Be really fluffy
Finally some news coverage. The Daily Mail has it and so does the Telegraph. Gee, thanks, Guardian and BBC and Independent; nice to know you’re studiously avoiding news about male felons who incite violence against women.
London Trans Pride has defended a convicted kidnapper who called for protesters to “punch” gender critical people “in the f—— face.”
Sarah Jane Baker, a trans activist who campaigns on behalf of trans prisoners, addressed attendees at the march on Saturday.
She was released from prison three years ago after serving 30 years for the kidnapping and attempted murder of her stepmother’s brother, and for attempting to kill another prisoner while incarcerated.
At the march on Saturday, Baker told a cheering crowd: “I was going to come here and be really fluffy, be really nice and be really lovely and queer and gay and laugh.
“But if you see a Terf, punch them in the f—— face.”
Break their eye sockets, break their noses, smash their teeth, break their jaws, give them TBIs. All in good fluffy fun of course.
London mayor
When asked if Mr Khan supported Baker’s comments, a spokesman said: “The mayor is a proud LGBTQI+ ally and has been clear in his support for the trans community. He is also clear that violence is never acceptable.”
So he supports the trans community but not the women community? Why’s that? Why do trans people – or rather, let’s face it, trans women, who are men – matter while women don’t matter? Why doesn’t the Mayor of London support the women’s community? Does he hate women, look down on women, think women don’t matter?
The London Trans Pride speakers demonstrated at Wellington Arch in London’s Hyde Park Corner on Jul 8. There were 10 scheduled speakers of which Baker was not one, organisers said. She instead took to the stage during the “open-mic” portion of the event.
However, organisers said that while it does not condone violence, many speakers at the event “hold a lot of rage” which they “have the right to express” through words.
So it claims it doesn’t condone violence, while condoning incitement to violence.
A London Trans Pride spokesman said: “Sarah and many others in our community hold a lot of rage and anger and they have the right to express that anger through their words.
“We do not condone violence, we do not back a call to arms for violence of any kind. We do condone righteous anger and the right to the free speech that was expressed yesterday. We have and will continue to march in peace.”
So the spokesman is just a liar. Condoning the right to say “punch women in the face” is in fact condoning a call for violence. You can’t punch a woman in the face non-violently.
And they of course demonstrated this by having an organiser immediately take the mic and say that such calls to violence were wrong and should be repudiated. No? Colour me surprised.
Would the press/police/everyone be so supportive of this statement? Obviously not.
There is no women community, just as there is no men community and no white community. Communities are only for groups that intersectionality marks oppressed. Political identity is impossible for those in the privileged position, so they can have no community built from an identity. Political identity is possible only through the lens of oppression.
Or so Social Justice would tell us.
That does seem to be the rule, broadly speaking. The BBC used to burble about “the Muslim community” endlessly, but I think not so much about “the secular community” or the “Ex-Muslim community” because somehow the latter two are less victimy,
I like that. Victimy. Victiminess nicely captures the phenomenology in the same way as truthiness. There’s a feeling or perception or conviction of victimhood. Claims of trans victimhood have a high degree of truthiness, so trans feels victimy, and victimy groups have communities. Being a community means being people for whom we’re to have empathy and sympathy. No community, no sympathy.
That’s pretty much it.
It was really conspicuous in BBC reporting for a long time. They kept consulting the Muslim Council of Britain as if it were an ordinary civic organization as opposed to a theocratic Islamist organization bent on enforcing religious taboos on everyone.