So, on the subject of bonkers hyperbolic pretzeling over the Bell judgement, Grace 'destroy books I don't like & make inappropriate jokes about sterilising teenage girls' Lavery has some thoughts.
Tell me why my feminism is wrong Grace.
Oh
Because if any human anywhere has any thoughts that deviate in any way from the rote line dictated by
Let's be honest Grace. It doesn't put trans people at risk. It puts trans ideology at risk. Because trans ideology depends on the idea of innate gender identity, and the trans child is the
That is, children are being medicalised to provide evidence to underwrite adults identities.
Nothing to see here.
Defo establishes you're 'not an MRA credentials' right of the bat.
Followed up with liberal application of 'CRUEL NASTY WIMMINS'
Novel.
1. It's not a juridical 'attack.' It's a judgement. About minor's capacity to consent to an experimental medical treatment.
2. It's not an attack on the whole 'LGBT' community.
3. It's not an attack on the trans community. Unless you consider the
If you need the existence of trans children to underwrite your identity and it feels like an existential threat for that to be challenged, that's a you problem.
I thought the margins was where the challenge to hegemony comes from? Oh, just not when it's bitches right?
'We are more vulnerable than those bitches, insert sketchy stats, so fuck their rights give us everything we demand and if you don't...' Part 1,987,265
You wouldn't be denying the existence of female people as a class now?
GCs are at odds with mainstream liberal feminism (true, which means that your 'we're so rad smash the status quo' BS is in fact supported by all the corporate and institutional feminist power and that might tell us something)
Yes, Shulie thought that patriarchy arises *directly* from the sex difference and that the only option for women's liberation was to remove the sex difference and make babies in pods.
It may surprise you to know that a great number of us pretty much ignored that thought, right from the start, because it's, all respect Shulie, I love ya, fucking *bonkers.*
Radical feminism is simply the belief that sex-based oppression underlies all other
Some radical feminists are equality feminists, some, many in fact, are difference feminists.
I would wager that the one of the things that links together feminists opposing trans ideology, is that we understand that 'equality' =/= 'sameness.'
But please, explain my feminism to me again.
Women being female is not an 'identity.' It's a material reality. And my 'personhood' is not defined by my being female. THAT IS THE POINT.
Any woman who grasps that patriarchy functions by male default/othering women from position of male default/patriarchal projection defining women, can grasp, at a glance, that trans ideology is patriarchy on crack.
And we don't need to read Raymond to get that.
The bottom line is, you have the assimilating equality feminist 'let's conform to the male-
We have the 'fuck this entire system structured around male needs and projections and start over' people on ours.
If you were even slightly honest, you would remember that when hooks named 'white feminism,' she was talking about the first group.
Funny how in contemporary discourse appropriation of an oppressed class is high-treason. Apart from when women say they are being appropriated. Then they're just nasty cows.
This is evidence of my intellectual sophistication."
I guess Grace is okay with the horrors of what ICE has been up to then???
'Trans women are women'
'Trans men are men'
'Non-binary is valid'
'No debate'
'Trans rights are human rights'
'Sex is a spectrum'
'Bio-essentialism!'
'Colonialism invented the gender binary'
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Jokers.
It's not complicated.
All the batshit efforts at complicating are yours, and no one would be talking about 'large immobile gametes' had a load of nutbags not tried to convince everyone that no one could identify a female person or tree or a fucking mountain.
And how many times Grace, female people and trees *exist*, their definitions are not *why* they exist, and they will carry on existing regardless. Because not your god mind thank you very much.
'Mu-huh-huh, natural kinds don't exist, only hoi polloi who have not my massive and irrefutable intellectual sophistication think that, silly naive little people, the concept of *construction* is just too much for their limited pedestrian brains to grasp. It
More from Dr. Jane Clare Jones
To the small group of women, many of whom have platforms to protect, who are intent on throwing other women under the bus.
1. That a small number of transitioned trans women have been using women's spaces for a long time is not the same as the impact of a new rights movement
that demands that *anybody is a women only on the basis of self-declaration* and explicitly includes cross-dressers under the trans umbrella. There was less than 5000 people who received a GRC. The estimates of the numbers of cross-dressers in the male population is around 4%.
THAT is a MASSIVE difference.
2. Therefore, any comments you make re: women's current resistance are irrelevant. We are not responding to the same thing.
3. Calling women's concerns about the number of males who may now have access to their intimate spaces 'hysteria'
immediately discredits you as a feminist. (Hello Judy!)
