Kimono guy meets himself coming back
Disturbances in the field:
Notice that to the “sex work is work!!” crowd, all political analysis that says prostitution is a feminist issue aka bad for women aka not a human right aka exploitation is “attacking sex workers.” So unionizing auto workers and coal miners and factory workers is “attacking workers”? Makes about as much sense.
Hilarious that Jolyon thinks he doesn’t tell others what to say and think.
You will talk about what we tell you to talk about. Or else.
Hahahahaha it’s hilarious to watch Jolyon caught in his own trap.
Wow. Similarly, if your organization is in favor of rights for arithmogender people, it has to be supportive of the industry of selling organs. You see, rampant discrimination against arithmogender people leads to low, um, I mean high (Katelyn Burns got that wrong) unemployment for arithmogender people, which means that they need to sell their organs to survive. Sometimes they even need to sell both of their kidneys!
Evil arithmophobic people want to outlaw the organ-selling industry. Seemingly less evil people want to regulate the industry, saying, for example, that you can’t sell kidneys for under $1000 a kidney, but what happens is that customers then don’t want to buy the kidneys, and arithmogender people end up not being able to survive.
“…Defend everyone.”
“Who will pay for the hundreds or thousands of staff we’d need? And all the infrastructure? We can’t fix all the problems, Harry.”
Jolyon’s response to a demand to have a position on All The Things is actually a good explanation. An organisation cannot possibly do everything at once, as it is a matter of limited resources being thinly divided. However, I doubt either party noticed or would care that this is a perfect explanation for why advocacy for L and G and B without the T should not automatically be considered hostility towards T. An organisation can be an advocate for some of the things without necessarily being hostile to other things.
Cool, cool. Then can we say that if you’re pro trans rights, you kinda have to be against women’s single-sex spaces, as the two are often hand in hand? After all, many feminists who fight to win back women’s single sex spaces do so by talking about “men” and “males,” without using the word “trans” at all, but are considered “transphobic” nonetheless. “Dogwhistle,” you say? “Bullshit” I say. Trans “rights,” as currently formulated and promulgated by trans activists, intrude upon and conflict with women’s rights.
Glad we’ve cleared that up.
I see Jolyon hasn’t reached the grovelling, “I’ll try to do better” stage of his re-education. Maybe he hasn’t seen this movie; maybe he never thought he’d be playing this role in it, as he’s usually the one telling feminists what they should and shouldn’t be saying, and blocking them when they don’t comply. He thought he was safe. He was one of the Good Guys, on the Right Side of History. He wasn’t expecting to be the one being forced to wear the placard enumerating his “crimes,” having all these fervent Red Guards demanding he confess and repent.
It would be so wonderfully ironic if this peaked him and he saw the folly of his ways, but I ain’t holding my breath.
Ahem. [citation needed]
Correlation does not imply causation, etc… frankly, I call bullshit (…I say, as though that’s the only BS floating in this particular kerfuffle O.o)
Re “rampant discrimination leads to low unemployment for trans people who turn to sex work to survive”
Low employment, I think he means.
My understanding is that the numbers are drastically skewed by the situation in Brazil, where there are a significant proportion of trans-identified males who are sex workers.
I’d be curious whether “rampant discrimination” includes refusals to go along with male access to women’s facilities, refusal to use bespoke pronouns, or any other form of refusal to accept the demands of gender ideology. If a man leaves three jobs because it’s a “hostile workplace” where they refer to him as “he” and don’t require pronouns in people’s email signatures, is it discrimination on their part or stubbornness on his part that led to him being unemployed?
More deliciousness here: https://twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1612111133216743424
As Tom Nichols said in a different context this week “We need a Narcan for schadenfreude”.
Purity spiral
Just goes to show that when you have an incoherent, anti-reality philosophy, anyone – however devout – can be accused of heresy; and there’s no defence.