The distress and hurt
This also happened today.
Statement pic.twitter.com/oW98HnKPEw
— Andy Wightman (@andywightman) June 7, 2019
A crappy cowardly “statement” that marks out Julie Bindel (though without naming her) for special opprobrium a day and a half after a raging man attacked her after that very meeting. It’s interesting that he apologizes for causing people “distress and hurt” by listening to Julie but says not a word about any “distress and hurt” anyone might feel about the assault on Julie.
Distress and hurt caused by… listening to the wrong person.
How in Hell can people be ‘distressed and hurt’ because somebody else attended a talk that included a speaker whose views they don’t like? That would be like me getting upset when my wife watches those ‘true’ haunting programmes.
Such childish, attention-seeking bullshit.
AoS, thanks for pointing that out.
Now I know what to say next time my SO is watching MAster Chef or Air Crash Investigations!
I’m hurt and distressed that she doesn’t watch Cricket! LOL
Well, those views are not supposed to be heard. By anyone. At all. Ever. It is now Wightman’s duty to unhear them, or beat them out of his head with a brick. Those women are witches, and anyone who hears what they have to say are liable to be put under a spell or enchantment that leaves them dangerously, heretically un-Woke. Their siren song is a danger to all who give it ear. Best to avoid them altogether, lest one be tempted to believe the Empresses are really Emperors, that they are naked, and that their dongs are showing.
And just to be sure we’ve rooted out all the Wrong thoughts out, has this Wightman fellow also issued aplogies for having read the wrong books? What about his taste in music and cinema? TV shows? His purity and devotion to orthodoxy are suspect until he lets everyone know that his intake of all media and sensory information is Approved and Free of Taint. But let’s go farther. If he’s gonna grovel, we should make him really earn it. Has he offered apologies to his vegan constituents for any animal products he’s consumed? I’m sure they’d consider that distressful and hurtful. Are his clothes free of sweatshop labour? is his coffee and chocolate fairly traded? What’shis carbon footprint? If we’re going the full self-criticism gauntlert, let’s have it all.
How long before he realizes that there are a lot more women than there are TRAs and allies? Will he then aplogize to all those women for being such a spineless tool in caving in to trans extremists?
“Well, those views are not supposed to be heard. By anyone. At all. Ever. It is now Wightman’s duty to unhear them, or beat them out of his head with a brick. Those women are witches, and anyone who hears what they have to say are liable to be put under a spell or enchantment that leaves them dangerously, heretically un-Woke. Their siren song is a danger to all who give it ear. Best to avoid them altogether, lest one be tempted to believe the Empresses are really Emperors, that they are naked, and that their dongs are showing.”
Nicely done.
Great job, YNNB.
Oh, they realize that. It allows them to view the trans population as much more oppressed than women, because didn’t you know, if there are more of a group, they are automatically privileged oppressors? Just like men are privileged over women because there are more of them? Oh, wait…well, sometimes it doesn’t work right. But in this case, the fact that the trans are outnumbered by women is proof positive that the women have the upper hand and are evil oppressors of trans women.
You claim I did not say a word about the distress caused to Julie Bindel. As a cursory look at my tweets would have shown, I did indeed do so on Thursday evening. https://twitter.com/andywightman/status/1136690728099307521
I can see how this numbers game for first place in the Oppression Olympics works in the context of the backroom politics and floor fights within the party itself, but the same formulae may not work so well amongst the general public, or with women in particular, at the ballot box. Outside the rarified environment of academia or the peculiar demands of ideological purity, there is a much lower likelihood of a shared understanding or appreciation of the more esoteric ramifactions of Queer Theory as it pertains to lady dick.
Andy Wightman @ 7 – I was talking about your statement in this post; I meant you said not a word about the attack on Julie in your statement. I would apologize but honestly I think it’s perfectly clear that that’s what I was talking about.
I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s pretty appalling that you threw Julie under the bus yesterday, even though you condemned “all such violent incidents but especially when directed at women” the day before. I know very well the kind of pressure the trans army applies, but I think it has to be resisted rather than obeyed.
I’m appalled at Andy Wightman. He’s a Green MSP who does good work eg a campaign against the mass of holiday lettings in Edinburgh damaging communities and pushing up rents. He is generally respected by people who don’t share his politics, and he’s been crowd-funding for a defamation case against him, which has been supported widely. How on earth he could be so craven as that?
:- “I condemn all such violent incidents but especially when directed at women. Last nights meeting was respectful, informative and useful to me as a legislator. I hope Julie recovers from this attack quickly.”
