If a Jehovah’s Witness wants to refuse a blood transfusion that would potentially save their life, I find that sad but it has little to do with me.

If a Jehovah’s Witness wants to refuse consent for a child to have a potentially life-saving blood transfusion, medical staff have the option of seeking a court order to over-ride parental objections.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses as an organisation campaigned to have the law changed so that it is illegal for anyone to be given a blood transfusion, this would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm that ‘Jesus Christ is God’s firstborn son, is inferior to God, and was created by God’, then I don’t agree but it has little to do with me.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses wanted to make it the law that I had to affirm that ‘Jesus Christ is God’s firstborn son, is inferior to God, and was created by God’, it would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
So if a person who identifies as trans wishes to believe they have actually changed sex, I don’t agree but their belief is little to do with me.
If organisations representing people who identify as trans seek to change the law so that someone who identifies as trans can access spaces and services reserved for the sex they believe they have become, this would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
If these organisations wanted to make it the law that I had to affirm that TWAW, TMAM and NBPANB, this would clash with my rights and I would be vociferously against it.
In any of these situations, I would not be arguing for the death, ill-treatment or removal of existing rights from people. I would be arguing for the protection of my rights.
If a Jehovah’s Witness comes to my door and I tell them I don’t believe in their ideology and have no wish to convert, they don’t vanish in a puff of smoke because they have been invalidated. If a trans identifying person wants me to chant TWAW and I don’t, they still exist.
If someone needs to believe a particular belief, to subscribe to a particular ideology, that is their business. It becomes mine when it impacts on my rights, when it seeks to compel.

More from Society

Like most movements, I have learned that the definition of feminism has expanded to include simply treating women like human beings.

(A thread for whoever feels like reading)


I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.

To me, very easy things to get behind.

And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.

Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.

Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta

All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.

To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:

Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women

You May Also Like

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW