Brilliant from Danny Kruger. This is the new form of misogyny. Same vitriol, new outlet. Except that it's not very new at all, but has been quietly brooding just under the surface for decades, both in pornography and in online forums.
I would encourage your readers to also see this inspiring and rousing event in Seattle from 2020 called "The New Misogyny", which protesters tried to disrupt, as usual.
So important to have men speaking out too. Bernard Jenkin also spoke brilliantly. But Joanna Cherry knocked it out of the park. That we are having to discuss the definition of woman in 2022 is staggering. We all *know* what a woman is but there is a whole cohort of young people growing up believing that it is possible to change sex and I fear for the females among them who have no clue what they are giving away.
I saw that and he has a Jack Russell called Pebble who is also quite famous now.... Looks like a Parsons - they're a law unto themselves...😉 Interesting family.
As a member of the "those who cannot be named group", - (acknowledgements to JK Rowling for this useful definition), - so wonderful to view this eloquent speech from Danny Kruger.
At last! And now it is a matter of parliamentary record. It's sad that it will definitley be paid more heed than if a woman said it but no matter, well done Danny Kruger.
Yes. I am very glad someone had the guts to say it. Imagine a world in which other unsayables were said - that most 'transwomen' have a penis; most are heterosexual; that puberty blockers, in practice, are not a 'pause button'. Every time a politician (MP or Lords) says something sensible I write to thank them. They are only human and they need our support for their (finally; about time too) engagement with this issue.
Even if some "transwomen" have lopped off their penis, it doesn't make them women. To me, the crux of the matter is that they are male and men and that does not change whatever they do to their body.
Totally not. There was an interview in the Times this week where a guy had transitioned with surgery. The wife (trans widow) said that it was the end of their sex life and was “accepting” they’d have future partners. Usual back story for him I.e trying on his mothers stockings when young. Wealthy person in finance. Live and let live and all that. But why is this anything to do with workplaces and worthy of so much government attention?
AGP ( if he is) needs widespread, honest reporting as it is affecting others rights/vulnerable groups - not in a moral panic way- more research might happen if we were allowed to discuss it. Sarah Ditum wrote about it this week- mentioning women (eg our MPs) not seeing that this is male sexuality playing out. Thank you Sarah! We need different people in power - ones on the same wavelength as ordinary folk. They are naïve
I've just phone to thank Danny. Here are Danny's contact details. https://members.parliament.uk/member/4858/contact His constituency phone number is: 01380 729358, this may show up under a different name on your phone, but it IS his number. His secretary is now aware of that fact., I asked her to thank Danny from my heart for his wonderful speech and support of women. I rejoiced that an MP has finally found the courage to speak truth and for all that he said in support of everyone who have their lives blown apart by TRA 'cancellation', (including Graham). I gave his secretary the details of this site and told her that Danny's speech is on here now, and she said she'd gladly pass on my thanks and Graham's site too. It is vitally important to thank all those who are now standing up for women, and for the children too. So, if anyone else would like to thank Danny, on the phone number above, or by email, please do.
I am pleased that Danny Kruger MP has made three important observations, all with one underlying theme: the importance and the immutability of sex. The last one, calling for a definition of woman, is a bit more problematic, because the study of DSDs has revealed developmental pathways which are quite complex. It is better to reinforce women's sex-based rights to single-sex "spaces", meaning not just physical spaces, but prizes, awards, discussion groups, etc reserved for women based on their sex.
There seems to be no comparative scrutiny of men, though, does there, when it comes to the ‘defining’ question? It’s women under the magnifying glass, every time. How do you define ‘woman’ yourself?
XX plus those XY whose metabolism, for a variety of developmental reasons, was impervious to testosterone or other androgen hormones, and thus developed feminine skeletons and anatomy indistinguishable from XX anatomy except in secondary sexual development: see academic research like https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499274
Nice try. Wrong way to slip in the thin edge of the wedge against women. Sex is determined by the type of gamete produced by that body type. In virtually every case, presence of a Y chromosome will then mean you’re male. (There is a vanishingly tiny number of people who naturally produce both types of gamete. The law should protect this anomaly.)
