I was going to ignore this, but actually it needs to be addressed.
A gay father who co-parents children with a lesbian couple celebrated having kids, I expressed an interest in also similarly co-parenting, and our timelines are now full of anti-trans activists screaming at us.
The utter obsessive poisonousness of the anti-trans cult on this website is certainly something to behold!
246 retweets for someone dismissing a gay father's co-parents as "reproductive workers" and his children as "human commodities".
I love this website!
genuinely though, are these people pretending not to understand co-parenting or are they completely stupid
Just look at the state of this.
Look at how this academic demonises co-parenting, where gay men and women raise children together on an equal basis.
The logical conclusion here is that gay people shouldn't have children. What's the word for that belief?
Funnily enough, lots of gay men and women want to have children, just like lots of straight people do.
One way they can do this is by deciding to raise children together, i.e. co-parenting.
Imagine dismissing that with "Get a dog."
If gay men wanting to raise children with women is self-entitlement and misogyny, is it it self-entitlement and misogyny for a straight man who wants to raise children with women?
She's locked her account and will undoubtedly be claiming this is a misogynistic pile on - this is the usual modus operandi of anti-trans activists - but this is a prominent academic on a public forum, and this is a very telling case in point about where transphobia leads.
An anti-trans activist warns other anti-trans activists that they risk looking like homophobic bigots if they demonise gay co-parents.
They are SO, SO close to getting it!
The evidence they have that I'm a misogynist is that I support trans rights. As far as they're concerned, anyone who supports trans rights is a misogynist. Anything and everything is used to fit this theory. It is genuinely perverse.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Glad to hear that police officers in Bristol did not suffer broken bones or a punctured lung - and given this was widely reported to underline the violent nature of the protests, it's important that these details are publicised.
Fascinating to see how "merciless purge of the Left" is absolutely fine and acceptable language, but "kill the Bill" - the same slogan as the trade union campaign against Ted Heath's anti-union legislation in the 1970s - makes you "fascist-adjacent".
Might I politely suggest that calling for "a merciless purge of the Left" makes you sound rather more fascist-adjacent than being part of a campaign to stop a right-wing government crushing peaceful protest by law.
Might I also politely suggest that if you have a record of writing disgusting racist articles for a hard right newspaper, you've lost any right to call anyone else "fascist-adjacent".
Ok, all the people who said opinion polls must be taken very seriously 2015-2019 are now saying that actually opinion polls are irrelevant. Glad to know the rules have now in fact changed.
For all the people pointing to the vaccine rollout.
This is the the result of the failure to pin one of the world’s worst death tolls, death rates and economic hits on the Tories.
Instead Labour bet the house on competence rather than vision - a strategy the vaccine destroyed.
The Labour leadership is now positioning itself to the right of the Tories on economic policy and refusing to rule out opposing Rishi Sunak hiking taxes on big businesses - and specifically those who have profiteered from the pandemic.
The Red Wall? The polling consistently shows Labour to Tory voters are to the left on economics - which the Tories are adeptly exploiting.
So even by crude political logic, what on earth is the strategy
There's growing frustration among shadow ministers about this, who fear the Labour leader's office lack politics and veto any talk of Labour supporting tax rises, even if it means being outflanked by the Tories from the left.
It's exhausting debating lockdown sceptics who point to economic damage to prematurely cut restrictions.
We have one of the world's worst death tolls AND recessions because we repeatedly locked down too late.
The virus is the threat to the economy. How has this not been learnt!
When people say "It's easy to support lockdown measures when it's not your business or job you're worried about."
But not locking down quickly means infections spiral out of control, so you have to impose longer, harsher restrictions which cause more damage to businesses or jobs
It's ridiculous that I still find myself debating this on TV after nearly a year of this total nightmare. How is it not completely obvious that not suppressing the virus leads to a worse economic shock in the medium and long term?
One of the most important themes in 'It's A Sin' was about gay/bi people and shame - caused by growing up in a society that saw gay/bi people as would-be sexual predators, violators of biological reality, threats to children, immoral, deviants, and generally undesirable.
That sense of shame afflicts lots of gay/bi people to varying degrees, and fuels higher levels of mental distress and, as a consequence, significantly higher risk of abusive relationships with drugs and alcohol.
While HIV rates remain significantly higher among gay and bisexual men, treatments now allow those with HIV to live healthy lives.
Alcohol and drug abuse as a response to shame and trauma caused by homophobia is today a bigger problem in Western nations. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…