Platforming the bully
Wadhwa continues his attack on women’s rights:
Women who oppose plans to make it easier to change gender have given a platform to “fascists who want to eliminate trans people”, according to the head of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.
Bad lede. We don’t care about changing gender, what we oppose is the absurd dogma that people can change sex, and we oppose that because it results in outrages like domineering male Mridul Wadhwa becoming the head of a rape crisis centre, where he can bully women into obeying him or simply kick them out altogether.
Mridul Wadhwa, 43, a trans woman who was appointed chief executive in May, accused those protesting against the Gender Recognition Reform Bill of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.
Wadhwa is a man and thus the wrong sex to be head of a rape crisis centre. It doesn’t matter what he “accuses” us of or what he thinks we give a “platform” to; what matters is that he’s a man who has the fucking gall to go after and get and occupy a job as head of a rape crisis centre.
And a man who takes the primary role of the Rape Crisis Shelters to be educatin’ against transphobia.
Every scrap of reporting about gender ideology I come across shows how utterly incoherent the whole thing is. I don’t know if the journalist writing that piece identifies as understanding all the issues, but surely the phrase “make it easier to change gender” counts as hate speech, at least in some quarters. Wasn’t gender innate just a minute ago? How long would someone keep their job if they were reporting on the Middle East and used Palestine and Isreal interchangeably? Or to mean Lebanon? I know it’s not the fault of the people reporting on this crap that it doesn’t make any sense, I just don’t understand how anyone who has chosen to be a journalist can write about it and not notice that it either makes no sense, or they don’t understand what’s going on. I still remember that feeling from school, having to write about something I don’t understand and have no interest in, and hoping to somehow come across as vaguely intelligent. But that was something I had to do, not a career choice.
If you object to the Nuremburg laws, you’re a Stalinist.
If you mention the Ukraine famine, you’re a Nazi.
@Catwhisperer
Oh, but there’s a huge difference between “gender” and “gender identity.” The first one isn’t innate, but the second one is.
I hope that clarified things for you.
(snort)
And your “gender identity” can be innately changeable.
One of the things I have noticed as a non-professional observer of psychology, is that there are neuro-atypical people who learn of a disorder and, similar to hypochondriacs, recognize facets of the described peronality manfestations in themselves and decide that they have this disorder. And they expect people around them to recognize that they have this disorder, and seek to educate as many people as they can about this disorder and how it affects their interpersonal relationships “for awareness.” And frankly, I see that in the many descriptions of the recognized genders. “THAT’S ME and the pronouns are blah blah blah.” It’s hard to tell if they are serious, or playing around, or choosing their genders as their avatars for life, for now. Until they see an updated list, and find their real gender. And I honestly think that for many, because they do have diagnosed conditions that are accepted by those around them, it’s only natural to expect that everyone should accept their gender as well. No matter how many times they change it.
Re #6
I’ve made similar observations. I saw a chart today containing advice for young people, and it actually advocated looking at one of the available lists of different “genders” to find ones that fit. It’s so very much like reading symptoms. Finding a label to attach to oneself is incredibly enticing.
I just finished reading the section of “Material Girls” where Stock talks about immersing oneself in a fiction, and I found it very insightful. I have no doubt that many of the people who these fictional representations of themselves or others mean well, but there are serious problems with doing so, not the least of which is being unable to deal with reality when it is necessary and important to do so.
Haha thanks Sastra, I knew I must be missing something!
I keep forgetting the key thing: when one aspect doesn’t make sense, rearrange a few things and hey presto, this set of arguments suddenly addresses the question someone has asked. It’s like one of those jigsaw puzzles where you get a huge chunk of the sky done and then have a pile of pieces left over and it turns out that some of the pieces that seemed to fit together just fine don’t actually go where you put them and then you find out that quite a lot of the blue pieces are interchangeable and how are supposed to finish the damn puzzle if you can’t work out what goes where!? And eventually you start gnawing at the edges of the puzzle pieces just to soften them up so you can fit them all in because you haven’t wasted all this time to end up with nothing to show for it and finally LOOK! IT’S DONE! Just don’t compare it to the picture on the box because you have just somehow turned millennia of female oppression into an image of an army of nasty middle-aged women genociding some blokes in dresses.
(Or, you go “well this is bollocks” and sweep the whole lot back into the box.)