I was at Carrie’s speech. There was a fourth speaker - Elena Bunbury, chair of LGBT Conservatives, ostensibly to introduce them. “Trans is beautiful.” “Trans rights are not a debate.” I heckled the word “shame” - once and during the applause. Elena framed the rest of the speech around “the heckler” as I listened quietly. In the interval I was approached with the predictable, farfetched spiel. Claims members’ safety was at risk, that people were too scared to attend with the LGB Alliance stall recognised. Same from other party members, had a lot of threatening language my way later in the night. Zero reports of any abuse coming from LGBA and zero danger yet the myth continues. The vast majority of the many conservatives I met this week held a steadfast conviction for free speech and debate. A tiny few ignore party decision and use their identities to cancel speakers like the snowflakes of left-wing notoriety. Fortunately Liz Truss is fighting strong with Boris and Sajid resisting getting dragged into woke nonsense. Perhaps time for an LGBT chairman more aligned with the cabinet, “getting on with it”.
Well done Alexander, I think when these people dictate about the safety of Trans members, it's not an external threat from others, but more from self-harm!
Unfortunately though, I would be careful what you wish for in terms of a more focused LGBT chairman with an ethos of "getting on with it", as the BBC has shown, even with a Tory affiliated Chairman, they are still playing more to the tune of the WEF rather than the British people or government.
Sleep-deprived in my earlier meander. I meant to thank you for both Manchester Pride bravery and the courage to heckle 'Shame' here. That one word in a conference speech setting seems especially powerful. Stirred a bit of reflection for many, I hope.
Very glad to hear your confirmation that Liz Truss is still fighting strong. But Boris 'resisting getting dragged into the woke nonsense' doesn't seem to align with Carrie's "The gov't he leads is banning conversion therapy", given what we know that to really mean.
Are people aware that Finland, by contrast, has moved in completely the opposite direction from what Carrie announced? They've issued strict clinical guidelines for approaching gender dysphoria treatment in youth including REQUIRING psychotherapeutic non-invasive interventions as the first course of treatment. (Tempting to say, 'well, duh.') No messing with physically healthy bodies before therapeutic exploration. Hopefully of the 'why do you think you're not male/female?' and 'have you thought about what you would lose if you decide to pursue an impossibility of this sort?' variety.
So Carrie asserts that Boris would ban what Finland has sensibly recently made a requirement (the label 'conversion therapy' being a nonsense). The Finns are safeguarding against the rush to medicalised harms, while we might legislate to make harms a virtual certainty, is that right?
I hope you're right about Boris. Not a man exactly known for steadfast principle, and it does seem Carrie has too much sway in some areas of policy.
Why was she even speaking anyway? Who voted for her? She was sacked from her job as Conservative Comms Director for fiddling her expenses, then the following week she got with Boris and wormed her way back in. I do not want to hear from this woman. Nor do I want to hear from Stanley.
The Tory Conference seemed to pass without them massively beclowning themselves like Labour did and then in steps Carrie...... What an idiot. She should have stuck to animal welfare. I wonder how she would feel if Social Workers came for her kids because she refused to hand them over to the Gender ghouls; won't happen to her though... like being stuck in prison with some madman because she couldn't pay her debts.
The most likely explanation for CJ's provocative, insulting intervention is that there is some payoff in it for herself and BJ somewhere along the line. Either personally or in the shape of a party donation. This needs to be looked at. She can only know that this is not a popular position among traditional conservative voters. Of course that's of no consequence to either of them since they will sail off into a lucrative sunset of speaking engagements and directorships after the next election.
I think the press have mistakenly landed on the wrong question about 'do only women have a cervix'. They are using it as their gotcha question and it's all wrong. Women who have become transmen, who want to be called men, have a cervix. They tend to be less aggressive in this debate, and it sounds mean to answer the question correctly. I'd rather the question was, do women have penises? Is that not better? Am I wrong.
