"If you are a woman, you will always be a target" Mike Marsland/WireImage
It’s hard to imagine a more agreeable place to work than a charity bookshop. Staffed by civic-minded volunteers, the shelves groan with musty old paperbacks, lovingly donated in the hope they’ll find a new home and also raise money for good causes.
For Maria, the chance to work for one of Oxfam’s global outreach programmes, helping to end violence against women in the workplace, was a dream come true. And for a few years, it was — right up until the moment a fellow co-worker asked on an internal messageboard if Oxfam shops should ban the sale of J.K. Rowling’s books.
Three years ago, the Harry Potter author found herself accused of transphobia for having supported women who have “concerns around single-sex spaces”. During a discussion on Oxfam’s intranet, Maria had come to the defence of Britain’s most popular living author, asking for evidence of Rowling’s supposed transphobia. It was a decision that prompted a gruelling internal investigation, one in which Maria struggled to clear her name, led to her having a nervous breakdown and leaving both her job and the country.
Oxfam eventually offered a grovelling apology for the “procedural mistakes” that caused Maria such upset, but she is still struggling to make sense of it all. Speaking for the first time about the episode, she reveals: “My life has been torn apart. It drove me to a breakdown, I lost my confidence and, worst of all, I began to doubt myself.”
What Maria endured is part of a wider woke culture in the charitable sector, where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter. Certainly, Maria is so convinced that her career remains in danger — that any woman accused of transphobia will be blacklisted by much of the charitable sector, even when they have been exonerated — that she has agreed to speak to UnHerd under a pseudonym. “This will hang over me for the rest of my life,” she says. For decades, Oxfam — which was formed in 1942 to send food supplies to starving mothers and children in Nazi-occupied Greece — was one of the UK’s most respected charities, providing international aid to end hardship around the globe. But in recent years, its reputation has been tarnished. In 2018, evidence emerged that senior staff had paid survivors of the 2010 Haiti earthquake for sex, and that the use of prostitutes during the relief effort was covered up by the charity, allegations that Oxfam denies.
It was Maria’s concern for vulnerable women that first drew her to work for Oxfam: “I have experienced rape and domestic violence in the past, so I wanted to help others in the same situation.” Born in Spain, where she had worked as a pre-school teacher and volunteered at a sexual assault centre, she moved to the UK in 2017.
“I loved my job,” says Maria, “being able to see how Oxfam’s work improves the lives of other women and children.” Three years after joining the charity, she was promoted to a co-ordinating role within the women’s rights team, whose remit was to ensure that female equality was reflected in Oxfam’s work.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYou must be inclusive, unless you breach our guardrails, and then you must be crushed.
I can’t get this meme out of my head. It speaks to the superficial support of woke; “ I support the current thing.”
You must be inclusive, unless you breach our guardrails, and then you must be crushed.
I can’t get this meme out of my head. It speaks to the superficial support of woke; “ I support the current thing.”
“What Maria endured is part of a wider woke culture in the charitable sector, where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter.”
You missed a key point here, Julie — they’re being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!
It is progressive women who are leading the woke crusade to purge organizations of heretics. The inquisition is stinging up both men and women, conservatives and liberals, but the inquisitors are almost uniformly liberal, quasi-elite, university-educated, women. Women very much like Julie Bindel.
Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself. This is only a matter of degree, something which Julie consistently fails to recognize.
Sorry to nitpick, but I believe it was in 2014 that Stonewall decided to go mad, and it’s that organisation that have spread the insanity far and wide.
They now no longer believe in homosexuality – gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.
2014 is probably more accurate, 2015 in the USA (Obergefell).
The larger point though is that liberalism is a “liberating” ideology — it seeks to remove all unchosen constraints. This is the common thread which flows from John Locke overthrowing the divine right of kings to abolitionists overthrowing slavery to J.S. Mill and Susan B. Anthony’s overthrowing of the political patriarchy to Stonewall’s overthrowing of sodomy to modern progressives desire to overthrow biology: removal of unchosen constraints. Mill’s harm principle is explicit about this.
Julie’s desire to stop liberalism at 2014/15 is as absurd as trying to stop it in 1770 or 1857 or 1910 or 1961 — as long as there as a single person’s desire is being thwarted, liberalism must be prepared to free them. It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies.
“liberalism must be prepared to free them. It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies”.
Surely that will lead to paedophilia* on a scale not seen the heady days of Ancient Greece?
(* Sometimes spelled: pedophilia, and referred to in the vernacular as “botty banditry”.)
I agree. I’m generally an Occamist. Why are the wealthy and powerful pushing so hard to introduce sexual ideas to children? The simplest answer is because they want sexual access to children. Which, as you mentioned, is historically quite normal. Court eunuchs have existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Frankish kings, Popes, Ottomans, ISIS, and Afghan warlords. Epstein was popular with Western elites for a reason.
I agree. I’m generally an Occamist. Why are the wealthy and powerful pushing so hard to introduce sexual ideas to children? The simplest answer is because they want sexual access to children. Which, as you mentioned, is historically quite normal. Court eunuchs have existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Frankish kings, Popes, Ottomans, ISIS, and Afghan warlords. Epstein was popular with Western elites for a reason.
What if the single person’s desire includes violence to others? Do you want the Sexual Offences Act cancelled? At the very least, how far is it justified to make another person feel unease, or fear?
An interesting question: how far is it justified to make another person feel unease or fear?
I suppose the shortest, straight-line answer might be: no one makes anyone feel anything. We ourselves are responsible for how we feel. As Viktor Frankl put, it speaking of his time in the camps, “…everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms, to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” We cannot control what happens to us (at least not entirely), but we can control how we feel about it, what we think about it.
But equally we must distinguish between ‘feeling threatened’ and actual threat. You may walk into a store and see a man in a red jacket standing looking at toothpastes. Let’s say you feel endangered. The question is not and cannot be: did you feel threatened by him (that’s entirely your issue and your responsibility). The question is: did he actually threaten you? Pull a knife, draw a gun, throw a box full of electric toothbrushes directly at you while shouting terrible things?
Without evidence of threat, there is no threat (none that is real, anyway, or actionable). This is not to deny the feeling, but to make that feeling the responsibility of the person feeling it…and not the responsibility of the proximate cause (the guy looking at toothpaste) …and not the responsibility of the organization which welcome Mr. Red Jacket into the toothcare section of the store.
You (and Viktor Frankl) couldn’t be more right.
You (and Viktor Frankl) couldn’t be more right.
Indecent exposure in practice has been legalized in many US states & ex-US countries as all a man has to do to get a free pass to expose his stick & berries to women & girls is say magic words and whip them out in a locker room of changing space that’s notionally for women & girls.
Like Mr. Davis above, I believe trying to legislate based on subjective emotional health is absurd.
No person should actually BE unsafe.
Preventing a FEELING of unsafety is a fool’s errand.
A very important distinction indeed. Nobody but I, myself, can control how I feel, but I have the right to be in a safe environment, and for me that includes single-sex changing rooms and lavatories.
A very important distinction indeed. Nobody but I, myself, can control how I feel, but I have the right to be in a safe environment, and for me that includes single-sex changing rooms and lavatories.
An interesting question: how far is it justified to make another person feel unease or fear?
I suppose the shortest, straight-line answer might be: no one makes anyone feel anything. We ourselves are responsible for how we feel. As Viktor Frankl put, it speaking of his time in the camps, “…everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms, to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” We cannot control what happens to us (at least not entirely), but we can control how we feel about it, what we think about it.
But equally we must distinguish between ‘feeling threatened’ and actual threat. You may walk into a store and see a man in a red jacket standing looking at toothpastes. Let’s say you feel endangered. The question is not and cannot be: did you feel threatened by him (that’s entirely your issue and your responsibility). The question is: did he actually threaten you? Pull a knife, draw a gun, throw a box full of electric toothbrushes directly at you while shouting terrible things?
Without evidence of threat, there is no threat (none that is real, anyway, or actionable). This is not to deny the feeling, but to make that feeling the responsibility of the person feeling it…and not the responsibility of the proximate cause (the guy looking at toothpaste) …and not the responsibility of the organization which welcome Mr. Red Jacket into the toothcare section of the store.
Indecent exposure in practice has been legalized in many US states & ex-US countries as all a man has to do to get a free pass to expose his stick & berries to women & girls is say magic words and whip them out in a locker room of changing space that’s notionally for women & girls.
Like Mr. Davis above, I believe trying to legislate based on subjective emotional health is absurd.
No person should actually BE unsafe.
Preventing a FEELING of unsafety is a fool’s errand.
“It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies.”
So back to slavery then? If you want to rip liberalism out by the roots then do you advocate for divine right of kings? In my view all fundamentalists are equally dangerous — both liberalism run amok and those who would see us return to … to what?
Any ism can be taken too far, surely and what civilized people do is find balance. Abolishing slavery was good, but affirmative action is going too far. Yes?
One can oppose slavery from many philosophical standpoints. Obliging a liberal framework is unnecessary.
I understand the criticism, Ray, and to be honest, I share your concern. I honestly don’t know what the answer is from a philosophical basis, since I agree that much of liberalism has been good.
Where I disagree is the idea that our problem is that “liberalism has been taken too far”. I’m with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalism’s very success undermines. We’re just living through the endpoint of that process.
The best I can say to you is that today, right now, no one is actually proposing the re-institution of slavery or the removal of women’s voting rights. However, people are suffering for refusing to conform to the latest orthodoxies of liberalism. That’s happening now. People’s careers are being destroyed… now. Children bodies are being maimed… now. Women are taking second place in sporting events to men… now. So I’m choosing to worry about the problems we face today (which are caused by liberalism) instead of those we might face in the future (which could be caused by a lack of liberalism).
It is not liberalism, it is the destruction of the liberty of the individual to live in a society formed from the Anglo Saxon Common Law and the morality The Bible. Rousseau, Hegel and Post modernists supports the destruction of AS Common Law and The Bible to replace it with the collective state. Listen to Prof S Hicks
Postmodernism Explained by Professor Stephen Hicks – YouTube
Stephen Hicks on Postmodernism Part 1 – YouTube
Transgendersim is the latest evolution of Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism which is the desire for power through the destruction of the West.
I agree. What we are seeing today, is the very opposite of classical liberalism. It flies into the face of everything liberals value: debate, science, rational thought, facts, logic, tolerance of differences, etc. Those who have hijacked the liberal label with generous help from the media, abhor debate, especially when it challenges their ideology, they counter science, facts, and logic with feelings and subjectivity, and are as unaccepting of differences as the Puritans.
Same old Marxist belief that power can’t be won through elections and the biggest obstacle to extending authoritarian control is the family with it’s unconditional ties that are beyond analysis.
Most of the woke people I talk to, when you can get them to talk seem to be mostly convinced that being woke is just being ‘nice’.
Hence the most overworked adjective about any wokey proposal is that it is well-intentioned.
So often offered up that you could pave a road with them.
I agree. What we are seeing today, is the very opposite of classical liberalism. It flies into the face of everything liberals value: debate, science, rational thought, facts, logic, tolerance of differences, etc. Those who have hijacked the liberal label with generous help from the media, abhor debate, especially when it challenges their ideology, they counter science, facts, and logic with feelings and subjectivity, and are as unaccepting of differences as the Puritans.
Same old Marxist belief that power can’t be won through elections and the biggest obstacle to extending authoritarian control is the family with it’s unconditional ties that are beyond analysis.
Most of the woke people I talk to, when you can get them to talk seem to be mostly convinced that being woke is just being ‘nice’.
Hence the most overworked adjective about any wokey proposal is that it is well-intentioned.
So often offered up that you could pave a road with them.
I always enjoy reading your comments, Brian, and find myself agreeing with you more often than not. However, I cannot concur with this statement–at least not entirely: “I’m with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalism’s very success undermines.”
True liberalism is marked by free debate, tolerance of differences, focus on facts and science rather than beliefs and feelings, and learning from mistakes made in the past. Those who call themselves liberal today despise these traditional definitions, and are more interested in practising intolerance, shutting down discussion, engaging in witch hunts, and highlighting the importance of feelings. If that’s the “new” liberalism, which I don’t believe, it has lost its way and ignores its own history. However, I don’t believe that the people who claim to be liberals truly are liberal. They are political leftists who have hijacked the term, and because they are receiving favourable treatment by the media, their screeching is amplified and reaches a far wider audience. In other words, just because the label proclaims the contents to be one thing doesn’t make it so. As a classical liberal, I have become weary of labels, because all too often what’s inside doesn’t match what’s advertised on the packaging.
