Gedoverit
William Hague tells women to get used to it. Easy for him.
Lord Hague has argued that the Women’s Institute (WI) should welcome transgender women amid a backlash over its membership policy.
The WI is under pressure from a new campaign group called Women’s Institute Declaration, which argues its policy of welcoming trans women – announced in 2015 – puts it “in an untenable position”.
A petition, which has attracted hundreds of signatures, calls for a pause in admitting new trans members so there can be a wider debate on the implications of the move. It also demands a vote of WI members on its stance.
However, Lord Hague insisted those with concerns needed to “get used to and get over” trans people being members of the 108-year-old organisation, the largest of its kind in the UK with more than 180,000 members.
It’s not about “trans people” being members. It’s about men being members.
He says he sees the point about women’s sport, which is big of him, but the WI is different.
“You know, there are transgender people, they have changed their gender. This is part of our society now.
“And I think large national organisations like the WI have to get over that and get used to that, and welcome new people.”
Men. Welcome men.
The grassroots organisation Conservatives for Women led a backlash to his interview, as it insisted it must prioritise “science and reason” around gender issues.
“Telling women to ‘pipe down’ is never a good look, especially as this translates to ‘you are not allowed to have boundaries’,” said the group.
“Newsflash, Lord Hague – women say ‘no’. You ‘get over it!’”
Sometimes the “women” part matters more than the “conservative” part.
Asked about Lord Hague’s remarks , the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “I haven’t seen his specific comments. I think on [the] membership of any particular group, that is for the group.
“I think the Prime Minister has said it is vitally important that transgender people are treated with compassion at all times, as a starting point.”
Really? At all times? Is that said about any other set of people? Does any other set of people even want to be treated that way? As objects of pity at all times? What is it about trans people that makes them such bleeding open wounds at all times?
The WI’s current policy states that transgender women are allowed to “participate in any WI activities in the same way as any other woman”.
Sly. Transgender women are not like “any other woman” because they’re not women at all.
Bill Murray to Dustin Hoffman in the movie Tootsie: “There are no other women like you. You’re a man.”
There is no existential crisis, no mental anguish, which is worse than Gender Dysphoria, in which you KNOW you’re a boy but everyone else only sees a girl. You can think of nothing else.
Trans ppl seemingly follow a script which places them into the sort of obsessive patterns we ordinarily see only with addiction. But instead of thinking “this person is like someone looking for a fix” we’ve been taught to think “this person is like someone drowning and unable to breathe.” Framing.
Perhaps it’s their bleeding open wounds.
Also catastrophizing, as Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt pointed out recently.
It’s the counterpart to the trans activist/ally script about TiMs being “the most marginalized community” and at risk of either murder or suicide for, respectively, just being who they are or, being denied the “affirming care” they demand. Plenty of catastrophizing here, too. Both scripts are designed to derail any examination or questioning of the claims being made, and to push people to accede to trans demands. NOW. NO DEBATE! We’re bank tellers who are supposed to hand
They’re trying to shift the spotlight from the origin and nature of their particular and peculiar desires and wishes to why we’re reluctant to give them what they want. We’re meant to feel mean and churlish to deny them the affirmation/pronouns/female spaces/ surgery/whatever they need. Delay=death. You’re killing trans kids! You can help them NOW; so why don’t you? It’s because you really want them to DIE. If this kind of shaming fails to give them a suitably compliant response, they resort to bullying and intimidation*, which they will justify as self defence against our obviously trans-genocidal urges. “LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!” It’s a one-two punch of emotional blackmail and protection racket, all while using disphoric children as human shields. Fiendishly clever, really.
*Of course they often start with bullying and intimidation, but they’re so passionate and enthusiastic, right?
It’s also the script of the abuser, the man who bashes his wife then blames her. It is all too frequent that she will join the blame game, accepting the blame and believing herself to be worthless because she is so bad he has to hit her.
It’s so obvious the trans movement as it is currently constituted is based on men. They are using techniques common with certain types of men, and doing it with success.
What makes that even sadder is how many young girls are the victim of these men, even though the men aren’t hitting them, they are offering kindness and acceptance…at least on the surface. So the girls take hormones, have their breasts cut off or bind them, and in some cases even have a false penis constructed. They are playing the game of being men without actually being men, but they have been led to believe that women aren’t worthy and that they are out of that.
In the current political climate (especially on the left), being oppressed gives you power.
It started with the (correct) idea that some people are privileged whereas others are not and that you should take this into account when, e.g., choosing speakers for an event etc. “Make marginalized voices heard” was (and is) a good idea.
Then came the (still valid, IMO) idea of micro-agggressions. Even slightly different treatment of someone in a marginalized group can add up to a burden, so we should be careful about that.
Then these two were combined to say “privileged people have a bunch of – often subconscious- biases that will tend to hurt others.” Still a probably valid idea.
But if you can claim that someone is not even aware of their own biases/motivations etc., you can use the classical narcissistic abuser-move: “I know you motivations better than you do, so when I say something about you, you cannot argue against that.” That was the point where people started to use notions like “old white men” (warning: I belong to this group) to claim that voices of privileged people need not be heard at all.
Thus started the oppression Olympics, where the more axes of suppression you could claim, the more important your voice was, no matter what you were actually saying.
Simultaneously, if you did belong to a privileged group, you could gain power by policing the behaviour of other privileged people and by always pledging your allegiance to the marginalized group.
And even well-meaning people, looking at the treatment of oppressed groups in the past, easily fall into the compassion trap. Although they do not want power over others, they want to belong to the “good people” and to be on the “right side of history”, using this to alleviate the (often subconscious) guilt they feel over being privileged.
And thus claiming to be “the most oppressed” implies “My voices is the most important”, “You are privileged” and thus “I get to silence you” and “Any move against me is bigoted and an aggression”. And well-meaning people will willingly accept this and become flying monkeys.
So the claim “most marginalized” is a claim of power and rights, and that is why it is repeated so often.
Maybe the “even” should be “especially”.
It was quite a trick, wasn’t it, to get people to accept that white males (mostly, since they never seem to talk about TMAM unless it benefits the TW) into the most marginalized now and EVER. And they did it so quickly by attaching themselves to groups that had already done the hard work of acceptance. “Oh, you’re part of the gay community. Great, you can talk over me.”
Excellent comment Sonderval.
@iknklast
You are right, well-meaning people are especially prone to fall for this. That is one of the worst things with narcissistic behaviour (that is at the core of all this): It corrupts those who have good intentions and mean well and lets them think they are the good people while trampling on others.
@Rob
thanks.