Hi again "gender critical" people, I see you are doing your usual campaign of holding a rally somewhere and then going to a local pub and trying to drum up a legal case.
Fundraiser incoming: more money from middle-class activists to harass working people just doing their jobs.
Because that is what your movement is, at its heart. An entitled people's privileged harassment campaign. You say it's you versus the elites, but it's actually a group of relatively well-off people, travelling from city to city harassing local young workers when you get there.
You think you have the right to go into a pub, for one of your group to called the Pride flag a "paedo flag" (something which you all know you often say online) and then for the rest of your group to continue getting served, and you're going to try to ruin a local business.
I feel very, very sorry for (generally young) people in the hospitality industry, just trying to keep a roof over their head, who have to deal with you while you are out on another of your jollies.
And then, of course, it's "reported" exclusively in the Daily Mail, that bastion of women's rights, because, the Daily Mail know an entitled Right Wing campaign of harassment when they see one, and are only too happy to join in. I would imagine your movement has a direct line.
The amount of money you are putting into fundraisers, and for what?
Now it's the right for one of your group to make homophobic remarks to staff (and you know they did, let's be honest here) and for the rest of your group to continue getting served.
The reason I am very sure they did is that "gender critical" activists, much like the Far Right, have become very fond of attaching "Paedo" to anything or anyone they don't like, so it's unlikely the bar staff made this up out of thin air, is it? Why would they?
They're just working people trying to do their job; they don't want to create hassle.
But they're dealing with entitled grifters, who do want to create hassle, because most of them are relatively well-off people with little else to occupy their time.
Get a new hobby.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hey again "gender critical" people, do you see the way your MAGA allies are trying to claim that vaccines are a medical scandal by saying that the rates of identification of autism in children have risen from 1 in 150 in 2000 to 1 in 36 now?
Remind you of anything? 1/
It should be: this is exactly the same rhetoric you use to try to discredit trans kids, and claim that it is caused by a medical cabal intent on "transing kids" for profit.
You know how you think MAGAs are barmy on autism and vaccines? That's how you sound on trans kids. 2/
They talk about "the alarming % increase in autism" being caused by people "peddling vaccines" for profit, but, of course, this is an increase in diagnosis, not an increase in autism. This is a GOOD thing, because it means more kids are getting help. 3/
Every time you see a story in the media announcing that puberty blockers are banned, it's untrue. They've just been banned for trans kids. Cis kids who are in distress because of precocious puberty still get them. Trans kids who in distress, don't. But that's okay, because...1/
...there are "gender critical" organisations out there like Genspect offering "therapy" to trans kids instead, except, they are completely failing in their supposed mission to the point that they also have to run parental alienation workshops. They are heaping pain upon pain. 2/
I saw a Genspect video once where they said that parents should isolate their kids from their social circle. If that doesn't work, move school. And if that still doesn't work, move house.
You think that doesn't cause children, and families, pain? 3/
Graham Linehan has admitted to throwing the phone of a young trans protestor across the road (criminal damage), and is now relentlessly stalking her online.
If you still call him a friend, an ally, or even say "he's not a transphobe," you're essentially cheering on a bully. 1/
While most in the "gender critical" movement cheer Graham on, I am sure there are prominent people who view his actions with, at the very least, some queasiness, but I would suspect that they would be terrified to speak up. 2/
Graham has a long history of going after anyone who criticises him and trying his best to destroy them. That is what his "trans crusade" is really about. How dare anyone disagree with him. He has written scathing blogs about some of his "allies." 3/
They never wanted "debate," they just wanted a world that was snide and cruel to trans people, that mocked trans people because they are trans people. I would recommend watching Season 3 of Heartstopper, filled with empathy and understanding and kindness as an antidote to this.
Think about how mean you have to be as, as a literal billionaire, to find a tweet by a non-binary person celebrating being non-binary, which has NO EFFECT on your life whatsoever, and using your power and privilege to direct other people to pour scorn on all non-binary people?
There is a person who is clearly happy with who they are, as a person, but one of the world's most famous authors comes along to shit on their (and other's) happiness, for no reason. She's not protecting anyone with this tweet, she's just being cruel for the sake of it.
"Gender-critical views" is a nonsense term that transphobes came up with, so they could get the UK legal system to legally codify transphobia as "a protected belief." All you have to do is ask GC people to say how GCism is different from transphobia, in practice. Examples? 1/
Transphobes misgender trans people as a matter of course.
GC people misgender trans people as a matter of course.
Transphohes don't accept the validity of trans people.
GC people don't accept the validity of trans people.
Transphobes say that trans women are "men in dresses"
GC people say that trans women are "men in dresses.".
Transphobes say that trans men are "captured" lesbians.
GC people say that trans men are "captured" lesbians.
There are 1000s of "gender critical" accounts with their "Shero" Magdalen Berns' image in their headers.
And yet, if you consistently criticise them for their adoration of a dead transphobe - who lived to abuse trans people online - they accuse you of being obsessed with her.
They say ridiculous things like 'she's not alive to defend herself.' Imagine Tommy Robinson died tomorrow, and 1000s of people put his image in their headers, and when you criticised them for their adoration they said, 'he's not alive to defend himself.'
You're not criticising Tommy. Any reasonable person would conclude that Tommy is a racist, just like any reasonable person would conclude that Berns is a transphobe.