Brian, I take your points.
But are the issues you describe really othodoxies of liberalism, or of an ideology which seeks to supplant liberalism? Sometimes called “the successor ideology”, or neo-progressivism, or “wokism” or most neutrally and descriptively “Critical Social Justice ideology” – the goal is to replace liberalism as the dominant ideology of the advanced democracies (albeit without necessarily ditching the name).
It is not liberalism, it is the destruction of the liberty of the individual to live in a society formed from the Anglo Saxon Common Law and the morality The Bible. Rousseau, Hegel and Post modernists supports the destruction of AS Common Law and The Bible to replace it with the collective state. Listen to Prof S Hicks
Postmodernism Explained by Professor Stephen Hicks – YouTube
Stephen Hicks on Postmodernism Part 1 – YouTube
Transgendersim is the latest evolution of Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism which is the desire for power through the destruction of the West.
I always enjoy reading your comments, Brian, and find myself agreeing with you more often than not. However, I cannot concur with this statement–at least not entirely: “I’m with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalism’s very success undermines.”
True liberalism is marked by free debate, tolerance of differences, focus on facts and science rather than beliefs and feelings, and learning from mistakes made in the past. Those who call themselves liberal today despise these traditional definitions, and are more interested in practising intolerance, shutting down discussion, engaging in witch hunts, and highlighting the importance of feelings. If that’s the “new” liberalism, which I don’t believe, it has lost its way and ignores its own history. However, I don’t believe that the people who claim to be liberals truly are liberal. They are political leftists who have hijacked the term, and because they are receiving favourable treatment by the media, their screeching is amplified and reaches a far wider audience. In other words, just because the label proclaims the contents to be one thing doesn’t make it so. As a classical liberal, I have become weary of labels, because all too often what’s inside doesn’t match what’s advertised on the packaging.
Brian, I take your points.
But are the issues you describe really othodoxies of liberalism, or of an ideology which seeks to supplant liberalism? Sometimes called “the successor ideology”, or neo-progressivism, or “wokism” or most neutrally and descriptively “Critical Social Justice ideology” – the goal is to replace liberalism as the dominant ideology of the advanced democracies (albeit without necessarily ditching the name).
I don’t see Critical Social Justice ideology (or “wokism” if you prefer) as a natural outcome of liberalism, any more than I see the Soviet Union and the CCP as natural outcomes of liberalism.
The seminal texts of neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory and their relatives generally explicitly seek to displace liberalism, not expand it.
We can all see that this neo-progressivism shares some themes and causes with traditional progressivism and traditional liberalism, and but the framework within which those themes develop, and the means employed, are substantially different.
As an example (among many), liberals have defended free speech for centuries, in the sense of needing to tolerate the expression of unpopular ideas (unpopular with elites or with the masses). CSJ ideologues are absolutely against that – in their view, speech which expresses disagreement with their morally superior agenda is automatically hate speech, and should be banned or punished for causing harm to the most vulnerable. This latter is not the logical development of liberal ideas, but a violent counterpoint and opponent of liberalism.
Many people today are in a grey area between liberal philosophy and CSJ ideology. CSJ often poses itself as just politeness and caring – which appeals to liberals. So many people have partially adopted the CSJ ideology, while still thinking of themselves as liberals. But identifying with the liberal label is not the same as practicing philosophical liberalism.
One can oppose slavery from many philosophical standpoints. Obliging a liberal framework is unnecessary.
I understand the criticism, Ray, and to be honest, I share your concern. I honestly don’t know what the answer is from a philosophical basis, since I agree that much of liberalism has been good.
Where I disagree is the idea that our problem is that “liberalism has been taken too far”. I’m with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalism’s very success undermines. We’re just living through the endpoint of that process.
The best I can say to you is that today, right now, no one is actually proposing the re-institution of slavery or the removal of women’s voting rights. However, people are suffering for refusing to conform to the latest orthodoxies of liberalism. That’s happening now. People’s careers are being destroyed… now. Children bodies are being maimed… now. Women are taking second place in sporting events to men… now. So I’m choosing to worry about the problems we face today (which are caused by liberalism) instead of those we might face in the future (which could be caused by a lack of liberalism).
I don’t see Critical Social Justice ideology (or “wokism” if you prefer) as a natural outcome of liberalism, any more than I see the Soviet Union and the CCP as natural outcomes of liberalism.
The seminal texts of neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory and their relatives generally explicitly seek to displace liberalism, not expand it.
We can all see that this neo-progressivism shares some themes and causes with traditional progressivism and traditional liberalism, and but the framework within which those themes develop, and the means employed, are substantially different.
As an example (among many), liberals have defended free speech for centuries, in the sense of needing to tolerate the expression of unpopular ideas (unpopular with elites or with the masses). CSJ ideologues are absolutely against that – in their view, speech which expresses disagreement with their morally superior agenda is automatically hate speech, and should be banned or punished for causing harm to the most vulnerable. This latter is not the logical development of liberal ideas, but a violent counterpoint and opponent of liberalism.
Many people today are in a grey area between liberal philosophy and CSJ ideology. CSJ often poses itself as just politeness and caring – which appeals to liberals. So many people have partially adopted the CSJ ideology, while still thinking of themselves as liberals. But identifying with the liberal label is not the same as practicing philosophical liberalism.
It’s not as simple as this – there are conflicting rights which need to be balanced e.g. the obscenity of male rapists in female prisons.
I am not quite convinced, sorry.
The desire to make gay and lesbians equal in law was just the question of overcoming social prejudices.
So it was still on path from Enlightenment.
Transgender dogma is just nonsense denying scientific reality.
“Reality” and “human nature” are the ultimate unchosen constraints, man. If liberalism exists to remove unchosen constraints, then these must overcome. And the postmodernists gave it the tools to overcome reality.
Mary Harrington has said the Enlightenment was transhumanist project that we just didn’t recognize for a couple hundred years.
“Reality” and “human nature” are the ultimate unchosen constraints, man. If liberalism exists to remove unchosen constraints, then these must overcome. And the postmodernists gave it the tools to overcome reality.
Mary Harrington has said the Enlightenment was transhumanist project that we just didn’t recognize for a couple hundred years.
“liberalism must be prepared to free them. It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies”.
Surely that will lead to paedophilia* on a scale not seen the heady days of Ancient Greece?
(* Sometimes spelled: pedophilia, and referred to in the vernacular as “botty banditry”.)
What if the single person’s desire includes violence to others? Do you want the Sexual Offences Act cancelled? At the very least, how far is it justified to make another person feel unease, or fear?
“It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies.”
So back to slavery then? If you want to rip liberalism out by the roots then do you advocate for divine right of kings? In my view all fundamentalists are equally dangerous — both liberalism run amok and those who would see us return to … to what?
Any ism can be taken too far, surely and what civilized people do is find balance. Abolishing slavery was good, but affirmative action is going too far. Yes?
It’s not as simple as this – there are conflicting rights which need to be balanced e.g. the obscenity of male rapists in female prisons.
I am not quite convinced, sorry.
The desire to make gay and lesbians equal in law was just the question of overcoming social prejudices.
So it was still on path from Enlightenment.
Transgender dogma is just nonsense denying scientific reality.
You aint gay….you are trans. No such thing as gay according to these people, most of whom are just nuts.
That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.
There is just a loud, obnoxious, selfish group of mentally ill people trying to take over society.
Didn’t someone at Mermaid’s mention something about `transing the the gay away’?
Isn’t that the ultimate form of conversion therapy?
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney?”
The gentleman is far from nuts. He’s taking advantage of an easy way to make a whole lot of money and as an exhibitionist performer he’s happy that his current act is successful. LIke most businessmen he’ll sell anything that sells.
I do not think you are wrong.
The guy is a disgusting fruitcake but he is smart about the way that he is financializing his infamy.
He’s being been enabled. He couldn’t do it without support.
At least he’s not being enabled by InterBev now…
At least he’s not being enabled by InterBev now…
He’s being been enabled. He couldn’t do it without support.
Why call him a gentleman, he’s just a man. We rarely refer to women as ladies. Just sayin’…………..
I use “ladies” all the time. Would probably use it more if it were not for the fact that so many women can get pissy about that word.
That’s funny, because I would use “ladies” less if the woke scum didn’t get so pissy about it.
That’s funny, because I would use “ladies” less if the woke scum didn’t get so pissy about it.
Total nonsense Clare. We commonly refer to women as ladies
I use “ladies” all the time. Would probably use it more if it were not for the fact that so many women can get pissy about that word.
Total nonsense Clare. We commonly refer to women as ladies
I do not think you are wrong.
The guy is a disgusting fruitcake but he is smart about the way that he is financializing his infamy.
Why call him a gentleman, he’s just a man. We rarely refer to women as ladies. Just sayin’…………..
Even Eddie Izzard is now complaining that lesbians aren’t interested in dating him. Goodness, who would have thought?
Eddie used to be my favorite stand-up comic. It’s been sad to watch him become who knows what.
Of course, he only wants to sleep with cis women still, not other trans women like him. That’s the issue, he would find others like him repulsive, but expects to be excepted by cis lesbians. He’s not so keen to experience a lady p***s!!
The hypocrisy of this crowd is truly out of this world!
The hypocrisy of this crowd is truly out of this world!
Eddie used to be my favorite stand-up comic. It’s been sad to watch him become who knows what.
Of course, he only wants to sleep with cis women still, not other trans women like him. That’s the issue, he would find others like him repulsive, but expects to be excepted by cis lesbians. He’s not so keen to experience a lady p***s!!
Exactly. I refuse to accept that madness and I don’t care what the woke mob say.
Touche, Daniel. Touche.
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.”
Good Lord! My head spins reading this. I think it’s beneficial to my own sanity that I don’t follow the excesses of these fools. I fully concur with your assessment that they are loud, obnoxious, narcissistic, and almost certainly mentally ill.
Mentally ill, and instead of being treated their madness is indulged
Mentally ill, and instead of being treated their madness is indulged
Most of the ones who make it to the media are just making money when you drill down into it. Like all the Hippies who became gimlet eyed fund managers I think a lot of them will just laugh it all off in a few years time.
Didn’t someone at Mermaid’s mention something about `transing the the gay away’?
Isn’t that the ultimate form of conversion therapy?
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney?”
The gentleman is far from nuts. He’s taking advantage of an easy way to make a whole lot of money and as an exhibitionist performer he’s happy that his current act is successful. LIke most businessmen he’ll sell anything that sells.
Even Eddie Izzard is now complaining that lesbians aren’t interested in dating him. Goodness, who would have thought?
Exactly. I refuse to accept that madness and I don’t care what the woke mob say.
Touche, Daniel. Touche.
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.”
Good Lord! My head spins reading this. I think it’s beneficial to my own sanity that I don’t follow the excesses of these fools. I fully concur with your assessment that they are loud, obnoxious, narcissistic, and almost certainly mentally ill.
Most of the ones who make it to the media are just making money when you drill down into it. Like all the Hippies who became gimlet eyed fund managers I think a lot of them will just laugh it all off in a few years time.
“They now no longer believe in homosexuality – gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.” <– Prove it.
Well, like NATO, what would have been the continued point of them post gay marriage/ the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.
These lucrative bureaucracies always have to find something new to feed off…
Utter nonsense re NATO.
For you Russian war on Ukraine has not happened?
Utter nonsense re NATO.
For you Russian war on Ukraine has not happened?
2014 is probably more accurate, 2015 in the USA (Obergefell).
The larger point though is that liberalism is a “liberating” ideology — it seeks to remove all unchosen constraints. This is the common thread which flows from John Locke overthrowing the divine right of kings to abolitionists overthrowing slavery to J.S. Mill and Susan B. Anthony’s overthrowing of the political patriarchy to Stonewall’s overthrowing of sodomy to modern progressives desire to overthrow biology: removal of unchosen constraints. Mill’s harm principle is explicit about this.
Julie’s desire to stop liberalism at 2014/15 is as absurd as trying to stop it in 1770 or 1857 or 1910 or 1961 — as long as there as a single person’s desire is being thwarted, liberalism must be prepared to free them. It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies.
You aint gay….you are trans. No such thing as gay according to these people, most of whom are just nuts.
That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.
There is just a loud, obnoxious, selfish group of mentally ill people trying to take over society.
