No YOU feel “miffed”
Oh ffs.
The full photo:
Sista. That’s pretty much how I “present” except that I don’t wear earrings and I don’t wear glasses except when reading or online-babbling. I don’t have those nice curls at the top of the head, either. The woman at the desk, too – much the same.
That is not “transitioning.” Jeans have been for both sexes for decades, men can have long hair and women can have short hair, both sexes can wear earrings, yadda yadda yadda.
Willoughby is such a reactionary.
That is to say, this person thinks that gender identity is a ridiculous social construct.
That is to say, this person thinks that gender identity is a ridiculous social construct.
Hey, wait, those two are the same thing! Yet Willoughby thinks they’re contradictory! Could it be that Willoughby’s perspective is constrained somehow?
I’d like to be charitable here and explore different things this rather vague statement might have been intended to convey. But I’ll just jump right to the most plausible meaning: somehow, in Willoughby’s mind, (acknowledging that behavioral differences with respect to sex are largely the result of social constructs which shouldn’t be restricting us) is part of the same thing as (pretending that sex is located in the brain and only in the brain and brain-sex matters hugely). That‘s not contradictory at all.
Shorter India: womanhood is a costume.
So not including “T” with LGB is “protesting against the existence of trans people?” By this logic absolutely EVERYONE’S AGENDA must include and centre trans people, otherwise THEY ARE PROTESTING THE EXISTENCE OF TRANS PEOPLE. Nobody has the right to choose not to support the demands of trans “rights.” It’s not enough that they’ve captured so many institutions that now parrot their beliefs and demands using their preferred framework, using their preferred terminology, anyone not following along are actively, openly promoting Trans Genocide. The last people that trans activists can afford to let off the hook are those whose coat-tails, rights, and organizations they rode in on and took over, on their way to unaccountable power and influence. Exclusively trans organizations are permitted, but lesbians, gays, and bisexuals organizing without the T is not. Simply trying to get out from under the “T” highlights the cynically opportunistic parasitism of trans activism. This will not do. It is rude, politically embarassing, and TRANSPHOBIC.
Of course if trans activism admits that there is any conflict between the rights of LGB people (or WOMEN) and trans “rights”, they can’t very well claim that there is “NO CONFLICT!” If there is no conflict there’s no need for debate. They’ve told us there’s no conflict, so therefore there’s nothing to debate.
But if there is conflictSHUT UP BIGOT! TWAW! NO CONFLICT!! NO DEBATE!!!” (Repeat this FIVE TIMES and it’s TRUE!)
While photos can be deceptive, I had no trouble in recognising that there are two women featured. Our brains are just wired that way.
A photo of Idiart Wannabee on the other hand …
Yes! LG is completely different from T! They should not be linked together. The forced teaming has always and obviously been a sham, a parasitic takeover of the work done by LGB to secure their own rights, rights that, unlike T demands, do not affect or diminish anyone else’s rights.
LG are jealous of T? In what world? Jealous that T “go beyond” what LG believe are the limits of gender? Go ahead. Proliferate as many “genders” as you like. Knock yourself silly. The women in the photo demonstrate that gender doesn’t matter. The restrictions of gender rules can be wholly thrown off. T, on the other hand, actively bind themselves up in gender rules. They enforce restrictive gender rules. What LG know, which T deny, is that “gender” does not affect sex. The lesbians in the photo know that, regardless of their appearance, they are still women.
Women are not jealous of T; no, LG and W are angry with T for their lies, their exploitation of the LG movement, and their crimes against LG and W, such as siccing the police on women for daring to celebrate Women’s International Day without men horning in and taking over, or T wielding the power of the state to forcibly prevent women from gathering together on that day.
The mendacity is strong with this one.
Yes and no about the “completely different” part. One can see where the idea comes from, I think – butch lesbians and camp men can seem like a step in the direction of just plain swapping. If you then decide the body is beside the point, well, there you are.
Willoughby is showing that he does not understand the meaning of ‘gender critical’. He thinks that GC is a belief that a people must stay within the traditional gendered roles that have been historically linked with the sexes, and that they protest trans ideology because trans people step out of those roles. He simply cannot wrap his tiny mind around the idea that GC is a rejection of the notion of gender and that their problem with transgender is not that it’s violating gender boundaries, it’s that it is violating the rights of women. GC feminists really wouldn’t care what trans people did if they weren’t demanding access-all-areas passes to womanhood.
Well, also if they weren’t taking up all the oxygen, talking over us, claiming to be The Most Oppressed, hogging the god damn mic all the time.
Shorter Willoughby: womanhood is about thinking you look fuckable (no matter how deluded that may be).