Miriam Cates' stunning speech This is an absolute masterclass in getting the most amount of information into as short a space of time as possible. Hugely impressive from Miriam Cates. This is who is holding the Father Ted Musical hostage Misogynists and morons.
'Countless scandals just lying around'. There for the picking, yet most media won't touch them, or if they do, it's complete ideological spin. That's really why this cult has lasted so long. Never realized there were so many cowards among us, and so many weak minds, so susceptible to cult thinking. But still, I am optimistic. As the general public becomes more informed, the whole sham movement will crumble.
'Gregor Fisher Murray' -- can a person sink any lower? Look at wonderful, measured, kind, articulate, courageous, intelligent Maya. He occupies the opposite end of the moral spectrum. And yet, he dared to talk about safeguarding! It's obviously impossible to reason with a person like him.
I’m normally quite good at just remaining quietly angry but the “vagina doesn’t normally do much” comment has me SEETHING. The vagina is a phenomenal piece of anatomy! It lubricates and cleans itself no questions asked! It literally stretches itself and moves around to accommodate a FULL BABY if needed! Literal human beings get pushed down that canal! It even has erogenous zones! And that cretin is saying it doesn’t DO MUCH? I’m not even a biologist (lol) and that’s just basic common knowledge. I’d put it down to sheer ignorance but we all know it’s actually a blinding hatred of women. To these people it’s just a hole. Dehumanising.
God I can’t stand it - Trans ideology is so warped (chemical preparations of breast milk).
I know not all women can or want to breast feed, but the thought that chem feeding will be promoted / supersede breast feeding to the point where the term ‘breast feeding’ is removed from language is the misogynistic mind-warping behaviour of a cult. I can’t understand how this sits comfortably with the environmental / ‘green aware’ tribe - including Margaret Attwood. It’s artifice replacing nature. Artifice first, breast feeding second. Chems & Pharma first, nature wiped out.
But that's what civilization is all about. I've just read about environmentalists talking about the unimportance of nature -- I kid you not -- because they don't want to give up the goodies of industrialism. Naomi Klein tells us "polar bears just don't do it for me." Who cares whether polar bears do it for her? One polar bear is worth a thousand Naomi Kleins.
Just when I think the TRAs can't get any worse they not only start to endorse chucking the n word around, but they diminish what it means by endorsing it's use on a white woman. They have completely lost touch with reality! Concerned people for children and womens rights are bigots, white women and other bigots that deserve it are now n words, women have penises, the sky is pink and gravity pushes things away, becuase once one thing is a nonsense all things are nonsense.
Attorney-general Suella Braverman: “I think protecting single-sex spaces for biological females and biological males is really important, particularly in schools. There’s no duty on schools to compromise on single-sex spaces."
Bravo Braverman!
However, I think a large part of "The Problem" is that so many people seem to "think" that "sex" and "gender" are the same thing - including Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock who should know better. That may well have been the case historically, but now the developing consensus is that "sex" generally refers to the biological while "gender" generally refers to the psychological - for some very sound reasons.
But for example, a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal underlines that dichotomy and perspective:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
And even that Times article seems as confused if not clueless in that regard saying:
"However, Braverman said the law is clear because under-18s cannot not legally change their gender, meaning schools are entitled to treat all children by the gender of their birth."
On the basis of the BMJ editorial and the view that gender is little more than a synonym for personalities - of which there are billions and billions - I wonder how The Times thinks that doctors determine which of those myriads of genders (personalities) a newborn baby is to be designated as - give the kid a battery of personality tests as with the Myers-Briggs personality type system? 🤔🙄 Which has been called "pseudoscience" and "little better than a Chinese fortune cookie" which might also apply to much of gender ideology's house of cards (mostly jokers).
But the clear implication is that The Times "thinks" - I use the term loosely - that people can actually change sex. Either they "think" that membership in the sex categories is entirely subjective - just a matter of "self-identification" 🙄 - or they simply haven't a clue about the most basic elements of biology nor about the standard biological definitions for the sexes.