OK. Start my rambling again. What is the perfect answer to the cervix question?
"Yes, only biological women have a cervix? "?
Also. Carrie - almost comical seeing someone throwing themselves onto sinking ship, she thinks she's giving Boris kudos points. Funny but incredibly annoying. Did anyone buy Carrie the books (Joyce/Shrier?). I will, in think I know the address. Do you think Amazon will deliver?!
Joan McAlpine ex MSP said in televised debate "you think women have penises - that's your party's position... " watching opponents squirming. That's why another list candidate suddenly came up with a "disability" and leap frogged into her job. SNP won't have women speaking the truth.
as the cervix is just the neck of the womb (thereby exposed to vagina and infection risks) it would have seemed even more daft for Starmer to say 'to say that men do not have a womb is not right' and would have exposed him to more ridicule or perhaps he wouldn't have said that ...or perhaps he could've said well transmen have wombs...it would have both been truer and opened the statement up for more questions. But as for Carrie. That is disappointing it's using a lazy trope of memory of gay conversion which has nothing to do with prepubertal children being allowed therapy on the reasons why they have gender confusionand that being labelled conversion therapy even though without therapy they could go on to having chemical or surgical intrusions that is so dangerous. She should wise up. I think she thought she was safe saying that , that it wasn't controversial. oh dear. So much ignorance around this topic.
SO much ignorance! You'd think someone giving such a high-profile speech would bother to read up the teensiest bit on the arguments on all sides, especially if she had any awareness that there's heated debate. Which makes me think she's largely a shallow virtue signaller of the 'more-feelingsy-than-thou', libfem variety, keen to let everyone know she was moved to tears, etc.
Here's hoping someone far more informed and sensible has Boris's ear on this.
Agree - it was a valid question in relation to Rosie D but the real questions are about men accessing women's spaces. Nicky Campbell did ask this exact question to Nick Thomas Symonds,
'Is a woman with a penis a woman in every sense?' and 'Should that woman with a penis have access to every place that women access, domestic abuse shelters, changing rooms, prisons?
NTS said yes to both which didn't get the coverage you'd have hoped for because we were all focused on Lammy and hand his home grown cervix. I'm going to ask this question at every hustings and every other opportunity I get.
I so wish that awful term 'a woman with a penis' could be banned, forever. It is beyond offensive, deeply and darkly abusive....and to me, actually evil, which is why it is used by the men who want to bring as much evil to women as they possibly can.
The problem with using the phrase 'Should a woman with a penis...' is that it starts with the premise that there is such a thing. Makes it harder for people to openly reject that concept, it seems to me.
True - on the other hand , your average Joe who isn't immersed in this stuff is going to have a WTF? moment when they hear it. Most people still think transwomen means someone who's had or is undergoing GRS.
I listened to Andrew Doyle (free speech nation) interviewing Glinner, then Blindel then got hooked and have listened to most. Got very confused with Pluckrose, you need a degree in genderqueer studies from University of Leftyshire to understand the intersectionionality stuff, but what comes across is how they bend, twist and invent language to dominate any debate.
And yes, we can hope more are seeing through the wholesale bending of language to their ends.
I sometimes think there ought to be required instruction in Critical Thinking, in Analysis of Manipulative Language Use, How News Media Choose What You Should Think About and How You Should Think About It.. . Required learning for all citizens, school age on up!
Yeah, Doyle's Free Speech Nation has been a beacon of sanity, from what I've seen.I should folllow your lead and binge. It's annoying when people dismiss GBNews as if it's one big Fox News equivalent, when it has the likes of that programme. No such programme on the BBC, sadly.
As a "transman" is still a Woman and a Female, unless its been removed she has a cervix or she has had a cervix. Like all other Women who may have had the cervix removed.
The statement "Only Women have a cervix (ovaries/vagina/clitoris/uterus)" is factually correct whether those women identify as anything other than what they are, or whether they have had any of the above removed.
