Speaking of “ostensibly”
Pretend-woman Robin Moira White in the Independent:
Today continues the Supreme Court hearing of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers appeal. Ostensibly, this case concerns guidance issued by the Scottish government about who can be considered for places on boards of public bodies in Scotland. In fact, it comes down to a dispute about the meaning of the word “sex” in the UK Equality Act 2010, the definition of “woman” and “man” under that act – and the place of trans people in our society.
As if you can change the realities of who is a woman and who is a man by passing an act. As if we don’t already know who is a woman and who is a man. As if it made any sense to change the definitions of “woman” and “man.”
For Women Scotland, supported by intervening “gender-critical” or anti-trans organisations, argues that “sex” can only mean “biological” sex, defined by someone’s chromosomes from conception. The Scottish government, supported by interventions from the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the international human rights organisation Amnesty says no, “sex” in the Equality Act includes transgender people who have been through the gender recognition process…
Blah blah blah. It’s all so ridiculous. You might as well redefine “death” – let’s change it to mean “a delicious meal.” Cheerful, but temporary. Death remains death, and changing the meaning of the word doesn’t and can’t change the reality. It’s much the same with life, and birth, and conception, and sex, and woman and man. Name them all Flopsy if you want but the realities remain.
Those who support For Women Scotland say that a finding which upholds the Scottish rulings would be disastrous for women’s rights. Their position appears to rest on exaggeration and hyperbole. Writing in the Daily Mail, Julie Bindel said this outcome would lead to the “destruction” of women’s rights. Given that the rulings have been in place since 2022 and women’s rights appear not to have been destroyed in the past couple of years, this seems polemic at best.
He says smugly, ignoring all the ways women’s rights have been battered and contested and diminished in the past couple of years. This conceited jerk blathering away in the Indy under the pretense of being a woman is one dent in women’s rights.
It’s a rather typical way to avoid engaging with an argument or issue. Just reframe the discussion as all-or-nothing. If women’s rights aren’t “destroyed”, then you’re just overreacting. If women’s athletics aren’t completely dominated by males, then you’re delusional.
Never mind that this rhetorical strategy is inconsistent with the alarm over the threat to reproductive rights. Consistency doesn’t matter when you’re deploying fallacies, only utility.
Yeh, I’ve just been watching Mhairi Hunter doing that avoidance thing, repeatedly.
Duh of course women can get pregnant. FOCUS.
Yeah, that willful, stubborn, condescending equivocation is absolutely infuriating. Of course women who call themselves trans exist. They’re still women.
Whargarbl. WHARGARBL, I say!
Hyperbole says the bloke who scare quotes sex, biological, and gender-critical. Hmmm.