressor class of straight people can exist, if no-one is actually straight. They tend to be very attached to the idea of themselves as queer people oppressed by evil straights, and don't want to give that up.

They also tend to believe things like "you can't police other people's identity", and don't like to be reminded that the "everyone is fluid" hypothesis invalidates the chosen identities of others. It's cognitive dissonance all the way down, with these people.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 17/05/2026 21:07

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 20:57

In my experience, if you try to drill down into it with people who believe this, what you arrive at is their belief that all human beings are bisexual deep down.

They don't care about the homophobia inherent in that belief.

Amusingly, they also get very uncomfortable when you ask them how an oppressor class of straight people can exist, if no-one is actually straight. They tend to be very attached to the idea of themselves as queer people oppressed by evil straights, and don't want to give that up.

They also tend to believe things like "you can't police other people's identity", and don't like to be reminded that the "everyone is fluid" hypothesis invalidates the chosen identities of others. It's cognitive dissonance all the way down, with these people.

Edited

I imagine it is truly exhausting and takes over your whole life.

FrippEnos · 17/05/2026 21:09

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 20:57

In my experience, if you try to drill down into it with people who believe this, what you arrive at is their belief that all human beings are bisexual deep down.

They don't care about the homophobia inherent in that belief.

Amusingly, they also get very uncomfortable when you ask them how an oppressor class of straight people can exist, if no-one is actually straight. They tend to be very attached to the idea of themselves as queer people oppressed by evil straights, and don't want to give that up.

They also tend to believe things like "you can't police other people's identity", and don't like to be reminded that the "everyone is fluid" hypothesis invalidates the chosen identities of others. It's cognitive dissonance all the way down, with these people.

Edited

You missed the bit about them going on to police other people's identities.

woollyhatter · 17/05/2026 21:21

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 20:46

Did @EmilyinEverton derail the entire thread with this "lesbianism includes penis, actually" nonsense?

That's a shame. I've just made it through the whole of the debate and came here to say how wonderful Maeve was, and how pleased I am her speech is going viral.

Serena also dropped some incredible home truths about how the movement fails lesbians. I can understand why she framed it as an abstention - her argument being that actual lesbians (not what we might call Emily "lesbians") have been all but kicked out of the movement long ago. But I think it would have been better to stick to the movement betraying failing lesbians as her point. Because while this debate was a good showcase of all the gay men who are ignorant of (or flat-out indifferent to) the struggles lesbians are facing, it is a sad reality that there are many actual, bonafide lesbians who are prominent activists but have proved themselves quite happy to sell out their sisters and quote the party line on trans. The Megan Rapinoes and Cynthia Nixon's of the world. I can't remember her name, but wasn't the leader of Stonewall, who pushed the trans stuff the hardest, a lesbian herself? These women should be held to account. They're failing their own community by any metric

Ah yes, the lovely Baroness Hunt. Having been a former Stonewall supporter I remember being at the time quite perturbed by its move towards a more strident tone.

There was a definite change in the atmosphere and, for want of a better word, “normie” lesbians were increasingly side-lined. As an uncool lesbian it didn’t particularly surprise me. I think I only had a small window of about a decade where I was accepted as fashionable/unproblematic whatever terms the in-crowd used.

It was during the campaigning for repealing section 28 and civil partnership act then same-sex marriage phase in LGB rights.

Later, some seemed to want to be seen as progressive more than thou rather than actually to want to make homos actually safer.

It saddens me mostly. But at that time they needed us vanilla types to not scare the horses and make the case in private and political circles when things were truly hostile.

The current bunch would last five seconds in the time of AIDS with no cure, when we could be fired from our jobs and keep quiet on who we dated. Awful to see how they have upended the true safety net of the Equality Act as envisioned by Trevor Phillips.

Helleofabore · 17/05/2026 22:00

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 13:25

You realise the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is by one's intimate partner & sexual violence mostly occurs in the victims or perps home & as such is known to the victim? Exactly how will women's private spaces preventing trans women entering fix that?

See where Gender Critical ideology is going? Nowhere that's helping women's safety in a meaningful way. In actual fact it prevents it by dominating the media & political space effectively silencing the lion's share of where violence emanates from.

The Patriarchy couldn't have wished for more useful idiots.

”Exactly how will women's private spaces preventing trans women entering fix that?”

Gosh? Howse that? I am sure this point was attempted as a gotcha last year. It still fails as any type of point because it is irrelevant.

