I respect Lachlan. A great deal. His support has been and still is much appreciated. He is a good man, of integrity.

So I have read his thoughts on this carefully and will continue to do so.

But we are diametrically opposed on this and always will be.
We do not have an Act to recognise racism - for it would indeed be racism - to 'identify' as a race we are not, based upon racist stereotypes we treasure of race 'psyche' or race aesthetics.
We would understand it is demeaning to people of genuine ethnicities were we to ratify false, stereotypical, racial characteristics into law about them, as a means to facilitating entry of an imposter into their group.

Would we feel sorry for the imposter? No.
Would we debate and ratify his cherished racial stereotypes?
No.
Would we care more about his need to have stereotypes recognised, than we do the group he demeans with them?
No, we would not.
We see the humanity of the real group, and we reject the false claims made about them.
Does that mean such an imposter cannot live out those insulting stereotypes in his own life to please himself?
No, it does not.
He is free to adopt any stereotypes for himself, and also to believe they belong with his envied group, although it hurts them to perpetuate this.
Yet, although he may find his offensive actions are perfectly legal, he will also find they are not immune from social criticism.

And that's as it should be.
Legal is different from ethical.

He may believe something offensive and provably untrue.
But not have it ratified.
Does it deny his human rights, or his right to privacy to recognise him correctly as a member of his own class?
Of course not. He has no right of privacy for that which is already public.
'Privacy' here is a direct proxy for 'lie'.
And it's extrapolated to 'force others to lie'.
And extrapolated again to
'punish those who don't lie'.

We're already there, although the GRA debates promised us we never would be.

But of COURSE this is where any lie leads. It's utterly inevitable.
You carry it forwards, all the way forwards.
Or you go back to the beginning.
There are no other groups, anywhere in the world, that we have rewritten from a previously factual, fair recognition of their existence, into a demeaning, legally recognised stereotype like this. Corrupted recognition of one group for the sole purpose of benefitting OTHER people.
But that is what we have done to women.
We were recognised in law fairly, once.
Before 2004.
As members of a physical sex class. Chromosomes, gonads, genitals. It was true.
That is what we are, and that is how we were recognised in law.
That is how we still should be recognised.
But we aren't.
Not any more.

Because in 2004, men successfully argued that there was a 4th, ultimate, truest measure of a female which must be written into the legal recognition of women.

'FEMALE PSYCHE', they argued, an as yet unrecognised characteristic.
'Female psyche', this feature women have which was so powerful a determinant of women, of me, that when such a mythical presence was declared in any man, it gave him such immense psychological commonality with our entire sex that we should instantly recognise ourselves in him.
We literally created a degrading law to amend the state of being female from physical, to psychological.

These words, they are not my own hyperbole.
This is how the case was argued in our Houses of Parliament.
Female psyche.

This is what our laws hold to be true about women.
Women are compelled by law to agree we are the same as some men in that most important characteristic of womanhood, the thing so fundamentally different from men; our 'female minds'

And now that is law. Female by virtue of female mind, of 'female psyche'.

By virtue of 'gender'.
Never has a more outrageous, preposterous, demeaning lie about an entire class of people been thrust upon such an enormous number of people in a law as this one.

I still wear this lie now, to this day, and so do all women, because that is what 'Gender Recognition' is about.
Gender is nothing more than a lie told about a sex. My sex.

It's a lie about myself I now have to wear, a wholly unwanted, ill-fitting, uncomfortable garment, so that a man can wear it too and announce it suits us both equally well, and we're now the same.

We are not the same.
There will never, ever be a way of reconciling this.

We should never have 'recognised' men's stupid, degrading ideas about who we women are, how we live, what importance aesthetics hold to our existence, and how our minds are supposed to be fundamentally different from men.
What it means to be female is not what that law claims. That law is a lie.

These are the lies about women the GRA ratified. Women are confirmed to be these false things first, so that men can be them second and claim commonality with us.

It's intolerable.
And it's irredeemable.
There are no 'trans' people.
There are only people.
People of either sex.
People willing to accept their reality, or not.
People willing to respect the opposite sex for how we truly differ, or ready to selfishly subsume the true existence of others under an Act of Parliament.
People willing to misappropriate a name they aren't entitled to, to prevent my rightful differentiation from them.

No, we should not recognise gender.
Gender is nothing but a man-made lie about sex.
A lie about me, about my daughter, my cousins, my mother, and about every woman.
Gender is a man-made lie about my sex, woven into a handmaid's cloak by politicians, that I'm now forced to wear to serve men.
I don't recognise your gender.
The law does, but I don't.
I'm not a mirror reflecting back a pleasing image to a man.
My sex is not recognisable in a man
I don't recognise this lie.

I'm not what this law says I am.
The men that this law 'recognises' as female, are not female. And I reject their claim. They wear the word for my sex like it was a garment they fancy.

But it isn't, it's my body, and my existence.
They aren't female.
The law has corrupted me and my sex into a gender so that men could wear me.

Enough.
It cannot be redeemed because it's rotten to the core.