Hard to imagine a more clueless and profoundly anti-scientific "idea" than "self-identification". Nice to see that more politicians are reading the Riot Act to the boffins in the Civil Service peddling that schlock - as with MP Miriam Cates' recent video on, "Should 'Non Binary' be recognised in law as a gender identity?":
If "non-binary" is to be "recognized in law as a gender identity", will we have to then do so for all of the 56 "gender identities" that Facebook accepts?
Hello, I thought the newsletter said it was people like that who were holding the father Ted musical hostage, and it said those people were racists and I was shocked by the tweet. So I went onto Twitter to have a look at the account but wasn’t sure it was a real TRA.
It isn't isn't clear why McGahey would out herself, under oath, as a homophobe. Not just a homophobe, but an extremist homophobe who even exploys equating battling racism in South Africa to efforts to introduce corrective rape of lesbians.
Regardless, this is where we are at present. Rarely does the public get to see out-and-out homophobia 'in-the-wild', indeed such extremism was pretty much erased from public discourse after the 1980s, and now only lives on social media, invariably through the words of TRA's who routinely trumpet their homophobia and racism together.
Yet to see it so openly-displayed in a hearing isn't just rare, it's almost unbelievable. Why would McGahey out herself so willingly? What was there to gain? The cheers of like-minded homophobes perhaps, but who fancies outing themselves with her?
Or was it simply that under the pressure of Ben Cooper, she simply, unknowingly, revealed an otherwise hidden part of her belief system? Now she's stuck with the association that she herself detailed.
That she fancies herself a 'passionate campaigner for women and mothers' yet is a shill for the cult that grooms young women to flood themselves with testosterone, sterilise themselves and cut off their breasts is rage-inducing. Not to mention the betrayal of all women more generally.
Maybe her own child will grow up to be transed one day and she'll suddenly care.
Hard to believe that Ince thinks he's joking when he says, "biological sex does not exist", and, "Two sexes? Nope." Particularly when so many - like "Scientific American" (I use the first term loosely) - think that's the real-meal deal:
But that far-too-common misperception is based on a grain or two of "truth". The facts are that "sex", "male", and "female" don't actually "exist" - the words are labels that denote particular brute facts. What actually exists are gametes and various structures related to their production and use during the process of reproduction. It's somewhat arbitary or a matter of utilitarian objectives how we define those terms - "male" and "female" in particular - and which features, processes, and structures qualify as "necessary and sufficient conditions".
In fact there are two main definitions for those last two terms on the table, one a structure-absent-function definition that's largely useless for any biological applications or research since it mostly applies only to humans, and the other being the biological ones which have the widest degree of utility since they apply to ALL of the literally millions of sexually-reproducing species. As Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico puts it in his, "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender":
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Genspect, & Hilton] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
"Biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright clearly endorse the structure-absent-function definition in their Times letter (hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal):
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
But professor and philosopher of science Paul Griffiths - co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - endorses the biological definitions while underlining the logical consequence that those who can't produce either gamete are therefore sexless:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
Robin Ince has the “scientific “basis” behind lesbians having penises does he? Is this the same type of ‘science’ that gave us Scientology?! Aye right!
I think this whole creepy ideology harks back to the old religious ‘chain of being’ argument in which humans are elevated above animals. Between animals and angels…A refusal to acknowledge our mammal status (named after mammary glands as the essential common feature of course) that we are somehow supernatural. We’re not. And of course that ideology was intensely patriarchal, they’ve just renamed it.
I think at heart too it’s about the dismantling of patriarchy and the threat that poses. The fear of equality? Of matriarchy? If in some bizarre way women do not exist in law then they are no longer a threat…
It seems preposterous to women who have only ever wanted their fair share…but this legal challenge to erase women is real and it only benefits men.
The reference to "South Africa attempting to racially integrate society" during the Allison Bailey tribunal comes straight from Martine Rothblatt's 1995 book called "The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Gender". Martine Rothblatt, a transwoman who describes himself as transhuman, is generally considered to be the founding father of transgenderism. Amongst much else, he founded and is CEO of United Therapeutics, whose subsidiary, Revivicor, breeds genetically modified pigs in order for their organs to be harvested for transplantation into humans.