“They now no longer believe in homosexuality – gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.” <– Prove it.
Well, like NATO, what would have been the continued point of them post gay marriage/ the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.
These lucrative bureaucracies always have to find something new to feed off…
Yes, women oppress women. Mary Daly described this in her model of the “sado-ritual syndrome”. Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules. Other examples include women who conduct FGM on girls, and footbinders in China were women. Women comply because they are afraid.
I dispute your contention. African practitioners of FGM are certainly not afraid. They believe what they do is not only profitable for themselves but essential to the girls’ moral and physical health. Among Somalis many men (especially those with more exposure to western mores) would actually like their wives not to be in agony during sex but much of female Somali society considers it essential for the family honour.
And yet all societies and ways of organising human interactions are as valuable and morally defensible as all the others and none are superior or inferior to anyother!
Wrong. So, wrong!
I hope this is irony. I think it is, but the absence of inflection and tone of voice sometimes make it very difficult to understand intent.
Wrong. So, wrong!
I hope this is irony. I think it is, but the absence of inflection and tone of voice sometimes make it very difficult to understand intent.
Well, but we still import Somalian savages into West?
Vibrant and diverse communities….
They are not afraid for themselves, but perhaps afraid of the social changes and potential disruptions that altering the status quo could bring. Perhaps I am interpreting too much into Cathy’s message, but that’s how I chose to read it. They act the way they do, because they believe it’s the right path, and any changes would bring about societal collapse and moral corruption. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not, and it is no excuse for inflicting harm, pain, and worse on other women. The basic premise that women are both victims and perpetrators stands though, and by extension that women help oppress other women.
And yet all societies and ways of organising human interactions are as valuable and morally defensible as all the others and none are superior or inferior to anyother!
Well, but we still import Somalian savages into West?
Vibrant and diverse communities….
They are not afraid for themselves, but perhaps afraid of the social changes and potential disruptions that altering the status quo could bring. Perhaps I am interpreting too much into Cathy’s message, but that’s how I chose to read it. They act the way they do, because they believe it’s the right path, and any changes would bring about societal collapse and moral corruption. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not, and it is no excuse for inflicting harm, pain, and worse on other women. The basic premise that women are both victims and perpetrators stands though, and by extension that women help oppress other women.
Funny, I thought women had agency. That if women do something or follow an ideology it was because they had decided to do so, and were responsible for their actions. Are you telling me that they are blindly following whatever they are presented with and cannot be held responsible?
“Funny, I thought women had agency.”
NO! Women are honorary negroes, they are incapable of agency. Everything the do they do because whitey made them do it. Everything they think they think because whitey made them think it.
“Funny, I thought women had agency.”
NO! Women are honorary negroes, they are incapable of agency. Everything the do they do because whitey made them do it. Everything they think they think because whitey made them think it.
Mean girls don’t torture other school girls because they’re being told to by men. In fact, boys and men confront one another openly, they don’t start whisper campaigns and attack each other online, and are often horrified by this ugly behavior girls and women indulge in.
Absolutely. Both sexes are aggressive (and empathetic, of course). They just have different ways of playing it out.
Interestingly, in the story narrated in the article I envisaged all Maria’s persecutors as female.
Same here, including HR.
50 to 1 says HR is female. Any takers?
50 to 1 says HR is female. Any takers?
Likewise. I, too, am willing to bet that they are all female. Women can be very passive aggressive and backstabbing. I have not really seen this behaviour in men. Male aggression is usually head on and very direct, but the backstabbing nastiness is usually perpetrated by women. As a woman who much prefers the direct style of interaction, I am just as horrified as the men are when I see women do this to each other.
Same here, including HR.
Likewise. I, too, am willing to bet that they are all female. Women can be very passive aggressive and backstabbing. I have not really seen this behaviour in men. Male aggression is usually head on and very direct, but the backstabbing nastiness is usually perpetrated by women. As a woman who much prefers the direct style of interaction, I am just as horrified as the men are when I see women do this to each other.
Interestingly, in the story narrated in the article I envisaged all Maria’s persecutors as female.
Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure. It could be said women start whisper campaigns, while men engage in world war, including holocaust to deal with conflict. Oxfam is disgraceful.
“it could be said” that women are complicit in the competitive rat race that men have had to run for eons. It could be said that not every part of being male is an advantage (war anyone?). It could be said that as long as we place people in giant broad-brushed categories of good or evil, that we are not seeing as clearly as we should–or could if we had the heart and will for it.
No women advocated or supported the Holocaust? #leniriefenstahl. But perhaps every violent or complicit action by a woman comes with a built-in, convenient excuse.
“Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure.” Yes, that makes perfikt cents to me thanks to my $300K edukasions that my parints payed for. Lolz.
“it could be said” that women are complicit in the competitive rat race that men have had to run for eons. It could be said that not every part of being male is an advantage (war anyone?). It could be said that as long as we place people in giant broad-brushed categories of good or evil, that we are not seeing as clearly as we should–or could if we had the heart and will for it.
No women advocated or supported the Holocaust? #leniriefenstahl. But perhaps every violent or complicit action by a woman comes with a built-in, convenient excuse.
“Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure.” Yes, that makes perfikt cents to me thanks to my $300K edukasions that my parints payed for. Lolz.
Absolutely. Both sexes are aggressive (and empathetic, of course). They just have different ways of playing it out.
Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure. It could be said women start whisper campaigns, while men engage in world war, including holocaust to deal with conflict. Oxfam is disgraceful.
Isn’t the whole trans thing a different kettle of fish to the examples you give though? In what way is the trans movement ‘enforcing patriarchal rules’? I’m struggling to see any equivalence with FGM or footbinding.
Likewise, isn’t reputation destruction widely recognised as the feminine corollary of overt agression (the common maculine strategy) by psychologists, and by simple everyday anecdotal evidence?
And what, exactly, do you claim that the cancel-mobs are afraid of, from ‘the patriarchy’ when piling on to people such as J K Rowling? Are you really suggesting that all negative female behaviour can be traced back to The Patriarchy – that women have neither agency, nor flaws, of their own?
The ‘trans’ movement is enforcing patriarchal rules by prioritising ‘gender’ norms over biological reality. A woman cannot be a strong, fit, intelligent lesbian; she has to pretend to be a man to be those things. If the suffragettes had been told that they could have the vote if they pretended to be men, and had agreed, the rest of us wouldn’t have it now.
They are even taking it farther than that! Being a woman is a commodity, and femaleness can be bought with drugs and surgery. Our unique experiences as women are devalued and objectified. These men don’t just delude themselves and society into believing they are women, but they now claim they are the better women! It’s about erasing women and our unique spaces.
They are even taking it farther than that! Being a woman is a commodity, and femaleness can be bought with drugs and surgery. Our unique experiences as women are devalued and objectified. These men don’t just delude themselves and society into believing they are women, but they now claim they are the better women! It’s about erasing women and our unique spaces.
Yep.
The dismal thing to me about the trans activist movement is their judging what they call ‘gender’ (and the rest of us call biological sex) through the most comically outdated, narrow-minded cultural stereotypes of how a woman should look and behave. From Eddie Izzard to Dylan Mulvaney, all it takes is lippie and a frock.
“Lippie and a frock” funny!
“Lippie and a frock” funny!
The ‘trans’ movement is enforcing patriarchal rules by prioritising ‘gender’ norms over biological reality. A woman cannot be a strong, fit, intelligent lesbian; she has to pretend to be a man to be those things. If the suffragettes had been told that they could have the vote if they pretended to be men, and had agreed, the rest of us wouldn’t have it now.
Yep.
The dismal thing to me about the trans activist movement is their judging what they call ‘gender’ (and the rest of us call biological sex) through the most comically outdated, narrow-minded cultural stereotypes of how a woman should look and behave. From Eddie Izzard to Dylan Mulvaney, all it takes is lippie and a frock.
“Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules.”
There’s truth in that, but not quite the way you mean it. Culture is passed on by women. Thus, whatever the culture is, it’s the one that women create and inculcate in their children. In genuinely patriarchal societies, women teach their sons to be aggressive in the search for resources and females because in such societies scarcity is the rule and only a few succeed. Women want their sons to succeed, don’t they?
Not always afraid. Sometimes just convinced by traditions that brook no questioning.
Couldn’t the clinging to traditions, no matter how outdated and wrong, also be a form of fear? Fear of change, fear of societal collapse, of moral corruption, etc. Fear doesn’t always mean being afraid for one’s life. I am not defending women who condone and commit such acts at all, but I think Cathy has some good points, and my key takeaway is that we women are both victims and perpetrators, and no, it’s not because men make us commit atrocities. We are perfectly capable of doing that without male input.
Couldn’t the clinging to traditions, no matter how outdated and wrong, also be a form of fear? Fear of change, fear of societal collapse, of moral corruption, etc. Fear doesn’t always mean being afraid for one’s life. I am not defending women who condone and commit such acts at all, but I think Cathy has some good points, and my key takeaway is that we women are both victims and perpetrators, and no, it’s not because men make us commit atrocities. We are perfectly capable of doing that without male input.
South Park series 13 had an episode that alluded to this. When Butters becomes a pimp, he relies heavily on his ‘Bottom b***h’ (sic) – basically a pimp’s Troop Sergeant, it seems. Readers may find this amusing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTtNXVtph18
So…women are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?
When you suggest that Women Comply because they are afraid, are you afraid? Are you writing this comment as an act of compliance?
Or are you suggesting that women are compelled to comply only when they act in a morally or ethically ‘bad’ manner…that otherwise they’re naturally angelic?
Rather I would suggest that in every moral & ethical sense, women are just like men. Sometimes they act in hateful, violent fashion, and sometimes those hateful, violent acts are directed against other women, and sometimes against men. Women oppress other women for the same reason men oppress other men: because they enjoy it…because they think it benefits them…because they think they’re right and the other wrong…because they believe themselves righteous.
Women and men alike pushed millions into the death chambers during the Holocaust. The sex of the dead didn’t matter in the least; nor the sex of the evil.
“So…women are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?”
Correct. I don’t want to speak for Cathy, but it’s clear that she’s saying that women are weak, scared and lack agency because of the patriarchy and stuff.
“So…women are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?”
Correct. I don’t want to speak for Cathy, but it’s clear that she’s saying that women are weak, scared and lack agency because of the patriarchy and stuff.
You see it all over the Islamic world, too, and unfortunately, such incidents have become more common in Europe and the Western world as well. Women are both victims and perpetrators. Honour killings are not just condoned, but frequently instigated by mothers and female relatives who incite and inflict violence against their own flesh and blood, and tell their husbands and sons they must kill their daughters/sisters. Examples include the killings of Rukhsana Naz (1999) and Shafilea Ahmed (2003). In both cases, mothers were the driving force, and conspired to kill their daughters, because they disapproved of the young women’s lifestyles.
Yes, unfortunately, women do oppress, betray, harm, and even kill other women. The concept of a universal sisterhood and female loyalty is myth.
I dispute your contention. African practitioners of FGM are certainly not afraid. They believe what they do is not only profitable for themselves but essential to the girls’ moral and physical health. Among Somalis many men (especially those with more exposure to western mores) would actually like their wives not to be in agony during sex but much of female Somali society considers it essential for the family honour.
Funny, I thought women had agency. That if women do something or follow an ideology it was because they had decided to do so, and were responsible for their actions. Are you telling me that they are blindly following whatever they are presented with and cannot be held responsible?
Mean girls don’t torture other school girls because they’re being told to by men. In fact, boys and men confront one another openly, they don’t start whisper campaigns and attack each other online, and are often horrified by this ugly behavior girls and women indulge in.
Isn’t the whole trans thing a different kettle of fish to the examples you give though? In what way is the trans movement ‘enforcing patriarchal rules’? I’m struggling to see any equivalence with FGM or footbinding.
Likewise, isn’t reputation destruction widely recognised as the feminine corollary of overt agression (the common maculine strategy) by psychologists, and by simple everyday anecdotal evidence?
And what, exactly, do you claim that the cancel-mobs are afraid of, from ‘the patriarchy’ when piling on to people such as J K Rowling? Are you really suggesting that all negative female behaviour can be traced back to The Patriarchy – that women have neither agency, nor flaws, of their own?
“Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules.”
There’s truth in that, but not quite the way you mean it. Culture is passed on by women. Thus, whatever the culture is, it’s the one that women create and inculcate in their children. In genuinely patriarchal societies, women teach their sons to be aggressive in the search for resources and females because in such societies scarcity is the rule and only a few succeed. Women want their sons to succeed, don’t they?
