As Pearl Red Moon says and it stands for Quite Interesting. It's an entertaining panel show where people sit around showing how terribly clever they are and how much they know - it might be a particularly British thing and involves lots of subtle 'clever' and class digs as a few of them went to Oxford or Cambridge University. I used to watch it many years ago but grew a bit bored of it. Performative intelligence.
The QI Elves are those researchers and writers behind it. There is a streak of men wearing makeup and heterosexual couples who think they are special, interesting and the opposite sex because they wear earrings and use slurs to describe themselves.
It must be disappointing if you liked her, I never have, I've always found her as appealing and funny as a virus. And now a faker too, oh no, poor Sandi, boo hoo, she should throw herself onto her bed, weep into her pillow and stay there.
No, I think there must be an awful lot of people whose response to this woman was to roll their eyes. Now she's shown there's a more appropriate response to her.
Everybody is in it for the money-making opportunities that the trans agenda creates. Not much profit in being lesbian, but start with the early mutilation of children and pandering to AGP men, and it's pure gold. What a complete lack of awareness she is demonstrating.
Very disappointed!! As an intelligent woman I thought she would have been a great advocate for women's rights. Not only has she let herself down, but she's let us all down (tongue in cheek of course).
That's easy - you just need to ask and it'll be explained for you. But she's not going to do that because that would mean admitting to understanding the same reality that most people understand, and that's bad for business. Especially show-business.
So she'll carry on pretending that it's all an unfathomable mystery to her.
To be fair to her, Ewen, many lesbians and homosexual men who have suffered from prejudice themselves feel that the TQ+ are in the same category. They are so fundamentally not that it could make you weep for the naïveté. I'm afraid that they simply do not give a flying whatsit for women and girls whom they believe are just being hateful and should just move over. The fundamental power imbalance between males and females in even our society precludes the possibility of sharing the same single-sex spaces. Sooner or later, a woman or girl will be attacked. Well, it has already happened, hasn't it? Many people appear to be very clever and smart, but it is a superficial kind of smartness - like that of Boris. Oxford degree and no self-reflection. Makes for a very dangerous kind of person who is incapable of grown-up understanding of any real depth.
LGB people should have a special hatred for trans ideology because they have successfully transitioned gay kids. But it's lesbians in particular who are being pressured into intimate relationships with TIM under the guise of not being transphobic.
Toksvig has always been a repulsive unfunny person, always more activist than comedian. I recall fondly an episode of QI when Stephen Fry was still hosting and he just rolled his eyes with a sigh as Toksvig (as always) took any opportunity to force some incongruous "point" over something she defined as sexism. I wish I could recall the episode but she was always such a bore/boar.
It’s beyond me that certain women, just want to throw all our rights down the toilet! More and more women I’d admired over the years, have slowly lost the ability to stand up for reality or are totally lead my money over truth! 😡
It appears that women who do well in the patriarchal society in which we live have to kowtow to it in order to get on. All those who stay true to women never climb the greasy pole.
The only women I can think of that don’t do that and are powerful are JKR and Kishwar Faulkner, and look what a horrendous blowback they get.
Didn't they sack a gender critical woman from their board some years ago? I had presumed they had collapsed because, if you want to vote for a party that supports Stonewall and their cronies you have a splendid choice from already established parties! Bring on the Party of Women.
The Party of Women would almost certainly garner my vote. It could cause the same degree of shock in the UK as the PVV in the Netherlands - though for different reasons, obviously!
Yes. And how many disaffected UK Labour voters who wonder what the party became. Or Green, or SNP, or Plaid or Liberal or Tory. It's all grimly fascinating and shows people have been asleep at the wheel. Mind boggles.
though I can understand how the (UK) general public has been asleep at the wheel- they are hoodwinked by the media propaganda. There has been no sensible or actual debate on the implications of 'trans rights'. The 'no debate' tactic has worked successfully within each of those political parties (except Tory, where there seems to be some debate). The Party Of Women, and local independent candidates, could pick up a lot of votes from (so-called) TERFs who cannot vote for any mainstream parties
Me too, yes, I understand that too - many intelligent and conscientious people I know are totally unaware of the depth of this as it takes many hours to read through, listen and become aware. Even when they do it's not really connected to wider issues. That takes time and effort - look at the impact on Graham and how it affected his professional and personal life. People are bored and busy they want more easily digestible proposals and in words we can all still comprehend, share and to form an opinion about. I also agree with you on how the much discussed 'no debate' or limited shallow debate, then dismissal, seems alive and well. Most on this Substack are very well aware of all the tactics yet they are still being used and with success. What concerns me is that those you mention are splitting the vote. And it's how the ****ing Lib Ferring Dems are seeing a resurgence on the back of this. I cannot in all good conscience vote for almost any of the parties on the ballot. And we are heading towards a General Election in the UK. And so is the US. Other countries are watching. So this will all be set for the next few years. I am furious with Labour for persisting down this path.
I contacted a famous polling expert who totally ignored me for asking a question on public understanding of 'trans'. No one will touch it in public. So they are busy behind the scenes in their political science departments and failing to see what is happening. It is happening, it's leaking out in front of us and being squashed or distracted from. If we can't, or are not allowed to ask why, we are in serious trouble. And if only pollsters and political party machinery are discussing it we are headed for more of the same. I noticed that 'far right' and 'anti-Trans' are now written and spoken of in the same breath - so apparently I am now 'far right' for believing and saying that Eddie Izzard is a transvestite fetishist and not a woman like I am. That's the neat explanation for the riots in Dublin - anti-immigration and anti-drag are the reasons apparently. Not totally broken areas of our towns and cities - it's more than the 'left behind'. The local impacts of some macroeconomic movements aren't some easy spouted soundbites about men in dresses. How the hell they are being conflated makes me weep. Anything the men-in-dresses touch is verboten, sacrosanct and above reproach.
I meant more the political parties and our executives being asleep at the wheel, not necessarily us the voters. If they addressed this head on and relentlessly then this would be debated and we could move on. We could stop the nibbling away at our rights and the constant misinformation and rehashing of this. While they all dance around, one step forward, one step back and invisibly withdrawing support from MPs who won't toe the genderology line. Then hoping no one will notice and will be distracted by tax cuts or promises of new hospitals.
I have seen too many not stepping up and then stepping away from politics as these systems are remarkably resistant to change.
yes- because how much power do any leaders of political parties really have? They are figureheads mainly. If they don't balance the needs of their financial backers/ controlling interests/ blackmailing insiders/ internally-powerful activists/ they will be quickly replaced. And the actual individual party members have almost no say in it, whatsoever. And the general public? well, they only ever matter in a few marginal seats at election time...
No female, straight or lesbian, could possibly not get it because it's really, really not about excluding anyone for reasons of bias or prejudice. It's totally about females protecting themselves, their dignity and right to privacy, to compete in sports against other females.
People who make up this s**t about it being about rights has a screw loose. Every philosopher who ever lived - apart from the post modernists, who were, by and large, paedophiles themselves, trampling on the rights of young boys, mainly, not to be sodomized - has made human rights and their parallel human responsibilities the centre of their works.
In modern equality legislation and human rights legislation, nowhere is it stipulated that one group should have rights that do not apply to all other groups or that one group should be expected to give up their rights to another group. 'Trans' have the exact-same human rights as the rest of us. They actually want more, an extension, which encroaches on female human rights and which must, therefore, be resisted as contrary to all known and acknowledged human rights. The responsibility to not encroach on the rights of others is the parallel to one's own human rights.
Absolutely, they have rights, they've been given multiple privileges, they have been given the freedom to abuse with no adequate recourse from those who have been abused. What more are they asking for? Everything their way all the time? Yes.
Yes and every time they crow 'ha, but we've been in your toilets for years!' and 'we've already changed our passports and all our paperwork' they don't seem to realise that it proves that we have indeed been putting up with selfish narcissists doing what they like and claiming our spaces and safety as their own for too long. And the capitulation of our bureaucracies to them. And no, we were not 'happy' and yes we did say so as we did notice. But we are trained to be ignored, we are not listened to, and those like the Scottish Government have been using this as a wedge issue to cleave political capital. Which has nothing to do with our rights. I'd be surprised if there weren't photos of Adam Graham and Andrew Miller in 'this is what a Feminist looks like' tee shirts.
Quite so, woman, quite so. These privileges are extended to no one else. Women and girls do have privileges - or did, I should say, in that they have single-sex spaces for reasons of safety, dignity and privacy - and I believe that have not been abused. These men in frocks do nothing else but abuse in the name of a condition, being 'trans' , for which not one scrap of evidence exists or is ever likely to exist. We really have to keep asking WHY everyone is so determined to give them what they want and demand. They might threaten and intimidate, but, if people would just up to them and stand together, they would not prevail. It worries me greatly why the politicians are so eager for this to be perpetuated, and I can think only that it is bound up in huge investment in capital, global business opportunities for multi billionaire psychopaths, the crumbs of which will drop to the floor of the parliaments. Then, of course, at least some of these politicians - probably far more than we want to believe - are themselves wrapped up in nefarious perversions that they dare not admit to, yet take the opportunity to push at the drop of a hat from their privileged positions. Most of the female pushers are simpering, gullible idiots who can't see the wood for the trees.
Agreed, with one caveat. I do not think women are privileged with regard to their rights, rather I would say that ensuring that women can enjoy basic human rights requires that fundamental rights such as safety and dignity are given very specific protections from threats that do not pertain to any other class of people.
Yes, Woman, and that is the definition of a privilege. 'Privileges' and 'Rights' are, basically, the same thing in philosophy/jurisprudence. 'Privileges' entail corresponding 'Obligations', 'Rights' entail corresponding 'Responsibilities'. In other words, if you have the former, you ensure that you do not encroach on anyone else's, which is the obligation/responsibility part of the equation.
Safe spaces for females is not a right, I'm afraid, in the sense that it is embedded in law, but, rather, a privilege or convention which has been hard-wired into our society for only a hundred years or so. It needs to be made part of law, and the recent Lady Haldane ruling, in Scotland, means that 'trans' identified men with no GRC have no legal right to enter female spaces and may be ejected lawfully under the auspices of the 2010 Equality Act.
Those who do have a GRC are defined as 'women' in law and cannot automatically be ejected unless it is 'proportionate' to ensure female safety, dignity and privacy, for example, also under the 2010 Act - which is a loophole for those with a GRC, and which requires to be closed to keep all males out of female spaces everywhere, at all times, legally.
Beyond 'safety, dignity and privacy', it can be argued that females are stymied from partaking in public life if they have no protected spaces in which to operate their female biological needs, men not having these biological needs at all, even after physical 'transition' - therefore, they have no need to enter female spaces whatsoever, and can access male toilet cubicles if they are coy about their 'neo vaginas' fashioned, Frankenstein Monster-like, out of the inward-turned penis and pieces of colon.
Which goes back to why they did it in the first place. Why was it? What was the urgent need to change the law? Why couldn't they use male spaces as they are and always will be males? How did the trans lobby get so successful. A massive change was made to how we live in our societies and the very basics of how we interact. And they steamrolled over all opposition warning of what this would mean.
They changed all our lives to pander to the fetishes of some. And they want more and more and will continue to push for their 'rights' to do what they like.
Surely men have single sex spaces too which as far as I know are not under threat of invasion by women? I dont think we are asking for much when we ask that they not invade ours.
Angela: some men like to blame females for taking away their single-sex spaces such as golf clubs, pubs, etc. - in fact, all public spaces once frequented only by men, because they kept women out of public life. Many do not want us to have access to a public life, and that is the sad and terrifying truth. They do not seem to understand the difference between a space that is essential for reasons of being female and those spaces that are public. It infuriates me and betrays an entitlement to a world that is for one sex only, as if females are lesser humans.
Having said that, many gay men are finding their spaces being invaded by larping women who claim to be male. The dissonance is quite breathtaking and the lack of self-awareness almost unbearable. That some of these young people - male and female - may have neurodiverse problems is almost a given, and, in no way, should they be pandered to, but have their choices and the implications of those choices explained to them. These are the ones I do feel sympathy for, but the narcissists of both sexes and the larping men can take a hike.
I think that the AGP/fetitishistic men get a huge kick out of invading our spaces - a sexual thrill - which is amplified and expanded by our reacting against their breaching of our boundaries - just like those men who rape and sexually assault where the sexual thrill goes way beyond the act itself. Causing fear and alarm is so often a turn-on for some men, and it is a reaction we are afraid to acknowledge. Violence and sex appear to be part of many men's fantasies, and the porn industry pushes this aspect of sexuality to the limits and beyond. Until all these aspects of male sexuality are properly studied and the effects of them also studied, nothing will change.