Rothblatt is very clever, very wealthy and very influential. Read Wiki and anything else you can find via Google. There's a lot!
I wonder if vegan trans-activists have any idea what's being done to pigs by the person who claimed that sex dimorphism was a form of apartheid.
'Countless scandals just lying around'. There for the picking, yet most media won't touch them, or if they do, it's complete ideological spin. That's really why this cult has lasted so long. Never realized there were so many cowards among us, and so many weak minds, so susceptible to cult thinking. But still, I am optimistic. As the general public becomes more informed, the whole sham movement will crumble.
We need one powerful documentary widely distributed. That would end the nonsense.
'Gregor Fisher Murray' -- can a person sink any lower? Look at wonderful, measured, kind, articulate, courageous, intelligent Maya. He occupies the opposite end of the moral spectrum. And yet, he dared to talk about safeguarding! It's obviously impossible to reason with a person like him.
He is a disgraceful man. Cowardly, nasty, vindictive and pathetically hiding behind his aggressive, unpleasant use of the 'c-word'.
I must admit, I cannot stand the c-word. It's the worst.
Time and a place. And using it in an aggressive manner like this - to, or about a woman, is NOT it.
I’m normally quite good at just remaining quietly angry but the “vagina doesn’t normally do much” comment has me SEETHING. The vagina is a phenomenal piece of anatomy! It lubricates and cleans itself no questions asked! It literally stretches itself and moves around to accommodate a FULL BABY if needed! Literal human beings get pushed down that canal! It even has erogenous zones! And that cretin is saying it doesn’t DO MUCH? I’m not even a biologist (lol) and that’s just basic common knowledge. I’d put it down to sheer ignorance but we all know it’s actually a blinding hatred of women. To these people it’s just a hole. Dehumanising.
I thought the same thing, but genderwoo is all about the display of willful ignorance of biology so I'm not surprised. It's not a bloody appendix.
And they're finding that those "unnecessary" organs actually have a purpose.
Thanks for this comment. The dude is a tumor masquerading as a human being.
God I can’t stand it - Trans ideology is so warped (chemical preparations of breast milk).
I know not all women can or want to breast feed, but the thought that chem feeding will be promoted / supersede breast feeding to the point where the term ‘breast feeding’ is removed from language is the misogynistic mind-warping behaviour of a cult. I can’t understand how this sits comfortably with the environmental / ‘green aware’ tribe - including Margaret Attwood. It’s artifice replacing nature. Artifice first, breast feeding second. Chems & Pharma first, nature wiped out.
But that's what civilization is all about. I've just read about environmentalists talking about the unimportance of nature -- I kid you not -- because they don't want to give up the goodies of industrialism. Naomi Klein tells us "polar bears just don't do it for me." Who cares whether polar bears do it for her? One polar bear is worth a thousand Naomi Kleins.
As ever, nice work Moley ;)
Just when I think the TRAs can't get any worse they not only start to endorse chucking the n word around, but they diminish what it means by endorsing it's use on a white woman. They have completely lost touch with reality! Concerned people for children and womens rights are bigots, white women and other bigots that deserve it are now n words, women have penises, the sky is pink and gravity pushes things away, becuase once one thing is a nonsense all things are nonsense.
Thanks! It is non older one - we made it for the last time he opened his scientific mouth and put his non-critical thinking foot in it.
Onjali Rauf's tweet in response:
Empathy isn't a one way gift.
You can't ask one group of people to empathise to the point of self erasure, whilst you refuse to listen or empathise in return.
Empathy is a two way gift. A two-way kindness.
That's what makes it beautiful.
And debate possible.
She is an exceptionally wise woman. With superhuman patience to boot.
Some great material here, thank you.
The only comparison to be made with South Africa regarding trans is the nasty habit of South African men to rape lesbians to convert them.
Happy to share a Times articles - things may be changing https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teachers-should-not-pander-to-trans-pupils-says-suella-braverman-2qfgj70rv
Thanks for the Times article. Presumably you have a subscription of sorts but for others without, I ran across an archive copy at GC News:
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/friday-may-27-2022?s=r
https://archive.ph/Heefp
Attorney-general Suella Braverman: “I think protecting single-sex spaces for biological females and biological males is really important, particularly in schools. There’s no duty on schools to compromise on single-sex spaces."