Not always afraid. Sometimes just convinced by traditions that brook no questioning.
South Park series 13 had an episode that alluded to this. When Butters becomes a pimp, he relies heavily on his ‘Bottom b***h’ (sic) – basically a pimp’s Troop Sergeant, it seems. Readers may find this amusing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTtNXVtph18
So…women are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?
When you suggest that Women Comply because they are afraid, are you afraid? Are you writing this comment as an act of compliance?
Or are you suggesting that women are compelled to comply only when they act in a morally or ethically ‘bad’ manner…that otherwise they’re naturally angelic?
Rather I would suggest that in every moral & ethical sense, women are just like men. Sometimes they act in hateful, violent fashion, and sometimes those hateful, violent acts are directed against other women, and sometimes against men. Women oppress other women for the same reason men oppress other men: because they enjoy it…because they think it benefits them…because they think they’re right and the other wrong…because they believe themselves righteous.
Women and men alike pushed millions into the death chambers during the Holocaust. The sex of the dead didn’t matter in the least; nor the sex of the evil.
You see it all over the Islamic world, too, and unfortunately, such incidents have become more common in Europe and the Western world as well. Women are both victims and perpetrators. Honour killings are not just condoned, but frequently instigated by mothers and female relatives who incite and inflict violence against their own flesh and blood, and tell their husbands and sons they must kill their daughters/sisters. Examples include the killings of Rukhsana Naz (1999) and Shafilea Ahmed (2003). In both cases, mothers were the driving force, and conspired to kill their daughters, because they disapproved of the young women’s lifestyles.
Yes, unfortunately, women do oppress, betray, harm, and even kill other women. The concept of a universal sisterhood and female loyalty is myth.
So what? Male dominance could not exist without its Handmaids. Women have always partnered with men to silence and destroy the “bad” women who step out of line.
Yes, women are leading the charge against other women, but they are doing so for the benefit of their own social status and for males who identify as women, not for other women.
One fact does not cancel out the other.
I do have enormous sympathy for Julie and Maria, but also wonder whether nice liberals (well, even the nice liberals) have created the problem. Not much will change until Julie and JK admit they have been mugged and come out as conservatives.
Yes, but don’t hold your breath.
Yes, but don’t hold your breath.
Oh poppycock. The whole witch hunt of JKR is based on the author’s clear and strong support of women’s sex based rights and safety, with legions of women surrounding and supporting each other in light of the same.
“Julie — they’re being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!” <– They are bigots, that is how they should expect to be treated. Their misandry is no better for being so badly misplaced.
“Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself.” <– No one can be made or decide to be either homosexual or transgender, both are characteristics had from birth. The transphobes in this are the only ones denying biology — you are apparently pretending or are deluded into thinking the brain is not as biological as is the sex of person. The weak sister feminists who insist the human brain has no sexual dimorphism that should be noted (because they are certain it will justify misogyny when it is conceded to exist) nevertheless fail to explain the dearth of transgender people whose brains scans at whatever age and whether or not they have had any exogenous hormones, either exactly or more closely match the patterns seen in the cisgender people of the gender the transgender people say they are. I wonder what might bring that about, if not biology?
And transumanism has all of nothing to do with it. Where did you get the idea it does?
Not that I suspect you’ll bother to learn what disproves you, but . . .
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-birth-defect-no-more-a-men
I think you should put the coke down
I think you should have a factual counterargument. Seems you do not.
These are all facts which refute you. You won’t be able to make a factual counterargument.
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-variance-from-the-usual-at
I think you should have a factual counterargument. Seems you do not.
These are all facts which refute you. You won’t be able to make a factual counterargument.
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-variance-from-the-usual-at
Good on you Talia for having the guts to show up and put a contrary view in a pretty hostile setting. The references on brain difference are interesting, and mirror what a trans man mentioned at a meeting I once attended on trans awareness. I don’t think we should ever dismiss a person’s lived experience, whether that be trans, gay, lesbian or whatever. That said, human psychology is complex, and I think it is always concerning when people seek to diagnose everyone using a single lens. Trans people’s mental health typically improves through undergoing transition – great. Some vulnerable young people were not properly supported and made an impulsive choice to transition that they later deeply regretted – not great. Similarly, the needs of trans men and women should be valued by society, but so should the needs of vulnerable women who have been abused by men to have spaces where they can feel safe (This is an argument that J. K. Rowling has made, and it is not the same as ‘all trans people are frauds’). One should not trump the other, rather, mature, courageous conversations are needed to find pathways forward.
No one cares if someone is transgender unless it starts impinging on other people rights.
It is that simple.
Believe in what you want.
But do not try to compel me to believe in transgender nonsense and stop me from expressing my opinion about it.
And definitely do not compel women to allow mentally ill people into their spaces.
And stop trying to invade women sports because you failed as male.
Just get some medical help, if at all possible.
The whole male versus female brain nonsense has been debunked! Stop pushing outdated fake science that was used to deny women access to universities and the right to vote. Total drivel from a delusional ideologue!
I think you should put the coke down
Good on you Talia for having the guts to show up and put a contrary view in a pretty hostile setting. The references on brain difference are interesting, and mirror what a trans man mentioned at a meeting I once attended on trans awareness. I don’t think we should ever dismiss a person’s lived experience, whether that be trans, gay, lesbian or whatever. That said, human psychology is complex, and I think it is always concerning when people seek to diagnose everyone using a single lens. Trans people’s mental health typically improves through undergoing transition – great. Some vulnerable young people were not properly supported and made an impulsive choice to transition that they later deeply regretted – not great. Similarly, the needs of trans men and women should be valued by society, but so should the needs of vulnerable women who have been abused by men to have spaces where they can feel safe (This is an argument that J. K. Rowling has made, and it is not the same as ‘all trans people are frauds’). One should not trump the other, rather, mature, courageous conversations are needed to find pathways forward.
No one cares if someone is transgender unless it starts impinging on other people rights.
It is that simple.
Believe in what you want.
But do not try to compel me to believe in transgender nonsense and stop me from expressing my opinion about it.
And definitely do not compel women to allow mentally ill people into their spaces.
And stop trying to invade women sports because you failed as male.
Just get some medical help, if at all possible.
The whole male versus female brain nonsense has been debunked! Stop pushing outdated fake science that was used to deny women access to universities and the right to vote. Total drivel from a delusional ideologue!
Another part of this is the use of internal chat systems. I am convinced part of the reason social justice nonsense exploded in the workplace is because the use of online systems took off in workplaces. If the trans activist couldn’t create a mob this wouldn’t have happened.
I can’t see any evidence to support your ‘it’s all women’ rant. It’s crystal clear that it’s both men and women who’ve hopped onto this particular bandwagon (and a lot of them are actually men who want to be women). My own experience suggests that the ideology is driven both by people in their twenties (no surprise there, we all think we know everything at that age) and by older people in position of authority who are utterly terrified of losing those positions.
Yep. Complete ducks like Jon Snow, Dan Snow, Gary Lineker and so forth, quadrupally exposed by being white AND male AND middle-aged AND vaguely straight.
And in the Snows’ case, quintupally, by being haut bourgeois nepo-babies too.
Good points. since the mid 1960s the middle class have lived sheltered comfortable lives and are emotionally immature. When women worked in factories from the age of fourteen years of age and boys undertook dangerous work such as in sailing ships and down mines, they became adults very quickly. At the age of twenty five years Leonard Cheshire was a Group Captain, holder of VC and DSOs.
We no longer have a ruling class who led people into danger in their teens and have the backbone to say to people ” You speaking utter drivel “. In the days of sail, in a naval fight, a thirteen year old Midshipman would lead a boarding party.
Yep. Complete ducks like Jon Snow, Dan Snow, Gary Lineker and so forth, quadrupally exposed by being white AND male AND middle-aged AND vaguely straight.
And in the Snows’ case, quintupally, by being haut bourgeois nepo-babies too.
Good points. since the mid 1960s the middle class have lived sheltered comfortable lives and are emotionally immature. When women worked in factories from the age of fourteen years of age and boys undertook dangerous work such as in sailing ships and down mines, they became adults very quickly. At the age of twenty five years Leonard Cheshire was a Group Captain, holder of VC and DSOs.
We no longer have a ruling class who led people into danger in their teens and have the backbone to say to people ” You speaking utter drivel “. In the days of sail, in a naval fight, a thirteen year old Midshipman would lead a boarding party.
The person who complained and set the whole process in motion was a “transwoman” ie a man. Do you have any evidence that the people involved in the abusive complaints process against Maria were disproportionately female, or are you just misogynistically blaming women for the harm that men are doing to them?
STOP BLAMING WOMEN FOR THE HARM THAT MEN DO TO THEM.
Point taken, but the ones who jumped on the bandwagon were probably mostly women. I can say this with some degree of authority, because I have personally seen such smear campaigns develop. Jumping on the bandwagon is just as contemptible as instigating such behaviour.
Point taken, but the ones who jumped on the bandwagon were probably mostly women. I can say this with some degree of authority, because I have personally seen such smear campaigns develop. Jumping on the bandwagon is just as contemptible as instigating such behaviour.
How true.
Did these feminist who now complain about transgender rights being more important then women right defend religious people who did not want to confirm to “gay Christians” and other LGBT soup dogmas?
In a wider context, why it is OK for Muslim curry House to refuse drinking alcohol on premises but bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake are persecuted?
An excellent point, Andrew. You will probably be feathered and tarred for exposing the hypocrisy of the so-called progressives. That’s how they usually act when somebody holds up a mirror, and shows them how abominably they behave.
An excellent point, Andrew. You will probably be feathered and tarred for exposing the hypocrisy of the so-called progressives. That’s how they usually act when somebody holds up a mirror, and shows them how abominably they behave.
Trollish. It’s not women who are to blame for the drag culture’s normalizing womanface; It’s not J.S. Mill who’s to blame for a perversion of liberalism. The transcismen’s attacks on and erasure of women is the same old misogyny that underlay the witch hunts again rearing its ugly head . As usual, women are blamed for men’s perfidy as Brian V. ascribes to. Like during McCarthyism era, women are scared thus go along with the charade so they won’t be burned in effigy as they see happening to their more outspoken sisters. This eruption of hatred against women seems cyclical. Rather than leftist, this deep stream of hatred of women is a covert-right upsurge of male supremacy under the guise of left or liberal sponsorship and the timid, cowardly or shallow sheep fall in line with the aggressive dominators. It’s definitely men who are pushing the ideology, while many, both male and female, go along out of fear or stupidity.
Why are women afraid? I am not! I am a woman, and I am incensed, angry, indeed furious, beyond belief, but most definitely not afraid. What is there to be afraid of? Then again, I have never been called cowardly or timid in my entire life–not even as a girl. We are 50%+ of society, and should perhaps take a page out of the old Greek play Lysistrata to show that we are a serious force to be reckoned with.
I am not convinced that it’s fear, but the argument that such people are stupid and shallow has merit.
Why are women afraid? I am not! I am a woman, and I am incensed, angry, indeed furious, beyond belief, but most definitely not afraid. What is there to be afraid of? Then again, I have never been called cowardly or timid in my entire life–not even as a girl. We are 50%+ of society, and should perhaps take a page out of the old Greek play Lysistrata to show that we are a serious force to be reckoned with.
I am not convinced that it’s fear, but the argument that such people are stupid and shallow has merit.
Sorry to nitpick, but I believe it was in 2014 that Stonewall decided to go mad, and it’s that organisation that have spread the insanity far and wide.
They now no longer believe in homosexuality – gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.
Yes, women oppress women. Mary Daly described this in her model of the “sado-ritual syndrome”. Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules. Other examples include women who conduct FGM on girls, and footbinders in China were women. Women comply because they are afraid.
So what? Male dominance could not exist without its Handmaids. Women have always partnered with men to silence and destroy the “bad” women who step out of line.
Yes, women are leading the charge against other women, but they are doing so for the benefit of their own social status and for males who identify as women, not for other women.
One fact does not cancel out the other.
I do have enormous sympathy for Julie and Maria, but also wonder whether nice liberals (well, even the nice liberals) have created the problem. Not much will change until Julie and JK admit they have been mugged and come out as conservatives.
Oh poppycock. The whole witch hunt of JKR is based on the author’s clear and strong support of women’s sex based rights and safety, with legions of women surrounding and supporting each other in light of the same.
