Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Stonewall: You Can No Longer Use The Word “Mother”

If you do we’ll give you a bad ranking.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 185Last Saturday at 3:19 AM

Oh good grief.

by Anonymousreply 106/05/2021

What a bunch of parent-who-have-given-birth-fuckers.

by Anonymousreply 206/05/2021

Oi Stonewall?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 306/05/2021

Your "parent who has given birth" is so fat...

by Anonymousreply 406/05/2021

"They just handed the Republicans the midterms!!!!"

by Anonymousreply 506/05/2021

If the UK government pulled its funding from Stonewall now and said now that you have achieved most of your earlier aims marriage equality etc whilst there is still value in a charity and organisation around fair treatment of sexual minorities you no longer need to be such a big grand organisation with tax payer largesse going into your coffers so you should become smaller and less influential in terms of acces to government then I think public opinion would be onside. It wouldn't have been appropriate or doable a decade ago but now? I could see it and I think the government is likely to make a move along these lines. Stonewall have overplayed their hand.

by Anonymousreply 606/05/2021

Insanity.

by Anonymousreply 706/05/2021

Wait, why are we not allowed to use the word ‘mother’ but we're still allowed to use the word ‘father’?

by Anonymousreply 806/05/2021

Why do people have so much time on their hands to come up with such nonsense! WTF.

R8, good point!

by Anonymousreply 906/05/2021

Ita also arguably insulting to adoptive mothers. They are getting in an unnecessary mess and tangle in their puritanical quest to be sophisticated and enlightened

by Anonymousreply 1006/05/2021

adoptive mothers=person-who-hasn't-given-birth-but-has-raised-a-child

by Anonymousreply 1106/05/2021

So, let's rewrite our language to include the handful of FTMs who give birth across the world?

If you get pregnant, go through 9 months of pregnancy, seeing obstetricians regularly, have breast milk develop, see your body expand to enable delivery - if you go through all that and still think you are a man or anything different than a woman, then you have some serious mental issues and frankly, don't deserve to be a parent.

We have to rewrite our language to accommodate these fragile minds? Just like now we have to be cis?

This is exactly the shit that turns people away from the trans movement. Of course there will be those supporters now who will call be a right-wing, transphobe and paid troll by conservatives to create online discord.

And that further creates the divide. Nobody can say anything without the trans police trying to cancel them and ignore what they say or label it as offensive.

Fuck this noise - can we focus this energy on REAL problems for middle and working class people please?

by Anonymousreply 1206/05/2021

Yup, trannies have hijacked gay pride month to be all about them, even tho trannies have more in common with mental health patients than they do gay men. It’s why I no longer participate in any pride related events and no longer donate to any gay organizations that have transformed into tranny crusaders. I’m beyond sick of this shit and it has to stop. It’s so sad.

by Anonymousreply 1306/05/2021

First World Problems....

by Anonymousreply 1406/05/2021

Stonewall hates women. What a sickening, scary decision. Trannies are anti free speech.

by Anonymousreply 1506/05/2021

What a bunch of parent who has given birth fucking morons.

by Anonymousreply 1606/05/2021

Who or what is Stonewall?

by Anonymousreply 1706/05/2021

[quote]Wait, why are we not allowed to use the word ‘mother’ but we're still allowed to use the word ‘father’?

Because FTM don't care about that.

by Anonymousreply 1806/05/2021

^^^Sorry, I meant MTF above. So much of the madness is being driven by a desperate desire to erase biological womanhood, since it can never be theirs. That's what it boils down to.

by Anonymousreply 1906/05/2021

The telling statement is their advocating this to 'increase their ranking on an equality leaderboard". What fucking equality ranking is this that we all have to bow down to?

Changing words doesn't engender more rights or equality. Bullying people to adopt non-sensical language doesn't help either.

This is a lazy and offensive way to fight for rights - you just put out a statement and attempt to bully people into accepting it. It does nothing to change people's minds.

There needs to be a list of trans rights that they want so they can be argued and discussed. But this moving target of anything and everything isn't going to work.

by Anonymousreply 2006/05/2021

This will backfire. People in 20 years will look back in horror, unable to wrap their heads around it how anyone could cheer on young girls for amputating their breasts, castrate boys and call it a cure and rob from women too much of what they have fought for. Fuck this. I have a child. It was a cesarean. Am I now an uterus-haver whose belly was ripped open to extract a child?

by Anonymousreply 2106/05/2021

[quote]Wait, why are we not allowed to use the word ‘mother’ but we're still allowed to use the word ‘father’?