4. Female people are socialised into the rapeable class. They are subjected to objectification and violation from childhood, and especially from their early teens. This has a massive impact on
mental health and sense of their own personhood. Many of us experience being female as fucking traumatic. We *do not* share this experience with people who go through childhood and puberty as males, and whose impression of what 'being female' means is informed by patriarchal
1. That a small number of transitioned trans women have been using women's spaces for a long time is not the same as the impact of a new rights movement
To the small group of cis women worried about sharing spaces with trans women: you\u2019ve almost certainly already been doing so for most of ur life. The online trend of anti-trans hysteria is new, not trans women existing in th world we all share (under patriarchy we all experience)
— Sally Rugg (@sallyrugg) January 15, 2021
that demands that *anybody is a women only on the basis of self-declaration* and explicitly includes cross-dressers under the trans umbrella. There was less than 5000 people who received a GRC. The estimates of the numbers of cross-dressers in the male population is around 4%.
THAT is a MASSIVE difference.
2. Therefore, any comments you make re: women's current resistance are irrelevant. We are not responding to the same thing.
3. Calling women's concerns about the number of males who may now have access to their intimate spaces 'hysteria'
immediately discredits you as a feminist. (Hello Judy!)
4. Female people are socialised into the rapeable class. They are subjected to objectification and violation from childhood, and especially from their early teens. This has a massive impact on
The world can be scary for women: we are at risk of violence from men we know and men we don\u2019t, we can be ridiculed and ignored in health settings, mocked in popular culture, excluded from opportunities for leadership and power. Cis women share all these experiences w trans women
— Sally Rugg (@sallyrugg) January 15, 2021
mental health and sense of their own personhood. Many of us experience being female as fucking traumatic. We *do not* share this experience with people who go through childhood and puberty as males, and whose impression of what 'being female' means is informed by patriarchal
Sally Hines' evidence to the WESC.
'I do not accept that male violence is a thing.'
https://t.co/79KG1w83OB
Stephen Whittle.
'I consider female people having any spaces or services to themselves, or being able to stipulate intimate care from people of their own sex, to be a legal abhorrence.'
https://t.co/MO9NVW3XpK
'Stonewall considers allowing ppl access to the spaces and services of the other sex on the basis of nothing but self declaration regardless of the obvious ways this can be abused and the evidence that it already has been to be sensible.'
https://t.co/QWsEayzeXd
'We still don't understand the law'
'Yeah, we really don't understand the law.'
'I do not accept that male violence is a thing.'
https://t.co/79KG1w83OB
Stephen Whittle.
'I consider female people having any spaces or services to themselves, or being able to stipulate intimate care from people of their own sex, to be a legal abhorrence.'
https://t.co/MO9NVW3XpK
'Stonewall considers allowing ppl access to the spaces and services of the other sex on the basis of nothing but self declaration regardless of the obvious ways this can be abused and the evidence that it already has been to be sensible.'
https://t.co/QWsEayzeXd
'We still don't understand the law'
'Yeah, we really don't understand the law.'
99% of sexual offenders are male.
88% of victims of sexual offences are female.
Any society that is serious about protecting women from sexual offences must not decree *any* subclass of males immune from suspicion of being predatory.
88% of victims of sexual offences are female.
Any society that is serious about protecting women from sexual offences must not decree *any* subclass of males immune from suspicion of being predatory.
Do you think it would be legitimate to ask if for example black or gay people should be excluded from certain schools?
— Tom Harwood (@tomhfh) January 4, 2022
The same false memes about predators once circled those groups too.
Hmmmm, disinformation... like?:
1. Intersex people are neither male or female
2. Intersex people prove that sex is a spectrum, or that male people are female
3. Sex is a cultural, or historical concept, and didn't exist before the colonisation of the Americas
4. All gender non-conforming people that existed throughout history are trans in the modern sense, even though that concept didn't exist and they didn't identify as such
5. Gender identity is a scientifically verified concept
6. There is no possible reason why young people
might experience distress with their body or gendered expectations other than them being trans, and that exploring those reasons is tantamount to conversion therapy
7. There is not a significant desistance rate in young people with gender dysphoria if they are not medicalised
8. Puberty blockers are just a pause button
9. Puberty blockers are totally safe and there is tons of medical evidence that the treatment has good outcomes
10. Women are not oppressed on the basis of their sex
11. Gender identification completely
overrides sex in all and every possible instance. There are no salient sex-based patterns either in physicality or behaviour that means we should continue to organise anything by sex.