I don't think there is *any* case where BOTH types of gamete are produced. That would mean we have a human who has fully working testes AND ovaries. Its a physical impossibility.
The vanishingly rare number of humans with XY who have CAIS (complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) may have gone down the development path *with* male chromosomes BUT there is a switch off which has caused the body to then be female. These women are women - they are not males as they never WERE male. Their body may have testes but these are not functional. These women are often infertile.
It is incredibly rare and is not a reason to quibble about "what a woman is".
There should be no mention of DSDs in the "gender" debate - simply because DSDs are not evidence that there is a range of sexes. They are congenital medical conditions. Like Downs is. We don't argue that because there are people with a different chromosomal makeup that they aren't actually human or are a different "type" of human.
You are of course right that the "purpose" of our biology is to reproduce ourselves. The identity of the gametes produced is the critical result of our biology, and determines our classification as Women (large gametes) or men (small gametes). I was looking as the developmental pathways which led to these results.
Thank you for this. I had a friend who discovered rather late in life that she was XXY, which explained her many health problems (her brother also suffered from DSD, but he appeared male and he as well had a host of health issues). Some woman on Spinster wanted me to say my friend was a man, and I refused to do so. My friend was raised as female, appeared female, never knew there was anything wrong -- she was a lesbian so didn't try to have children, which was usual when she was young -- until someone ran genetic tests.
Absolutely. It should not be mentioned in this discussion as anyone with a DSD has a medical condition. Its like saying that someone with Downs isn't actually a real human.
Why is it always women being questioned, scrutinised, challenged, dismissed? There are more ‘why’s’ to the argument than splitting hairs about amounts of x’s and y’s, which seems to me to be the bigger more serious question. A woman exists, yes?
The science of embryology is fascinating, and has driven leaps in understanding in the last 50 years; for pediatricians and genetic specialists it really is not about "women being questioned". It is the elucidation of developmental pathways.
Thank you Glinner for your part in shining a light into these dark places and letting us see the utterly selfish motives of people behind this confusing issue.
Re. Mr. Kruger’s note of apology towards the end of his speech. It irks and saddens me that so many men feel they can’t entirely weigh in or what some women strictly hold as a woman’s battle. Nonsense. The ideology is a threat to humanity. We need both women and men to counter the “trans” ideological attempt to “wrest” reality from the “rest” of us. This is an existential fight, and we need all hands on deck.
Sadly this is a policed by their side AND ours. I always feel the protests at speakers corner should be at least twice as big. But there is an atmosphere. Men don’t know if they’re welcome. But no movement ever got anywhere by reducing
Women (Het or lesbian) are the front line. We now have Gay men right behind. All trying to protect each other AND children/teens who simply cannot comprehend the damage this will do. We also need Men who at the very minimum value truth and material reality. I welcome ANYONE who will speak up on this and point out the harm and unfairness that is going on.
The Suffragists knew they could not get the vote for women on their own. They were talking to the Men who had the power to do it. It is sad that now we have women who ARE in positions in politics who are pointedly ignoring the truth and material reality.
I know that "atmosphere", and that’s what irks and saddens. Danny Kruger: “I think trans activism is a new form of misogyny. I hope there is some value in a man saying this.” He hopes there is some value in a man addressing this issue! This deference cannot, in any way, be a good thing. Trans activism hurts women and children, young boys, young girls, teenage boys, teenage girls. Its tentacles (almost wrote testicles, haha) are in every institution. How can this possibly be exclusively a woman’s battle?
Brilliant from Danny Kruger. This is the new form of misogyny. Same vitriol, new outlet. Except that it's not very new at all, but has been quietly brooding just under the surface for decades, both in pornography and in online forums.
I would encourage your readers to also see this inspiring and rousing event in Seattle from 2020 called "The New Misogyny", which protesters tried to disrupt, as usual.
https://youtu.be/voaYjKMw5rI
Thank you. Will have a look when I have time.
