Stonewall boss admits it’s a fiction
Chapter 2 – ideology. And somebody, on mainstream BBC Anderson says in a scolding voice, talked about “an LGBTQ ideology.” Yes that’s right, Sunshine, it’s an ideology that men can become women.
I mean, I’m not living an ideology, Nick. I’m living my life.
But he’s not T. It’s the T bit that rests on an ideology. Robinson:
But it’s a set of ideas, that we’re gonna come to, it’s an assertion of a belief not a fact that trans women are women – we’re gonna come to that –
They cross-talk for a few seconds with Anderson repeating “my life” and Robinson citing “a set of views and beliefs that some people see as an ideology.” Finally around 16 minutes they get around to women and their rights. Anderson says he can’t see why we’ve gone backwards and at 17:17 Robinson says
Well because a man with a penis was sent to a women’s prison, in an era in which you’re telling me that there are rights to safe spaces. [Anderson interjecting “Yeah…yeah…”] And Stonewall said it wouldn’t happen.
Anderson: And this individual is a rapist, and the full force of the law should apply to that individual –
Robinson: Is he a man, or a woman?
Anderson: Well, that person committed an offense whilst a man, has transitioned to being, um, a woman, and the Scottish Prison Service, as I believe would happen in England and Wales as well, has undertaken a risk assessment pretty quickly, and put said individual into a man’s prison.
Robinson: But it’s not an irrelevant question to ask is he a man or a woman?
Anderson: No it’s not an irrelevant question to ask, and this is a transitioning individual…
So there’s a liminal space between the two? If you’re “transitioning” it’s not quite right to say you are a woman? But then how do you ever know who is a woman?
Robinson: So he’s not a man or a woman.
Anderson: He is now identifying as a woman…
Robinson: But that’s describing what he thinks. I’m asking you what you think. Is he a man or is he a woman?
Anderson: What this person is is a rapist.
Robinson: No no, he’s a man or a woman. He may also be a rapist but is he a man or a woman?
Anderson: Well this person is now identified as a woman but fundamentally Nick they’re a rapist, and –
Robinson: No fundamentally, in a debate about whether we should change the law, so that people are what they say they are, with no other test and no other protection for women’s spaces, what matters is, are they what they say they are, so if Adam the rapist says I’m Isla the woman, is he a woman?
Anderson: But there is space, and current legislation does protect safe spaces, and that’s what –
Robinson [cutting him off and exasperatedly laughing a little]: But he was sent into a women’s prison! It’s only after the row that he was then removed from the women’s prison.
Anderson then, annoyingly, burbles condescendingly about prison stats – lots of people in prison, tiny number of trans prisoners, blah blah.
Robinson: But without getting bogged down, the reason many people think it matters, even if it was one in ten million, is because it’s about a principle. And the principle at the heart of this complicated row is a simple one. Stonewall appears to be asserting – are they? – that a trans woman is in all circumstances, whoever they are, whatever they’ve done, whatever their genitalia, is. a. woman. legally forever.
Anderson replies, absurdly, that people say “what is a biological woman??” and we know what a biological woman is…
…and Stonewall is not saying anything to change that. What it is saying is that we believe that a trans woman is a woman.
Which is exactly, but EXACTLY, why this is an ideology. Stonewall is “not saying anything” to change the fact that women are women but it believes that a man [who claims to be a woman] is a woman. THAT IS THE IDEOLOGY.
That one reply should become a meme, because it gives the whole fucking game away. Starts at 20:27. Make a note of it.
“What I’m not trying to do,” he goes on blithely, “is convince people of anything other than that.”
Other than what? That Stonewall believes The Magic Gender Ideology? We know. Or that trans women are women? That’s a whole other thing, bub, and you should stop trying to convince people of it.
Well not “legally forever” if you can legally change your status; detransitioners could change back couldn’t they? Theoretically it could be done multiple times rendering it completely superfluous.
Seems to me that everything they are trying to do flows from the acceptance that a transwoman is a woman for all intents and purpose. All rights henceforth and hitherto for access to the women’s Secret Garden, where all the stuff happens that the boys are left out of.
Sure, but once the paint’s dry, BANG! He’s a woman.
Wow, sounds like at least some people at the BBC have “unwoken” up; at least this presenter and whoever was in the booth at the controls. It’s so refreshing seeing journalists doing their job and not simply repeating trans bullshit. To see them interrupt the activists in the middle of their non-answers. Make them stutter and splutter trying to defend the impossible. Maybe we could arrange for some sort of transfusion (HA!) at the CBC and NPR to jog their memories as to the nature of their position and duty to inform rather than indoctinate.
Mike @ 2 – And what does that flow from? A BELIEF. In other words, an ideology.
not Bruce – yes – I saw a lot of frowning about this interview on twit but now that I’ve listened to most of it I think it’s pretty damn probing and skeptical, and quite insistent on the point about women’s rights.
Jesus F Christ this whole topic makes anyone trying to defend this position sound like an unhinged moron.
Or else a saint nailed to the cross. One of those.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
All too true.
I had meant to go back to fix my sentence to be complete, but I am glad you took my meaning. I think large-scale atheist acceptance that TWAW can be explained as due to the fact that so many ex-atheists hunger for some sort of faith or ideology, since they left church behind. The Sunday Assemblies fizzle out because they don’t have a unifying purpose other than “It’s kind of like church but with lectures on Sagan instead of against Satan.”
I’m just being a bit silly, actually. I can’t figure it out.
I fixed it now.
I can’t figure it out either. I can’t figure out why the absurdity doesn’t gross them out every bit as much as it grosses me out.
Ta!