In order to be granted full rights
More demands for more more more gender reform:
More than 100 LGBT organisations and celebrities are urging the government to reform UK gender identity laws, the BBC has learned.
But what if “gender identity” doesn’t actually mean anything?
But, in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, LGBT groups said the UK was “lagging behind” other countries “in terms of legal equality for trans and non-binary people”.
Is it? How? In what way do trans and non-binary people not have legal equality? What does “legal equality” in that sentence mean?
Ashleigh Talbot, a transgender woman, says the current process to get legal recognition is too negative.
“It’s an extremely bureaucratic process,” said Ms Talbot.
…
Ms Talbot added that for any other community to be required to prove something to a panel in order to be granted full rights would be an “absolute outrage”.
But that’s nonsense. Talbot is using “full rights” to mean something it doesn’t mean. People don’t have “full rights” to get government recognition for whatever “identity” they choose – helicopter, grapefruit, shark, Vesuvius, the War of the Spanish Succession. Talbot already has the same “full rights” everyone else has.
She continued: “I know people who have had their application turned down because of a perceived fault with the evidence – they were so humiliated.
“The stress and the emotional toll that it takes on members of the community, simply to have legal recognition, is all extremely damaging.”
In other words Talbot deployed the usual emotional blackmail. Talbot talks like an abuser – “Give me what I want or I’ll burn the house down with us in it.”
The Gender Recognition Act (GRA) sets out the legal process by which a person can change their gender.
It was last updated in 2004, and was the first piece of legislation that officially recognised transgender people but, since then, the way people identify has come a long way.
That is, since then the list of demands and threats has ballooned grotesquely.
The BBC does allow one dissenting voice through.
Dr Nicola Williams, director of Fair Play For Women – which campaigns for the sex-based rights of women and girls – said GRA reform would mean any male could change their birth certificate to say they were born female.
“Women have a lawful right to exclude males from female-only spaces when it’s necessary for privacy, safety and fairness,” she said.
It would make women’s existing legal rights “unworkable”, she added, and that advancing rights for one group “at the expense of another vulnerable group” is wrong.
But now let’s hear from the More Special Than That community.
Jamie Windust, an LGBT and non-binary activist who does not identify as a man or woman, says things need to change.
“Non-binary people like myself are not even given the option to change our gender identity through the GRA,” they said.
“This is not only invalidating, but having your own government not allow you to just exist is really painful.”
Except of course that the government is not “not allowing you to exist.” Windust is allowed to exist, and judging by the fact that the government quotes Them, Windust does in fact exist. It’s not “invalidating” for the government to reject an invented category for birth certificates.
Snide. “Perceived” fault – meaning, the panel blamed for erroneously seeing a fault where there was none.
Hit post before seeing this gem:
And yet, Jamie is either male or female (with a sub 1% change of being intersex) and is therefore a man or a woman regardless.
I increasingly don’t know how not to explode with rage over this.
Hmm, perhaps Boris could prove useful after all..
Holms, are you aware that you are the subject of a very word-salady post by Crip Dyke?
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pervertjustice/2019/07/29/gender-critical-moral-bankruptcy/7
And from that thread…
Ophelia, you damned monster! What have you been up to now!
More like OB won’t admit that ears of corn are not bananas…
God, I can’t even read that. About 1/2 a paragraph in I started thinking of all the crappy jobs I have to do today and how I’d rather be doing them.
I figured as much. The 200+ thread at Mano’s, plus the previous arguments on the subject, were enough to show me that conversation with her is pointless.
Even setting that aside, the title of that post was a red flag for deficient thought in its own right: ‘woman’ used as ‘female adult human’ is not the invention of gender critical feminism, as the post title implies (nor is a word having that definition a matter of morality). The meanings of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ – and the invention of a word specific to each sex in the first place – are purely the product of linguistic forces. And differences in the treatment of men and women on the basis of that characteristic – sex – are the product of cultural trends. Both of which predate feminism, gender critical or otherwise, by far.
(And I would point out to them that feminism is the movement for bringing parity of treatment specifically to the female sex; it is a movement specific to an identified axis of inequality.)
Starting a post with that glaring misunderstanding was reason enough for me to ignore it, and the excerpt grabbed by Rob shows that it was the correct decision. Banana : underripe banana maps well with woman : young girl, as the identified variable is age; it’s piss poor as an analogy for female adult : male adult identifying as a woman and shows that biology simply doesn’t factor into her framework.
I can’t be arsed to go back and dig through for the actual quotes, but reading through the comments last night I was amused by one particular exchange spread across the thread. Basically, one person had finished a comment by saying that the question remains; is a transwoman a woman? He was told that this question was itself ‘fucking idiocy and leads to complete incoherence’. He went on to ask why, since that was the very question that Ophelia was pilloried for after refusing to answer with a simple yes or no, it was now a ‘bad’ question; what had changed between then and now?. Imagine how smacked my gob was when H.J. Hornbeck responded with (and I had to go and find this bit)
Wow! It’s wrong because the master said so! Nothing at all cultish about that.
Hahahahahahahahaha when have I ever refused to admit that underripe bananas are bananas? Eh? EH??
I will even go so far as to admit that overripe bananas are bananas (though sometimes overripe enough to be disgusting).
What you won’t admit is that apples are oranges. Wise decision.
With that ‘bananas’ (in both senses of the word) analogy, by comparing unripe bananas and bananas to transwomen and women, Crip Dyke appears to be suggesting, albeit unintentionally*, that transwomen are immature.
* yeah, CD is crap at making analogies, but intent ain’t fucking magic, cupcake.
Maybe the better analogy is that bananas are not peaches?
Indeed it is, but a better analogy was not the goal.
Well, no.