“Julie — they’re being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!” <– They are bigots, that is how they should expect to be treated. Their misandry is no better for being so badly misplaced.
“Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself.” <– No one can be made or decide to be either homosexual or transgender, both are characteristics had from birth. The transphobes in this are the only ones denying biology — you are apparently pretending or are deluded into thinking the brain is not as biological as is the sex of person. The weak sister feminists who insist the human brain has no sexual dimorphism that should be noted (because they are certain it will justify misogyny when it is conceded to exist) nevertheless fail to explain the dearth of transgender people whose brains scans at whatever age and whether or not they have had any exogenous hormones, either exactly or more closely match the patterns seen in the cisgender people of the gender the transgender people say they are. I wonder what might bring that about, if not biology?
And transumanism has all of nothing to do with it. Where did you get the idea it does?
Not that I suspect you’ll bother to learn what disproves you, but . . .
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-birth-defect-no-more-a-men
Another part of this is the use of internal chat systems. I am convinced part of the reason social justice nonsense exploded in the workplace is because the use of online systems took off in workplaces. If the trans activist couldn’t create a mob this wouldn’t have happened.
I can’t see any evidence to support your ‘it’s all women’ rant. It’s crystal clear that it’s both men and women who’ve hopped onto this particular bandwagon (and a lot of them are actually men who want to be women). My own experience suggests that the ideology is driven both by people in their twenties (no surprise there, we all think we know everything at that age) and by older people in position of authority who are utterly terrified of losing those positions.
The person who complained and set the whole process in motion was a “transwoman” ie a man. Do you have any evidence that the people involved in the abusive complaints process against Maria were disproportionately female, or are you just misogynistically blaming women for the harm that men are doing to them?
STOP BLAMING WOMEN FOR THE HARM THAT MEN DO TO THEM.
How true.
Did these feminist who now complain about transgender rights being more important then women right defend religious people who did not want to confirm to “gay Christians” and other LGBT soup dogmas?
In a wider context, why it is OK for Muslim curry House to refuse drinking alcohol on premises but bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake are persecuted?
Trollish. It’s not women who are to blame for the drag culture’s normalizing womanface; It’s not J.S. Mill who’s to blame for a perversion of liberalism. The transcismen’s attacks on and erasure of women is the same old misogyny that underlay the witch hunts again rearing its ugly head . As usual, women are blamed for men’s perfidy as Brian V. ascribes to. Like during McCarthyism era, women are scared thus go along with the charade so they won’t be burned in effigy as they see happening to their more outspoken sisters. This eruption of hatred against women seems cyclical. Rather than leftist, this deep stream of hatred of women is a covert-right upsurge of male supremacy under the guise of left or liberal sponsorship and the timid, cowardly or shallow sheep fall in line with the aggressive dominators. It’s definitely men who are pushing the ideology, while many, both male and female, go along out of fear or stupidity.
“What Maria endured is part of a wider woke culture in the charitable sector, where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter.”
You missed a key point here, Julie — they’re being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!
It is progressive women who are leading the woke crusade to purge organizations of heretics. The inquisition is stinging up both men and women, conservatives and liberals, but the inquisitors are almost uniformly liberal, quasi-elite, university-educated, women. Women very much like Julie Bindel.
Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself. This is only a matter of degree, something which Julie consistently fails to recognize.
I wish that I could say that I was surprised by this, but so many corporations and organisations increasingly emulate the behaviour of the old Warsaw Pact countries, where anyone who didn’t unequivocally support the chosen ideological position was therefore an enemy of the people. How did we get to this sinister state? I suppose the old cliché about “for evil to succeed, all it needs is for good men to do nothing” applies here. In our desire to become a kinder, more inclusive society, we’ve been sleepwalking into an Orwellian state where daring to say that 2+2=4 is now a thought crime.
We were too polite, not wanting to cause a scene. Now we have men threatening women if they try to prevent them from going into women’s spaces, and police who back them.
‘In the empire of lies, truth is treason.’
Libertarian Senator Ron Paul.
Well said.
You are right about Warsaw Pact mentality.
Most progressives are neo-Marxists hell bend on destruction of Western society.
Whether, as part of the journey, people rights are trampled on and mutilation of children happens it is not their concern.
As Communists and their fellow travellers in the West said:
You can not make omlet without breaking eggs.
We were too polite, not wanting to cause a scene. Now we have men threatening women if they try to prevent them from going into women’s spaces, and police who back them.
‘In the empire of lies, truth is treason.’
Libertarian Senator Ron Paul.
Well said.
You are right about Warsaw Pact mentality.
Most progressives are neo-Marxists hell bend on destruction of Western society.
Whether, as part of the journey, people rights are trampled on and mutilation of children happens it is not their concern.
As Communists and their fellow travellers in the West said:
You can not make omlet without breaking eggs.
I wish that I could say that I was surprised by this, but so many corporations and organisations increasingly emulate the behaviour of the old Warsaw Pact countries, where anyone who didn’t unequivocally support the chosen ideological position was therefore an enemy of the people. How did we get to this sinister state? I suppose the old cliché about “for evil to succeed, all it needs is for good men to do nothing” applies here. In our desire to become a kinder, more inclusive society, we’ve been sleepwalking into an Orwellian state where daring to say that 2+2=4 is now a thought crime.
“Earlier this year, Oxfam updated its language guide, which is an internal document advising staff how to speak about its work. The document includes the instruction that, rather than using the phrases “biological male” and “biological female”, “AMAB and AFAB” (assigned male/female at birth), should be used instead; and when talking about “expectant mothers”, use the phrase “people who become pregnant”.
I hope Natalie Solent doesn’t mind me borrowing her words in response to this weasel-faced drivel.
“This is the fruit of a movement that propagates itself by intimidation. Intimidation gets compliance, but ever fewer believe that the wretches who must proclaim it actually believe it.”
“People who become pregnant”, boy is that annoying.
I sympathise. That is no way to refer to your mother.
I sympathise. That is no way to refer to your mother.
“People who become pregnant”, boy is that annoying.
“Earlier this year, Oxfam updated its language guide, which is an internal document advising staff how to speak about its work. The document includes the instruction that, rather than using the phrases “biological male” and “biological female”, “AMAB and AFAB” (assigned male/female at birth), should be used instead; and when talking about “expectant mothers”, use the phrase “people who become pregnant”.
I hope Natalie Solent doesn’t mind me borrowing her words in response to this weasel-faced drivel.
“This is the fruit of a movement that propagates itself by intimidation. Intimidation gets compliance, but ever fewer believe that the wretches who must proclaim it actually believe it.”
…and, when working in disaster zones, ‘sex is commercial’.
…and, when working in disaster zones, ‘sex is commercial’.
When my local Oxfam bookshop posted on their online book club that they wanted to know what people were reading and their views I reported that I was reading Material Girls by Kathleen Stock and it was really good read.
I was shocked and humiliated when I received a public reply that transphobic people were not welcome in the shop.
I personally complained to the manager as I was shocked it was coming from him. He apologised and said it was a volunteer.. this was some while back when the book was first published but already they had the attack dogs ready.
It is very alarming too that their 94 page document on advisory language includes or rather excludes ‘women’ and ‘mother’. To third world countries, to over half of their inhabitants, the most deserving in any book, an attempt of erasure. The confusion must be rife.
People are avoiding Oxfam because of it. I wish they would have the guts to challenge them in person.
The last time I did this in another Oxfam shop the server just looked at me in astonishment because I don’t think most of the volunteers have any idea.
The latest Oxfam sneer is to release a nasty video for Pride showing a red eyed old ugly woman with a TERF badge, apparently a caricature of JK Rowling. Complain!!! Avoiding is not enough. I want to save Oxfam too.
When my local Oxfam bookshop posted on their online book club that they wanted to know what people were reading and their views I reported that I was reading Material Girls by Kathleen Stock and it was really good read.
I was shocked and humiliated when I received a public reply that transphobic people were not welcome in the shop.
I personally complained to the manager as I was shocked it was coming from him. He apologised and said it was a volunteer.. this was some while back when the book was first published but already they had the attack dogs ready.
It is very alarming too that their 94 page document on advisory language includes or rather excludes ‘women’ and ‘mother’. To third world countries, to over half of their inhabitants, the most deserving in any book, an attempt of erasure. The confusion must be rife.
People are avoiding Oxfam because of it. I wish they would have the guts to challenge them in person.
The last time I did this in another Oxfam shop the server just looked at me in astonishment because I don’t think most of the volunteers have any idea.
The latest Oxfam sneer is to release a nasty video for Pride showing a red eyed old ugly woman with a TERF badge, apparently a caricature of JK Rowling. Complain!!! Avoiding is not enough. I want to save Oxfam too.
Try completing the sentence, ‘I find the phrase “expectant mother” offensive because …’
It’s baffled me.
Try completing the sentence, ‘I find the phrase “expectant mother” offensive because …’
It’s baffled me.
I have never been what one would call a modern feminist, but this stuff is way way out of control and it is BS. Just insane.
If JK Rowling is a TERF, then I support TERFs.
I actually got so fed up that I bought a t-shirt that says “Team TERF” on it.
Do I get some nasty looks? Yep. But I think that we need a way to stand up and say enough is enough.
The reason these crazies, despite being a very small minority, have gotten away with this kind of insane bullying is because those of us in the majority have not had the stomach to stand up and tell them to sit down and shut up. They need to be reminded that they are a very small minority.
The t-shirt is my little way of kicking back. Just as not buying any product associated with Bud or shopping at Target or North Face is my little way of saying “NO”.
Interesting side note. When I went looking for a t-shirt that was pro-TERF, I was flooded with anti-TERF, pro-Trans options to buy but found only ONE t-shirt that was pro-TERF.
If anyone is interested in getting one you can just do a Google search for Team TERF t-shirt. You will get a couple of options.
Try adulthumanfemale.store. It’s Kelli-Jay Keen’s shop with lots of stuff. I have to say that at her “Let Women Speak” events at which I steward it’s mostly aggressive men shouting us down and attacking us if the police don’t take the aggression seriously and don’t turn up!!
Thank you! I looked at the store. They need more men’s t-shirts. Saw one I liked but it only comes in women’s cut.
Thank you! I looked at the store. They need more men’s t-shirts. Saw one I liked but it only comes in women’s cut.
I have a t shirt which says “I stand with J.K.Rowling”. A few months ago I had to evict a woke lodger for shouting at me when she saw me wearing it.
Try adulthumanfemale.store. It’s Kelli-Jay Keen’s shop with lots of stuff. I have to say that at her “Let Women Speak” events at which I steward it’s mostly aggressive men shouting us down and attacking us if the police don’t take the aggression seriously and don’t turn up!!
I have a t shirt which says “I stand with J.K.Rowling”. A few months ago I had to evict a woke lodger for shouting at me when she saw me wearing it.
I have never been what one would call a modern feminist, but this stuff is way way out of control and it is BS. Just insane.
If JK Rowling is a TERF, then I support TERFs.
I actually got so fed up that I bought a t-shirt that says “Team TERF” on it.
Do I get some nasty looks? Yep. But I think that we need a way to stand up and say enough is enough.
The reason these crazies, despite being a very small minority, have gotten away with this kind of insane bullying is because those of us in the majority have not had the stomach to stand up and tell them to sit down and shut up. They need to be reminded that they are a very small minority.
The t-shirt is my little way of kicking back. Just as not buying any product associated with Bud or shopping at Target or North Face is my little way of saying “NO”.
Interesting side note. When I went looking for a t-shirt that was pro-TERF, I was flooded with anti-TERF, pro-Trans options to buy but found only ONE t-shirt that was pro-TERF.
If anyone is interested in getting one you can just do a Google search for Team TERF t-shirt. You will get a couple of options.
“breached the requirement of the Code of Conduct to treat all persons with respect and dignity”…
…but those who wrong-think are non-persons?
“breached the requirement of the Code of Conduct to treat all persons with respect and dignity”…
…but those who wrong-think are non-persons?
Don’t give a penny to any charity with 6 figure CEOs and a single ‘progressive’ idea.
That narrows the field considerably, at least here in the Irish Republic. It intrigues me why charities are apparently being taken over by some groups. I was at a free speech rally a while ago and was amazed to see Trocaire, a very well respected Catholic charitable organisation, were part of an Antifa group (Trocaire banner flying) who created such a noise that no one heard what was being said about free speech.
