Rage identifies as passion
Hadley Freeman on the “passion” (actually the misogyny) of men like Lloyd Russell-Moyle:
It was inevitable the fantasies sold by gender activists would crash on the hard rocks of reality, and not just because of the endless internal contradictions (if gender is different from biological sex, and given that sport is segregated by sex, why are trans women now on women’s sports teams?). The movement is increasingly underpinned by a frothing misogyny that is becoming all too visible to even the most casual observers. Some insist it is impossible to engage rationally with this “debate” because, they say, “both sides are equally toxic”. Parliament last week gave the lie to that. When Rosie Duffield spoke on Tuesday, calmly — and rightly — saying that Scotland’s bill “clearly conflicts with the Equality Act and would have repercussions for women across the UK”, she was jeered by men in her own party, most obviously Ben Bradshaw and Lloyd Russell-Moyle. After the Conservative MP Miriam Cates spoke about the threats the bill poses to women’s “dignity and safety”, Russell-Moyle, pink with rage, called Cates’s speech “disgusting” and added, wagging his finger: “You should be ashamed!”
He shouted it, from a contorted rage-face, and his finger was stabbing the air rather than wagging. It was the full-on “I am this close to breaking your jaw” that far too many men allow themselves to use on women who dare to have their own views.
Yesterday Duffield wrote in The Times that Russell-Moyle then crossed over “to the Tory side of the chamber to sit on the side benches, very close to [Cates], staring as if to intimidate” the Conservative MP. He was so proud of his performance, he put a clip of it on his Twitter page, although he later issued a non-apology, saying he stood by his words but had “failed to control that passion”. Men — so emotional. Amirite, ladies?
Straight out of the bullies’ playbook. They’re not using their greater strength and bulk and vocal power to intimidate women, they’re passionate and concerned and exploding with solidarity.
Gender activism has become the permissible face of misogyny for a certain kind of allegedly progressive man. It gives him latitude to call women derogatory names and make spittle-flecked videos, insisting that anyone who has a problem with male-born people in women-only spaces is on the wrong side of history.
We’ve been watching this (and objecting to it and resisting it) for literally years, and it’s only getting worse.
Russell-Moyle has previously had to apologise to JK Rowling after accusing her of “using her own sexual assault as a justification for discriminating against a group of people who were not responsible for it”, ie trans women, ie male-born people. Perhaps he learnt something from that experience because he didn’t accuse Duffield — another victim of male violence — of exploiting her own lived experience. But it’s a shame he is so unwilling, or maybe just unable, to understand no matter how passionately he shouts at women, he cannot make them believe something as undefined as “gender” renders all differences between the two sexes — males are stronger, males are more violent — irrelevant.
His red-faced finger-stabbing shouting just underlines the fact that men are stronger and more violent and that’s why we refuse to agree that they are women if they say they are. Lloyd Russell-Moyle could wear a tutu and dance en pointe and we still wouldn’t believe he’s a woman.
And still the press do not approach the subject with anything more substantial about this issue than the claim that this is merely an administrative change to make it easier for men to change their birth certifcates to say they’re actually women. None of them I have read nor listened to will ask whether it should be done, nor why it’s so urgent. They simply report it as a matter of course that it’s a good thing to do for trans people and do not report on the fallbacks.
Yesterday I listened to the normally excellnt BBC Newscast podcast, but while interviewing Mhairi Black the presenter limited his questions to her opionions on whether or not it was in conflict with the UK Equalities Act, justifying the invocation of Section 35. Not once did he challenge her, and the show makes a regular practice of challenging government ministers during their interviews. There was also no mention of the barracking of Rosie Duffiield by her own party, in chambers. No mention of the intimidation tactics against Cates (why was he allowed to cross over to the Tory side? I don’t know Parliament’s rules in detail but they normally admonish MP’s for violating arcane rules.) It’s like even Newscast must follow the script laid down by Stonewall UK.
Starmer is finding out that he chose the wrong path when it comes to transgender activists. They were denouncing him for not being nasty enough to women. He made his bed.