So.
If anyone should wish to weigh up the unhappiness of any man who wishes he was a woman?
Don't forget to do this too:
Weigh up the distress, anger and anguish of women, girls, and generations of girls not yet born, who have had an entire Act of Parliament written that has redefined us into a grotesque lie purely to please men.
Men who refuse to surrender the hideous stereotypes they worship.
No.
Just no.

We deserve the truth about ourselves more than he deserves the lie.
That's the sum of it.

Gender is heinous.
Insidious lies about sex.
I reject it unreservedly, every last speck of it.
I would salvage none of it.
Let it sink for good.

We'll find another way.
🔚
Postscript

One day, it would be useful to brainstorm what our country would look like without any gender recognition, and to discuss how we can protect what is fair and right to protect, without enshrining what is harmful.

Lachlan is definitely someone I'd like to do this with.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Vulvamort 🟩⬜🟪

Vulvamort 🟩⬜🟪 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @HairyLeggdHarpy

6 Jul
When I see a little boy like this, gaslighted so young, I'm scared for his future, and not solely because of the risk he may face from medical 'transition'.

It's that we only live childhood once. It forms who we are. He may even desist, unscathed by hormones or surgery.
But even if he does, he will have to come to terms with the truth that his childhood has been a complete lie, his beliefs about himself utterly contorted throughout all his formative years.
Sex is such a huge part of who we are.
This child is being robbed of the chance to live his childhood with self-acceptance.
We each get one shot at growing up, forming who we are in our heads.
There are no do-overs.

How do you come to terms with losing your one chance to live your childhood in self-acceptance?
Read 7 tweets
30 Jun
Shadowbanning/reply deboosting.

As far as I can tell, once your account is marked, you're stuck with the restrictions for good.
They're activated/deactivated based upon how you tweet.

Here's what I think you can do freely:
Quote tweet
Reply to followers
Create your own tweets
Here's what re-activates the ban:
*Replying to people who don't follow you
(Particularly Blue ticks)
*Certain keywords (sex etc)

Here's how to temporarily release a restriction:
Post an innocuous reply on a sponsored tweet and then check status
This often resets you.
However, it's unlikely you will ever now be able to freely reply to tweets outside your bubble.

You'll be censored and ringfenced away from the rest of Twitter.

Bear that limitation in mind when trying to engage in a public conversation on someone else's tweet.
Read 4 tweets
30 Jun
There are people who are so devoid of any principled stance of their own, that they will justify any atrocity. They live by one rule; these people must win, those must lose.

When faced with a principle of fairness that should apply to all, they freeze.

They worship an idol.
If you test them with a question:

"A person is distressed at being forced to share intimate space with people they believe to be the opposite sex or gender. Is this acceptable?"

Their answer will be "Who, though?"
Because the rule they live by is:

"Everything my idol does is acceptable. When the heathen does the same, it is evil"
They assess not morality, but idols.

Because their one rule is to worship their idol and justify all their acts, and condemn the heathens for the exact same act
Read 13 tweets
24 Jun
An unjust authority removes property from its rightful owner, and gifts it to an undeserving thief who covets it.

Then a law is passed, declaring the stolen property now belongs to both the interloper AND the rightful owner.

The rightful owner objects.
People then suggest that the rightful owner must be punished for failing to recognise the interloper & thief as a rightful owner of their stolen property.

There is no recourse for the rightful owner to reclaim what is rightfully theirs, or deny the validity of the thief's claim.
The rightful owner is punished more harshly for the 'crime' of reporting the theft & refusing to recognise the validity of the 'new owner' than the thief is for laying claim to stolen property. The thief garners public sympathy as the purported victim of the rightful owner's ire.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jun
I talk about all this stuff in real life.
I'm not just anonymous online.

But I avoided one particular conversation with one particular person, for fear it might affect a huge and important source of my happiness.
The cost/benefit analysis definitely didn't stack up.
I firmly support everyone's right to safeguard their own wellbeing in certain circumstances, so that they can retain the resilience to fight the things that need to be fought.

If avoiding peaking your next door neighbour allows you the space to do your stuff elsewhere, so be it.
Pick your battles.
Have a sanctuary somewhere.

Fight what you can, and protect yourself enough that you can find the strength to keep going.

Better to be effective sometimes, than burn out completely.
Read 8 tweets
18 Jun
Are you more influential than you think?
A little test.

(I'm about to make you feel really good)

This exercise may help you understand how powerful Gender Critical twitter accounts are, and why we keep being censored.

Have you ever checked your "engagement rate"? No?
It's a metric used to see how much people engage & interact with you.
In other words, how INFLUENTIAL you are.

A simple way to calculate it is to look at the analytics data on any tweet.

And then calculate this:
Total Engagements
÷
Total Impressions
x 100
This gives you the
'engagement rate'

It's the percentage that saw your tweet and then actively engaged with you, (likes, retweets, replies etc) instead of ignoring and scrolling on by with a 'meh'

What's an average, and what's a good engagement rate on twitter?
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(