Hey, 'gender critical' 'feminists,' here comes the reaping of what you sowed. Of course, the BBC are 'just asking questions,' and have 'legitimate concerns.' You've spend the last 5 years making this happen, by attacking the principle of bodily autonomy, I hope you're all proud.
And this hot on the heels of a highly prominent 'gender critical' leader saying that the right to abortion for under 16s should rest with their parents, from a person who said they have no issue working with the Religious Right.
You've been played, but fear not, most of you are beyond the age where this might affect you personally; it's your daughters and grand daughters who will pay the price for your credulous campaigning. You know, all those people you've been recently telling to respect their elders?
The Right Wing had you scream 'misogynists' at people who wanted to defend the principle of bodily autonomy, and while you're looking the other way, distracted by how much you hate trans people, for exsiting, they are taking your right to bodily autonomy from under your feet.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This type of "gender critical" guy will spend one tweet decrying the extremism of Posie Parker, and the next saying "my trans friend who agrees with me" is just good politics for him, and that criticism of those trans people is transphobia, as if he's different to Parker. 1/
More and more I see this sort of "gender critical" person only criticise people like Parker so they can maintain the claim they are not extremists themselves. Everyone knows what "My minority friend who agrees with me" is a dogwhistle for.
We all know that homophobes who oppose marriage equality always have a "my gay friend who agrees with me" as a means to defend themselves from claims of homophobia.
It is what people who oppose minority rights ALWAYS do.
It would take an unbiased consideration of one piece of information in Dawkins possession to understand how trite his comparison of the millions of trans people in the world to Rachel Dolezal is, without any need to "discuss":
He. Knows. Rachel. Dolezal's. Name.
Rachel Dolezal's situation is most likely to be an issue with Rachel Dolezal.
If, for example, there were 1000s of white people reporting, as soon as they were able to talk, that they were actually black, there might be grounds for comparison...
Richard Dawkins has always been...shaky...on LGBT+ people. Here he is, a number of years ago, just floating out the idea that maybe the gene for homosexuality in boys is activated by bottle feeding, which, he admits, is totally unevidenced, but is nevertheless 'a good example.'
As a responsible science communicator, you don't float out silly ideas about a minority like this for discussion.
"I was only putting this nonsense out there for discussion," is clearly irresponsible science communication.
You are providing a space for bizarre ideas about LGBT+ people to propigate.
As a scientist, Dawkins can see that trans people exist, by the millions, all over the world, in every country, in the way that Rachel Dolezals don't exist by the millions.
Labour UK's "we're not Tories; we're Tory-lite" campaign on immigration and trans rights has seen their previously unassailable double-digit lead in the polls threaten to fall into single digits, because of course it has.
Just look across the water at the ashes of the Irish Labour party, who decided to abandon their supposed core principles for a little bit of power, over a decade ago, and never recovered, and never will, not in the lifetime of former Labour voters like me.
At least Tories are honest about being Tories. They're so cartoonishly villianous they'll do laughing photoshoots outside of immigrant detention centres. You know exactly what you are getting when you vote for them.
As a cis person, you do not get to ascribe "good" motivations to other cis people who campaign to make trans people's lives worse.
It's like being a straight person and saying that opposition to gay marriage comes from "concern for children," because homophobes say so.
Every single anti-trans person you are talking about @billybragg, thinks this person was a "Shero," and it wasn't in spite of this, it was because of this. This was nothing to do with "concern." She simply hated trans people, and they loved her for it.
Hi @bindelj, Kellie Jay Keen just posted an interview she did with a notorious Far Right bloke, convicted of domestic abuse, and a self-described Nazi.
Billy Bragg, Owen Jones etc. have NEVER done that, and would NEVER do that.
You don't 'whatabout' platforming a Far Right domestic abuser like that. Who do you think is watching Kellie's interview with that guy? It's not a bunch of women with 'reasonable concerns.' It's other Far Right blokes, who are likely disporportionately domestic abusers too. 2/
She's literally REACHING OUT to those blokes by doing this interview, and you're so consumed by your personal vendettas that you - a LIFELONG campaigner against domestic abuse - can't, without caveat, offer a full throated condemnation of that. 3/