Bravo Braverman!
However, I think a large part of "The Problem" is that so many people seem to "think" that "sex" and "gender" are the same thing - including Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock who should know better. That may well have been the case historically, but now the developing consensus is that "sex" generally refers to the biological while "gender" generally refers to the psychological - for some very sound reasons.
But for example, a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal underlines that dichotomy and perspective:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
And even that Times article seems as confused if not clueless in that regard saying:
"However, Braverman said the law is clear because under-18s cannot not legally change their gender, meaning schools are entitled to treat all children by the gender of their birth."
On the basis of the BMJ editorial and the view that gender is little more than a synonym for personalities - of which there are billions and billions - I wonder how The Times thinks that doctors determine which of those myriads of genders (personalities) a newborn baby is to be designated as - give the kid a battery of personality tests as with the Myers-Briggs personality type system? 🤔🙄 Which has been called "pseudoscience" and "little better than a Chinese fortune cookie" which might also apply to much of gender ideology's house of cards (mostly jokers).
But the clear implication is that The Times "thinks" - I use the term loosely - that people can actually change sex. Either they "think" that membership in the sex categories is entirely subjective - just a matter of "self-identification" 🙄 - or they simply haven't a clue about the most basic elements of biology nor about the standard biological definitions for the sexes.
Hard to imagine a more clueless and profoundly anti-scientific "idea" than "self-identification". Nice to see that more politicians are reading the Riot Act to the boffins in the Civil Service peddling that schlock - as with MP Miriam Cates' recent video on, "Should 'Non Binary' be recognised in law as a gender identity?":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HMjnPc_O6M
If "non-binary" is to be "recognized in law as a gender identity", will we have to then do so for all of the 56 "gender identities" that Facebook accepts?
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/02/gender-facebook-now-has-56-categories-to-choose-from-including-cisgender-genderqueer-and-intersex.html
And the hundreds if not thousands of other ones that are being peddled?
https://teentalk.ca/learn-about/gender-identity/
Idiots.
The Dani G German Twitter account looks like a spoof account.
Where is this account referenced please?
Not that they couldn’t say something so crazy in these times. Just from looking at the rest of the tweets, retweets and replies, I’m not sure…
Hi, I went into Twitter and looked at the tweets and replies to tweets. I don’t think it’s a genuine trans activist.
Thanks! I meant what does it have to do with this post! I could not see the relevance... (Not an issue of course, just curious! 🙂 )
Hello, I thought the newsletter said it was people like that who were holding the father Ted musical hostage, and it said those people were racists and I was shocked by the tweet. So I went onto Twitter to have a look at the account but wasn’t sure it was a real TRA.
Oh I see! Thanks so much. That is clear now! Thanks again for your patience!
Coolio 👋🏻
It isn't. It's a spoof account by someone who finds it funny to put the n-word in their username.
There’s a fucking coals to Newcastle situation if ever there was one.
It is. Dani G German = Da Ni**er Man.
Sonia Sodha discussed Cathryn McGahey QC ('CM') in her Observer column;
'a witness for Garden Court, who drew the analogy between this workshop exploring how “ideologies of transphobia and transmisogyny impact sexual desire” and South African racial integration and who implied it was possible in a non-coercive way to persuade a same-sex attracted lesbian she might want to have sex with a trans woman.' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/29/if-lesbian-prefers-same-sex-dates-thats-not-bigotry-desire-personal-thing)
It isn't isn't clear why McGahey would out herself, under oath, as a homophobe. Not just a homophobe, but an extremist homophobe who even exploys equating battling racism in South Africa to efforts to introduce corrective rape of lesbians.
Regardless, this is where we are at present. Rarely does the public get to see out-and-out homophobia 'in-the-wild', indeed such extremism was pretty much erased from public discourse after the 1980s, and now only lives on social media, invariably through the words of TRA's who routinely trumpet their homophobia and racism together.
Yet to see it so openly-displayed in a hearing isn't just rare, it's almost unbelievable. Why would McGahey out herself so willingly? What was there to gain? The cheers of like-minded homophobes perhaps, but who fancies outing themselves with her?
