I watched part of a video by a local left wing influencer saying how we can’t possibly know the political leanings of the Charlie Kirk shooter, and it’s not appropriate to go on about it. To us who face crazy aggressive trans-activists, it matters. 1/
We want the state to stop feeding the fiction that “trans people” are a real class of people and are victims of discrimination. What “trans” is, is a violent group of activists. We have been sharing evidence of this for some time, 2/
Trans activists use a victim narrative to shield themselves from debate because their ideology cannot withstand any rigorous questioning they call people like Kirralie Smith “violent” for saying worlds, and this is not just corrupt it’s dangerous. 3/
The alleged shooter’s boyfriend’s victim story, is that his religious parents thew him out of home, he now he lives in a nice apartment owned by the family trust. I was made homeless by sexual violence. These things are not the same. 4/
We are breeding a violent cohort of men by telling them that everyone, especially women, who know about the material reality of sex, hate them. We don’t just hate them, we are in fact hateful people. TERFs and Christian’s (I am both) are lumped into a cohort of people who 5/
Should be educated and if we refuse to be educated, we should be shamed with the words of mass murderers like “Nazi” and “fascist”. This narrative is reinforced by government and by government funded organisations like @ACONhealth in promoting their own interests. 6/
Their interest is government overstep into managing human sex sex and sexuality. They are in our workplaces and schools telling people that if they don’t accept made up nonsense that humans can magically change sex, then great swathes of people will die. 7/
Thousands of TERFs have been documenting these errors, threats and acts of violence by trans activists for years. So yes, we are going to highlight that an assassination was political, and the young man, who destroyed a life is a victim of government funded indoctrination. 8/
This unstable young person has been brainwashed by state funded ideology into believing that people who reject fictitious nonsense, want to his boyfriend erased. We need to stop telling children and young people lies, immediately. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In light of the comments by the Victorian Premier @JacintaAllanMP about the existence of “trans children” and their propensity to take their own lives, I thought I should post this article I wrote two years ago about the fact that top psychiatrists know that the 1/
“Affirmation model”, including the idea that there is a type of true “trans child”, has no evidentiary basis. despite being promoted by state government paid doctors who are commissioned to set up gender clinics, like Dr Stephen Stathis 2/
Dr. Stathis promotes the use of puberty suppression and surgical removal of secondary sex characteristics in children in pursuits of the gender affirmation model of dealing with gender non conforming children 3/
That’s right ladies, the people who administer the main legal mechanism designed to protect the female sex from the only other sex, in Australia, declared that when a woman is confronted with a naked man, unknown to her, in a public space designated for same sex changing, 1/
showering and toileting, she cannot act to protect herself on the basis of sex, because she is not legally permitted to determine that sex under the SD Act. Both the counsel for the SDC and the head judge in #GiggleVTickle highlighted that the very idea that a woman could 2/
determine sex by looking at a man’s body and face with no regard to his clothing, hair and name is outdated. Counsel for Anna Cody, the Australia Sex Discrimination Commissioner emphasised that modern interpretation of gender identity protection legislation compels 3/
The thing with lawfare (tribunals/ commissions/ court cases) in relation to gender identity, for me, is that they are not only to change the law but to raise awareness and to test the operation of the law. People argue about the effective use of crowdfunded money and how it 1/
may be better spent, but I don’t (usually). I would never criticise Sall Grover, Amy Hamm,Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey, etc. in relation to the outcome or process of challenging the law, because it’s the law that’s the problem.They are demonstrating how gender identity in the 2/
law causes oppression, not just to them, but to all women. It may take a long time, and my belief is that ultimately gender identity must be removed from the law, for women’s rights and protections (those our mothers established), to function in the population of nation states.3/
The political advisor of Genspect denies that women and girls require protection in law as a sex, because she claims they are not structurally vulnerable to oppression. Here is the problem with that. 1/
Even before female enfranchisement, poor girls and women were being trafficked into sex slavery everywhere. Women, most of them Christian, worked to enshrine principles on law, including age of consent and respect for sexual boundaries that made certain sexual exploitation 2/
practices illegal, this included sex with minors, coercion into prostitution, making money from prostituting young women… all kinds of gross things we now take for granted. But there was a recognition in law that female people, especially poor young female people, need 3/
I actually understand why some on our own side have gone insane. We have been up against the most stupid arguments possible for years. And those dumb arguments have been accepted by government. Here are some of the most stupid ones. Feel free to add… 1/
Men turn into women with a declaration and are then free of male pattern violence and male pattern sexual deviance.
Everyone is born with a sexed soul that must be affirmed over the sex of the body or the person will die.
Transgenderism is innate like left-handedness. 2/
Predatory men won’t make a simple declaration to access vulnerable women and children, this includes criminals in prison.
Lesbians should be legally prevented from having a single sex social event or they will literally kill heterosexual men pretending to be women. 3/
Feminism is on its own side. As soon as you team the interests of women with any group of men, you stop centring women.
If feminism is the political action of women for the interests of girls and women, it has to just be that. 1/
In that vein, to do feminism you have to see women as a political class, this class has to be exclusively female, but this is just the starting block. To take feminism as a form of political analysis to broader issues you have to show how an issue affects women and girls 2/
To show how issues affects women and girls you have to see that women historical and factually have a structural disadvantage as a class. Class politics is not collectivism, that is political ignorance. Gay rights is class politics, disability rights is class politics 3/