Until women make their own world instead of aping the male world, nothing is going to change either. Violence, sexual violence, wars, conflicts, aggression, etc. may well have played their part in the distant past of human existence for biological reasons, but they are no longer of use to us as a species, and are now a liability in so many ways. Always, we are at the receiving end, but there is much that we can do to put a stop on it all - by not aping men or catering to their every whim.
I saw a young girl modelling a swim suit recently and the gusset was so narrow, you could actually see her labia majora hanging out of each side. Why? Why do women put up with this sexualising of every stitch they wear? Or do they actually like showing off their intimate parts to men and embarrassing other women? Why don't they choose comfortable clothing?
Pop stars dress like sluts and young girls feel isolated and unwanted unless they do the same. The porn industry leads young men to expect girls to comply with life-threatening foreplay - choking, anal sex, neither of which a normal female could possibly enjoy unless she is a masochist. For all that there is supposed to have been a sexual revolution that has benefited women, I really cannot see it. It has benefited men far more and they still, many of them, want more. The whole 'trans' thing and the whole breaching of female boundaries is sexual. Nothing more or less.
A rep of big tech co-opting a women's organisation into voicing support for the marginalisation of biological sex within human nature? There's a surprise.
He's a software developer, which is a trade that seems over represented in these circles. Odd that a job where there's a requirement for being logical and having good problem solving skills, there's so few that can spot the problems here.
And I wish more would realise this. They are skills within a very tight remit.
My needs vs someone else's needs? Oh I know, I'll pick my needs. That's the right answer. That's all I am aware of after all. I think that's where their logic has been formed then perfected. And in bubbles in bubbles. Looking out to others, to wider society is beyond their focus and task-orientation. That kind of thinking is left to 'others' and as we have found, those others with an eye to outside software development don't tend to be tech billionaires with lots of power. Oh, but no one in the room (virtual or otherwise) knew about that, raised it, or was overlooked or dismissed for doing so. We are building worlds with all these new exclusions baked in because of who is developing them. The number of times I am in meetings and someone explains how something 'should' work and I want to ask, have you met a human being? Lived our lives? We are not a theory.
Women with buggies have to physically go different routes, take more time to complete their tasks as a result, have fewer resources and less time as result. And are disadvantaged you say? They trip chain? Carers? Can't they get the bus? It doesn't go where they need to go? They need to be at the next job within 15 minutes? What? Huh? But we planned the best way from A to B and you're now telling us these weird people don't fit our model? They are using our model wrong. Can't compute.
Or if a man was expecting and insisting to shag her. Her version of deliberate naivety is dangerous. Maybe she's been on one of the 'cotton ceiling' workshops to 'overcome objections'. Or does she pretend they don't exist either?
one of the things that continually upsets me is the claim that safe spaces don’t protect women and girls from predators. That abuse is inevitable. And i’ve had women make that argument to me. When a society gives up trying to protect children and women from harm because its is ‘inevitable’. Makes me angry and sad. Proper new world order type of brain washing if thats the right use of the term.
I think the original argument used by trans activists was that while women might feel 'uncomfortable' with transwomen using their spaces they would not be unsafe - clearly events have proved that to be untrue so they have had to rely on the feeble 'women will get attacked anyway' argument. Seems they have forgotten that the whole demand for access to women's spaces was driven by the need to safeguard the feelings of transwomen who might be driven to suicide if excluded. I imagine the counter argument - well trans are likely to commit suicide anyway so why worry about would not go down too well ... The inevitable conclusion is - trans rights trump women's rights at every turn.
I guess Sandi is fairly safe from the ‘lesbian’ transwomen, she being ahem a bit elderly and not desperately……..able. She might spare a thought for the more ‘vulnerable’ members of the Sapphic sisterhood, though.
I really believe that a lot of these ‘kind’ women are driven as much by envy for other women as any other emotion, I’m afraid.
I used to like Toksvig. She’s dead to me now. Knowing that men can’t become women is essential for being a feminist.
I stopped watching QI as soon as she started spouting trans shit. What a disappointment.
What is QI please?
As Pearl Red Moon says and it stands for Quite Interesting. It's an entertaining panel show where people sit around showing how terribly clever they are and how much they know - it might be a particularly British thing and involves lots of subtle 'clever' and class digs as a few of them went to Oxford or Cambridge University. I used to watch it many years ago but grew a bit bored of it. Performative intelligence.
The QI Elves are those researchers and writers behind it. There is a streak of men wearing makeup and heterosexual couples who think they are special, interesting and the opposite sex because they wear earrings and use slurs to describe themselves.
