Rishi Sunak said…

Gender ideology is a top down movement - not a grassroots one.

Gender ideology is a top down movement - not a grassroots one.

And yet the usual starting position is "be kind" and "tolerance".

It has, and is, being imposed - without debate, without full consultation, public consciousness or awareness - that's why. It is ideological in origin.

I'm not sure I understand your point?

This ideology has been pushed through on the coat tails of gay liberation - in order to assume some of the same accuued goodwill. Hence the " Be kind and be tolerant". When anyone is questioned in any depth on the matter they have nothing else of any substance to say.

accrued

Please don't vote fucking Tory!

Generally people who meet trans people who are just going about their business will endeavour to use the correct pronouns, not discriminate, generally be inclusive.

Not because of any ‘top down ideology’ but because generally people don’t go out of their way to be dicks or unnecessarily upset people.

Many people have trans people in their families or social circles and know them as people first.

Which is why trying to paint these people as brainwashed mantra chanters isn’t particularly helpful.

And yet the behaviour is the opposite of kind on the trans side. No-one within the Labour party is being kind to Rosie Duffield, nor to JKR nor to the many women saying 'hang on a minute this is going to impact on me in this way'.

The physical attacks have been entirely from the side saying 'be kind' but doing the opposite.

It's really an exercise, from the Labour side, in trying to impose totalitarian control. It's trying to force the population to say 2+2=5 for fear of the consequences if they say 'hang on a minute, I really think 2+2 =4' with the aim of ultimately getting people to believe it is the only right thing to do to say '2+2=5' and for there to be no meaningful opposition to this statement. Because if you can do this, you have total control.

Under the Tories they fucked up Covid in so many ways but we weren't threatened with arrest for hate crimes for talking about the logical inconsistencies like how we all had to wear masks and keep our distance everywhere else than in schools, we were free to criticise, complain, point out the logical inconsistencies.

Until very recently women lost their jobs without any comeback at all for saying 'I don't think men can be women'. Thanks to Maya there is SOME protection now but not that much, really because as we all know most normal women can't afford to take their employer to court. The victimisation for not toeing the TWAW line is really terrible. Look at what happened to Sonia Appleby, Alison Bailey, Laura Favaro. Raquel Rosario-Sanchez. And there are loads more like them who just got fired and sidelined for telling the truth as they saw it (which is also, incidentally scientific reality) and didn't fight back.

Do you think it's kind to force autistic children to use wrong sex pronouns? Against what is normal language usage? Do you think their needs should be considered?

Expecting children to use wrong sex pronouns against the evidence of their eyes is not a neutral act.

The not being dicks and not setting out to deliberate harm and exclude people has to work both ways.

Otherwise the side who initially had good intentions realise they're being taken for mugs and their good will and kindness is being abused, get entirely fucked off, and stop being naive. And indulgent. And start having boundaries.

I think the pronouns thing is a particularly clever and insidious imposition of the wants of the few against the best interests of the many.

Using wrong sex pronouns is difficult for very many groups (some of them vulnerable) and it goes against normal English linguistics. Third person pronouns apply to whole groups of people (in English, typically the two sex classes), they're not individual like names and demanding that people not use the pronouns associated with what they see but what is demanded by someone else is a particularly unpleasant form of coercive control.

Because?

use the correct pronouns, not discriminate, generally be inclusive.

It’s not discrimination to have someone correctly sex you in language. It’s not excluding anybody by correctly identifying their sex. You cannot force the rest of society to adopt a belief of a minority.

generally people don’t go out of their way to be dicks or unnecessarily upset people

It’s clearly upsetting a lot of women allowing males to use our spaces. I think forcing a belief system on the rest of society by demanding they change their language and lie, is a form of coercive behaviour that I would personally think means they’re ‘being a dick’ to use your phrase.

Agree 100%, the people who are being dicks are the ones who are enforcing gender upon us without a care on the impact on women and girls. The fact that they tend to be 'dick owners' is interesting. Otherwise known as male privilege.

Isn't it interesting that all a man had to do to go from the oppressor to the oppressed was wear a dress?

I used to have sympathy. Now, not so much. I can see the harm it does to women, girls and children. There is no upside.

And here we have it - Giraffe has been trying to explain why we should vote labour despite our concerns about GI when what Giraffe actually meant was that it is unkind and unreasonable for us to have concerns about GI.

But I do have those concerns, and for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s kind to collude with someone’s belief that they actually can change sex - it just leads to a lot of pain for them as they become increasingly aware of the truth

With regard to being top down: gender ideology appeared, being promoted by various lobby groups, across the west, largely at the same time. These groups influenced other bodies and governments.

The "be kind" idea, teamed up with the idea that the ideology was supported by the science, and this was a group which had been discriminated against in terms of civil rights, was how it was sold to the public. Many of whom simply accepted it if they saw themselves as political progressives.

Because all these bodies that had huge amounts of public trust - particularly Stonewall - said it was the right thing.

Yes it’s incredible looking at how it happened. Other countries are going ahead with it. I hope women here get the result they want and we don’t.

And isn’t that always how it goes? TRAs/MRAs telling the wimmin that we should budge up, shut up and pipe down else otherwise we’re being unkind. Because that’s supposed to be our most dreaded insult, apparently.

Any reason?

He’s awful and today the headline in the Daily Mail was disgusting

Why?

Perhaps you could point out anywhere on this thread where I have said anyone should vote Labour? I'm not a Labour supporter myself so it would be a bit odd.

I also didn't say it was unkind or unreasonable to have concerns about GI.

And I don't believe it is possible to change sex. 🤷‍♀️

Someone asked what people might find objectionable about Rishi's statement and I replied.

Coming on and asserting that I said stuff that I didn't, and that I believe stuff that I don't isn't a great debate tactic tbh.

Ok, Giraffe, apologies. You were firmly arguing against voting tory. The discussion has been tory v labour, since they are the only parties which could be expected to form a gov, so maybe I should have phrased that ‘tried to explain why we should not vote Tory’ rather than ‘tried to explain why we should vote labour’. I recognise that that represents you inaccurately (if that’s what you’re saying), but doesn’t actually affect the meaning of my post.

Your more recent posts seemed to suggest that there really isn’t a problem with TWAW. Sorry if I have misread that. Now I’m not sure what you did mean…? Interested to read if you can restate