It also doesn’t prevent domestic violence being widely discussed and any media coverage either. Those discussions should still be had and are still had. What a false accusation that the two cannot be simultaneously focused on at the same time.

of course, ensuring single sex provisions also provides necessary support to those victims of domestic violence. Including in refuges, support groups and even in single sex health care when needed, and other provisions. Even in prison where many female inmates are known to be vastly over represented by domestic violence and other violence victims.

Excluding male people from female single sex provisions is not aimed to prevent domestic violence. But I can assure you, as a child of a domestic violence and abuse household, I sure do need to have a provision that is female single sex only away from male people. I know quite a number of other female people who are victims of sexual violence and other violence who certainly don’t want to share any female single sex provision with a male person above the age of about 8 years old regardless of how that male person identifies.

I also know of a couple of women who certainly don’t want to be sharing a female single sex provision with their abusive ex husbands who are now claiming to be women.

So no, single sex provision is not aimed at preventing domestic violence.

And the majority of that violence comes from male people. Male people from across all groups and sub groups. They are the category of people excluded from single sex provisions after the age of about 8 years old, regardless of the sub group they belong in.

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 22:21

Inadvertently amusing moments from the debate:

  • It seems that the debate moderator had to round up every submission by thanking the speaker for their "fine speech". There were times when I felt sorry for him. You sometimes could tell he thought the speech he'd just listened to was far from "fine" 😂
  • When Buck Angel declared "I am considered an elder in this community" at 61 or whatever, and the next speaker, Andrew Boff, felt the urge to drop into the conversation that he was 68. You could tell Boff had expected to be the "elder" in the room, and it ended up looking like a bit of comical one upmanship.
  • Andrew Boff treats being the first man to get gay married in Britain as some sort of personal achievement. But all he actually did was be front of the queue. It could just as easily have been someone else. Someone who might not be griping all these years later about the horror of having to get up at - gasp! - 8 a.m! I'm now picturing Boff as a man who has breakfast brought to him in bed in noon, because he was up until four smoking cigars at the billiard table.
  • Did you know he's 68? He's 68
  • But he's a cool 68. A 68 who has seen Pluribus and defo has an iPhone.
  • Even Boff wanted to make it clear he's not a fan of Helen Webberly 😂
  • "WELCOME TO HUMANITY! WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY!" I think that was supposed to prompt gales of laughter? It came across more like he needed a sit down
  • "If I'm ever in the dock accused of something grim, I want me one of those activist lawyers!" . . . er, I see. Was this just one of those hypothetical situations you find yourself wondering about over beer with Peter Tatchell, or is there a particular "something grim" that's been playing on your mind, Andrew?
  • It's somewhat ironic that the thrust of Andrew's argument was that annoying voices on the internet don't represent the whole of the movement, because his characterisation of the opposition sounded like someone who has never had a conversation about this offline. Or never ventured beyond his own middle class bubble. He thought the opposing viewpoint was "online discourse is so annoying" and "Pride is too corporate". Then you put his faffing up against Serena's blistering list of examples of what lesbians are going through, and Maeve's takedown of the true cost of Being Kind, and Andrew just looks completely out of touch with reality.
  • "Every movement has its bores. Every movement has people who mistake volume for wisdom." Are they in the room with us, Andrew? Pontificating at length, perchance? Mistaking age for wisdom, perhaps? Are they thinking to themselves: "I'm 68 and I made history - I don't have to listen to the concerns of silly little women"? Perhaps?
  • I've just Googled Andrew and it turns out that his marriage is technically number one on the paperwork, but the fifteen day waiting period was waived for a terminally ill man, who was actually the first to be gay married in 2005. I'm not sure I, personally, would want to make a career out of being "the first" if a dying man had a plausible claim to the title instead. I might just have let him have it. But then, we're all different and I'm sure Andrew feels he's done a lot more good dining out on it all these years, and he did after all get up at 8 a.m.
AprilShowered · 17/05/2026 22:30

Don't you just love it when the new posters present all the arguments that they appear to think haven't been heard before?
The oh so patronising " you do realise don't you?" Or the even worse "do you realise?"
Just bore off, we've been standing up for women while you lot were at playgroup

OpheliaWasntMad · 17/05/2026 22:54

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 17/05/2026 20:41

I want to know how you can be attracted to someone's gender. If it is their own, personal inner identity how can we see it to know if we are attracted to it or not? If it can change, what happens if it changes halfway through a date? What happens to those of us who don't have a gender identity?
Attraction to male and/or female seems a much simpler way to categorise people.