That narrows the field considerably, at least here in the Irish Republic. It intrigues me why charities are apparently being taken over by some groups. I was at a free speech rally a while ago and was amazed to see Trocaire, a very well respected Catholic charitable organisation, were part of an Antifa group (Trocaire banner flying) who created such a noise that no one heard what was being said about free speech.
Don’t give a penny to any charity with 6 figure CEOs and a single ‘progressive’ idea.
The witch-hunters are indeed often a gang of women. That came out at the trials, and I mean trials, of Maya Forstater & Allison Bailey.
The loudest and most violent hunters are ‘women’.
Neither gender can be exonerated from violence inflicted. Women where mostly the victims of the witch trials, headed by tribunals of males, who ultimately had the authority to punish and kill. Historical graphics makes this evident.
‘Historical graphics makes this evident.’
Uh? You’re an academic, I presume?
The written origin of witch hunting in Europe (10.000 times the scale of Salem) was an academic treatise (the academy being the Dominican Order) by two monks, Spenger and Kramer.
This volume – the Malleus Maleficorum – was the second best selling publication after the Bible for at least a century. It offered a detailed guide on how to identify, interrogate (torture) and extract confession from a witch prior to burning. The body burns, liberating (of course) and saving the immortal soul.
The academies are as much a source of error and violence as they are of truth and light.
The written origin of witch hunting in Europe (10.000 times the scale of Salem) was an academic treatise (the academy being the Dominican Order) by two monks, Spenger and Kramer.
This volume – the Malleus Maleficorum – was the second best selling publication after the Bible for at least a century. It offered a detailed guide on how to identify, interrogate (torture) and extract confession from a witch prior to burning. The body burns, liberating (of course) and saving the immortal soul.
The academies are as much a source of error and violence as they are of truth and light.
‘Historical graphics makes this evident.’
Uh? You’re an academic, I presume?
Neither gender can be exonerated from violence inflicted. Women where mostly the victims of the witch trials, headed by tribunals of males, who ultimately had the authority to punish and kill. Historical graphics makes this evident.
As was the case in the Alex Salmond trial, where a dossier of fabricated allegations was concocted under a shield of anonymity by a coven of Sturdgeon-loyalist harpies at the heart of Holyrood’s SNPae Government.
Thank God for the jury system.
Lady Braxfield-Dorrian and the SNPie junta, of course, are now trying to abolish it.
The loudest and most violent hunters are ‘women’.
As was the case in the Alex Salmond trial, where a dossier of fabricated allegations was concocted under a shield of anonymity by a coven of Sturdgeon-loyalist harpies at the heart of Holyrood’s SNPae Government.
Thank God for the jury system.
Lady Braxfield-Dorrian and the SNPie junta, of course, are now trying to abolish it.
The witch-hunters are indeed often a gang of women. That came out at the trials, and I mean trials, of Maya Forstater & Allison Bailey.
The tide is turning on all this vindictive nonsense. I just hope that this doesn’t involve a revengeful pile on aimed at trans people [note the word ‘people’] who just want to quietly get on with their lives without being co opted without their permission into Stonewall’s army.
There was a report from GLAAD saying that gay and trans acceptance among young people is declining. They of course blame propaganda, not the actions of the in your face TRAs.
There was a report from GLAAD saying that gay and trans acceptance among young people is declining. They of course blame propaganda, not the actions of the in your face TRAs.
The tide is turning on all this vindictive nonsense. I just hope that this doesn’t involve a revengeful pile on aimed at trans people [note the word ‘people’] who just want to quietly get on with their lives without being co opted without their permission into Stonewall’s army.
Impeccable timing with the publication of tis article, given today’s shocking video posted (and then hastily withdrawn) by Oxfam that featured an ugly and derogatory caricature of JKR. That organisation really does appear to be beyond redemption now: whether it’s sexual abuse of children or the unchecked growth of a toxic ideology through its structure, Oxfam needs to go.
Is the any way of removing Oxfam charitable status?
I guess not with most (all?) quangos including Charity Commission taken over by woke nutters?
Is the any way of removing Oxfam charitable status?
I guess not with most (all?) quangos including Charity Commission taken over by woke nutters?
Impeccable timing with the publication of tis article, given today’s shocking video posted (and then hastily withdrawn) by Oxfam that featured an ugly and derogatory caricature of JKR. That organisation really does appear to be beyond redemption now: whether it’s sexual abuse of children or the unchecked growth of a toxic ideology through its structure, Oxfam needs to go.
This is why I no longer donate to Oxfam or Amnesty International.
Yes, it is a shame about Amnesty International.
They had great track record of helping dissidents in former Soviet Block.
Even publishing books like 1984 and Animal Farm in micro format (size of circa cigarette packet) with type 6 font, so they could be smuggled easily past Iron curtain.
Yes, it is a shame about Amnesty International.
They had great track record of helping dissidents in former Soviet Block.
Even publishing books like 1984 and Animal Farm in micro format (size of circa cigarette packet) with type 6 font, so they could be smuggled easily past Iron curtain.
This is why I no longer donate to Oxfam or Amnesty International.
It’s like something out of Orwells Nineteen Eighty Four. It is sheer madness.
It’s like something out of Orwells Nineteen Eighty Four. It is sheer madness.
“In response, an Oxfam spokesperson said: “We are sorry for the procedural mistakes we made in the handling of this case and we have apologised to the individual concerned. We fully support both an individual’s right to hold religious and philosophical beliefs and a person’s right to have their identity respected, regardless of their gender identity and expression, sex, or sexuality. We believe LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights.” ”
Oxfam should not be able to get away with describing its failures in terms of procedural failure. Unless of course it is willing to admit that the failure in question was to have thought it acceptable to use employment disciplinary procedures as a tool of censorship and ideological enforcement.
“In response, an Oxfam spokesperson said: “We are sorry for the procedural mistakes we made in the handling of this case and we have apologised to the individual concerned. We fully support both an individual’s right to hold religious and philosophical beliefs and a person’s right to have their identity respected, regardless of their gender identity and expression, sex, or sexuality. We believe LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights.” ”
Oxfam should not be able to get away with describing its failures in terms of procedural failure. Unless of course it is willing to admit that the failure in question was to have thought it acceptable to use employment disciplinary procedures as a tool of censorship and ideological enforcement.
“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.”
But how could Will have known? He never got his copy of Stonewall materials on LGBTQ+ inclusion.
Meanwhile I just finished Fanny Burney’s 1778 novel Evelina. Did you know that there is a gay character — a “fop” — who is clearly disrespected in a classic case of homophobia. Shouldn’t Oxfam ban Burney novels too?
Come on Oxfam! Get with the woke program!
“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.”
But how could Will have known? He never got his copy of Stonewall materials on LGBTQ+ inclusion.
Meanwhile I just finished Fanny Burney’s 1778 novel Evelina. Did you know that there is a gay character — a “fop” — who is clearly disrespected in a classic case of homophobia. Shouldn’t Oxfam ban Burney novels too?
Come on Oxfam! Get with the woke program!
Wasn’t it Oxfam workers that were raping women and girls in the countries they were ‘helping’? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxfam-child-abuse-haiti-scandal-inquiry-sexual-exploitation-charity-commission-a8953566.html
Also, this is interesting timing for a nasty Oxfam cartoon https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12164005/Fury-Oxfams-Pride-cartoon-depicting-angry-Terf-character-critics-say-resembles-JK-Rowling.html
I stopped donating to the charity and to their shops a long time ago. Now it may be time for people to start picketing them!
Wasn’t it Oxfam workers that were raping women and girls in the countries they were ‘helping’? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxfam-child-abuse-haiti-scandal-inquiry-sexual-exploitation-charity-commission-a8953566.html
Also, this is interesting timing for a nasty Oxfam cartoon https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12164005/Fury-Oxfams-Pride-cartoon-depicting-angry-Terf-character-critics-say-resembles-JK-Rowling.html
I stopped donating to the charity and to their shops a long time ago. Now it may be time for people to start picketing them!
Just saw Spiked’s piece on Oxfam’s vile ‘Pride’ cartoon attacking a caricature of J K Rowling, ‘TERF’ badge and all.
The nasty, sickening, filthy, rotten, bullying, cowardly, evil Khmer Rouge bustards…This may well be Stonewall-Oxfam’s Bud Light/ Dylan Mulpervy moment.
I’m not funding that, by God.
Just saw Spiked’s piece on Oxfam’s vile ‘Pride’ cartoon attacking a caricature of J K Rowling, ‘TERF’ badge and all.
The nasty, sickening, filthy, rotten, bullying, cowardly, evil Khmer Rouge bustards…This may well be Stonewall-Oxfam’s Bud Light/ Dylan Mulpervy moment.
I’m not funding that, by God.
The vindictive pillorying of anyone who defies or even dares to question Stonewall’s dogma is at the very least troubling, it reeks of intimidation. The Stasi would be proud of the amount or power these gender ideologues wield.
The so called `inclusivity’ which excludes women’s legitimate concerns about sex based realities is double speak at its’ finest.
one more organisation I will not be donating to
The vindictive pillorying of anyone who defies or even dares to question Stonewall’s dogma is at the very least troubling, it reeks of intimidation. The Stasi would be proud of the amount or power these gender ideologues wield.
The so called `inclusivity’ which excludes women’s legitimate concerns about sex based realities is double speak at its’ finest.
one more organisation I will not be donating to
Utterly justifies my decision not to donate to Oxfam. Any one who agrees with Maria should do the same.
Utterly justifies my decision not to donate to Oxfam. Any one who agrees with Maria should do the same.
Well, over the past decade I’ve bought scores of second hand books and a dozen or so bars of chocolate and second-hand jeans from Oxfam.
But that’s it now: BLACKED. They’ll never get another quid out of me, the bent gutless spineless rainbow -Maoist creeps.
I hope those of you who aren’t patronizing Oxfam anymore let them know that’s what you’re doing and why, otherwise it will go unnoticed and not have an effect.
I hope those of you who aren’t patronizing Oxfam anymore let them know that’s what you’re doing and why, otherwise it will go unnoticed and not have an effect.
Well, over the past decade I’ve bought scores of second hand books and a dozen or so bars of chocolate and second-hand jeans from Oxfam.
But that’s it now: BLACKED. They’ll never get another quid out of me, the bent gutless spineless rainbow -Maoist creeps.
“procedural mistakes”
Tut, tut, my dear, just a few…a tiny few….little bitty, hardly worth mentioning, procedural mistakes. That’s all. Substantially, of course, we were, WE ARE correct, of course. We always have been / will be. Absolutely. I mean, we are Woke and you are not and everything we said and did was — essentially, deeply, and thoroughly — correct & right thinking (Stonewall sez so!), no question! (Did my voice just get shriller??)
But, yes, we admit, there were a few ‘procedural mistakes’ made in your particular Hounding.
Even the SS made procedural mistakes every now and then; so did the Stasi. I mean no one is perfect, right?
Where do we begin?
Perhaps with the first idiocy (at least the first obvious one in this case): “the employee, who is a transwoman”. No, he was not a transwoman; he was not a woman of any type. He was and is a man pretending to be a woman. Perhaps we should begin there; both feet planted firmly on the reality that men cannot become women. Not even if they really really believe themselves (despite all evidence to the contrary) to be women; they can’t. Not even if they bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate themselves: removing body parts here and adding plastic chunks there … not even if they consume suitcases full of drugs and use lots of lipstick. Not even then. Men remain men, always and forever.
And then, perhaps, we could underline the notion that when ‘He’ made his ‘complaint’ that the pending Rowling book MIGHT BE highly transphobic…that such a ludicrous ‘might be’ should have been dismissed out of hand. True, it might be. It might not be. It might be filled with obscenities; it might contain detailed bomb-making instructions; it might be satanic; it might contain tons of recipes for Apple Crisp, and how best to care for puppies. It might be all of those things or none of them. Perhaps it would have been best, at that point to respond to the Complainant with, “Get a life.”
From there we could move on to the Oxfam “Zero tolerance for transphobia” and ask the question, what the heck is it?? Arachnophobia is fear of spiders…Claustrophobia is fear of closed spaces…but Transphobia?? I would suspect that no one is afraid of men pretending to be women…or women pretending to be men. Neither is anyone afraid of Rachel Dolezal pretending to be Black (Transracephobia?) Or anyone pretending to be Christopher Walken (TransWalkenphobia!). Play-pretend frightens very few of us. Amuses us, certainly, but usually not frighten.