Long running TV quiz show run by the BBC. Former host of it was a gay man.
It must be disappointing if you liked her, I never have, I've always found her as appealing and funny as a virus. And now a faker too, oh no, poor Sandi, boo hoo, she should throw herself onto her bed, weep into her pillow and stay there.
Not just me, then! 😁 😁
No, I think there must be an awful lot of people whose response to this woman was to roll their eyes. Now she's shown there's a more appropriate response to her.
Everybody is in it for the money-making opportunities that the trans agenda creates. Not much profit in being lesbian, but start with the early mutilation of children and pandering to AGP men, and it's pure gold. What a complete lack of awareness she is demonstrating.
"Nothing works if you can't tell the truth." https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/how-to-establish-a-new-reality-aka
In Sandi's world people concerned about women's safety are misogynists.
Very disappointed!! As an intelligent woman I thought she would have been a great advocate for women's rights. Not only has she let herself down, but she's let us all down (tongue in cheek of course).
"I could weep. I don’t get it. It’s beyond me”
That's easy - you just need to ask and it'll be explained for you. But she's not going to do that because that would mean admitting to understanding the same reality that most people understand, and that's bad for business. Especially show-business.
So she'll carry on pretending that it's all an unfathomable mystery to her.
To be fair to her, Ewen, many lesbians and homosexual men who have suffered from prejudice themselves feel that the TQ+ are in the same category. They are so fundamentally not that it could make you weep for the naïveté. I'm afraid that they simply do not give a flying whatsit for women and girls whom they believe are just being hateful and should just move over. The fundamental power imbalance between males and females in even our society precludes the possibility of sharing the same single-sex spaces. Sooner or later, a woman or girl will be attacked. Well, it has already happened, hasn't it? Many people appear to be very clever and smart, but it is a superficial kind of smartness - like that of Boris. Oxford degree and no self-reflection. Makes for a very dangerous kind of person who is incapable of grown-up understanding of any real depth.
LGB people should have a special hatred for trans ideology because they have successfully transitioned gay kids. But it's lesbians in particular who are being pressured into intimate relationships with TIM under the guise of not being transphobic.
Toksvig has always been a repulsive unfunny person, always more activist than comedian. I recall fondly an episode of QI when Stephen Fry was still hosting and he just rolled his eyes with a sigh as Toksvig (as always) took any opportunity to force some incongruous "point" over something she defined as sexism. I wish I could recall the episode but she was always such a bore/boar.
It’s beyond me that certain women, just want to throw all our rights down the toilet! More and more women I’d admired over the years, have slowly lost the ability to stand up for reality or are totally lead my money over truth! 😡
Hard to forgive them, isn't it, Paula?
It appears that women who do well in the patriarchal society in which we live have to kowtow to it in order to get on. All those who stay true to women never climb the greasy pole.
The only women I can think of that don’t do that and are powerful are JKR and Kishwar Faulkner, and look what a horrendous blowback they get.
Didn't they sack a gender critical woman from their board some years ago? I had presumed they had collapsed because, if you want to vote for a party that supports Stonewall and their cronies you have a splendid choice from already established parties! Bring on the Party of Women.
Dusty
The Party of Women would almost certainly garner my vote. It could cause the same degree of shock in the UK as the PVV in the Netherlands - though for different reasons, obviously!
Yes. And how many disaffected UK Labour voters who wonder what the party became. Or Green, or SNP, or Plaid or Liberal or Tory. It's all grimly fascinating and shows people have been asleep at the wheel. Mind boggles.
though I can understand how the (UK) general public has been asleep at the wheel- they are hoodwinked by the media propaganda. There has been no sensible or actual debate on the implications of 'trans rights'. The 'no debate' tactic has worked successfully within each of those political parties (except Tory, where there seems to be some debate). The Party Of Women, and local independent candidates, could pick up a lot of votes from (so-called) TERFs who cannot vote for any mainstream parties
Me too, yes, I understand that too - many intelligent and conscientious people I know are totally unaware of the depth of this as it takes many hours to read through, listen and become aware. Even when they do it's not really connected to wider issues. That takes time and effort - look at the impact on Graham and how it affected his professional and personal life. People are bored and busy they want more easily digestible proposals and in words we can all still comprehend, share and to form an opinion about. I also agree with you on how the much discussed 'no debate' or limited shallow debate, then dismissal, seems alive and well. Most on this Substack are very well aware of all the tactics yet they are still being used and with success. What concerns me is that those you mention are splitting the vote. And it's how the ****ing Lib Ferring Dems are seeing a resurgence on the back of this. I cannot in all good conscience vote for almost any of the parties on the ballot. And we are heading towards a General Election in the UK. And so is the US. Other countries are watching. So this will all be set for the next few years. I am furious with Labour for persisting down this path.
