You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘The War On Women’ tag.
The queer radical gender cult decided that violence was the answer to a woman trying to speak her mind. This is not the way issues and disputed are mediated in a civilized society. Transgender ideology and so many of adherents have made it abundantly clear that they exist to wage war on women, children, and their rights, boundaries, and safety within our societies.
You do not get erase females in our society. Not ever. And most certainly not on my watch.
Brenden O’Neill speaks about the male gender terrorism being committed by the #bekind crew in the name of ‘trans rights’. (Go to the essay linked here to watch the video evidence for yourself.)
“Next time you’re reading a history book and find yourself wondering how Salem came to be consumed by such swirling hysteria, watch the clips of Posie’s persecution in New Zealand. This is how it happens. This is how the fear of witches can overrule reason and unleash the darkest, most punitive passions of the mob.
And what is Parker’s crime? What did this witch do? She said, ‘A woman is an adult human female’. That’s it. Parker, whose real name is Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, is well known for her criticism of the ideology of transgenderism. She thinks a man never becomes a woman, no matter how many hormones he takes or surgeries he undergoes. She thinks if you were born male, you will die male, and in the time in between you have no right whatsoever to enter any women-only space.
This is heresy. Dissenting from the gospel of gender ideology is to the 21st century what dissenting from the actual gospels was to the 15th. And so Parker must be punished. It was a modern-day stoning, so mercifully they only threw soup and water and planks of cardboard at the blasphemer.
Parker organises public events called ‘Let Women Speak’. She has done it across the UK, in parts of the US, and for the past couple of weeks she’s been doing it in Australia and New Zealand.
It’s a genius initiative. She knows these gatherings of women who merely want to give voice to their profane belief that sex can never be changed will draw out crowds of intolerant trans activists and their allies. She knows the ‘Be Kind’ mob will do everything in its power to stop women from speaking. And she knows it will all brilliantly illustrate her core belief: that trans activism is misogyny in disguise, misogyny in drag, if you like, and that it has devoted itself to silencing women who believe in biology.
Australia and New Zealand played their parts brilliantly in Parker’s clever scheme. From Melbourne to Canberra, Hobart to Auckland, huge crowds of the right-on turned up to drown out the voices of the pesky women who dare to call men ‘men’. ‘Let women speak’, Parker says. ‘No’, says the mob. She incites them to confess their misogyny and intolerance in full public view. And they do.
Auckland was the worst. At Albert park in the centre of the city yesterday, the mob could not hide its vengeful loathing of the uppity women who disagree with its ideologies. Parker is a new kind of witch, one who willingly submits herself to a witch-trial, so that the rest of us might see just how dogmatic and unforgiving the new witch-hunters are. I am full of admiration for her. Her courage is shining a light on the visceral intolerance that advances under the banner of identity politics.”
The GRA of 2004 gave trans people the ability to change legal sex via a GRC, but only if they had a psychiatric diagnosis of dysphoria and only after having lived in role for 2 years. The spousal veto gave spouses a chance to annul or obtain a favourable divorce.
While this ultimately created the loophole in women’s rights that we’ve been fighting against in the last few years, it catered for a tiny number of dysphoric transsexuals and so did not have an enormous impact.
Discussions with trans friends and allies make it clear that, although surgery wasn’t a requirement for a GRC, the diagnostic procedures were expected to trap and exclude males who did not want surgery, thereby preventing fetishists and opportunists from exploiting a GRC.
The Equality Act of 2010 defined the various protected characteristics, including both sex and ‘gender reassignment’, and provided for sex-based exemptions, under the auspices of which it is legal to exclude trans people from some single-sex spaces and services.
The campaign to reform the GRA to remove medical gatekeeping and make changing gender a matter of self-id was where women put our foot down. The GRA gave a very limited group of MtF transsexuals access to our spaces. Self-id would have made this any man who said he was a woman.
In addition, transactivists were demanding the removal of sex-based exemptions from the Equality Act. This would have left women with no ability to exclude males from any space on any basis, thereby removing every protection gained in the last century of feminism.
This is the effect of self-identified ‘gender identity’ (the ideological concept on which this rides) combined with the deliberate conflation of gender identity with sex. There is no possible point at which women can draw a line.
Our resistance to this campaign was successful; I think most people recognise that it isn’t reasonable to allow any male to identify into women’s spaces on his say-so. It was, however, self-id which was rejected, leaving women’s rights open to further attacks.
Transactivists claim that the current process for obtaining a GRC is invasive and onerous, and continue to push for a reform they claim is ‘merely administrative’ (this doesn’t gel with the attacks on the Eq2010 sex-based exemptions, though: https://t.co/MpxjXv5IoL)
They use the struggles of dysphoric people as a weapon, and by pushing back against self-id we replicate this. Personally I think the best place to attack the ideology is on the conflation of gender identity with sex: https://t.co/zN0ziAZzyM.
If we want fair play for both women and trans women, then it is time to confront the “trans women are women” mantra head-on, highlight why it is misogynistic and deeply harmful to women, and refuse to tolerate its use.
— Caroline – Real Feminists XX \U0001f1ff\U0001f1e6 (@radicalhag) January 16, 2018
This means that we say yes to all the demands of transactivists *except* the one which conflates TW with W, which effectively forces the declaration of a third (and possibly fourth) gender and the provision of facilities for them.
It means we’re onboard with self-id, access to medical care, non-discrimination, ability to serve in the military etc, which of course we should be in any case. We do NOT want to get gaslit into a kneejerk rejection of anything trans, which makes us sound like rightwingers.
BUT it also means we insist on a positive, sex-based definition of woman, and force TRAs to show their hand. We know perfectly well what we’re dealing with here; we want to force them to demonstrate to the public that their agenda is access to women’s spaces, not trans rights.
This worked like a bomb when the UK govt provided a trans prison wing so they could remove MtFs from the female estate. The squawking and wailing about being ‘othered’ and ‘caged’ was epic, and Joe Public went “Yeah, right.”
Basically it’s a position which says: you’re free to have a gender identity. You’re not free to tell me *I* have a gender identity. And you are definitely not free to tell me that your gender identity is in any way comparable to my sex.
If it happens down south, you know who is next in line. Support this video, reblog it, post it everywhere. The rights of women are threatened, take action and don’t let the bad guys (aka republicans) win.
A neat tidbit from the slacktivist. I’ve excerpted a bit here:
“If you’re a disabled worker, then you’re protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you’re a pregnant worker and not hindered in job performance, or if you’re pregnant and completely unable to work, then you’re protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. But if you’re a pregnant worker and able to perform some, but not all, of the functions of your job, then you slip through the cracks and you’re SOL. That means that some pregnant women may be forced to choose between keeping their job and keeping their pregnancy.
Now, since the “pro-life” and “pro-family” movements of the religious right are all about preventing pregnant women from choosing not to keep their pregnancies, this would seem like legislation they ought to be supporting.
And yet, as I noted last month, I haven’t yet seen any support for this, or even any mention of it, among such groups. The PWFA would help to remove one powerful economic incentive for abortion — a real situation that real people face. Anti-abortion groups therefore ought to support it. But if any of them are supporting it, they’re doing so very, very quietly.
Maybe I’d just missed their statements backing this bill? To double-check, I asked the folks at NWLC if they had heard of any support for this workplace protection from anti-abortion groups. Liz Watson, a senior advisor at NWLC, responded:
Supporting pregnant workers so that they can continue their jobs and have healthy pregnancies, is something people of all political stripes should agree on, regardless of their stance on other issues, including abortion. As yet, we are not aware of any support from pro-life groups, however.”
Hypocrisy in action. *sigh*
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…