Both fluid and solid
The BBC live-reported on the gender battles among MPs today and yesterday.
Today it included a chat it had with a person of gender:
The BBC has spoken to a genderfluid, trans woman who is not yet out to family and close friends.
What does that even mean? How can you be “genderfluid” and “trans”? Being trans means you’re so convinced you’re the opposite sex that you officially declare yourself as such. Genderfluid is the opposite of that.
They said: “It is unlikely that I will personally be in a position to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) even if England were to relax the process.
“However, I do rely on the protections of the Equality Act and I am really concerned that this government will seek to row back on protections, particularly for trans people.
“We are a small part of the community, at high risk of abuse and it seems that the profile given to us far outweighs any risk to society and in particular cis women’s rights.
Yeah. In particular cis women’s rights – those stupid backward tame boring women who were just born that way don’t matter enough for their rights to matter. Yawn. Those women are particularly worthless and trivial.
The trans woman went on to explain: “How often do we show our birth certificate? As I understand it with a GRC you can change tax records, get married in the correct gene lsic] and be buried as such, but it has nothing to do with toilets.”
He’s “genderfluid” but he’s also a trans woman. Make it make sense.
The Beeb also includes the bit where Lloyd Russell-Moyle decided to shout at a woman.
Things are getting heated in the Commons chamber, with Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle describing remarks by Conservative MP Miriam Cates as “one of the worst transphobic, dog-whistle speeches that I have heard in an awful long time”.
“Describing” in a furious testosteroney shout.
Cates had said there was a risk of “predators” exploiting the bill “to get access to children”, comments that Russell-Moyle described as “disgusting”, and said Cates should be “ashamed” of.
But how is there not such a risk? How exactly would it be done away with? Why wouldn’t men who want to fiddle with children exploit gender performance to get easier access? Please explain.
Both a wave AND a particle!
They NEVER answer the “please explain” part.
Oh, what you say harms trans people. WHAT HARM? “Please explain.” They never do, because they never can. Saying that men aren’t women never actually harms anyone.
Calling a man, “he,” never actually harms anyone.
It’s barely possible that a man in a dress could be harmed in the men’s bathroom or locker room, but that’s male on male violence. That’s not being done by women, and it’s not women’s fault. It’s the MEN’S problem and it’s for the men to solve among themselves. There’s no rule that says men always get to solve what are exclusively men’s problems on the backs of and at the expense of women. No. Women get to say no. Women get to have boundaries. Women get to have things that are exclusively for women.
Letting any man give himself a free ticket into women’s (and girls’) bathrooms and changing rooms is an open invitation for rapists and pedophiles. “That doesn’t/won’t happen. There’s no danger. That’s just fearmongering.”
Oh yeah? Please then explain how there are dozens if not hundreds of reports of exactly that happening, that the dangers are real, and that it’s realistic fear of actuality, not just irrationality? Please explain all the actual harm to women and children that has already taken place after the ill-advised trans attacks on the reality of what men do to women and children have allowed it to get this far? Make it even easier to lie, and why wouldn’t predatory men do even more than the have already? Please explain that.
They never have, and they never will, because they can’t. They don’t care. Everything they say and do is built on a foundation of lies. All they can ever do is lie. If they say nothing, it’s a lie of omission. If they say something, it’s guaranteed to be a lie.
“Both fluid and solid”, a Bingham plastic, mayonnaise is an example.
I prefer the Saturday Night Live formulation: “It’s a dessert topping and a floor wax!”
Re #4, may I recommend the Philip K Dick novel Ubik, in which Ubik commercials begin each chapter, describing the product differently each time.