Speaking of “dangerous misinformation”
Amnesty throws women overboard again.
Amnesty says women don’t get to decide.
AMNESTY International has warned against “dangerous misinformation” ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman.
The court is due to issue its judgement next week on how a woman should be defined in law. It is part of a court challenge brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) against the Scottish Government.
FWS say sex-based protections should not apply to transgender people with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), while the Scottish Government argues they should be included.
What an obscure sentence. FWS says that men should not get protections intended for women, while the Scottish government says they should. Calling the protections “sex-based” instead of “intended for women” is pointedly opaque and confusing. Journalism is pathetically complicit in all this anti-woman garbage.
And now, Amnesty International has intervened ahead of the expected ruling being handed down in London on April 16.
In a statement, Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive at Amnesty International UK, said: “Amnesty wishes to highlight the amount of dangerous misinformation that remains around this case, as an eye-watering amount of time is spent by commentators berating trans people – who make up just 1% of the population.”
Shut up. It’s not about “berating trans people.” It’s about not giving protections for women away to men in lipstick.
“Legal gender recognition, as it works now, is essential for trans people to enjoy the full spectrum of human rights each of us is entitled to, and live free from fear of discrimination.”
Bollocks. There is no “full spectrum of human rights” that depends on a right to idennify as the opposite sex and be treated accordingly.
“Amnesty has intervened in this case as it is a question of human rights, which affects us all.”
Indeed it is, and Amnesty is determined to trash women’s.
Here’s another of the routine mistakes, or lies by framing. The reason there is so much attention on trans people is not because we recently became afflicted with hatred or fear of them, it is because trans people, or more importantly their political cause, gained a large amount of political traction in the last ten years or so. Consider the political state things in the 90’s – barely any attention was spent on the cause of trans people because it had no real visibility. The thing that changed was not a sudden surge in animosity against that population, but a sudden surge in the success of that political movement.
And the reason we oppose said movement should be obvious: it poses a real and imminent threat to the rights of women and their progress towards parity with men. Granting people a legal instrument by which they can ‘change sex’ – in addition to being an obvious absurdity – undermines demographic data collection and hence the ability to check for trends. Encouraging the idea that woman- or manhood is opt-in directly opposes efforts to fight sex-based crime and oppression. Every trans woman granted a position, award, shortlist position, promotion etc. that was reserved for women has bumped off an actual woman and so undermines efforts to reach parity… and so on.
Our opposition to the trans / gender identity movement seems out of proportion if and only if we are considering in terms of the number of trans people. When we bear in mind the movement attacks the rights and safety of a full 50% of the population, societal opposition is far below where it should be. It should never have seen the light of day, but now that it has, it needs to be quashed.
[…] a comment by Holms on Speaking of “dangerous […]