I contacted a famous polling expert who totally ignored me for asking a question on public understanding of 'trans'. No one will touch it in public. So they are busy behind the scenes in their political science departments and failing to see what is happening. It is happening, it's leaking out in front of us and being squashed or distracted from. If we can't, or are not allowed to ask why, we are in serious trouble. And if only pollsters and political party machinery are discussing it we are headed for more of the same. I noticed that 'far right' and 'anti-Trans' are now written and spoken of in the same breath - so apparently I am now 'far right' for believing and saying that Eddie Izzard is a transvestite fetishist and not a woman like I am. That's the neat explanation for the riots in Dublin - anti-immigration and anti-drag are the reasons apparently. Not totally broken areas of our towns and cities - it's more than the 'left behind'. The local impacts of some macroeconomic movements aren't some easy spouted soundbites about men in dresses. How the hell they are being conflated makes me weep. Anything the men-in-dresses touch is verboten, sacrosanct and above reproach.
I meant more the political parties and our executives being asleep at the wheel, not necessarily us the voters. If they addressed this head on and relentlessly then this would be debated and we could move on. We could stop the nibbling away at our rights and the constant misinformation and rehashing of this. While they all dance around, one step forward, one step back and invisibly withdrawing support from MPs who won't toe the genderology line. Then hoping no one will notice and will be distracted by tax cuts or promises of new hospitals.
I have seen too many not stepping up and then stepping away from politics as these systems are remarkably resistant to change.
yes- because how much power do any leaders of political parties really have? They are figureheads mainly. If they don't balance the needs of their financial backers/ controlling interests/ blackmailing insiders/ internally-powerful activists/ they will be quickly replaced. And the actual individual party members have almost no say in it, whatsoever. And the general public? well, they only ever matter in a few marginal seats at election time...
Never could stand her , lesbian or not , dreadful unfunny woman
Who on earth are members of the Womens Equality Party? Who would want to be? It makes no sense. Is it just Sandi Toksvig? Is she the Party?
No female, straight or lesbian, could possibly not get it because it's really, really not about excluding anyone for reasons of bias or prejudice. It's totally about females protecting themselves, their dignity and right to privacy, to compete in sports against other females.
People who make up this s**t about it being about rights has a screw loose. Every philosopher who ever lived - apart from the post modernists, who were, by and large, paedophiles themselves, trampling on the rights of young boys, mainly, not to be sodomized - has made human rights and their parallel human responsibilities the centre of their works.
In modern equality legislation and human rights legislation, nowhere is it stipulated that one group should have rights that do not apply to all other groups or that one group should be expected to give up their rights to another group. 'Trans' have the exact-same human rights as the rest of us. They actually want more, an extension, which encroaches on female human rights and which must, therefore, be resisted as contrary to all known and acknowledged human rights. The responsibility to not encroach on the rights of others is the parallel to one's own human rights.
What they demand is privilege, not rights.
Absolutely, they have rights, they've been given multiple privileges, they have been given the freedom to abuse with no adequate recourse from those who have been abused. What more are they asking for? Everything their way all the time? Yes.
Yes and every time they crow 'ha, but we've been in your toilets for years!' and 'we've already changed our passports and all our paperwork' they don't seem to realise that it proves that we have indeed been putting up with selfish narcissists doing what they like and claiming our spaces and safety as their own for too long. And the capitulation of our bureaucracies to them. And no, we were not 'happy' and yes we did say so as we did notice. But we are trained to be ignored, we are not listened to, and those like the Scottish Government have been using this as a wedge issue to cleave political capital. Which has nothing to do with our rights. I'd be surprised if there weren't photos of Adam Graham and Andrew Miller in 'this is what a Feminist looks like' tee shirts.
Quite so, woman, quite so. These privileges are extended to no one else. Women and girls do have privileges - or did, I should say, in that they have single-sex spaces for reasons of safety, dignity and privacy - and I believe that have not been abused. These men in frocks do nothing else but abuse in the name of a condition, being 'trans' , for which not one scrap of evidence exists or is ever likely to exist. We really have to keep asking WHY everyone is so determined to give them what they want and demand. They might threaten and intimidate, but, if people would just up to them and stand together, they would not prevail. It worries me greatly why the politicians are so eager for this to be perpetuated, and I can think only that it is bound up in huge investment in capital, global business opportunities for multi billionaire psychopaths, the crumbs of which will drop to the floor of the parliaments. Then, of course, at least some of these politicians - probably far more than we want to believe - are themselves wrapped up in nefarious perversions that they dare not admit to, yet take the opportunity to push at the drop of a hat from their privileged positions. Most of the female pushers are simpering, gullible idiots who can't see the wood for the trees.
Agreed, with one caveat. I do not think women are privileged with regard to their rights, rather I would say that ensuring that women can enjoy basic human rights requires that fundamental rights such as safety and dignity are given very specific protections from threats that do not pertain to any other class of people.
Yes, Woman, and that is the definition of a privilege. 'Privileges' and 'Rights' are, basically, the same thing in philosophy/jurisprudence. 'Privileges' entail corresponding 'Obligations', 'Rights' entail corresponding 'Responsibilities'. In other words, if you have the former, you ensure that you do not encroach on anyone else's, which is the obligation/responsibility part of the equation.
Safe spaces for females is not a right, I'm afraid, in the sense that it is embedded in law, but, rather, a privilege or convention which has been hard-wired into our society for only a hundred years or so. It needs to be made part of law, and the recent Lady Haldane ruling, in Scotland, means that 'trans' identified men with no GRC have no legal right to enter female spaces and may be ejected lawfully under the auspices of the 2010 Equality Act.
Those who do have a GRC are defined as 'women' in law and cannot automatically be ejected unless it is 'proportionate' to ensure female safety, dignity and privacy, for example, also under the 2010 Act - which is a loophole for those with a GRC, and which requires to be closed to keep all males out of female spaces everywhere, at all times, legally.
Beyond 'safety, dignity and privacy', it can be argued that females are stymied from partaking in public life if they have no protected spaces in which to operate their female biological needs, men not having these biological needs at all, even after physical 'transition' - therefore, they have no need to enter female spaces whatsoever, and can access male toilet cubicles if they are coy about their 'neo vaginas' fashioned, Frankenstein Monster-like, out of the inward-turned penis and pieces of colon.
Thanks for an interesting and informative reply.
It shows what a minefield it is crafting 'good' legislation in this area.
Which goes back to why they did it in the first place. Why was it? What was the urgent need to change the law? Why couldn't they use male spaces as they are and always will be males? How did the trans lobby get so successful. A massive change was made to how we live in our societies and the very basics of how we interact. And they steamrolled over all opposition warning of what this would mean.
They changed all our lives to pander to the fetishes of some. And they want more and more and will continue to push for their 'rights' to do what they like.
Surely men have single sex spaces too which as far as I know are not under threat of invasion by women? I dont think we are asking for much when we ask that they not invade ours.
Angela: some men like to blame females for taking away their single-sex spaces such as golf clubs, pubs, etc. - in fact, all public spaces once frequented only by men, because they kept women out of public life. Many do not want us to have access to a public life, and that is the sad and terrifying truth. They do not seem to understand the difference between a space that is essential for reasons of being female and those spaces that are public. It infuriates me and betrays an entitlement to a world that is for one sex only, as if females are lesser humans.
Having said that, many gay men are finding their spaces being invaded by larping women who claim to be male. The dissonance is quite breathtaking and the lack of self-awareness almost unbearable. That some of these young people - male and female - may have neurodiverse problems is almost a given, and, in no way, should they be pandered to, but have their choices and the implications of those choices explained to them. These are the ones I do feel sympathy for, but the narcissists of both sexes and the larping men can take a hike.
I think that the AGP/fetitishistic men get a huge kick out of invading our spaces - a sexual thrill - which is amplified and expanded by our reacting against their breaching of our boundaries - just like those men who rape and sexually assault where the sexual thrill goes way beyond the act itself. Causing fear and alarm is so often a turn-on for some men, and it is a reaction we are afraid to acknowledge. Violence and sex appear to be part of many men's fantasies, and the porn industry pushes this aspect of sexuality to the limits and beyond. Until all these aspects of male sexuality are properly studied and the effects of them also studied, nothing will change.
