Hello, everyone! I made a short video on Alex Sobel’s extraordinary answer to the question “Do you agree that there should be sex-segregated facilities for women in hospitals, schools, refuges and prisons?”
I'm really angry about this. I've just tweeted him to say that's he's effectively denying women their legally enshrined right to single sex spaces and that wishing to allow biological males into women's refuges and changing rooms is, quite frankly, sinister
Inspired by the Staniland question - how about we tweet every Labour, LD, Green, SNP MP individually with the question “Do you agree that there should be sex-segregated facilities for women in hospitals, schools, refuges and prisons?” It would be good to make as many of them as possible squirm. I’m sick to death of these MPs getting away with cowardly silence.
I’m not as angry about, or dismissive of, this “no”.
Don’t get me wrong...I completely disagree with his answer. But, as gender-critical folk, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t get angry when people ignore our questions, and just as angry when they answer them clearly. If we do, we risk being a mirror image of trans rights activists and just insisting that people agree with us, and simply dismissing and deriding every other response. We’re better than that.
Personally, I would welcome more people answering questions this straightforwardly, because at least it flushes the issue out. This “no” allows us to see how trans rights activists see things panning out in society. This “no” enables us to get more people on board with our cause, because the practical consequences of trans ideology start to be set out more overtly. This “no” enables us to go back to Alex Sobel and say, “Thank you for your straightforward answer...those are all too rare. But can I ask a follow-up? Are you answering “no” because you believe there are no negative consequences from removing these women-only spaces? Or are you answering “no” because you think there will be negative consequences if we remove these spaces but you feel the pros outweigh the cons.”
Our arguments are strong and based on facts (scientific, biological and evidence-based facts). So we’ve nothing to lose, and lots to gain, from having the conversation.
So, let’s embrace the “no”s, because they represent a drop of engagement, a smidgen of straightforwardness...and maybe they can help us move the conversation on a bit.
I'm really angry about this. I've just tweeted him to say that's he's effectively denying women their legally enshrined right to single sex spaces and that wishing to allow biological males into women's refuges and changing rooms is, quite frankly, sinister
Inspired by the Staniland question - how about we tweet every Labour, LD, Green, SNP MP individually with the question “Do you agree that there should be sex-segregated facilities for women in hospitals, schools, refuges and prisons?” It would be good to make as many of them as possible squirm. I’m sick to death of these MPs getting away with cowardly silence.
I’m not as angry about, or dismissive of, this “no”.
Don’t get me wrong...I completely disagree with his answer. But, as gender-critical folk, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t get angry when people ignore our questions, and just as angry when they answer them clearly. If we do, we risk being a mirror image of trans rights activists and just insisting that people agree with us, and simply dismissing and deriding every other response. We’re better than that.
Personally, I would welcome more people answering questions this straightforwardly, because at least it flushes the issue out. This “no” allows us to see how trans rights activists see things panning out in society. This “no” enables us to get more people on board with our cause, because the practical consequences of trans ideology start to be set out more overtly. This “no” enables us to go back to Alex Sobel and say, “Thank you for your straightforward answer...those are all too rare. But can I ask a follow-up? Are you answering “no” because you believe there are no negative consequences from removing these women-only spaces? Or are you answering “no” because you think there will be negative consequences if we remove these spaces but you feel the pros outweigh the cons.”
Our arguments are strong and based on facts (scientific, biological and evidence-based facts). So we’ve nothing to lose, and lots to gain, from having the conversation.
So, let’s embrace the “no”s, because they represent a drop of engagement, a smidgen of straightforwardness...and maybe they can help us move the conversation on a bit.
I just read an article dated Dec 2019 by Julian Vigo about some very well funded academic projects on "gender" in UK universities: https://thepostmillennial.com/how-to-stage-a-study-the-transgender-lobby-in-british-academia
She writes for Forbes and her own blog. All this money needs to be thoroughly investigated.....