"Only Men have a prostate/penis/testicles" are factually correct statements whether they identify as "transwomen" or whether they have those parts removed.
So I have no problem with that question being asked - for a lay person in the street - hearing David Lammy say it can be grown or Thornberry saying it was incorrect or Starmer saying we shouldn't say that, is going to shine one hell of a light on the argument with lots of people going "WTF???" It starts the conversation in the public eye - so that the trans activists and gender supporters can't so easily keep it quiet any longer.
Wonderfully professional and democratic way to lead a government eh? Getting your wife to make major policy announcements. Jeez what has become of this country?
Oh I quite agree. But I've been saying for months that I believe the right also plan to suckle at the lucrative transology teat. So either way, women are fucked.
Exactly. Let's see, you can follow the "left" version and have men in your changing rooms, etc. Or you can follow the "right" version in which case you'll find yourself without reproductive rights, paid spectacularly less than a man doing the same job, and without a social safety net.
This has caused me much distress, that “conversion therapy” is used to pretend every therapy should be banned “affirm affirm” like daleks.. There should be articles Published by a known fantastic therapists who fully explains the different types of therapy and which therapy is awful and how speaking therapy is essential and nit a conversion. The deliberate misinterpretations and lies about conversion therapy by the propaganda lobby that is trans must be stopped.
Yes. There seems to be a misunderstanding, or deliberate twisting of many words. If expressed as a 'conversion' from mental ill health to psychological health, would that help people understand what they are criticising or condoning?
Allowing people to discuss any mental health issue, such as dysphoria, and specifically gender dysphoria is bad is it? How? Oh we don't have enough professionals, or a functioning mental health service, so we'll just fiddle with criteria, raise thresholds and just wave everyone through, to 'affirm' whatever they think they want, rather than examining why they might be in this position to start with?
Piggy-backing on the gay, civil or human rights movements is spectacularly malevolent.
That's essentially what some men are doing, they don't identify as women, they objectify women and appear to want to degrade and dominate them. Being a woman isn't an identity to be assumed, it is a lived experience. Women experience misogyny and male oppression. Men supposedly identifying as women are far more likely to be on the other side of that experience.
That Susie Green Tweet makes me feel rather ill - We truly are in an age of worshipping the "Experts" as Gods! It's a shame the Monty Python crew are getting on or popping their clogs as would have loved to have seen their taken on all of this! Rather than "The Life Of Brian" they could make a movie called "The Life Of Brianna!!
I always find it interesting when there is a, push for increased rights for a specific group. Gender reassignment is covered by the Equality Act as is sexual orientation. Everyone is covered by the Human Rights Act 1998. All legislation, in Scotland, at least is human rights impact assessed. In England, it is equality impact assessed. Which means that all legislation applies equally to LGBT.
What people actually mean is not more rights but how the legislation is actually applied. And they should say what they mean because it might stop hackles rising. But as is said in the article, if you stop shouting about your rights (or as the predictive text keeps telling me, your tights) people might forget you are special and your validation by others becomes nonexistent. Then how do you find your place in the world if the only people who think you important are the ones you actually know.
Oh please let's have people 'shouting about their tights'. Much jollier.
Yes, all legislation applies equally already, and as you say, the point isn't more rights but how they're applied. 'Trans rights' seems a faux crusade, part of the victim costume, donned toward winning sympathy and supporters who'll labour on their behalf.
Gender identity is only of any significance to a tiny, tiny minority, whereas biological reality matters to everyone. Basing policy on such a niche issue is irresponsible and shows politicians aren't listening to the populace.
Am truly shocked that CJ doesn’t get the sinister side to all this. She testified against the rapist Warboys who took advantage of women NOT trusting their instincts and feeling sorry for men:
"He seemed to be this sad man who had no one to celebrate with him. I pitied him, I didn't feel frightened - I just thought he was weird."