12. People who continue to think that sex exists and is salient could only be motivated by
1. Intersex people are neither male or female
2. Intersex people prove that sex is a spectrum, or that male people are female
3. Sex is a cultural, or historical concept, and didn't exist before the colonisation of the Americas
I think that point of view is increasingly getting a foothold in Scotpol. Irrespective of where your sympathies are on gender recognition, you should not look the other way when people are spreading disinformation. It damages everyone by warping debate.
— Mhairi Hunter (@MhairiHunter) December 11, 2020
4. All gender non-conforming people that existed throughout history are trans in the modern sense, even though that concept didn't exist and they didn't identify as such
5. Gender identity is a scientifically verified concept
6. There is no possible reason why young people
might experience distress with their body or gendered expectations other than them being trans, and that exploring those reasons is tantamount to conversion therapy
7. There is not a significant desistance rate in young people with gender dysphoria if they are not medicalised
8. Puberty blockers are just a pause button
9. Puberty blockers are totally safe and there is tons of medical evidence that the treatment has good outcomes
10. Women are not oppressed on the basis of their sex
11. Gender identification completely
overrides sex in all and every possible instance. There are no salient sex-based patterns either in physicality or behaviour that means we should continue to organise anything by sex.
12. People who continue to think that sex exists and is salient could only be motivated by
More from Law
A Call for Help!
1. we have a petition/open letter for the WHO
https://t.co/Bie8pUy7WJ
2. 372 people signed it but we want to boost it
3. I post link ascomment on related YT videos
Tks @KevinMcH3 for the tip
4. You can help by liking the comments
5. That will increase visibility!
6. Links for YT videos with comments are here
1. China curtails hunt for virus origins
https://t.co/NhcYdtsd2Y
2. China: nearly 500,000 may have been infected in Wuhan
https://t.co/KRUQ5hFrii
3. WHO becomes US-China battleground | DW Documentary
https://t.co/8ah8M8bpiB
4. Gravitas: The 'hidden hunt' for COVID-19 origins
https://t.co/hHhhUqgPYt
5. Seeking the invisible: hunt for origins of deadly Covid-19 coronavirus will take scientists to Wuhan
https://t.co/tCPQqjUZF3
6. WHO team to probe COVID-19 origins in
7. How forensic researchers track down origins of SARS-CoV2
https://t.co/r7A1lkr5li
8. Bats, roadblocks & the origins of coronavirus - BBC
https://t.co/Kh9jacC54t
9. New coronavirus strain is far more infectious and spreading among young - BBC
10. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
11. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
12. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
13. https://t.co/PhmoSfvbD8
14. https://t.co/TsvB7SYN2c
15. https://t.co/0o5YbmiUbJ
16. https://t.co/ir7QiwmlWt
17. https://t.co/PTT3KZDi8F
18.
1. we have a petition/open letter for the WHO
https://t.co/Bie8pUy7WJ
2. 372 people signed it but we want to boost it
3. I post link ascomment on related YT videos
Tks @KevinMcH3 for the tip
4. You can help by liking the comments
5. That will increase visibility!
6. Links for YT videos with comments are here
1. China curtails hunt for virus origins
https://t.co/NhcYdtsd2Y
2. China: nearly 500,000 may have been infected in Wuhan
https://t.co/KRUQ5hFrii
3. WHO becomes US-China battleground | DW Documentary
https://t.co/8ah8M8bpiB
4. Gravitas: The 'hidden hunt' for COVID-19 origins
https://t.co/hHhhUqgPYt
5. Seeking the invisible: hunt for origins of deadly Covid-19 coronavirus will take scientists to Wuhan
https://t.co/tCPQqjUZF3
6. WHO team to probe COVID-19 origins in
7. How forensic researchers track down origins of SARS-CoV2
https://t.co/r7A1lkr5li
8. Bats, roadblocks & the origins of coronavirus - BBC
https://t.co/Kh9jacC54t
9. New coronavirus strain is far more infectious and spreading among young - BBC
10. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
11. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
12. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
13. https://t.co/PhmoSfvbD8
14. https://t.co/TsvB7SYN2c
15. https://t.co/0o5YbmiUbJ
16. https://t.co/ir7QiwmlWt
17. https://t.co/PTT3KZDi8F
18.
We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
The entire first part of the hearing related to messages sent by certain individuals from the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group seeking cooperation with trans allies at Garden Court. So far all the discussion has been about whether their names must remain redacted.
— LGB Alliance (@ALLIANCELGB) February 11, 2021
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
Honest Q: Some people argue in good faith that an impeachment trial after POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. I think they\u2019re wrong. But let\u2019s say they\u2019re right, yet senate does it anyway. Does anyone seriously think SCOTUS reverses verdict (or even can)?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 17, 2021
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
