April 17, 2024 - 10:30am
It couldn’t be clearer, surely: misogyny is fear or hatred of women. The fact that it has been left out of legislation against hate crime, including Scotland’s new law which came into force this month, has been widely criticised. Why shouldn’t women be protected in the same way as all the other groups who can now complain about a new offence of “stirring up hatred”?
It seems obvious, until you realise that some of the most prominent people pushing for misogyny to become a hate crime have another agenda. Scotland’s First Minister, Humza Yousaf, let the cat out of the bag when he revealed yesterday the real intention behind the SNP’s proposal to bring in a standalone law on misogyny.
Yousaf claims that men can be victims of misogyny — and that they’re as or more likely to be targets than women. “Trans women will be protected as well, as they will often be the ones who suffer threats of rape or threats of disfigurement for example,” he said, offering no evidence for the assertion. This only confirms that the Scottish government’s capture by gender ideology remains unshaken by the publication of the Cass Report last week.
On the contrary, Yousaf doubled down, repeating one of the most cherished illusions of trans-identified males. “When a trans woman is walking down the street and a threat of rape is made against them, the man making the threat doesn’t know if they are a trans woman or a cis woman,” he claimed.
Very few men who have gone through male puberty are able to “pass” as women, a fact revealed by constant complaints from trans women about being “misgendered”. One of the first things we notice about another human being is their sex, and understandably so — because men are responsible for the vast majority of violence against women.
Now Scotland’s most powerful politician is telling us that trans women are indistinguishable from biological women. Not just that: he is arguing that a law against misogyny is needed to protect the very people who categorically cannot experience it. The novelist J.K. Rowling was quick to make the point, opening a new front in her ongoing war of words with the First Minister.
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.
Subscribeis that picture an advert for “Malice in Wonderland” ?
Alternative suggestions welcome….
It’s shameless cosplay; ticking the alphabet-friendly box after making sure he avoided the vote in Parliament as dictated by the mullahs.
I dunno. Sure, the vast majority of men can tell at a glance. But maybe not Dumza?
To be fair, if the trans-woman is wearing a burqa it might be tricky. That may be what he has in mind?
If British society ruled that women must wear a burqa, trans women would be crying “But I am a man!”
Once again the misdirection to the trans issue. He doesn’t want women in the hate crime legislation because many practices of his co-religionists would fall foul of it. A separate law, fought all the way by the gender critical lobby, allows his blasphemy law time to bed in.
I have long had a suspicion that the support of many Islamic politicians for supposedly progressive causes was a Trojan Horse. Hate crime laws to smuggle in blasphemy laws, and trans rights laws to slap women down. Next watch the protection of non-standard families legalize polygamy.
There has to be something going on for all these Muslim politicians to be supporting policies that would be haram in any Islamic society and getting no pushback from their own community.
I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t just all a form of psychological warfare softening us for invasion.
People like him are not real Muslims, they just play one on TV to win support of self-hating Western liberals. If they are, they’re liberal Muslims, which is Islamic equivalent of liberal Christianity. Which means their faith is non committal, wishy washy and very selective and relativistic. People like him are too self-centered and shallow to adhere to anything beyond themselves.
Anyone who thinks these cultists are amenable to rational debate is deluding themselves. We are beyond that. The issue on the table for society is purely how to arrive at a fair protection for the rights of all affected by this cult in the face of their continued opposition.
Humza is an aspiring tyrant; a woman loathing hypocrite and a self-serving racist. No, I don’t hate him- I feel sorry for him.
That’s very generous of you. I regard him as a loathsome creep.
How in God’s name did this odious man come to lead Scotland? Renton crawling out of the toilet would be a better First Minister.
Come back Nicola Sturgeon, all is forgiven, lol!
Nooooooo!
“When a trans woman is walking down the street and a threat of rape is made against them, the man making the threat doesn’t know if they are a trans woman or a cis woman,” he claimed.
First, when has this actually happened? Second, that’s not what the law is about and Humza knows that.
In fact, his statement is worthy of another Hatter.
I believe these statements are largely fantasy. Unless an intoxicated man in the dark is fooled by long hair and expects to pay a woman for sex only to be suddenly disappointed. Which might well lead to violence. Still zero to do with us adult human females.
The whole concept of special laws to protect particular categories of people from “hate” ie criticism offends against the more traditional concept of everyone being equal before the law.
If you have a law against misogyny even if it absurdly applies to men claiming to be women as well, why not have a law against misandry that also applies to women claiming to be men as well. At least there would be some logical consistency even if it meant everyone was back to being a special protected category.
The whole concept of special laws to protect particular categories of people from “hate” ie criticism offends against the more traditional concept of everyone being equal before the law.
If you have a law against misogyny even if it idiotically applies to men claiming to be women as well why, not have a law against misandry that also applies to women claiming to be men as well. Don’t women who claim to be men not have a stronger case to be protected against threats of rape than burly transvestites?
They do, and that’s something that is hardly mentioned in the statements made about violence against trans women. Trans men often report that they are threatened with rape by men who want to “straighten them out”.
That certainly occurred to me when I posted this originally, but as it disappeared I assumed reference to transvestites had probably resulted in it being moderated away so I reposted with a slightly different ending above. The difficulties of trans men seem to garner little attention compared to the trans women.
If males now can be victims of misogyny, then, on a more general scale, in the near future, humans could be seen as victims of animal cruelty.
No … that is too crazy an idea. Totally ridiculous, it could never happen.