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/ Yet again, the BBC frame this issue as an emotive plea for personal liberty and understanding. This is legally illiterate and glosses over the fact that trans activists seek the complete destruction of the category of sex in law with all the implications that has. Such as...
2/ Women's prisons. Women's sports. Women's private spaces for the purposes of dignity, safety and security.
This has a knock on effect on gay and lesbian rights. If there's no coherent sex category in law, you can't have the same sex orientation protected characteristic.
3/ It is presently unlawful in Australia for lesbians to meet in taxpayer funded public buildings and many lesbians have gone back to underground secretive arrangements. That is the prospectus Nick is pushing here with his ill informed approach centred on personal liberty.
1/ Transvestites have finally been told "no" today, and it's at least 10 year overdue. It's no surprise to any of us that the middle class sensibilities of the media want to focus on sad transvestites rather than raped women in shelters or autistic kids given puberty blockers.
2/ This extraordinary movement of men in dresses literally went to the supreme court and tried to render the gay/lesbian protected characteristic "meaningless" in the words of the law lords and ladies. They literally tried to get their rights by taking ours.
3/ And that's just the gay right's angle. If they had won, there would be no such thing as female sports, the female prison estate, female only political association, they would have destroyed the legal concept of female. Because, let's be honest, male was never their goal.
1/ Well, I've skimmed Giggle v Tickle and my conclusion is that the judgment is firmly in the category of being "a bit bloody silly". It is not normal to have Judges using activist language, but this judgment talks about cisgender and sex assigned at birth and the rest of it....
2/ What this case shows is that once you put "gender identity" into legislation you make it unlawful for people not to believe everyone has magic gender souls. That is a pretty extreme outcome and it's clear the case Forstater would have failed in Australia.
3/ This is a frankly Orwellian position for the law to be in, here we have Judges ruling that everyone has a magic gender soul and drafting judgments on the basis such a contested fiction is a verifiable fact. That is extremely close to a religious blasphemy ruling.
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.