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 their

https://t.co/vg3wT0cc5h
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
projection not lived experience.

5. Yes, that's right, when colonising or enslaving powers rape women en masse it has nothing to do with who is female or not and they're doing to enforce cisnormative ideas of who constitutes a 'real woman'.

JFC.

https://t.co/sHnNWEwn0s
6. Women being female *is not oppressive.* What is oppressive is *how the world treats female people.* If you want to change the first while essentialising the second you are a frickin idiot.

7. Womanhood is not a thing. It's a vague gendery idea that people arguing your side
use all the time because 'gatekeeping womanhood' sounds half-reasonable while 'deciding who is female on the basis of my say so' sounds ridiculous.

8. The only criteria of being female is being female. Being female is not restricted by race, ethnicity, creed, nationality, wealth
status or fertility. Female people are female. People who are not female are not female. That's it. The rest is smoke, mirrors and bullshit.

9. I urge people intent on throwing women under the bus to stop patronising us and treating us like a bunch of

https://t.co/3xBrUyD4KE
redneck hicks who has never met a trans person and would go into some kind of moral panic if we did. We know trans people. Most of them don't agree with you but hey...

10. I urge you also to understand that we *have done a lot of research and know what we're talking about* and

More from Dr. Jane Clare Jones

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.'
@PennyRed @OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj No Laurie, you have repeatedly used the kind of monstering rhetoric towards us that many of the people who have repeatedly threatened, harassed and intimidated Julie and thousands of other women do.

When this is repeatedly brought to your attention you disavow the fact that

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj calling women terfs, fascists, nazis, in league with the far right, etc etc, is rhetoric associated a broad campaign of harassment and intimidation, disavow the violence, and then carry right on with the rhetoric.

We've watched you do this for years. We've also watched you

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj repeatedly claim you don't understand our position, and don't understand why we think your complicity with the erasure of female people as a sex class makes your feminism incoherent. We have explained all this to you at length, and you somehow, cannot grasp it, and then carry on

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj calling us fascists.

Perhaps when women who have been on the receiving end of extreme abuse by trans rights activists for years, review your book, and find your feminism wanting, and then you turn around and claim victimhood, perhaps that's a little bit galling. Perhaps when

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj you are siding with people who have been repeatedly accusing women of 'weaponising their trauma' because they want space free from males, we find it EXTREMELY GALLING for you to appeal to your trauma when you got some shitty book reviews.

Joanne Rowling is a survivor of sexual
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

More from Society

Tomorrow, January 6th, MAGA chuds, Proud Boys, and white supremacists are planned to descend on Washington D.C. to contest the election. Among them will be NSC-131, a New England based neo-Nazi organization. Let's welcome them by saying hi to one of their members, Eddie Stuart!


Edward Stuart, from Chester, New Hampshire, has been a member of Nationalist Social Club (NSC) since the very beginning and is a staple participant in their actions. He is known in NSC chats as "Carl Jung" and is well connected in the New England Nazi scene.
2/


NSC-131 is a neo-Nazi group that was started in Massachusetts in early 2020 by Chris Hood. You can learn more about NSC and it's members in these threads:


Eddie describes his ideology as "Esoteric Hitlerism" which is an occult form of Nazism that literally worships Adolf Hitler as a god, or, specifically, as an incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu. Here is Ed holding the RigVeda with some of his occult Nazi pals. Interesting Ed!
4/


Much of this ideological insight was gained from Eddie's Twitter, where he originally used his "Carl Jung" persona and reposts explicit neo-fascist content and racist memes. In one edited picture, Eddie can be seen at an NSC event in late June 2020 holding a Nazi Sonnenrad flag
5
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
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 chorus of this song uses the shlokas taken from Sundarkand of Ramayana.

It is a series of Sanskrit shlokas recited by Jambavant to Hanuman to remind Him of his true potential.

1. धीवर प्रसार शौर्य भरा: The brave persevering one, your bravery is taking you forward.


2. उतसारा स्थिरा घम्भीरा: The one who is leaping higher and higher, who is firm and stable and seriously determined.

3. ुग्रामा असामा शौर्या भावा: He is strong, and without an equal in the ability/mentality to fight

4. रौद्रमा नवा भीतिर्मा: His anger will cause new fears in his foes.

5.विजिटरीपुरु धीरधारा, कलोथरा शिखरा कठोरा: This is a complex expression seen only in Indic language poetry. The poet is stating that Shivudu is experiencing the intensity of climbing a tough peak, and likening

it to the feeling in a hard battle, when you see your enemy defeated, and blood flowing like a rivulet. This is classical Veera rasa.

6.कुलकु थारथिलीथा गम्भीरा, जाया विराट वीरा: His rough body itself is like a sharp weapon (because he is determined to win). Hail this complete

hero of the world.

7.विलयगागनथाला भिकारा, गरज्जद्धरा गारा: The hero is destructive in the air/sky as well (because he can leap at an enemy from a great height). He can defeat the enemy (simply) with his fearsome roar of war.
I like this heuristic, and have a few which are similar in intent to it:


Hiring efficiency:

How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?

What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?

How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:

* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work

How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.

(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)

How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.