How would CJ feel if Warboys’ rapes had been recorded as if done by WOMEN, and if Warboys had self ID himself to get into women’s prison?
And she accepted a drink from him AFTER tipping out the first one cos she ALREADY THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE SPIKED and after he’d got into the back of the cab and sexually propositioned her. Yet she still apparently doesn’t see how predatory males will manipulate women’s inbuilt or socialised tendency to not want to embarass men or hurt their feelings.
I am too Shirley. If we think of the near misses we have no idea we dodged it would send us all mad. It takes so much energy to override my own internal and yes, socialised, tendencies. That's why I dislike the #BeKind thing so much. Someone shouts sexualised slurs at you? #BeKind! Someone threatens you because you won't use compelled speech or restrict your own behaviour? #BeKind! No. #StopCompellingWomenToBeKindToAllowYourAbuse
I was at Carrie’s speech. There was a fourth speaker - Elena Bunbury, chair of LGBT Conservatives, ostensibly to introduce them. “Trans is beautiful.” “Trans rights are not a debate.” I heckled the word “shame” - once and during the applause. Elena framed the rest of the speech around “the heckler” as I listened quietly. In the interval I was approached with the predictable, farfetched spiel. Claims members’ safety was at risk, that people were too scared to attend with the LGB Alliance stall recognised. Same from other party members, had a lot of threatening language my way later in the night. Zero reports of any abuse coming from LGBA and zero danger yet the myth continues. The vast majority of the many conservatives I met this week held a steadfast conviction for free speech and debate. A tiny few ignore party decision and use their identities to cancel speakers like the snowflakes of left-wing notoriety. Fortunately Liz Truss is fighting strong with Boris and Sajid resisting getting dragged into woke nonsense. Perhaps time for an LGBT chairman more aligned with the cabinet, “getting on with it”.
Well done Alexander, I think when these people dictate about the safety of Trans members, it's not an external threat from others, but more from self-harm!
Unfortunately though, I would be careful what you wish for in terms of a more focused LGBT chairman with an ethos of "getting on with it", as the BBC has shown, even with a Tory affiliated Chairman, they are still playing more to the tune of the WEF rather than the British people or government.
Ha ha. More a threat of self harm! Brilliant turn of phrase!
Good for you, Alexander!
Uphill work, by the sound of it.
Sleep-deprived in my earlier meander. I meant to thank you for both Manchester Pride bravery and the courage to heckle 'Shame' here. That one word in a conference speech setting seems especially powerful. Stirred a bit of reflection for many, I hope.
Well said. The bullies rounded on her of course.
Apologies Alex. I misgendered you!!! :-)
Very glad to hear your confirmation that Liz Truss is still fighting strong. But Boris 'resisting getting dragged into the woke nonsense' doesn't seem to align with Carrie's "The gov't he leads is banning conversion therapy", given what we know that to really mean.
Are people aware that Finland, by contrast, has moved in completely the opposite direction from what Carrie announced? They've issued strict clinical guidelines for approaching gender dysphoria treatment in youth including REQUIRING psychotherapeutic non-invasive interventions as the first course of treatment. (Tempting to say, 'well, duh.') No messing with physically healthy bodies before therapeutic exploration. Hopefully of the 'why do you think you're not male/female?' and 'have you thought about what you would lose if you decide to pursue an impossibility of this sort?' variety.
So Carrie asserts that Boris would ban what Finland has sensibly recently made a requirement (the label 'conversion therapy' being a nonsense). The Finns are safeguarding against the rush to medicalised harms, while we might legislate to make harms a virtual certainty, is that right?
I hope you're right about Boris. Not a man exactly known for steadfast principle, and it does seem Carrie has too much sway in some areas of policy.
Thank you for your earlier brave act, by the way.
Woman who married Boris Johnson in "poor judgement" shocker...
Ha ha! Best comment today
Why was she even speaking anyway? Who voted for her? She was sacked from her job as Conservative Comms Director for fiddling her expenses, then the following week she got with Boris and wormed her way back in. I do not want to hear from this woman. Nor do I want to hear from Stanley.
