Hilarious
It’s absolutely hilarious how many transphobic people from other parts of the world feel the need to jump on every tweet coming out of this account.
Was what I posted last night uncouth? Probably. Was I also out with good friends having a good time while being reminded of transphobic violence every time I scrolled through my feeds on my phone? Yes. Was every reply to my tweet ultimately transphobic in nature? Yes.
Uncouth? Not quite the right word, I think. He seems to have deleted the tweet but some of those naughty “transphobic people” kept the record.
Radical feminists can suck this guy’s dick. That’s not really “uncouth,” it’s more like rapey. It doesn’t mean radical feminists have his permission to suck his girldick, it means he’d like to force them to suck his girldick as punishment for not agreeing with him that he’s a woman.
But why was anyone paying attention to him in the first place? There’s a reason.
New York Democrats are preparing to change the way the party approaches gender.
The State Democratic Committee will vote Tuesday on a resolution amending party rules to be more inclusive of people who don’t identify as male or female.
Emilia Decaudin, the party’s youngest and first openly transgender member, pitched the shift as a way of leveling the playing field for gender nonbinary members or those thinking of getting involved in politics.
…
The resolution specifies that each district that elects two members of the state committee will choose a pair of people of “different” genders, rather than “one male and one female.” It also changes the language of certain bylaws and other party rules in order to remove explicit references to gender.
In other words a pair could be a man and Emilia Decaudin.
The Dems passed the new rules.
If we don’t like it we can suck his girldick.
Makes me want to ditch my party affiliation again…
TRAs CAN …. learn how to behave better and reconsider positions which are anti-feminist.
YEAH BABY! TAKE THAT!
(Being Uncouth.)
The way politicians have gone all-in on trans activism as a way to signal their virtue is going to backfire.
Here in Toronto our politicians are falling over each other to denounce Meghan Murphy. My city councillor wants to change the bylaws to give the City broader power to ban speakers like Murphy from holding events at the library. If things turn out the way I predict they will — a big trans backlash and a scandal that will rock the Left, how is it going to look when so many of our political leaders ran with this nonsense without asking any questions.
I was surprised and glad to hear Hillary Clinton offer some criticism of trans activism last week. But if her career in electoral politics wasn’t over, I doubt for a second she would have been so candid.
(Speaking of Murphy and the Toronto library protests: a problem I have with Murphy’s defenders is that they’re framing the controversy as strictly a freedom-of-speech issue; they aren’t defending her point of view so much as saying the principle of freedom of speech itself is what’s at issue. They bring up that a neo-Nazi group was once allowed to use the library too — but this just makes it sound like Murphy is analogous to a neo-Nazi! That’s the message the public is getting, and that’s the image the politicians are reacting to. This has to change. This issue isn’t just about freedom of speech; it’s about reasonable opinions being silenced by men.)
Must not have been having that good of a time if the feeds were so irresistible.
There seems to be a growing trend where people declare themselves to be women while making no serious attempt to look female.
Now, don’t get wrong, I don’t think people need to conform to gender roles. I wouldn’t criticize a woman for not looking female. But I get the impression these people are doing it to induce people to assume they’re male so they can have an outraged reaction.
It’s like a culturally acceptable way to be an incel. Countdown to first TRA mass shooting?
For chrissakes, this anorak smears a little red around his mouth and now he’s a woman?
Does it make it worse or better that wearing a dress appears to give him a tiny little boner?
https://thevelvetchronicle.com/ny-democrats-quietly-dismantle-1-male-1-female-rule/
Wake me up when it’s peak trans.
Artymorty @ 3 – same here about the “free speech” versus substance issue. I think libraries should be able to decline to rent rooms to, say, a speaker from the KKK. I think there really are groups that really do foment hatred against Despised People and that such fomenting is not inert but instead likely to lead to persecution of said Despised People, up to and including genocide. Radical feminists who want to be able to talk about issues that affect women don’t belong on that side of the boundary.
Was it this easy for the women’s suffrage movement to get the original rule included? I suspect not …
No. None of it was ever this easy.
I have been blocked by Emmanuel so I have not seen recent postings but apparently he and his colleagues did not expect this much flack from women. Keep it up ladies!! The phones ping from twitter like never before!
Look up “Night of Terror” as it relates to American women’s suffrage. Women have every right to be upset about a man in a dress. These politicians just want power.
Yassssss!!
WTF is a “girl dick”?
I mean, I have called girls (women) dicks in certain cases, using the Australian vernacular term for “dick”. Called men the same. But none of it was about an actual, physical, dick, attached to an actual, physical bloke.