So important to have men speaking out too. Bernard Jenkin also spoke brilliantly. But Joanna Cherry knocked it out of the park. That we are having to discuss the definition of woman in 2022 is staggering. We all *know* what a woman is but there is a whole cohort of young people growing up believing that it is possible to change sex and I fear for the females among them who have no clue what they are giving away.
I hadn't heard of him before but I'm liking the cut of his jib.
Nor me. Googled him and his mother, who he praised so highly, is Prue Leith!
I saw that and he has a Jack Russell called Pebble who is also quite famous now.... Looks like a Parsons - they're a law unto themselves...😉 Interesting family.
I’m thinking it’s no coincidence that he’s been involved with charity work in women’s prisons.
As a member of the "those who cannot be named group", - (acknowledgements to JK Rowling for this useful definition), - so wonderful to view this eloquent speech from Danny Kruger.
At last! And now it is a matter of parliamentary record. It's sad that it will definitley be paid more heed than if a woman said it but no matter, well done Danny Kruger.
Yes. I am very glad someone had the guts to say it. Imagine a world in which other unsayables were said - that most 'transwomen' have a penis; most are heterosexual; that puberty blockers, in practice, are not a 'pause button'. Every time a politician (MP or Lords) says something sensible I write to thank them. They are only human and they need our support for their (finally; about time too) engagement with this issue.
Even if some "transwomen" have lopped off their penis, it doesn't make them women. To me, the crux of the matter is that they are male and men and that does not change whatever they do to their body.
Totally not. There was an interview in the Times this week where a guy had transitioned with surgery. The wife (trans widow) said that it was the end of their sex life and was “accepting” they’d have future partners. Usual back story for him I.e trying on his mothers stockings when young. Wealthy person in finance. Live and let live and all that. But why is this anything to do with workplaces and worthy of so much government attention?
AGP ( if he is) needs widespread, honest reporting as it is affecting others rights/vulnerable groups - not in a moral panic way- more research might happen if we were allowed to discuss it. Sarah Ditum wrote about it this week- mentioning women (eg our MPs) not seeing that this is male sexuality playing out. Thank you Sarah! We need different people in power - ones on the same wavelength as ordinary folk. They are naïve
And that 75% are AGP
Brilliant speech and we all thank him from the bottom of our hearts . Great to see more people speaking up and defending the truth on this issue !👍👏👏👏
I've just phone to thank Danny. Here are Danny's contact details. https://members.parliament.uk/member/4858/contact His constituency phone number is: 01380 729358, this may show up under a different name on your phone, but it IS his number. His secretary is now aware of that fact., I asked her to thank Danny from my heart for his wonderful speech and support of women. I rejoiced that an MP has finally found the courage to speak truth and for all that he said in support of everyone who have their lives blown apart by TRA 'cancellation', (including Graham). I gave his secretary the details of this site and told her that Danny's speech is on here now, and she said she'd gladly pass on my thanks and Graham's site too. It is vitally important to thank all those who are now standing up for women, and for the children too. So, if anyone else would like to thank Danny, on the phone number above, or by email, please do.
Thanks Ellen. I always send a card or email too.
I am pleased that Danny Kruger MP has made three important observations, all with one underlying theme: the importance and the immutability of sex. The last one, calling for a definition of woman, is a bit more problematic, because the study of DSDs has revealed developmental pathways which are quite complex. It is better to reinforce women's sex-based rights to single-sex "spaces", meaning not just physical spaces, but prizes, awards, discussion groups, etc reserved for women based on their sex.
There seems to be no comparative scrutiny of men, though, does there, when it comes to the ‘defining’ question? It’s women under the magnifying glass, every time. How do you define ‘woman’ yourself?
XX plus those XY whose metabolism, for a variety of developmental reasons, was impervious to testosterone or other androgen hormones, and thus developed feminine skeletons and anatomy indistinguishable from XX anatomy except in secondary sexual development: see academic research like https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499274
Nice try. Wrong way to slip in the thin edge of the wedge against women. Sex is determined by the type of gamete produced by that body type. In virtually every case, presence of a Y chromosome will then mean you’re male. (There is a vanishingly tiny number of people who naturally produce both types of gamete. The law should protect this anomaly.)