The Tory Conference seemed to pass without them massively beclowning themselves like Labour did and then in steps Carrie...... What an idiot. She should have stuck to animal welfare. I wonder how she would feel if Social Workers came for her kids because she refused to hand them over to the Gender ghouls; won't happen to her though... like being stuck in prison with some madman because she couldn't pay her debts.
The most likely explanation for CJ's provocative, insulting intervention is that there is some payoff in it for herself and BJ somewhere along the line. Either personally or in the shape of a party donation. This needs to be looked at. She can only know that this is not a popular position among traditional conservative voters. Of course that's of no consequence to either of them since they will sail off into a lucrative sunset of speaking engagements and directorships after the next election.
I think the press have mistakenly landed on the wrong question about 'do only women have a cervix'. They are using it as their gotcha question and it's all wrong. Women who have become transmen, who want to be called men, have a cervix. They tend to be less aggressive in this debate, and it sounds mean to answer the question correctly. I'd rather the question was, do women have penises? Is that not better? Am I wrong.
OK. Start my rambling again. What is the perfect answer to the cervix question?
"Yes, only biological women have a cervix? "?
Also. Carrie - almost comical seeing someone throwing themselves onto sinking ship, she thinks she's giving Boris kudos points. Funny but incredibly annoying. Did anyone buy Carrie the books (Joyce/Shrier?). I will, in think I know the address. Do you think Amazon will deliver?!
Joan McAlpine ex MSP said in televised debate "you think women have penises - that's your party's position... " watching opponents squirming. That's why another list candidate suddenly came up with a "disability" and leap frogged into her job. SNP won't have women speaking the truth.
Good on her.
It doesn't sound mean to say If you have a cervix you're female. Just rational.
as the cervix is just the neck of the womb (thereby exposed to vagina and infection risks) it would have seemed even more daft for Starmer to say 'to say that men do not have a womb is not right' and would have exposed him to more ridicule or perhaps he wouldn't have said that ...or perhaps he could've said well transmen have wombs...it would have both been truer and opened the statement up for more questions. But as for Carrie. That is disappointing it's using a lazy trope of memory of gay conversion which has nothing to do with prepubertal children being allowed therapy on the reasons why they have gender confusionand that being labelled conversion therapy even though without therapy they could go on to having chemical or surgical intrusions that is so dangerous. She should wise up. I think she thought she was safe saying that , that it wasn't controversial. oh dear. So much ignorance around this topic.
SO much ignorance! You'd think someone giving such a high-profile speech would bother to read up the teensiest bit on the arguments on all sides, especially if she had any awareness that there's heated debate. Which makes me think she's largely a shallow virtue signaller of the 'more-feelingsy-than-thou', libfem variety, keen to let everyone know she was moved to tears, etc.
Here's hoping someone far more informed and sensible has Boris's ear on this.
Agree - it was a valid question in relation to Rosie D but the real questions are about men accessing women's spaces. Nicky Campbell did ask this exact question to Nick Thomas Symonds,
'Is a woman with a penis a woman in every sense?' and 'Should that woman with a penis have access to every place that women access, domestic abuse shelters, changing rooms, prisons?
NTS said yes to both which didn't get the coverage you'd have hoped for because we were all focused on Lammy and hand his home grown cervix. I'm going to ask this question at every hustings and every other opportunity I get.
Home grown cervix, ha ha. Dig for Britain! Is it cervix growing or harvesting season in the UK?
I so wish that awful term 'a woman with a penis' could be banned, forever. It is beyond offensive, deeply and darkly abusive....and to me, actually evil, which is why it is used by the men who want to bring as much evil to women as they possibly can.
Great to know regarding Nicky Campbell... and well done you !
The problem with using the phrase 'Should a woman with a penis...' is that it starts with the premise that there is such a thing. Makes it harder for people to openly reject that concept, it seems to me.
