Guest post: It’s not “liberation,” it’s a home invasion
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Take your “inclusion” and.
Also how revolting to see two women in government putting women’s safety at risk for the sake of this stupid ideology.
What’s in it for them? Not that politics should be about self-gain (thanks Mr. Trump!), but how do these two women see their efforts to ruin women’s sport? Certainly not as “efforts to ruin women’s sport” but that’s what’s going to happen if they get their way. Politics should at least be about being aware of the results of your actions, otherwise, why bother? If they’re not willing to talk to people who will be predictably and adversely affected by this proposal than they’re not doing their jobs. They’re not setting free a deprived, downtrodden minority, but inserting MEN into women’s rugby, with great potential for physical harm to those already in the league because they’re actually women. It’s not “liberation,” it’s a home invasion.
Still, one wonders, what are they thinking? What parts of the trans bullshit won them over? Do they really believe that TiMs are not male? Do they really believe that TiMs are disadvantaged more than women? Have these two cabinet ministers(!) consulted with women to see what they think? Have they talked to any uncaptured sports scientists who know the science behind male and female bodies? Unless of course they don’t care what this does to women, and are using this little exercise as a way to earn Stonewall points, and they’re not interested in anything other than looking virtuous and progressive to others who’ve swallowed this stupid ideology. News flash: outside of your little self-satisfied, self righteous bubble, there’s a bigger world of reality and policy that you’re blindly fucking around with, that results in lost opportunities and broken bones for women. If you’re not going to bother with little details like that while in government, then you shouldn’t be in charge of anything with more real-world impact than counting paperclips, or be allowed to operate any machinery more complicated than velcro.
What are they thinking? In part, “there aren’t enough trans ppl to make a big difference to us — but we can sure make such a big difference to them!”
Human beings tend to think small, and we make analogies to something in our own homes or our own lives. Because trans ppl are considered damaged, needy, and oppressed, I think a lot of women who don’t quite buy completely into the idea that TWAW instead see them as the Token Compassionate Inclusion. They’re the lonely little cousin who gets to sit in on the teenage slumber party, the kid with Downs Syndrome making the free throw for the team, the recent immigrant whose spelling is given a pass or whose lack of official membership for the local pool gets overlooked. We make exceptions for the rare hard-luck cases because we can choose to do so and it doesn’t really affect us. And once we’ve done this, we’ll defend our choice with anger. WE have a heart. You, not so much.
That may be one reason so many advocates tell anecdotes about their friend who’s no problem, or that kid who blossomed, or this lovely, loving individual nobody could object to. It’s not just propaganda. It’s the small, relatable way of considering the issue and it’s where they started and where many of them still are.