I’m beginning to think the word gender should be banned. It’s become so vague and woolly it can mean anything.
In the past , gender was a polite synonym for people who were embarrassed to say the word sex .

moto748e · 17/05/2026 22:58

Agree. They've dragged 'gender' through the mud until no-one knows what means any more; it means whatever the current speaker says it does. And they are having a damn good go at 'woman', too.

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 23:08

SnoopyPajamas · 17/05/2026 22:21

Inadvertently amusing moments from the debate:

  • It seems that the debate moderator had to round up every submission by thanking the speaker for their "fine speech". There were times when I felt sorry for him. You sometimes could tell he thought the speech he'd just listened to was far from "fine" 😂
  • When Buck Angel declared "I am considered an elder in this community" at 61 or whatever, and the next speaker, Andrew Boff, felt the urge to drop into the conversation that he was 68. You could tell Boff had expected to be the "elder" in the room, and it ended up looking like a bit of comical one upmanship.
  • Andrew Boff treats being the first man to get gay married in Britain as some sort of personal achievement. But all he actually did was be front of the queue. It could just as easily have been someone else. Someone who might not be griping all these years later about the horror of having to get up at - gasp! - 8 a.m! I'm now picturing Boff as a man who has breakfast brought to him in bed in noon, because he was up until four smoking cigars at the billiard table.
  • Did you know he's 68? He's 68
  • But he's a cool 68. A 68 who has seen Pluribus and defo has an iPhone.
  • Even Boff wanted to make it clear he's not a fan of Helen Webberly 😂
  • "WELCOME TO HUMANITY! WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY!" I think that was supposed to prompt gales of laughter? It came across more like he needed a sit down
  • "If I'm ever in the dock accused of something grim, I want me one of those activist lawyers!" . . . er, I see. Was this just one of those hypothetical situations you find yourself wondering about over beer with Peter Tatchell, or is there a particular "something grim" that's been playing on your mind, Andrew?
  • It's somewhat ironic that the thrust of Andrew's argument was that annoying voices on the internet don't represent the whole of the movement, because his characterisation of the opposition sounded like someone who has never had a conversation about this offline. Or never ventured beyond his own middle class bubble. He thought the opposing viewpoint was "online discourse is so annoying" and "Pride is too corporate". Then you put his faffing up against Serena's blistering list of examples of what lesbians are going through, and Maeve's takedown of the true cost of Being Kind, and Andrew just looks completely out of touch with reality.
  • "Every movement has its bores. Every movement has people who mistake volume for wisdom." Are they in the room with us, Andrew? Pontificating at length, perchance? Mistaking age for wisdom, perhaps? Are they thinking to themselves: "I'm 68 and I made history - I don't have to listen to the concerns of silly little women"? Perhaps?
  • I've just Googled Andrew and it turns out that his marriage is technically number one on the paperwork, but the fifteen day waiting period was waived for a terminally ill man, who was actually the first to be gay married in 2005. I'm not sure I, personally, would want to make a career out of being "the first" if a dying man had a plausible claim to the title instead. I might just have let him have it. But then, we're all different and I'm sure Andrew feels he's done a lot more good dining out on it all these years, and he did after all get up at 8 a.m.

Great summary!

Too many good bits to point to, but this one did float to the top:

Even Boff wanted to make it clear he's not a fan of Helen Webberly 😂

This is also what I meant by him giving vibes that he did at least agree with the motion in part. He was very clearly hiding from the difficult stuff... and blatantly knows it's a bit fucked up to give children irreversible medical interventions.

He thought the opposing viewpoint was "online discourse is so annoying" and "Pride is too corporate"

I think this was carefully curated feigned ignorance. If he thought this was as controversial as it got, he wouldn't have been so keen to tell us just how much he disagreed with Helen Webberley. I can't remember his exact words but was it something like we disagree on nearly everything? And then he celebrated the joy of disagreement.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 17/05/2026 23:11

moto748e · 17/05/2026 22:58

Agree. They've dragged 'gender' through the mud until no-one knows what means any more; it means whatever the current speaker says it does. And they are having a damn good go at 'woman', too.

I guess that's the point. Queer everything. Except nobody can explain why.

Swipe left for the next trending thread