The meeting was respectful, informative and useful one day, and then a horrible outrage against people the next. Legislators should be attending all such events, as he says, and getting some information, not acting like Mrs Grundy at the very idea of attending a variety show.
Mr Wightman, while you’re here (assuming you come back, and this was not just a drive-by comment), you could tell us what parts of the meeting were transphobic, and specifically what parts of the beliefs of “one speaker in particular” are transphobic. Trans rights activists claim “harm” and “violence” lurk in the very words of gender critical feminists. Do you share this belief? If so, what particular statements and belief cause this alleged harm and violence? This is not a rhetorical question; I am asking in good fath, as I find these claims difficult to understand without knowing which claims are deemed problematic. It seems to me that any and all claims of GC feminists are considered hateful and transphobic by some members of the trans activist community. Even basic statements of fact like defining women as “adult human females” or lesbians as “female homosexuals” are deemed hateful and beyond the pale and thus worthy of vilification and actual, physical, violent opposition. What sort of reasoned dialogue is possible when one side (let me spell it out: gender critical feminists) is subject to threats, intimidation, de-platforming, twitter-bans and unanswerable charges of transphobia and TERFhood? It looks a lot like like decree and demand rather than dialogue, which is what makes your about-face statement regarding this meeting so disturbing, as you are siding and sympathizing with those who would stifle debate and thereby brush off the legitimate concerns of women and girls regarding the protection of female only spaces.
Mr. Wightman,
You appear to be in a bit of a predicament, and I believe this is because you are trying to cater to women’s interests without realising that there is a fracture within that general movement, pitting two irreconcilable bodies of politics against one another. On the one hand you are trying to support women in their fight against social disparagement, workplace disadvantage, harassment, violence et. al. on the basis of their belonging to the female sex; on the other hand you are trying to support trans people on the basis of similar disadvantage as a result of being a minority demographic.
At first glance, the irreconcilable difference is not apparent, and in earlier times it didn’t even exist. The problem is a relatively recent development within trans theory: that a person can be considered trans, and a member of the opposite sex, without even transitioning in any meaningful sense; in other words, that sex is a matter of declared self-identity rather than biology.
That idea has made modern trans theory totally incompatible with the long-established practice of segregation by sex, which has severe ramifications in multiple social services (e.g. shelters for battered / raped women) and in competitive athletics pursuits and sports. This makes sex as the only demographic axis which cannot benefit from targeted services, even though such things are uncontroversial in other demographic axes, and it makes lesbians in particular the only demographic which cannot even define and describe itself.
The very idea does not stand against scrutiny, and this is why trans activists demand the shunning of all meetings such as the one you attended (and appeared to benefit / learn from). They are demanding you to not even attempt to hear the other side out. It is all very reminiscent of a geocentrist demanding that no one should ever look through a telescope at Jupiter, for fear that a person doing so will discover that the other side has ideas that are reasonable and correct.
This is why they will pillory anyone that attends such a meeting, assuming that such a meeting can even take place – as they will also demand that all venues should turn down such meetings in the first place, in an attempt to deplatform gender critical thought out of existence, or at least out of common dialogue. And now that you have acceded (at least in part) to their unreasonable demands, issuing an apology for even attending such a thing, you are being pilloried by the gender critical side!
In a sense, I can sympathise with this tweet; you appear to have gone into the meeting with the good faith intent to hear it out and learn something of your constituents, only to cop aggressive bile and emotional blackmail for doing so. This surely feels like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t – but the only way to navigate this in good fatih is to not give in to demands to shun the other side, but to continue to pursue a course that involves hearing out the reasoning presented by both sides, to weight them against each other in your mind and come to the conclusion that seems best to your mind.
You’ve walked into a storm that has been developing for some years now, and there is no path through it that sill satiate both sides simultaneously – sympathising with one means raising the ire of the other. Good luck!
P.S.
This blog stands as an excellent place to hear out the gender critical side of things by the way.
Thank you for comments.
Ophelia – no I didn’t say anything about the attack in my statement as it was not designed to be a comprehensive statement of my position. My previous tweets still stand. But it would have been better to include those thoughts too – I accept that. it was prepared under a very intense time pressure but ultimately that is not an excuse.
Your Name’s Not Bruce – nothing I recollect hearing at the meeting was transphobic.
Hello Mr. Wightman. Thank you for responding, it is appreciated.
Yes indeed, thank you Andy (if I may).
I think I understand about the very intense time pressure as well as the very intense other kind of pressure. It can be a nightmare, and multiply that by a large number for someone in your line of work.