I don't think there is *any* case where BOTH types of gamete are produced. That would mean we have a human who has fully working testes AND ovaries. Its a physical impossibility.
The vanishingly rare number of humans with XY who have CAIS (complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) may have gone down the development path *with* male chromosomes BUT there is a switch off which has caused the body to then be female. These women are women - they are not males as they never WERE male. Their body may have testes but these are not functional. These women are often infertile.
It is incredibly rare and is not a reason to quibble about "what a woman is".
There should be no mention of DSDs in the "gender" debate - simply because DSDs are not evidence that there is a range of sexes. They are congenital medical conditions. Like Downs is. We don't argue that because there are people with a different chromosomal makeup that they aren't actually human or are a different "type" of human.
I think women with CAIS are always infertile.
You are of course right that the "purpose" of our biology is to reproduce ourselves. The identity of the gametes produced is the critical result of our biology, and determines our classification as Women (large gametes) or men (small gametes). I was looking as the developmental pathways which led to these results.
Thank you for this. I had a friend who discovered rather late in life that she was XXY, which explained her many health problems (her brother also suffered from DSD, but he appeared male and he as well had a host of health issues). Some woman on Spinster wanted me to say my friend was a man, and I refused to do so. My friend was raised as female, appeared female, never knew there was anything wrong -- she was a lesbian so didn't try to have children, which was usual when she was young -- until someone ran genetic tests.
Pretty incredible that intersex people are being politicised some on our side now.
By some.
Absolutely. It should not be mentioned in this discussion as anyone with a DSD has a medical condition. Its like saying that someone with Downs isn't actually a real human.
Why is it always women being questioned, scrutinised, challenged, dismissed? There are more ‘why’s’ to the argument than splitting hairs about amounts of x’s and y’s, which seems to me to be the bigger more serious question. A woman exists, yes?
The science of embryology is fascinating, and has driven leaps in understanding in the last 50 years; for pediatricians and genetic specialists it really is not about "women being questioned". It is the elucidation of developmental pathways.
I LUFF HIM - and absolutely nailed it. Whomever lives in Devizes is lucky.
Excellent. Look at this Labour and SNP, Lib Dems and Greens and see what the truth looks like.
Another mp to write a thank you note to! Fantastic
And Joanna Cherry too!
At last, truth or reality is emerging !
Thank you Glinner for your part in shining a light into these dark places and letting us see the utterly selfish motives of people behind this confusing issue.
Re. Mr. Kruger’s note of apology towards the end of his speech. It irks and saddens me that so many men feel they can’t entirely weigh in or what some women strictly hold as a woman’s battle. Nonsense. The ideology is a threat to humanity. We need both women and men to counter the “trans” ideological attempt to “wrest” reality from the “rest” of us. This is an existential fight, and we need all hands on deck.
Sadly this is a policed by their side AND ours. I always feel the protests at speakers corner should be at least twice as big. But there is an atmosphere. Men don’t know if they’re welcome. But no movement ever got anywhere by reducing
It’s numbers.
Women (Het or lesbian) are the front line. We now have Gay men right behind. All trying to protect each other AND children/teens who simply cannot comprehend the damage this will do. We also need Men who at the very minimum value truth and material reality. I welcome ANYONE who will speak up on this and point out the harm and unfairness that is going on.
The Suffragists knew they could not get the vote for women on their own. They were talking to the Men who had the power to do it. It is sad that now we have women who ARE in positions in politics who are pointedly ignoring the truth and material reality.
I know that "atmosphere", and that’s what irks and saddens. Danny Kruger: “I think trans activism is a new form of misogyny. I hope there is some value in a man saying this.” He hopes there is some value in a man addressing this issue! This deference cannot, in any way, be a good thing. Trans activism hurts women and children, young boys, young girls, teenage boys, teenage girls. Its tentacles (almost wrote testicles, haha) are in every institution. How can this possibly be exclusively a woman’s battle?
I was happy watching this.
It's a lovely change from the Pedo Party in the U.S.