Or was it simply that under the pressure of Ben Cooper, she simply, unknowingly, revealed an otherwise hidden part of her belief system? Now she's stuck with the association that she herself detailed.
Why do people such as Stella Creasy always have a smug, never-touched-by-life look?
Because they are detached from reality?
That she fancies herself a 'passionate campaigner for women and mothers' yet is a shill for the cult that grooms young women to flood themselves with testosterone, sterilise themselves and cut off their breasts is rage-inducing. Not to mention the betrayal of all women more generally.
Maybe her own child will grow up to be transed one day and she'll suddenly care.
I hope someone has the receipt for those Green Party tweets?
Hard to believe that Ince thinks he's joking when he says, "biological sex does not exist", and, "Two sexes? Nope." Particularly when so many - like "Scientific American" (I use the first term loosely) - think that's the real-meal deal:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
But that far-too-common misperception is based on a grain or two of "truth". The facts are that "sex", "male", and "female" don't actually "exist" - the words are labels that denote particular brute facts. What actually exists are gametes and various structures related to their production and use during the process of reproduction. It's somewhat arbitary or a matter of utilitarian objectives how we define those terms - "male" and "female" in particular - and which features, processes, and structures qualify as "necessary and sufficient conditions".
In fact there are two main definitions for those last two terms on the table, one a structure-absent-function definition that's largely useless for any biological applications or research since it mostly applies only to humans, and the other being the biological ones which have the widest degree of utility since they apply to ALL of the literally millions of sexually-reproducing species. As Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico puts it in his, "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender":
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Genspect, & Hilton] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
"Biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright clearly endorse the structure-absent-function definition in their Times letter (hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal):
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
But professor and philosopher of science Paul Griffiths - co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - endorses the biological definitions while underlining the logical consequence that those who can't produce either gamete are therefore sexless:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Kind of think that the only game in town, the only definitions that should carry any weight are biological ones.
Robin Ince has the “scientific “basis” behind lesbians having penises does he? Is this the same type of ‘science’ that gave us Scientology?! Aye right!
I think this whole creepy ideology harks back to the old religious ‘chain of being’ argument in which humans are elevated above animals. Between animals and angels…A refusal to acknowledge our mammal status (named after mammary glands as the essential common feature of course) that we are somehow supernatural. We’re not. And of course that ideology was intensely patriarchal, they’ve just renamed it.
I think at heart too it’s about the dismantling of patriarchy and the threat that poses. The fear of equality? Of matriarchy? If in some bizarre way women do not exist in law then they are no longer a threat…
It seems preposterous to women who have only ever wanted their fair share…but this legal challenge to erase women is real and it only benefits men.
Are transwomen effeminate, though?
Some are, especially the gay boys who are self-hating.
The reference to "South Africa attempting to racially integrate society" during the Allison Bailey tribunal comes straight from Martine Rothblatt's 1995 book called "The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Gender". Martine Rothblatt, a transwoman who describes himself as transhuman, is generally considered to be the founding father of transgenderism. Amongst much else, he founded and is CEO of United Therapeutics, whose subsidiary, Revivicor, breeds genetically modified pigs in order for their organs to be harvested for transplantation into humans.
Rothblatt is very clever, very wealthy and very influential. Read Wiki and anything else you can find via Google. There's a lot!
I wonder if vegan trans-activists have any idea what's being done to pigs by the person who claimed that sex dimorphism was a form of apartheid.
A very good speech. What's the context? Some sub-committee or something?
*Note* the captive audience lol especially the fidgety youngsters hahaha!
Also, on the wide shot... 'Person' sat opposite at table, opposite Miriam Cates, wild-bobbed black hair - is that 'Kinky Kitchen Kitten', Layla Moran?
Westminster Hall debate on legal recognition of non-binary status. Scroll down for her speech.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-05-23/debates/040FB4A1-8C3F-4F03-BB10-29FD4A6E24FE/details
Great debate. That Kirsten Oswald is an idiot. Conservative women and men speak so much more sense. Mad world.
Looks like Anneliese Dodds to me