The often disrespectful tones
Luxury idenniny seems to have a nasty side effect of extreme fragility.
Staff working in Holyrood “do not feel safe” because of the “often disrespectful tones of discussion,” a Green MSP has claimed.
Ariane Burgess is to use a question on Thursday to ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) to “offer support” to any LGBTQ+ staff “whose welfare may be negatively impacted by any increase in the use of language in the Chamber and committees that may be perceived as trans-exclusionary.”
“Negatively impacted” ffs – of course the luxury idenniny crowd also resorts to luxury jargon like “negatively impacted” instead of the crude plebian “harmed” or “damaged.” Bad thinking begets more bad thinking. No, Ms Burgess, we won’t be in awe of your brain because you use two stupid words instead of one useful one, we’ll think you’re a pretentious goon with no ear for language.
Ms Burgess told The Herald: “The Scottish Parliament is a place of work, where staff and visitors to the building should feel safe and welcomed.
“The Scottish Parliament is already trying to ensure that it is supporting LGBTQ+ staff, but the rise of exclusionary language, and often disrespectful tones of discussion within the Chamber and committees, especially on issues such as trans rights, is undoubtedly impacting staff, directly and indirectly. There are LGBTQ+ workers in almost all parts of our building, and there are staff who have family or close friends within the community who feel unsafe and devalued.”
Well, here’s the thing. You say “especially on issues such as trans rights.” I suspect you don’t actually mean “such as”; I suspect you don’t have any other example. I think you just mean “especially on the issue of trans rights.” I think this is just more of the usual hyper-protective special treatment of the trans communniny. Why might the language around trans “issues” be somewhat acerbic? I think it could be because the claims and the explanations of the claims and the demands based on the claims are so full of exaggeration and petulance and narcissism that unbelievers simply lose patience. I know I lose patience regularly when trying to make sense of the claims. I’m doing it now. Trans ideology tries our patience.
Does it make you feel unsafe and devalued when people point out the incoherence and unreality of trans ideology? Maybe the problem is not the people pointing it out but the ideology itself.
Worth considering.
Of course part of the contested terrain of trans “rights” is language itself. Those refusing to use luxury pronouns, or bow down to ideologically motivated redefinitions of words like “woman” are going to be perceived (and reported) by the trans brigade as “disrespectful”, ‘hurtful”, “bigoted”, or “threatening.” Never mind that the demands themselves are disrespectful, and erode women’s rights.
If someone does something they know is wrong, such as lying, stealing, or cheating — things generally considered morally wrong, or antisocial, most people (aside from sociopaths) feel their conscience. Maybe these people who don’t “feel safe” are projecting it on those who are able to stand in judgement, and are not suffering from a nagging conscience, and have done nothing wrong? Are trans people deceptive? Do trans people take things from other people that don’t belong to them, or have a right to? Do trans people demand to be treated like they are deserving of special priveleges?
Maybe it’s not people who understand basic biology who are a threat to their safety, maybe it’s their own conscience that makes them feel that way. Maybe their bad behavior is a consequence of being in constant defense mode. Do they feel like they have done something wrong and can’t process it in any other way than blame someone else, or circumstance, or claim victimhood in some way?
Maybe they don’t feel safe because they know society is generally aware of (and oppose) deceit. I think it’s a possibility.
“Trans ideology tries our patience.” Indeed it does.
I read somewhere a while back that Charles Darwin had famously said something like: “The trick in any scientific investigation is to ask the right questions. Once that is done, the answers fall into place fairly easily.” (That is what I remember of it, mind. But I could be wrong.)
Now, I am no expert in Trans Ideology; and perhaps some would say I should have included a unit or two of it in my university studies, or enough for a major even. But it appears to me that the entire edifice of trans philosophy and theory is like an inverted pyramid, built on the dinkiest of all foundations, and in such a way as reach the pseudo-glorified own goal: ie of justifying of access as they please by those identified at birth as male, to women’s toilets. And to turn the eyes of all and sundry towards this shining and glorious holy grail, up there above us in all its wondrous, albeit confected, glory.
Now as a common run-of-the-mill heterosexual male, let me say that I would not be too bothered at all if some bloke who wants to dress himself up as a woman happened to stand up beside me at the urinal in the local mens’ dunny, lift up his dress and let it all go, so to speak, provided his aim was true and there was minimal sideways splashing. But I will be damned if I would support that same transvestite using the same washrooms that are used by my wife, daughters, or any other females who object.
Here I stand.