True - on the other hand , your average Joe who isn't immersed in this stuff is going to have a WTF? moment when they hear it. Most people still think transwomen means someone who's had or is undergoing GRS.
Good spot. Blimey, it's a game of language.
It absolutely is. Manipulative, thought-steering jargon is key to how gender identity became a mass belief.
I listened to Andrew Doyle (free speech nation) interviewing Glinner, then Blindel then got hooked and have listened to most. Got very confused with Pluckrose, you need a degree in genderqueer studies from University of Leftyshire to understand the intersectionionality stuff, but what comes across is how they bend, twist and invent language to dominate any debate.
And yes, we can hope more are seeing through the wholesale bending of language to their ends.
I sometimes think there ought to be required instruction in Critical Thinking, in Analysis of Manipulative Language Use, How News Media Choose What You Should Think About and How You Should Think About It.. . Required learning for all citizens, school age on up!
Yeah, Doyle's Free Speech Nation has been a beacon of sanity, from what I've seen.I should folllow your lead and binge. It's annoying when people dismiss GBNews as if it's one big Fox News equivalent, when it has the likes of that programme. No such programme on the BBC, sadly.
As a "transman" is still a Woman and a Female, unless its been removed she has a cervix or she has had a cervix. Like all other Women who may have had the cervix removed.
The statement "Only Women have a cervix (ovaries/vagina/clitoris/uterus)" is factually correct whether those women identify as anything other than what they are, or whether they have had any of the above removed.
"Only Men have a prostate/penis/testicles" are factually correct statements whether they identify as "transwomen" or whether they have those parts removed.
So I have no problem with that question being asked - for a lay person in the street - hearing David Lammy say it can be grown or Thornberry saying it was incorrect or Starmer saying we shouldn't say that, is going to shine one hell of a light on the argument with lots of people going "WTF???" It starts the conversation in the public eye - so that the trans activists and gender supporters can't so easily keep it quiet any longer.
Wonderfully professional and democratic way to lead a government eh? Getting your wife to make major policy announcements. Jeez what has become of this country?
So it's as I suspected. The right are anti women's sex based human rights as well.
Not nearly as much as the left is. (Life-long lefty here btw.)
Oh I quite agree. But I've been saying for months that I believe the right also plan to suckle at the lucrative transology teat. So either way, women are fucked.
They are all as bad as each other. They are all interested solely in power and will jump on any bandwagon that enables them to hold it.
I am furious that Carrie - not an elected MP - was speaking there anyway. Why? She shouldn't have been.
Exactly. Let's see, you can follow the "left" version and have men in your changing rooms, etc. Or you can follow the "right" version in which case you'll find yourself without reproductive rights, paid spectacularly less than a man doing the same job, and without a social safety net.
This has caused me much distress, that “conversion therapy” is used to pretend every therapy should be banned “affirm affirm” like daleks.. There should be articles Published by a known fantastic therapists who fully explains the different types of therapy and which therapy is awful and how speaking therapy is essential and nit a conversion. The deliberate misinterpretations and lies about conversion therapy by the propaganda lobby that is trans must be stopped.
Yes. There seems to be a misunderstanding, or deliberate twisting of many words. If expressed as a 'conversion' from mental ill health to psychological health, would that help people understand what they are criticising or condoning?
Allowing people to discuss any mental health issue, such as dysphoria, and specifically gender dysphoria is bad is it? How? Oh we don't have enough professionals, or a functioning mental health service, so we'll just fiddle with criteria, raise thresholds and just wave everyone through, to 'affirm' whatever they think they want, rather than examining why they might be in this position to start with?
Piggy-backing on the gay, civil or human rights movements is spectacularly malevolent.
I think the term "identifies as a woman" should no longer be used. If you replace it with "calls himself a woman", it shows it up for the lie it is.