But let’s say that someone was actually afraid of Rich Levine, pretending to be Rachel Levine (Asst. Secretary for Health)…why would Oxfam have a policy which is zero-tolerant of those experiencing such a crippling fear? Sounds horribly discriminatory doesn’t it? Would they deal with arachnophobes the same way? Or those suffering from gingerphobia (fear of people with red hair)?
In the end it seems perfectly clear. We’re simply dealing with a sad group of individuals who were AIAB….that is to say, Assigned Idiots at Birth. There is hope, though. Perhaps they can transition?
“procedural mistakes”
Tut, tut, my dear, just a few…a tiny few….little bitty, hardly worth mentioning, procedural mistakes. That’s all. Substantially, of course, we were, WE ARE correct, of course. We always have been / will be. Absolutely. I mean, we are Woke and you are not and everything we said and did was — essentially, deeply, and thoroughly — correct & right thinking (Stonewall sez so!), no question! (Did my voice just get shriller??)
But, yes, we admit, there were a few ‘procedural mistakes’ made in your particular Hounding.
Even the SS made procedural mistakes every now and then; so did the Stasi. I mean no one is perfect, right?
Where do we begin?
Perhaps with the first idiocy (at least the first obvious one in this case): “the employee, who is a transwoman”. No, he was not a transwoman; he was not a woman of any type. He was and is a man pretending to be a woman. Perhaps we should begin there; both feet planted firmly on the reality that men cannot become women. Not even if they really really believe themselves (despite all evidence to the contrary) to be women; they can’t. Not even if they bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate themselves: removing body parts here and adding plastic chunks there … not even if they consume suitcases full of drugs and use lots of lipstick. Not even then. Men remain men, always and forever.
And then, perhaps, we could underline the notion that when ‘He’ made his ‘complaint’ that the pending Rowling book MIGHT BE highly transphobic…that such a ludicrous ‘might be’ should have been dismissed out of hand. True, it might be. It might not be. It might be filled with obscenities; it might contain detailed bomb-making instructions; it might be satanic; it might contain tons of recipes for Apple Crisp, and how best to care for puppies. It might be all of those things or none of them. Perhaps it would have been best, at that point to respond to the Complainant with, “Get a life.”
From there we could move on to the Oxfam “Zero tolerance for transphobia” and ask the question, what the heck is it?? Arachnophobia is fear of spiders…Claustrophobia is fear of closed spaces…but Transphobia?? I would suspect that no one is afraid of men pretending to be women…or women pretending to be men. Neither is anyone afraid of Rachel Dolezal pretending to be Black (Transracephobia?) Or anyone pretending to be Christopher Walken (TransWalkenphobia!). Play-pretend frightens very few of us. Amuses us, certainly, but usually not frighten.
But let’s say that someone was actually afraid of Rich Levine, pretending to be Rachel Levine (Asst. Secretary for Health)…why would Oxfam have a policy which is zero-tolerant of those experiencing such a crippling fear? Sounds horribly discriminatory doesn’t it? Would they deal with arachnophobes the same way? Or those suffering from gingerphobia (fear of people with red hair)?
In the end it seems perfectly clear. We’re simply dealing with a sad group of individuals who were AIAB….that is to say, Assigned Idiots at Birth. There is hope, though. Perhaps they can transition?
One is far better out of Oxfam. I have had nothing to do with it for years since I learnt from a former employee just how it was run. But one doesn’t want to be forced out of it or anything for that matter because one speaks and thinks reasonably. It seems that most charities and many other institutions subscribe to the prevailing nonsense. Soon we volunteers will be hounded out should we venture a contary opinion – such is the way of things. But we who cannot be ‘cancelled’ must continue to expose the nonsense for what it is.
One is far better out of Oxfam. I have had nothing to do with it for years since I learnt from a former employee just how it was run. But one doesn’t want to be forced out of it or anything for that matter because one speaks and thinks reasonably. It seems that most charities and many other institutions subscribe to the prevailing nonsense. Soon we volunteers will be hounded out should we venture a contary opinion – such is the way of things. But we who cannot be ‘cancelled’ must continue to expose the nonsense for what it is.
What did she expect when working for this “Charity”? I have made a point for many years now of never shopping there or supporting their cause.
She probably thought that the other people who worked there were themselves charitably minded and motivated. I do not think she can be blamed for being incorrect on this.
She probably thought that the other people who worked there were themselves charitably minded and motivated. I do not think she can be blamed for being incorrect on this.
What did she expect when working for this “Charity”? I have made a point for many years now of never shopping there or supporting their cause.
It was all going so well, but then this:
“She says she often thinks of the author who changed the course of her life — and believes the way Rowling has been vilified for simply supporting and defending the rights of women who have suffered domestic abuse and rape is proof that misogyny has no limits.”
Julie Bindel just can’t help herself and pulls a needless slur on men out of her bag of prejudices (yes, it doesn’t quite explicitly blame men, but it’s written to read that way and the way the word misogyny is used).
This whole gender fiasco wasn’t created uniquely by men. And men’s role in it does seem fairly minor. It does seem to primarly be a “woman on woman” pile-on. If I’m still allowed to say that.
Yeah, this is largely a woman on woman thing.
If a man went into the locker room with your daughter or wife, most men would drag him out by his short hairs and beat the daylights out of him and then call the cops. But then we would be immediately vilified by women and the mentally delusional.
Take a look at the documented videos showing violent trans women attacking women at Speakers Corners events.
Seen those.
Bottom line, those trans women (dudes) need to have their backsides kicked. They just need a good beat down.
But you cannot do it legally and even if you could you would have loads of women and woke boys attacking you for having done it. We should be more sensitive. We should check our male toxicity. We are evil transphobes.
Until women step up in large enough numbers, refuse to accept this, create political pressure to change it, there is literally nothing that all us straight, normie, guys can do.
Part of the problem is the perception that Trans and Gay rights are the same and attacking one is attacking the other. Absolutely convinced that the best thing that could happen would be for gay people to break away from BTQI+++ group and form their own. Its sad that the fruitcakes took over their organizations and took over the Pride Day and took over their flag, but they enabled this BS by not pushing back against it, seeing what it would become, see the threat it posed to them, sooner.
Spot on. I’ve always loathed the now ever-expanding qwerty acronym, which simply bunches together anyone who isn’t heterosexual but who in no way whatsoever belong to the same ‘community’. Very pleased at the emergence of the Lesbian and Gay Alliance.
Spot on. I’ve always loathed the now ever-expanding qwerty acronym, which simply bunches together anyone who isn’t heterosexual but who in no way whatsoever belong to the same ‘community’. Very pleased at the emergence of the Lesbian and Gay Alliance.
Seen those.
Bottom line, those trans women (dudes) need to have their backsides kicked. They just need a good beat down.
But you cannot do it legally and even if you could you would have loads of women and woke boys attacking you for having done it. We should be more sensitive. We should check our male toxicity. We are evil transphobes.
Until women step up in large enough numbers, refuse to accept this, create political pressure to change it, there is literally nothing that all us straight, normie, guys can do.
Part of the problem is the perception that Trans and Gay rights are the same and attacking one is attacking the other. Absolutely convinced that the best thing that could happen would be for gay people to break away from BTQI+++ group and form their own. Its sad that the fruitcakes took over their organizations and took over the Pride Day and took over their flag, but they enabled this BS by not pushing back against it, seeing what it would become, see the threat it posed to them, sooner.
Really? You haven’t noticed the fact that the activist extremism is largely driven by men who want to be women, and simply can’t seem to forgive women for that? Thanks to social media and the spinelessness of institutions from the civil service to the media, both sexes then ended up jumping onto that particular bandwagon, which has become a social dictat.
I have noticed two things. A bunch of mentally ill men who think they are women are joined with a bunch of youngish women who think they are men. The men pretending to be women are psycho and potentially violent but the women who think they are men are right there at their side providing support and encouragement while also engaging in online harassment and bullying when not out screaming and getting in people’s faces.
AND…all of these people are given comfort and aid by a large cohort of progressive activists that are LARGELY female. More specifically, young, single, white women with strong ties to progressive ideologies.
I have noticed two things. A bunch of mentally ill men who think they are women are joined with a bunch of youngish women who think they are men. The men pretending to be women are psycho and potentially violent but the women who think they are men are right there at their side providing support and encouragement while also engaging in online harassment and bullying when not out screaming and getting in people’s faces.
AND…all of these people are given comfort and aid by a large cohort of progressive activists that are LARGELY female. More specifically, young, single, white women with strong ties to progressive ideologies.
Take a look at the documented videos showing violent trans women attacking women at Speakers Corners events.
Really? You haven’t noticed the fact that the activist extremism is largely driven by men who want to be women, and simply can’t seem to forgive women for that? Thanks to social media and the spinelessness of institutions from the civil service to the media, both sexes then ended up jumping onto that particular bandwagon, which has become a social dictat.
I think you’re supposed to say “assigned female at birth on assigned female at birth pile-on” now.
Well, it’s primarily chicken-brained, conformist, anxious and risk-averse bourgeois women (among whom, obviously, one would not count la Bindel and JKR) who have enabled this, the predatory behaviour of a few hundred narcissistic psychopathic male misfits seeking nihilistic vengeance on a society that despises them.
Perhaps not so much as they despise themselves.
Perhaps not so much as they despise themselves.
Yeah, this is largely a woman on woman thing.
If a man went into the locker room with your daughter or wife, most men would drag him out by his short hairs and beat the daylights out of him and then call the cops. But then we would be immediately vilified by women and the mentally delusional.
I think you’re supposed to say “assigned female at birth on assigned female at birth pile-on” now.
Well, it’s primarily chicken-brained, conformist, anxious and risk-averse bourgeois women (among whom, obviously, one would not count la Bindel and JKR) who have enabled this, the predatory behaviour of a few hundred narcissistic psychopathic male misfits seeking nihilistic vengeance on a society that despises them.
It was all going so well, but then this:
“She says she often thinks of the author who changed the course of her life — and believes the way Rowling has been vilified for simply supporting and defending the rights of women who have suffered domestic abuse and rape is proof that misogyny has no limits.”
Julie Bindel just can’t help herself and pulls a needless slur on men out of her bag of prejudices (yes, it doesn’t quite explicitly blame men, but it’s written to read that way and the way the word misogyny is used).
This whole gender fiasco wasn’t created uniquely by men. And men’s role in it does seem fairly minor. It does seem to primarly be a “woman on woman” pile-on. If I’m still allowed to say that.
It is much better to support local charities, such your local hospice or animal shelters rather than paying the Inflated salaries of woke charities execs or whatever they call themselves.
With the big international charities such as Oxfam very little money goes to the cause, most of it goes on salaries and advertising.
A major scam.
It is much better to support local charities, such your local hospice or animal shelters rather than paying the Inflated salaries of woke charities execs or whatever they call themselves.
With the big international charities such as Oxfam very little money goes to the cause, most of it goes on salaries and advertising.
A major scam.
omg…what a witch hunt.
Tell me how this is any different than the witch hunts of old. Well, they didn’t burn her at the stake, but the accusations without substantial proof….without ANY proof?
How terrifying for this woman.
I think I agree with you on this topic overall, but one significant difference would be that she has not actually lost her liberty, let alone been burned at the stake.
I think I agree with you on this topic overall, but one significant difference would be that she has not actually lost her liberty, let alone been burned at the stake.
omg…what a witch hunt.
Tell me how this is any different than the witch hunts of old. Well, they didn’t burn her at the stake, but the accusations without substantial proof….without ANY proof?
How terrifying for this woman.
I stopped giving money to Oxfam long ago as it had turned into an anti government pressure group not a charity.
Like all the rest of the Corporate Charidee sector…
Like all the rest of the Corporate Charidee sector…
I stopped giving money to Oxfam long ago as it had turned into an anti government pressure group not a charity.
Oxfam preaches Fair Trade. Yet it knowingly has driven second hand booksellers out of business by unfair competition.
Second booksellers have to pay for stock, staff and full business rates. Oxfam’s stock is donated, sold by volunteers. It pays charity business rate.
When I challenged Oxfam after my local bookseller was forced out of business, their response was, in effect, “Business is business”.
As a non-profit they probably don’t pay taxes.
As a non-profit they probably don’t pay taxes.
Oxfam preaches Fair Trade. Yet it knowingly has driven second hand booksellers out of business by unfair competition.
Second booksellers have to pay for stock, staff and full business rates. Oxfam’s stock is donated, sold by volunteers. It pays charity business rate.