A common discussion in Britain is how many children Boris Johnson has fathered. It's at least 6, rumoured to be 7, but could be 9 if the story about the twins is to be believed.

I really can't think what the non-gendered term would be to describe that situation. He is "dad" to some of the kids but not to all of them. In some cases he simply ejaculated into the birthing parent.

by Anonymousreply 2206/05/2021

What’s really disturbing is the threats. ‘DO IT OR ELSE’. As an elder gay I thought I’d seen it all but I guess I was wrong. More horrors are yet to come.

by Anonymousreply 2306/05/2021

Well, what little relevance Stonewall had left is now gone.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2406/05/2021

When Freddie McConnell of Seahorse documentary film fame went to court because he didn't want to be recognised legally as the mother of the child he'd given birth to the judge made it clear that any change to the law should be statute led not judge led.

There are lots of pro trans politicians who support erasing the term mother and replacing it with birthing parent yet they're not willing to try and force a debate in Parliament or table an amendment to an existing piece of legislation.

When I think about the 2 Labour MPs who legalised same sex marriage and abortion in Northern Ireland by tabling amendments in the last Parliament, the inaction by politicians who support McConnell's stance is just appalling. They want to change the law but they're not willing to argue for it, build alliances, change people's minds. It's Stonewall's new mentality: DO NOT DEBATE.

by Anonymousreply 2506/05/2021

Isn't this how the people employed as diversity leads in large companies basically keep themselves employed? By constantly nitpicking, looking for things to be offended by, policing the use of language and going on power trips.

by Anonymousreply 2606/05/2021

So stupid

by Anonymousreply 2706/05/2021

[quote] Who or what is Stonewall?

A major LGBT rights org. Basically the HRC of the UK.

by Anonymousreply 2806/05/2021

The insanity of the 'woke' 21st Century marches on but it is becoming a terrible, laughable parody. More and more, people will not take them seriously. They have overplayed their hand.

by Anonymousreply 2906/05/2021

Not a chance in hell.

by Anonymousreply 3006/05/2021

[quote]More and more, people will not take them seriously.

I don’t think this is true. They will and do.

by Anonymousreply 3106/05/2021

I have had it with these parent who have given birth fuckin' snakes on this parent who has given birth fuckin' plane!

by Anonymousreply 3206/05/2021

[quote] Wait, why are we not allowed to use the word ‘mother’ but we're still allowed to use the word ‘father’?

No, we’re going to change that too - it’s now going to be - ‘a parent who spilled seed’

by Anonymousreply 3306/05/2021

I want you to go in that bag and find my wallet. It’s the one that says “bad parent who has given birth fucker”

by Anonymousreply 3406/05/2021

Well, Person Who Has Given Birth Day 2022 is a year away, so Hallmark will have plenty of time to solve the problem of fitting that phrase onto its seasonal (May) greeting cards.

I am fully supportive of trans rights and recognition. However, I'm surprised that many straight people are using terms like "cisgender" (non-trans) and "afab" (assigned female at birth) to describe themselves. And office people are adding "pronouns: she/her/his" to their email signatures. Are we doing all of this to accommodate less than 1 percent of the population? Are the trans just an extremely vocal minority...or are they a bigger percentage of the population than I imagined?

by Anonymousreply 3506/05/2021

Unbelievable!

by Anonymousreply 3606/05/2021

R35 - there's a huge difference between being supportive of trans rights and recognition and going along with every change request/demand.

However, any resistance is shouted down and called transphobic. This stupid 'Trans rights are human rights' - um, please define your 'rights' and requests. Because otherwise it is too broad of a statement - as if all trans demands are 'rights' that they should have.

This organization that has done some really great work in the past is now willing to throw their credibility and trust out the window for these silly language changes that no one is asking for.

AND the board are mainly lesbians and gay men!

by Anonymousreply 3706/05/2021

[bold] R12 X 1,000 [/bold]

by Anonymousreply 3806/05/2021

[quote]And office people are adding "pronouns: she/her/his" to their email signatures. Are we doing all of this to accommodate less than 1 percent of the population? Are the trans just an extremely vocal minority...or are they a bigger percentage of the population than I imagined?