Now, I don’t care how people want to dress and present themselves to the world, after all, my own Father crossed the road to avoid me one day when I was heading to the station in a Kaftan. :-) But, hey, it was the 70’s, didn’t we all wear Kaftans back then?
I have a Man Dick (needs caps coz its a man thing) and it reacts in a certain way when I think of sex with a woman, and in a totally opposite way when I think of sex with a man. And I’ll bet you London to a Brick, that said “girl dick” reacts in exactly the same way.
I think I disagree regarding taking the free speech tack. I think it’s the right way to go. You might believe that it’s about “reasonable opinions” but lots of people think Meghan Murphy’s are not reasonable opinions, including politicians in Toronto, and possibly my union. (A recent newsletter contained an article encouraging us all to become “trans allies”). You shouldn’t have to agree with Meghan Murphy to argue that she should be allowed to speak. When you make it about who is or isn’t being reasonable, you hand the decision to those with the most power. They may not be your side.
Carmichael, the free speech argument has value, yes. But so many people who actually agree with Meghan Murphy are taking the free speech tack when those people need to be arguing about the substance of her argument. When all they talk about is free speech, it appears as a concession that her speech is offensive and disgusting.
For those who feel it is just a free speech issue, and find her speech offensive and disgusting, the free speech argument is the only one they will use. But for the rest of us, we need to address the substantive, and leave the free speech as a “besides…”
Iknklast: I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t take a position on the issue and argue for it, but I don’t think making the free speech issue a “besides…” is the way to go. If your substantive argument is “She should be allowed to speak coz she’s right.”, you open it up for those who don’t think she’s right to argue that she should’t be allowed to speak because she’s wrong. I think that free speech is primary here. Whether you agree with what’s being said can be worked out later.
Of course, you’re free to disagree with me.
Carmichael, we actually agree on that. I don’t believe the argument “she should be allowed to speak because she’s right” is a valid argument, and the free speech issue is at issue. But…I think we need to be careful how we word these things, because too much of the reporting is solely about free speech, and not about the need to engage with her ideas. The free speech can be dealt with as a component of this, but too much of what is being said comes off as agreeing that her ideas are icky and awful and worthy of shutting up, but that free speech is more important than being right (and while I think free speech is crucial, I do not believe it is more important than being right in your message, because otherwise what have we got? The Internet…which is a giant cesspool with treasures floating, often unnoticed, in the sewage).
In short, we need to insist that she is allowed to talk about these issues (free speech), but we also need to take time to notice the ideas themselves, and not give note to the ickiness of her arguments. In short, engage the rightness of the arguments, AND “even if she was wrong…free speech….etc”.
So I think we agree. The free speech even if you are mistaken is important. But…we who think she is correct need to focus heavily on that, as well.
Iknklast: Yep, I think you’re right. We pretty much agree. I do worry, though, that there’s a lack of commitment to the free exchange of ideas – the whole “freeze peach” thing, (although maybe that isn’t much of a thing anymore). After all, the argument from those wishing to prevent Murphy speaking is very specifically that she is wrong, and her ideas will cause great harm, so she shouldn’t be allowed to speak. I don’t think she’s wrong, and I think that the ideas of those she’s arguing against are much more likely to cause harm, but maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps there is an argument I haven’t considered that would change my mind. I won’t know unless people are allowed to say what they think. There’s nothing new in what I’m saying, of course, but I think perhaps there’s a need to restate the it now.
Anyway, thanks for responding.
Yes, I think the temptation to stifle speech we don’t like (such as the arrest of David Irving) is strong. The problem is, what counts as “offensive” speech changes based on who defines it, and it has more often been used against honest dissent, and people who actually have their facts right than against those who are spouting gibberish that is popular and not necessarily correct (or even good – much of the gibberish supports overall conformity, and ostracizes out groups).
So I guess a double pronged argument is the proper way for those of us who think both that Murphy has something important and accurate to say, and that she would have a right to say it even if we didn’t think that.
But David Irving isn’t just a matter of “we don’t like.” Irving was arrested in Austria, a country that has a fraught history with genocidal anti-semitism, to put it mildly. One can still argue that Austria shouldn’t criminalize speech, but dislike doesn’t do justice to their reasons.
Also, Irving is a systematic deliberate falsifier, in a way that became clear only because he sued Deborah Lipstadt for calling him a Holocaust denier so her lawyers hired historian Richard Evans to check some of his sources. The result was documentation of massive falsification. I’m not at all sure that systematically falsified “history” should be protected free speech.