When I challenged Oxfam after my local bookseller was forced out of business, their response was, in effect, “Business is business”.
We’ll done, Maria.
We’ll done, Maria.
I don’t think these extreme trans-rights-forget-your-rights type stances will hold sway for much longer. The bubble is already punctured at many points. When a radical but reasonable lesbian feminist like Bindel agrees with the farthest-right voices (let alone centrist ones) about something, there’s some real consensus there.
As a skeptical middle-aged white dude: I suspect that phrases like “oppressive patriarchal norms” are often just a cheap stand- in for “the unfairness and harshness of life itself”. I’m not saying there’s no need for or pathway to improvement, but placing the blame for how life and society and culture currently stand so heavily on men–or any other sub-category of Humanity–is bullshit.
Good points. Historically the Grammar and Public Schools pre WW2 were tough in order to prepare the middle and uppper classes for the rigours of life such as war, life as a sailor, or Engineer in mining, construction or oil industries or to work in remote parts of the World. The wives had to be tough as well. Living in a mining town or plantation in a remote part of the World pre WW2 was tough.
Physical training was based upon gymnastic and boxing for boys, ballet for girls, rugby and cricket or rowing for boys; hockey and lacrosse in winter for girls and tennis and swimming in summer. Academic subjects were Latin, Greek, Modern languages, History, Gography , Maths and Sciences; they had rigour. The English speaking world produced woman such as Florence Nightingale, Gertrude Bell, Violette Szabo GC , Nancy Wake GM and Ursula Graham Bowyer. How do modern feminists compare ?
Good points. Historically the Grammar and Public Schools pre WW2 were tough in order to prepare the middle and uppper classes for the rigours of life such as war, life as a sailor, or Engineer in mining, construction or oil industries or to work in remote parts of the World. The wives had to be tough as well. Living in a mining town or plantation in a remote part of the World pre WW2 was tough.
Physical training was based upon gymnastic and boxing for boys, ballet for girls, rugby and cricket or rowing for boys; hockey and lacrosse in winter for girls and tennis and swimming in summer. Academic subjects were Latin, Greek, Modern languages, History, Gography , Maths and Sciences; they had rigour. The English speaking world produced woman such as Florence Nightingale, Gertrude Bell, Violette Szabo GC , Nancy Wake GM and Ursula Graham Bowyer. How do modern feminists compare ?
I don’t think these extreme trans-rights-forget-your-rights type stances will hold sway for much longer. The bubble is already punctured at many points. When a radical but reasonable lesbian feminist like Bindel agrees with the farthest-right voices (let alone centrist ones) about something, there’s some real consensus there.
As a skeptical middle-aged white dude: I suspect that phrases like “oppressive patriarchal norms” are often just a cheap stand- in for “the unfairness and harshness of life itself”. I’m not saying there’s no need for or pathway to improvement, but placing the blame for how life and society and culture currently stand so heavily on men–or any other sub-category of Humanity–is bullshit.
Blimey. This is full on guardian fascism. I think there needs to be a new offence, Instead of the individual seeking redress in an employment tribunal, the Crown should prosecute the organisation for institutional discrimination.
Let’s be realistic here. Crown is complicit in gender nonsense and prosecutes people who laugh at it.
Let’s be realistic here. Crown is complicit in gender nonsense and prosecutes people who laugh at it.
Blimey. This is full on guardian fascism. I think there needs to be a new offence, Instead of the individual seeking redress in an employment tribunal, the Crown should prosecute the organisation for institutional discrimination.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/06/06/oxfam-denies-cartoon-woman-with-terf-badge-in-pride-clip-is-jk-rowling-18905621/
Obviously someone at Oxfam didn’t like the UnHerd article.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/06/06/oxfam-denies-cartoon-woman-with-terf-badge-in-pride-clip-is-jk-rowling-18905621/
Obviously someone at Oxfam didn’t like the UnHerd article.
Oxfam should be about famine relief. This requires devloping water resources, sewage treatment to prevent spread of disease, waste collection and treatment in urban areas,improving crops yields and resistance to disease, improving irrigation and soil fertility, increasing size of food animals, improving storage and transport of food to market, training people in skills to repair water supply systems and make objects which they can sell. This requires Oxfam staff to aquire engineering and agricultural skills with which they can train staff in famine stricken areas.
People who have sufficient potable water, are clean, relatively free from disease, have sufficient calories , protein, vitamins and minerals in their diet to be fit and halthy; earn money from selling goods; then have sufficient income to be able to afford to send children to school to receive a primary and hopefully a secondary education.
Is this too difficult for Oxfam staff, so instead they discuss Transgender issues ?
Oxfam should be about famine relief. This requires devloping water resources, sewage treatment to prevent spread of disease, waste collection and treatment in urban areas,improving crops yields and resistance to disease, improving irrigation and soil fertility, increasing size of food animals, improving storage and transport of food to market, training people in skills to repair water supply systems and make objects which they can sell. This requires Oxfam staff to aquire engineering and agricultural skills with which they can train staff in famine stricken areas.
People who have sufficient potable water, are clean, relatively free from disease, have sufficient calories , protein, vitamins and minerals in their diet to be fit and halthy; earn money from selling goods; then have sufficient income to be able to afford to send children to school to receive a primary and hopefully a secondary education.
Is this too difficult for Oxfam staff, so instead they discuss Transgender issues ?
Are we allowed to say ‘father’ or ‘future father’? If this is the case how come? Afterwards a trans-woman can ‘father’ a child.
You can say what you like but no need to shout it.
Asking permission for what you say is caving in to the whole thing.
You can say what you like but no need to shout it.
Asking permission for what you say is caving in to the whole thing.
Are we allowed to say ‘father’ or ‘future father’? If this is the case how come? Afterwards a trans-woman can ‘father’ a child.
We all need to fight against these liberal fascists, every day in every way.
You are only half right in calling these people ‘liberal fascists’. Liberalism is not only about being free to form and express one’s own thoughts and beliefs, it is also about respecting the right of everyone else to do likewise. A cancerous ideology whose adherents believe that only it has the right to exist, and that nobody should even question it, on pain of the utmost retribution, is every bit as anti-liberal and regressive as the worst excesses of religion and the worst extremes of 20th century politics.
Yes, indeed. ‘Liberal Fascism’ was an unrecognised inter-War ideology that did not survive WW II but was instead morphed into Marxism post-WW II. It was informal but well-understood among its adherents, and yet we adopted the term for the purposes of highlighting illiberalism of the kind you described, when I discovered it in a 2001 essay by Philip Coupland and sent it on as a draft outline to others.
Yes, indeed. ‘Liberal Fascism’ was an unrecognised inter-War ideology that did not survive WW II but was instead morphed into Marxism post-WW II. It was informal but well-understood among its adherents, and yet we adopted the term for the purposes of highlighting illiberalism of the kind you described, when I discovered it in a 2001 essay by Philip Coupland and sent it on as a draft outline to others.
You are only half right in calling these people ‘liberal fascists’. Liberalism is not only about being free to form and express one’s own thoughts and beliefs, it is also about respecting the right of everyone else to do likewise. A cancerous ideology whose adherents believe that only it has the right to exist, and that nobody should even question it, on pain of the utmost retribution, is every bit as anti-liberal and regressive as the worst excesses of religion and the worst extremes of 20th century politics.
We all need to fight against these liberal fascists, every day in every way.
People are now complaining about the cartoon from Oxfam.
Look, if transactivists can’t make childish cartoons mocking and degrading women, what arguments will they have left?
People are now complaining about the cartoon from Oxfam.
Look, if transactivists can’t make childish cartoons mocking and degrading women, what arguments will they have left?
The term “biological male”, “biological female” makes as much sense as “biological cat”. Well, perhaps may be in opposition to a “mechanical male”, a “robotic female”, or a “toy cat”, but being male, female, cat, lion, octopus or palm tree is biological, and the names of those living beings imply it by themselves.
Every time you adopt the language of those who try to oppress, suppress or impress you, you already lost half of the struggle.
The term “biological male”, “biological female” makes as much sense as “biological cat”. Well, perhaps may be in opposition to a “mechanical male”, a “robotic female”, or a “toy cat”, but being male, female, cat, lion, octopus or palm tree is biological, and the names of those living beings imply it by themselves.
Every time you adopt the language of those who try to oppress, suppress or impress you, you already lost half of the struggle.
Liberalism is the root problem.
This philosophy liberated (ie seperated) the individual from race, tribe, religion, family, and now gender. To suggest that the individual cannot be separate from our sexual biology is no different to modern liberals than suggesting the individual cannot be separated from our racial biology.
One day will come the separation of the individual from physical humanity.
“Classical liberals” can’t stop this avalanche because they’re effectively arguing only some Gods should be killed— Just not the ones they worship!
The entire philosophy is a dead end. I wouldn’t expect to be welcome in its birthplace with the heresy that the individual cannot overcome God.
Liberalism is the root problem.
This philosophy liberated (ie seperated) the individual from race, tribe, religion, family, and now gender. To suggest that the individual cannot be separate from our sexual biology is no different to modern liberals than suggesting the individual cannot be separated from our racial biology.
One day will come the separation of the individual from physical humanity.
“Classical liberals” can’t stop this avalanche because they’re effectively arguing only some Gods should be killed— Just not the ones they worship!
The entire philosophy is a dead end. I wouldn’t expect to be welcome in its birthplace with the heresy that the individual cannot overcome God.
Men are also forced to self censor. I am one of them, in university. Silenced by women, in the main. All women.
So you have allowed yourself to be silenced?
You might remember case of Noble Prize winner who was sacked from his job after making joke which some woman complained about.
Why is he supposed to loose his career when Kier Starmer complies with gender nonsense.
You might remember case of Noble Prize winner who was sacked from his job after making joke which some woman complained about.
Why is he supposed to loose his career when Kier Starmer complies with gender nonsense.
So you have allowed yourself to be silenced?
Men are also forced to self censor. I am one of them, in university. Silenced by women, in the main. All women.
What is the Stonewall position on the Trans Pennine Express?
What is the Stonewall position on the Trans Pennine Express?
The problem is that the Trans craze has gone mainstream and now anyone can join without any effort. Most people would likely not bother complaining about the old school trans woman, i.e. a fully transitioned person, who acts and looks like a woman, blends in and is accepted. What we have now is a mockery of that and the new “women” are not being accepted largely as they don’t blend in as well, and some are, in my opinion, relishing the fingers up to society!
The problem is that the Trans craze has gone mainstream and now anyone can join without any effort. Most people would likely not bother complaining about the old school trans woman, i.e. a fully transitioned person, who acts and looks like a woman, blends in and is accepted. What we have now is a mockery of that and the new “women” are not being accepted largely as they don’t blend in as well, and some are, in my opinion, relishing the fingers up to society!
“where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter.” And what might the men be treated like? Just curious..
“where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter.” And what might the men be treated like? Just curious..
To understand fully how Stonewall infiltrated central and local government, NGOs and big business, it is well worth the effort to listen to the 10 part podcast Nolan Investigates Stonewall: www dot bbc dot co dot uk/sounds/play/p09yjp0d
To understand fully how Stonewall infiltrated central and local government, NGOs and big business, it is well worth the effort to listen to the 10 part podcast Nolan Investigates Stonewall: www dot bbc dot co dot uk/sounds/play/p09yjp0d
Wokespeak has permeated seemingly all major organizational communication guidelines. Most distressingly to this retired American journalist, the AP Stylebook to which United States media organizations routinely defer has become a “woke” language primer. Check out the stylebook’s coverage guide on transgender topics; it’s jawdropping for anyone who still believes journalists have an obligation to truth, accuracy and balance:
https://www.apstylebook.com/topical_most_recent
About the only consolation I can offer maria, is that all the “friends” she lost at OXFAM were obviously not worthy of her.
So a peoples commissar fell foul of the system she was charged with enforcing as it became ever more extreme. How tragic! I wonder what Maria would’ve done if a colleague had said that gay people had no right to marry or, God forbid, that Europe belonged to Europeans…..
“Freedom untethered from truth is a tool of the powerful”. John Zmirak
“Freedom untethered from truth is a tool of the powerful”. John Zmirak
So a peoples commissar fell foul of the system she was charged with enforcing as it became ever more extreme. How tragic! I wonder what Maria would’ve done if a colleague had said that gay people had no right to marry or, God forbid, that Europe belonged to Europeans…..