1. Company pays Stonewall money to appear on their Diversity Champion list

2. Stonewall tells company their employees should use pronouns in emails to get boost ranking

3. Company tell employees they need to use their pronouns in emails and send proof of this to Stonewall

4. Stonewall mark companies highly on their Diversity Champion list

5. Company boasts it's scored highly on Stonewall's Diversity Champion list

by Anonymousreply 3906/05/2021

[quote]Wait, why are we not allowed to use the word ‘mother’ but we're still allowed to use the word ‘father’?

Because 'person who inseminated the person who gave birth' seems aggressive.

by Anonymousreply 4006/05/2021

And ultimately gay men will get the blame: “gay marriage started all of this.”

by Anonymousreply 4106/05/2021

R12 I have a big ❤ on for you right now! Marry me.

R38 Back off bitch, I saw him first (although I totally agree with you).

R39 Exactly like HRC. They don't actually *do* anything concrete to help the "cause".

by Anonymousreply 4206/05/2021

I love where the West is headed.

by Anonymousreply 4306/05/2021

Gestation Agent sounds nice.

by Anonymousreply 4406/05/2021

Loving how the West distracts itself with shit like this while we slowly take over the world.

by Anonymousreply 4506/05/2021

[quote] So much of the madness is being driven by a desperate desire to erase biological womanhood since it can never be theirs. That's what it boils down to.

[quote]I have a child. It was a cesarean. Am I now a uterus-haver whose belly was ripped open to extract a child?

r21, r19 - yes, it's all about womanhood. Remember in [italic]Macbeth[/italic] how Macduff claimed that because he "from his mother's womb / Untimely ripped," he was not of woman born, so the prophecy did not apply to him?

So, that is exactly what they are getting at.

(BTW, someone should do an English Lit Ph.D. dissertation on critical analysis of Shakespeare's from the trans-perspective.)

by Anonymousreply 4606/05/2021

I posted this in the LGB Alliance thread, about why my sympathy to self ID has changed

1. removing all mention of women/girls from female reproductive issues - birthing parent, chest feeder, menstruator, person with a cervix etc, yet having no issue with prostate cancer, testicular cancer, erectile dysfunction. premature ejaculation, beard care all using terms like men/boys/guys

by Anonymousreply 4706/05/2021

Not all trans like the word "mother", though. The other day in the Daily Mail, there was a story about a trans man. He had gotten knocked up twice. (So obviously he hadn't had the surgery down there.). He was complaining that when he was in the hospital to deliver the baby, the medical staff kept referring to him as the "mother". Well, if you have a giant belly and breasts swollen with milk because you're knocked up, and you have a vagina that's dilated in preparation of allowing a baby to escape from your uterus, then the medical team is going to refer to you as a woman, and more specifically, "the mother". Don't expect them to rework their decades-long professional vocabulary at a moment's notice because you are different from 99.9999% of their other patients.

by Anonymousreply 4806/05/2021

The Holocaust happened almost 100 years ago. It is said history repeats itself. Will period people be the Jews 2.0?

by Anonymousreply 4906/05/2021

Woke culture is becoming a problem as it's just as toxic and fascist as Trumpism. I am 100% for transrights and I will call folks whatever they wish to be called, I have zero problem with that. But there is an extremism, like in Trumpism, that denies freedom of thought or opinion e.g. if you don't agree with us fully you are the enemy. If you don't word you statements exactly the way the mob demands you to, you are dead to us.

by Anonymousreply 5006/05/2021

Imagine canceling the mother energy? These people must hate their mothers.

Stonewall is at war with women and does it in the name of gay people.

by Anonymousreply 5106/05/2021

Oh, parent who has given birth to me, should I build the wall?

by Anonymousreply 5206/05/2021

Tonight on Lifetime, television for transwomen: "Parent Who Gave Birth, May I Sleep With Danger?"

Tomorrow on Lifetime: "Not Without My Child Who Was Assigned Female At Birth"

by Anonymousreply 5306/05/2021

I guess its now LGBMI (Mentally Ill)

by Anonymousreply 5406/05/2021

R54 The L are long gone I think.

by Anonymousreply 5506/05/2021

Human Whelpers

by Anonymousreply 5606/05/2021

Cunts. Stupid cunts.

by Anonymousreply 5706/05/2021

R43 and R45 get it.

by Anonymousreply 5806/05/2021

I call bullshit on this entire story — he died at Chancellorsville.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5906/05/2021

That ungrateful little bastard Daniel Radcliffe will probably applaud this one too.

by Anonymousreply 6006/05/2021

^ And the ginger pig. And the fat girl who cannot act.

by Anonymousreply 6106/05/2021

R61 - to be honest, everything JK Rowling wrote and went through hell for - it's all 100% true.

by Anonymousreply 6206/05/2021

Fuck them all. These activists are so aggressive with everything. No humility, No co-operation. It's like the whole world has to cater to their needs and treat them as special and not equal. And there is not even any chance of discourse for the rest of the LGBT community. Just accuse transphobia, snatch the mike and speak on behalf of all of us.

by Anonymousreply 6306/06/2021

I wish we could cancel every straight bitch who wants to be "cool, edgy, interesting and an influencer" and decides to label herself queer just because she might have once wondered what kissing another girl might feel like.

We had one of those types in our corporate LBTQBHFHTCVBBTTTTTTTTTTTTGHHFSJHGB954TTTT+25562TTTTT event. Basically a thirtysomething straight frau, married to a man, mentioned that she has only ever dated and been with men, but identifies as queer because "I feel there is more to me than just a straight identity, you know and I have always felt different." WTF? Why isn't shit like this called out for the appropriation that it is?

by Anonymousreply 6406/06/2021

Gay = Sexual orientation, not a single doubt about gender

Tranny = Body dysmorphia, schizofrenia

I just don't see how the two are in the same boat, let alone "fighting the same fight". Drop the T already.

by Anonymousreply 6506/06/2021

LGB is where it's at - the rest can go fuck off (including whichever letters are coming next, because everybody wants to feel "special").

by Anonymousreply 6606/06/2021

Come sit with me, R66

by Anonymousreply 6706/06/2021

R5 You laugh, but this is the sort of shit that Republicans will successfully lay at the feet of progressives, whether we like it or not.

by Anonymousreply 6806/06/2021

A thoughtful article in the left wing Observer, the writer of which is now being denounced as a transphobe and proving all the points she made.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6906/06/2021

[quote] Are we doing all of this to accommodate less than 1 percent of the population?

Many straights are going along out of fear, not out of genuine tolerance or acceptance. People are terrified of being labeled bigots, of being seen as on the wrong side of a civil rights struggle, and the consequences that can flow from that. I give the T (really, the MTF) their due: they've successfully weaponized the concept of tolerance. No one asks women, who are half the population, if they're OK with all this. They're told they'd better be OK with it, or else.

[quote]1. removing all mention of women/girls from female reproductive issues - birthing parent, chest feeder, menstruator, person with a cervix etc, yet having no issue with prostate cancer, testicular cancer, erectile dysfunction. premature ejaculation, beard care all using terms like men/boys/guys

Because it's the MTF who are really pushing for all this shit. They don't want to join women, they want to replace them, and if they can't do that, then subjugate as much as possible. What a surprise--by and large, the FTM are more reserved and keep their heads down, just like women are usually socialized to do. They're not fighting to be sent to men's prisons and the like because they know what will happen to them. But the MTF bully, threaten, get violent and talk over women at any opportunity, just like men often feel entitled to. They can yak about how they've 'felt like a girl' since childhood, but their behavior tells on them. This is happening because of them.

by Anonymousreply 7006/06/2021

Several people here feel the need to say that they support transgender rights before going on to express their concerns with the movement. I'm sure they're sincere. But these problems arise from the concessions that have already been made to transgender-identified people: allowing them to falsify legal documents, allowing them to all but mandate the use of biologically incorrect pronouns, etc. To my mind, the debate should be on whether people of one sex should even be allowed to dress in the public square in the clothes usually associated with the other sex, because society as a whole has a stake in sex-gender roles and whether they can be redefined.

by Anonymousreply 7106/06/2021

Erasing women is not equality. The female sex & feminine gender is already less visible in language compared to the male.

by Anonymousreply 7206/06/2021

R37 The problem is this kind of bullying only works with people feared to be called transphobic and it's the kind of thing that could end very bad for Stonewall.

Most people don't care about trans and if you try to bully them with stupid crap like that the only thing you get is enemies

by Anonymousreply 7306/06/2021

[quote] To my mind, the debate should be on whether people of one sex should even be allowed to dress in the public square in the clothes usually associated with the other sex, because society as a whole has a stake in sex-gender roles and whether they can be redefined.

You cannot be even remotely serious. No one is going to be monitoring people’s attire, nor should they. Those are personal choices that the state has absolutely no business regulating. Nor will the Supreme Court — even this Supreme Court, which recently affirmed transgender rights — go along with something so wildly at odds with the rights granted by the Constitution.

I am one of those people who supports transgender rights — but I also understand that some of those rights clash with the rights of women, and those points of contention are not solved by people saying “just get over it.” However, at no point could I ever agree that the government has any reasonable interest in regulating what anyone is wearing.

by Anonymousreply 7406/06/2021

Not necessarily the government, R74. But if civil society wants to attach opprobrium to the wearing of opposite-sex clothing, it should be entitled to do so rather than being harangued into accepting transgenderism.

by Anonymousreply 7506/06/2021

[quote] However, at no point could I ever agree that the government has any reasonable interest in regulating what anyone is wearing.

Of course the government has an interest in regulating what people wear. Decency requires such regulation. However, I don’t think a penised person wearing a tasteful knee-length summer frock is inherently indecent. If you do think that, then I would agree you are transphobic.

by Anonymousreply 7606/06/2021

[quote]If you do think that, then I would agree you are transphobic.

OH NOES! The dreaded T WORD!! My life is OVERR!!

Save it, doll. Some of us don't give a damn what you call us. Now what are you going to do?

by Anonymousreply 7706/06/2021

One of the best, concise statements on this thread: 'weaponize tolerance'.

This in a nutshell is what the left has to be mindful of. It's the knee-jerk support of anyone that says they are 'hurt' that is ruining things.

by Anonymousreply 7806/06/2021

This was in a statement The New Zealand Sports Association put out today:

[quote]More often than not, people want to feel they are included, and that's why Sport NZ wants to focus less on winning and taking away opportunities from other women, and more on including everyone.

What's the point in even participating?

by Anonymousreply 7906/06/2021

It's like they are talking about toddlers, R79. Of course, the T act like fucking toddlers, so...

by Anonymousreply 8006/06/2021

[quote] Of course the government has an interest in regulating what people wear. Decency requires such regulation.

No, the government has an interest in enforcing THAT a person — any person — is wearing clothing adequate to satisfy decency standards. The government has absolutely no interest in what that attire may be.

by Anonymousreply 8106/06/2021

I deeply resent "parent who has given birth" and find it discriminatory.

First off, the word "parent" implies an old-fashioned authoritarian relationship that triggers all those who have dealt with authority. The word "other" is far better, to imply that the object that has allowed life to seep from its being is not the object that has seeped.

I also object to the word "given," which implies a sense of transfer that does not apply to this particular incident. Not all beings can give." "Happened on to" is far better.

"Birth" is even more triggering. It implies a biological event that not all biological beings, such as those without reproductive skills, can obtain. "Life form objectification and release" would be appropriate.

"Other who has happened on to a life form objectification and release" is really the most lovely and appropriate way to take the word "mother" out of our mouths forever.

by Anonymousreply 8206/06/2021

Parent Who has Given Birth Fucker!

by Anonymousreply 8306/06/2021

So there's a bit to unpack here. Just by reading the headline, it does sound kind of outrageous...and it's paywalled so most of you probably didn't read the actual article. When you get to the guts of it, this is a recommendation given to employers to ensure their verbiage on forms and pamphlets is as sensitive to all kinds of new parents, not just traditional ones. The ranking in question is the ranking assigned by the Stonewall charity that ranks the most inclusive employers list. This isn't a big deal folks.

by Anonymousreply 8406/06/2021

R84, Stonewall is blackmailing employers into erasing women for points. It is a big deal. Just as bad as changing 'men and women' to 'men and non-men'. And, why don't you answer the question from the poster above about why they aren't focusing on the word "father"?

by Anonymousreply 8506/06/2021

The response to the Sonia Sodha Observer article has been very standard. A lot of beardy penised people shouting at her, one trying to get her removed from her role on a panel that awards grants to disadvantaged groups.

And a beardy He/Him has warned his 3000 twitter followers that following people who praised Sonia Sodha's article WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8606/06/2021

r85 Exactly. Trans, Queer and gender cult is all about erasing women, their languages, spaces, safety, protection, etc.; these Men's Rights Activists are not interested in doing the same for men. Such ‘men and non-men’ bullshit rampant from the LGBTQIA+ crowd and their allies; Never heard of ‘non-women’ when referring to men. Such obsessive, hysterical attacks related to Mother’s day, period, pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding-related languages; Never heard of such attacks on the word ‘father’ or anything.

I remember one gay magazine calling a bi woman + lesbian TV couple "queer" heroines while calling a bi man + gay man TV couple a "gay" romance.

by Anonymousreply 8706/06/2021

If a Black or Muslim woman had written the Sonia Sodha piece which side would The Guardian readers been on? Usually black and Muslim people are at the top of their hierarchy of favorite victims.

by Anonymousreply 8806/06/2021

[quote]If a Black or Muslim woman had written the Sonia Sodha piece which side would The Guardian readers been on? Usually black and Muslim people are at the top of their hierarchy of favorite victims.

Sonia Sodha is a British Indian.

Trans ideology supersedes all aspects of race. Allison Bailey, Keira Bell, Maya Forstater, Sonia Appleby and Raquel Rosario-Sanchez are all black women labelled white supremacist TERFS by white beardy men.

Incidentally there was no left wing outrage when an Islamist group organised a "convoy for Palestine" and segregated coaches by men and women/families. They didn't put on an LGBTQIA+ inclusive coach either. Can't think why.

by Anonymousreply 8906/06/2021

According to the oppression hierarchy, Indians - no matter how dark certain individuals are - are way below Blacks, other Browns (Latino, Arab, etc.), Muslims, etc. Not same but a bit like East Asians, victim narrative does not really work for them. Then they're in general not crazy Islamists. = Not fit to become the left's fetish pet minorities.

by Anonymousreply 9006/06/2021

So, what's my new name?

by Anonymousreply 9106/07/2021

Stonewall is now an organisation for people with personality disorders and men who are so hetero and homophobic, that they’ve come to hate their own penis.

by Anonymousreply 9206/07/2021

There have been several articles criticising Stonewall and this is the calibre of the response.

[quote]Truthfully I don't know what makes a woman. I don't know why some people are trans. And honestly I don't care. As a society we never needed to know why some people are gay in order to create equal marriage. It was a matter of respect and kindness. It's the same deal here.

[quote]The whole of society is better because we have equal marriage and better rights for same-sex couples. Think of all the mums and dads who get to watch their kids be happy and get married now. It made us all a little better, and a little closer I think.

[quote]The question for me is what kind of society we want to make - the kind that says "live and let live" or the kind that bullies and hurts people because they live their lives in a different way to the majority? The answer's pretty straightforward as far as I'm concerned.

This person is the Director of CLASS (Centre for Labour & Social Studies) "a think tank dedicated to championing policy so that the political agenda works for everyday people" funded by trade unions.

I guess if you don't define what a woman is you don't have to fight sex based discrimination. Job done!

by Anonymousreply 9306/07/2021

R93 - so again, they're conflating trans issues with gay rights, which is not the same thing. When you can't find a reason to support it, deflect and say - well, when gays demanded for gay marriage...

First, it took DECADES for us to get gay marriage. Second, there was no redefining marriage or changing the word or the rights it gives to people.

This is changing things around because some people don't feel comfortable with their body and the word 'mother'.

by Anonymousreply 9406/07/2021

Yes. Exactly. Gays worked for decades to achieve what we have today.

by Anonymousreply 9506/07/2021

Interesting article about Gender in the WP.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9606/07/2021

[quote]Interesting article about Gender in the WP.

Except it's not about gender, it's about sex.

When Poland restricted access to abortion Amnesty issued a statement "Safe abortion is a human right. We stand in solidarity with the people of #Poland who continue to fight for abortion rights." A person's gender doesn't determine whether you might need an abortion at some point in you life. A person's sex does.

by Anonymousreply 9706/07/2021

To clarify for Americans, for whom stonewall is a bar in Greenwich Village and the event of the uprising centered there in June of 1969: Stonewall is also a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom named after the event.

by Anonymousreply 9806/07/2021

If you have Mother issues, go see a shrink.

Stonewall and what it represents is off limits.

by Anonymousreply 9906/07/2021

This is just awful!

by Anonymousreply 10006/07/2021

[quote] Stonewall is also a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom named after the event.

They are trying to erase our history! Judy Garland died in the UK and was buried July 27, 1969.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10106/07/2021

And this is the hill the American Democratic party has chosen to die on: erasing women as a sex class from Federal law.

They can go fuck themselves!

by Anonymousreply 10206/07/2021

[quote] The news outlet reports that in one of Wolf’s most recent tweets, she said the urine and feces of people who had been vaccinated needed to be separated from the general sewage system while studies are done to measure the impact on unvaccinated people through drinking water.

