Forgive me as I wipe a tear from my eye.
Like a four-year-old caught with a catapult in front of a broken window: but i was only shooting stones at the stars!
Odd that: because in other circs i'm sure they would argue the exact opposite.
I would not dream of outing that individual, no matter how true the facts I had at my disposal were.
A few years back I prepared a paper on the topic for the Cabinet Office. Reasons one and two for name change were marriage and divorce respectively. And reason three? Not transition.
Would I “oldname” someone in such circs and then excuse myself on the grounds that, well, it's true so I bear zero responsibility for any consequence?
But in all sorts of unpredictable ways. For one individual mild inconvenience: for another quite literally a matter of life and death.
The “fact” that someone just had a miscarriage.
It doesn't take much to imagine things that are quite true and which no decent person would just drop into conversation with a close friend...
So, please: away with the total hypocrisy of the “just a fact” defence.
If you're claiming it you are either incredibly stupid. Or exceedingly vicious. Which is not for me, but for you and your conscious to determine.
It may come as a shock to some feminists. Though to those who are intersectional, it will be no surprise at all.
Which is, to those who read such stuff, kyriarchy in its purest form.
Well, no: kyriarchy is in feminist theory, a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission.
It's patriarchy operating outside the bounds of gender.
Er, kyriarchy. Because it comes dripping with privilege and presumption. The idea that there exists a class of people who should get to speak sans objection and whose silencing is, in and of itself, outrageous.
When we look at who some of those being “silenced” just happen to be. Individuals who hold positions of power and influence in opinion-forming publications across the globe.
These are the oppressed?
And, given why the “silencing”, not so much individuals silenced for arguing ideas – because however yuk, you CAN argue anti-trans gender crit lines without ever deadnaming or misgendering any individual....
A tactic which, I am informed by at least one of these individuals, is a sure sign that the person deploying it is a man!
Not forgetting our very own Jayda Fransen (Britain First).
What women say intrinsically more worthy of saying? Nah!