1/ Hello and welcome to the a neutral BBC show in which we discuss "Are terfs complete scum?". In this episode, we'll begin crossing live to a terribly sad transvestite (TST) who cannot play in women's sport because of evil terfs. I began with the question "are terfs evil?"
2/ TST: "Yes"
BBC Drone "How evil would you say they are?"
TST: "Very"
BBC Drone: "For balance, some of the evil terfs say women have higher injury risk when massive blokes calling themselves "Barbara" play sport, is there an epidemic of transphobia?"
TST: "Yes"
3/
BBC Drone: "Well, there you have it. A compelling and, some reasonable people might say disgusting display of hatred by evil terfs. For balance we will now cross to a drag Queen"
Drag Queen: "Hi"
BBC Drone: "How evil are terfs in your view?"
Drag Queen: "Very"
4/
BBC Drone: "There are, unfortunately, some awful terfy women who haven't apologised for the Supreme Court Judgment yet. We are joined by Sharron Davies MBE now who has been particularly unapologetic. Sharron, let me start with a neutral question, how do you sleep at night?"
5/
Sharron: "Pretty well thanks now that woman don't suffer increased injury risk and have a chance at the tiny percentage of money that goes to female sports"
BBC Drone: "Can I ask you to stop being so toxic please. Do you not realise how sad that transvestite was?"
6/
Sharron: "I just don't care. Women are entitled to sports."
BBC Drone: "Can I just pause you for a moment please and ask you stop ranting. I just said a transvestite we found is really sad. Have you no heart?"
Sharron: "I'd like to talk about women"
7/
BBC Drone: "Could I ask you to dial down the toxic transphobia for a second please. Do you not understand that not only was a transvestite sad, we also found a drag queen who is also sad"
Sharron: "Nothing can counter male advantage in sport. This is about fairness"
8/
BBC Drone: "Are you not even going to apologise for the Supreme Court or behave like a proper woman and care about sad men?"
Sharron: "Can we talk maybe about polling athletes which the FA failed to do?"
BBC Drone: "Excuse me, are you hard of hearing?"
Sharron: "Eh?"
9/
BBC Drone: "I just told you a transvestite was really sad and you seem to want to talk about fairness in women's sports for some reason"
Sharron: "Yeah that's right"
BBC Drone: "So what you are saying is that you are you are basically Hitler then?"
Sharron: "Excuse me?"
10/ We end this report with a confirmation that at no point have any of the women we interviewed apologised for their views or the fact that transvestites are sad. Speaking neutrally, it seems this toxic debate fuelled by evil terfs like unrepentant Sharron just will run and run.
11/ Thank you. And now for the thought for the day which is presented by a drag queen followed by antiques road show also featuring drag queens and then a legal discussion "are terfs evil or just mad?".
@sharrond62
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Up until today it was unlawful for lesbians to have a lesbian only meeting in a publicly funded "pride centre" in Oz. That hasn't technically changed today as a matter of law, but the Federal Court has basically just said it bloody better change soon. By way of explainer...
2/ The LAG are up against Australia's EHRC, the Australian Human Rights Commission. What you need to know about the AHRC is that they are gender loons who always prefer the interests of transvestites over the rights of lesbians. All you need to know about LAG is they're tough.
3/ So the story begins with the LAG applying to the AHRC for an "exemption" to an obnoxious piece of law that says lesbians meeting without men is discrimination against transvestites. LAG want such a meeting. AHRC unsurprisingly say no and are judge and jury for that application
1/ I'm getting a bit sick of "anonymous government sources" (ie Bridget Phillipson's SPADs) writing off For Women Scotland as "culture wars". Let us remember the Scottish Government in FWS literally tried to abolish the legal category of sex and sexual orientation.
2/ Had they prevailed, gays and lesbians would have lost the right to single sex associations under the Equality Act, furthermore, gay and lesbian as categories would effectively be rendered "meaningless" in law (to quote the law lords).
3/ That in turn would have seriously adversely affected any protected characteristic claim we might want to bring effectively turning any direct discrimination case into a much more complex indirect discrimination case. That's a pretty bold assault on gay and lesbian rights.
1/ Sen. Wiener cuts a haunted, panicked figure, like a man who's seen the ghost of Gender Future, but unlike Scrooge, there's no hope of some act of redemption or contrition. This is a man who prefers his collateral human damage to have no tongue, so he moves like a malfunction.
2/ The bitter harvest of gender, a crop Senator Scott did so much to bring about, was never going to be an easy or pretty affair for him. The shape of things to come was always going to be the innocent complaining of their own shapelessness. Cut to fit in to the point they do not
3/ So often the Gendocrat class Weiner belongs to can write these people off, "let them eat puberty blockers", "only 1% ever complain" etc. But the flippant dismissals of aristocrats have a poor historical pedigree and now Scott faces his rhetorical and metaphorical guiloteen.
1/ Whether we like it or not, there is a shadow falling over Western discourse, the harbingers of this new "body as commodity" cult speak in honeyed words of "choice" and "autonomy" and "kindness", but lurking behind those terms is something unmistakably and viscerally dark.
2/ We are entering a phase of history where some people are deemed too broken, too troublesome, too old, too damaged and most importantly too inconvenient to possibly save. The days of enlightened and compassionate superintending of people in extremis are over in Span at least.
3/ This is the prospectus the ghouls at Dignity in Dying and their bovine MPs don't want you to see. This is the dirty little secret of a world in which politics is conducted without context and where liars pretend no one is ever coerced, damaged, hurt or feels a burden.
1/ Expect some fun and games on this one. “Gender identity” up to now in criminal law has only featured in sentencing when the messy business of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is over. The Crown now have the burden of proving one exists and defining this theological term
2/ This was always a bad idea and arguably, even the elastic protected characteristic definition from the EA would have been a bit easier to use. The problem here is going to be precision, and the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” only makes this harder.
3/ We can all too easily imagine some Stonewall trained forces going all in on this, and only a fool would think certain agitators won’t be chomping at the bit to confect test cases offering up progressively more absurd “gender identities” for debate in the criminal courts.
1/ It is rather galling to hear Lord Falconer and pals complain about the Lords scrutinising his dreadful bill and imply some sort of skullduggery is going on. This is a de facto government bill masquerading as a PMB in order to dampen down Labour opposition in the commons.
2/ A PMB was dishonestly selected as a vehicle because Starmer knew that would exclude MPs including some cabinet members debating the point and further it would exclude concerned unions had it been in the Labour manifesto. This is student politics on life and death.
3/ This dishonesty continued into committee stage where Kim and pals drew up a witness list which disgracefully excluded the Royal College of Psychs and all disability charities in favour of lightweights who supported her reckless campaign.