That's essentially what some men are doing, they don't identify as women, they objectify women and appear to want to degrade and dominate them. Being a woman isn't an identity to be assumed, it is a lived experience. Women experience misogyny and male oppression. Men supposedly identifying as women are far more likely to be on the other side of that experience.
Aye, right enough. I say trans identified man for a man claiming to be a woman.
I joined Women's Human Rights Commission and they don't even like to say trans, just MEN.
Omg she's beginning to look like Boris.
He looks like he's slept in a stable, she looks like she should be kept in one.
Maybe that's how they met??
He identifies as a stallion 🐎
That Susie Green Tweet makes me feel rather ill - We truly are in an age of worshipping the "Experts" as Gods! It's a shame the Monty Python crew are getting on or popping their clogs as would have loved to have seen their taken on all of this! Rather than "The Life Of Brian" they could make a movie called "The Life Of Brianna!!
Everything about that woman make me feel ill
There ars 2 types of sex conversion therapy:
1. Attempted brainwashing of same sex attracted people.
2. Cosmetic surgery to produce a physical facsimile of the opposite sex.
The former no longer practiced. The latter being promoted across the sociopolitical spectrum
I always find it interesting when there is a, push for increased rights for a specific group. Gender reassignment is covered by the Equality Act as is sexual orientation. Everyone is covered by the Human Rights Act 1998. All legislation, in Scotland, at least is human rights impact assessed. In England, it is equality impact assessed. Which means that all legislation applies equally to LGBT.
What people actually mean is not more rights but how the legislation is actually applied. And they should say what they mean because it might stop hackles rising. But as is said in the article, if you stop shouting about your rights (or as the predictive text keeps telling me, your tights) people might forget you are special and your validation by others becomes nonexistent. Then how do you find your place in the world if the only people who think you important are the ones you actually know.
Oh please let's have people 'shouting about their tights'. Much jollier.
Yes, all legislation applies equally already, and as you say, the point isn't more rights but how they're applied. 'Trans rights' seems a faux crusade, part of the victim costume, donned toward winning sympathy and supporters who'll labour on their behalf.
Gender identity is only of any significance to a tiny, tiny minority, whereas biological reality matters to everyone. Basing policy on such a niche issue is irresponsible and shows politicians aren't listening to the populace.
This is why the ideologists are so dangerous - they know its a tiny number.
So, they target the young - teach them lies so they carry the torch when older.
Target the Politicians through the Trojan Horse of "Civil Rights" equating and conflating with Gay/Lesbian/Bi rights etc.
Get their demands put in law so that no one can speak out against it for pain of conviction.
Do all that and you've re-engineered society.
That is the purpose. Also, get us to believe one untruth (probably the most blatantly obvious one) and what else can they have us believe?
Am truly shocked that CJ doesn’t get the sinister side to all this. She testified against the rapist Warboys who took advantage of women NOT trusting their instincts and feeling sorry for men:
"He seemed to be this sad man who had no one to celebrate with him. I pitied him, I didn't feel frightened - I just thought he was weird."
How would CJ feel if Warboys’ rapes had been recorded as if done by WOMEN, and if Warboys had self ID himself to get into women’s prison?
And she accepted a drink from him AFTER tipping out the first one cos she ALREADY THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE SPIKED and after he’d got into the back of the cab and sexually propositioned her. Yet she still apparently doesn’t see how predatory males will manipulate women’s inbuilt or socialised tendency to not want to embarass men or hurt their feelings.
Her quoted remarks from https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/john-worboys-victim-carrie-symonds-23785080.amp
I am too Shirley. If we think of the near misses we have no idea we dodged it would send us all mad. It takes so much energy to override my own internal and yes, socialised, tendencies. That's why I dislike the #BeKind thing so much. Someone shouts sexualised slurs at you? #BeKind! Someone threatens you because you won't use compelled speech or restrict your own behaviour? #BeKind! No. #StopCompellingWomenToBeKindToAllowYourAbuse