1/ As the bitter tide of gender recedes, @stonewalluk have some introspection and apologising to do. They called lesbians "sexual racists", they cancelled and pilloried gay men, they engineered modern gay conversion by preaching children had the wrong bodies....wrong for what?
2/ The answer to that was "the wrong bodies to be heterosexuals", because the 2012 Tavistock patient survey told us the 80% of boys and 90% of girls were same sex attracted.
They had the "wrong bodies" to be straight.
Stonewall pushed this. They aided and abetted this.
3/ The gay rights movement is a naive and new thing left with incompetents post marriage and decimated by our AIDS losses. But it anointed liars like Ruth Hunt who told frightened parents 50% of children denied puberty blockers commit suicide. This was an evil lie.
4/ The party is over, the porn filled irrelevant pride march is now a hated thing and the legions lost to miasmas of chemsex or gender can hear the end of the music. There is no Pride now. For there is nothing to be proud of.
5/ We have a gay community in schism. We have organisations once trusted and loved more than most despised. We have a listless and directionless bunch of otherwise unemployable nonentities in mainstream gay rights clinging to the driftwood hoping to be silent and survive.
6/ It's time for the gay rights movement to embrace the sacrament of confession and do some public apologia for it has wrought. Confused children who were just different now are now life long medical patients. You have achieved this Stonewall. It is quite the thing:
7/ You made 2015-2025 the most dangerous time to grow up gay. Because you made it a time when being gay was the diagnostic criterion for chemical castration and wrong body theology. I return to where I started. You never asked, "wrong body for what?"
8/ The answer was plain as a pikestaff. It was the wrong body for being straight. Well done. You inverted gay rights and you created schism and you cancelled and went after the lesbians and gays who saw this contemporaneously.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ What a bitter harvest it is to win the gender wars. What a many better thing it would have been to have been wrong. There’s no great joy to being a veteran and saying “yes, you did chemically castrate gay and autistic youth, we were correct”. How empty this victory is.
2/ To win and see the crushing defeat of political transvestitism, the desire to displace sex in law with a feeling based on clothing. To see your society challenged by a force that sought nothing less than to crumble the 4 walls of reality on the weak. Because that’s what it was
3/ Epistemological, moral and post modern chaos where there was no such thing as a woman other than the men who said they were women was a challenge not just to order, but to sanity or any basic truth claim, it was chaos incarnate. And chaos is a jungle. And Jungles…….
1/ It takes a rather implacable and sustained commitment to delusion to imagine that the socially necessary instances of separation of the sexes - a constant in one form or another in all human societies in history - is something we can just toss aside being better enlightened.
2/ It is said that when you look into the abyss it peers back into you, and so it is fighting litigious transvestites and their cadre of modern day clerics, only we are looking into a deeply stupid philosophy and it makes us stupid peering back into us. Blokes ain’t ladies.
3/ There are only so many times one can acknowledge universal truths like (1) men commit almost all sex offences (2) men win at almost all sports (3) a nurse with a heavy period certainly needs a space away from blokes before one suffers a sort of intellectual death by repetition
1/ The redoubtable and unsinkable @SVPhillimore can look after herself, but she won’t begrudge me I’m sure adding a few words in the wake of the sinking ship good laugh project and their joke “journalist” trying to silence a woman in public life yet again.
2/ Let’s be clear on that point, while they’ve recruited some compliant they/them “journalist” who quotes her own employer in her copy (LOL), the good laugh project often go for women whether it’s the lesbians of the LGB alliance or sneering at Allison Bailey.
3/ Or going for Baroness Falkner the head of the EHRC or her new replacement, I could go on, but you have the point, when it comes to barristers in their sights it’s women like Sarah and not blokes like Dennis. When it matters, they know what a woman really is.
1/ Would be Intervenors in the Supreme Court must obtain permission by demonstrating they are raising significant points of law of public importance. Here permission was rightly denied because the SC does not entertain anecdotes or repetition.
2/ In this misleading Guardian piece McCould singularly fails to say that both the Scottish Government and Amnesty were raising precisely the same arguments he wanted to make. Both were extremely well funded and his anecdotes would add nothing in law.
3/ It is of significance that the lesbian intervenors met this test and the Law Lords ruled that their opponents case would have rendered the same sex orientation protected characteristic “meaningless” in law. McCloud of course doesn’t bother to mention this, he doesn’t care.
1/ Where does one start with this? Russel has nothing to say when the Scottish Government argued in the Supreme Court that the protected characteristic of same sex attraction should be rendered “meaningless”. That threat to rights didn’t bother him
2/ Of course had he said something, he would have incurred the wrath of his new overlords, so he unthinkingly rails against people who object to children being taught that somehow they have the wrong bodies and need chemical and surgical interventions.
3/ Russsel doesn’t seem to appreciate 80-90% of the cohort at the Tavistock were same sex attracted, if cross sex ideation is naturally occurring in any population there is no good reason for this figure to be so high, or for autism to feature in 35% of cases.
1/ This point is really bothering me and it's one Sall brought up in her interview last night. There's something really very sinister in terms of access to justice about going after someone for laughing at a pretty laughable question while being cross examined.
2/ In the original Giggle v Tickle trial, Counsel for the Tickle asked a fairly odd question about someone selling merchandise arising from the case, it was a candle and the scent was said to be that of "sweaty balls". It was a strange line of questioning.....
3/ Not least because Sall was nothing to do with the candle, I assume it was thrown in a rather ill disciplined fashion to suggest that all terfs are ghastly and unfeeling, but in the high pressure environment of a court, it was just laughable really.