Until women make their own world instead of aping the male world, nothing is going to change either. Violence, sexual violence, wars, conflicts, aggression, etc. may well have played their part in the distant past of human existence for biological reasons, but they are no longer of use to us as a species, and are now a liability in so many ways. Always, we are at the receiving end, but there is much that we can do to put a stop on it all - by not aping men or catering to their every whim.
I saw a young girl modelling a swim suit recently and the gusset was so narrow, you could actually see her labia majora hanging out of each side. Why? Why do women put up with this sexualising of every stitch they wear? Or do they actually like showing off their intimate parts to men and embarrassing other women? Why don't they choose comfortable clothing?
Pop stars dress like sluts and young girls feel isolated and unwanted unless they do the same. The porn industry leads young men to expect girls to comply with life-threatening foreplay - choking, anal sex, neither of which a normal female could possibly enjoy unless she is a masochist. For all that there is supposed to have been a sexual revolution that has benefited women, I really cannot see it. It has benefited men far more and they still, many of them, want more. The whole 'trans' thing and the whole breaching of female boundaries is sexual. Nothing more or less.
Shameful. VERY disappointing. ---
Score one more for the Social Incoherence Warriors.
A rep of big tech co-opting a women's organisation into voicing support for the marginalisation of biological sex within human nature? There's a surprise.
He's a software developer, which is a trade that seems over represented in these circles. Odd that a job where there's a requirement for being logical and having good problem solving skills, there's so few that can spot the problems here.
And I wish more would realise this. They are skills within a very tight remit.
My needs vs someone else's needs? Oh I know, I'll pick my needs. That's the right answer. That's all I am aware of after all. I think that's where their logic has been formed then perfected. And in bubbles in bubbles. Looking out to others, to wider society is beyond their focus and task-orientation. That kind of thinking is left to 'others' and as we have found, those others with an eye to outside software development don't tend to be tech billionaires with lots of power. Oh, but no one in the room (virtual or otherwise) knew about that, raised it, or was overlooked or dismissed for doing so. We are building worlds with all these new exclusions baked in because of who is developing them. The number of times I am in meetings and someone explains how something 'should' work and I want to ask, have you met a human being? Lived our lives? We are not a theory.
Women with buggies have to physically go different routes, take more time to complete their tasks as a result, have fewer resources and less time as result. And are disadvantaged you say? They trip chain? Carers? Can't they get the bus? It doesn't go where they need to go? They need to be at the next job within 15 minutes? What? Huh? But we planned the best way from A to B and you're now telling us these weird people don't fit our model? They are using our model wrong. Can't compute.
Sandy toksvig can’t get her head around the fact that men are not women!
She would if she was expected to shag one I bet!!
Or if a man was expecting and insisting to shag her. Her version of deliberate naivety is dangerous. Maybe she's been on one of the 'cotton ceiling' workshops to 'overcome objections'. Or does she pretend they don't exist either?
Exactly. Not only is she throwing women’s rights under the bus but lesbian’s rights. Stupid stupid handmaiden.
I suspect that she can and does, but she is happy to pretend otherwise for money.
one of the things that continually upsets me is the claim that safe spaces don’t protect women and girls from predators. That abuse is inevitable. And i’ve had women make that argument to me. When a society gives up trying to protect children and women from harm because its is ‘inevitable’. Makes me angry and sad. Proper new world order type of brain washing if thats the right use of the term.
I think the original argument used by trans activists was that while women might feel 'uncomfortable' with transwomen using their spaces they would not be unsafe - clearly events have proved that to be untrue so they have had to rely on the feeble 'women will get attacked anyway' argument. Seems they have forgotten that the whole demand for access to women's spaces was driven by the need to safeguard the feelings of transwomen who might be driven to suicide if excluded. I imagine the counter argument - well trans are likely to commit suicide anyway so why worry about would not go down too well ... The inevitable conclusion is - trans rights trump women's rights at every turn.
I guess Sandi is fairly safe from the ‘lesbian’ transwomen, she being ahem a bit elderly and not desperately……..able. She might spare a thought for the more ‘vulnerable’ members of the Sapphic sisterhood, though.
I really believe that a lot of these ‘kind’ women are driven as much by envy for other women as any other emotion, I’m afraid.