I dont agree with Wolf's tweet, as there's no practical way to separate the waste. But doesn't silencing her actually cause more people to dig into her "theories"?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10306/07/2021

JK Rowling tried to warn us and she was attacked by the tranny mob. She told us this would happen. The word woman is going the way of the dodo bird. A sad state of affairs. Sickening.

by Anonymousreply 10406/07/2021

Honestly, motherhood is dull as dishwater. Same old thing, day in and day out: Feed, clean, sleep.

I like the idea of mixing things up!

by Anonymousreply 10506/07/2021

Fuck ‘em!

by Anonymousreply 10606/07/2021

How come fathers/men are subjected to this?

Never mind I already know.

by Anonymousreply 10706/07/2021

Men men men men men.

Not people with prostrates.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10806/07/2021

Can we give Stonewall a bad beating instead?

by Anonymousreply 10906/07/2021

The faux "gay" people who are actually bisexual, crept inside the Gay community along with the Trans freaks inside their trojan horse, and have systematically redefined, rewrote, and mudded up everything regarding gay rights, homosexuality, and gay identity. Bisexuals were doing it decades before the transcult gained exponential momentum and corrupt power. The most sad and heinous thing about all this, is that majority of you let it happen, and refused to take the authentic gay men and women seriously who seen through this from the beginning. You made out like we were insane and all the other gaslighting language was used on us.

Everything for actual gay people, gay identity, homosexuality, gay rights, gay culture, and sexual orientation is utterly destroyed because of BTQ+.

by Anonymousreply 11006/07/2021

We need to just be the gay community. Just lesbians and gay men. Everyone else can go crazy with whatever they want. They aren't gay. Never were. Never will be.

by Anonymousreply 11106/07/2021

Calm your front holes, folx!

by Anonymousreply 11206/07/2021

R111. BTQ+ try and change actual gay people and everything related to homosexuality and gay rights. When actual gay people defend what's rightfully ours, the BTQ+ try to silence us from within the once gay community and former gay organisations that are now fully co-opted by BTQ+. BTQ+ have full control on everything and with everything that was formerly gay and formerly about actual homosexuality.

BTQ+ refuse to start their own communities. They used the former gay community and gay rights built by actual gay people, and have completely fucked it up and fucked it over in every single possible way. Everything is LGBTQ+ rights and nearly everyonee refers to gay people as LGBTQ+, yet actual gay people no longer have an actual say on anything! We are considered "outdated" and *non-inclusive".

How much more blatant fuckery does BTQ+ have to engage in for most actual gay people to see the TRUTH!

by Anonymousreply 11306/07/2021

I’m amazed by how quickly organisations like Stonewall have moved to positions which advocate for the erasure of the cultural and biological definition of womanhood. No matter how many trolls hurl abuse at her, or how many acts of betrayal she experiences from those who owe their careers to her, JK Rowling was right. And yet, in many workplaces, even stating that opinion would place employment in jeopardy.

by Anonymousreply 11406/07/2021

Ben Cohen from Pink News has appeared on the BBC this morning to represent Stonewall. who refused to appear themselves. and got very angry with the journalist and refused to answer any of his questions.

Stonewall's "no debate" policy going very well.

by Anonymousreply 11506/07/2021

MotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMother

by Anonymousreply 11606/07/2021

R115 Are you talking about prick-teasing, heterosexual lunkhead Ben Cohen?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11706/07/2021

No, I'm referring to the Gay! Jewish! Disabled! Misogynistic! overseer of Pink News and Mermaids trustee.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11806/07/2021

^ Oh dearie me. Pink News seem to be pursuing dead ducks.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11906/07/2021

[quote] No, the government has an interest in enforcing THAT a person — any person — is wearing clothing adequate to satisfy decency standards. The government has absolutely no interest in what that attire may be.

Well, yes r81, that was my point.

by Anonymousreply 12006/08/2021

Attempts have been made over the last several years to make it clear to Stonewall, Pink News etc that student common politics and policies don’t play well even to a lot of the LGBT community, let alone the broader population, that “no-debate” is toddler level activism, and that the very small number of actually trans people (I don’t mean people who literally are actually somehow the sex they claim to be which isn’t the one they are, but people who genuinely are trans in the sense of having dysphoria) are now completely lost in this mishmash of boring gender identities, straight “queers” and other nonsense suggesting that sex doesn’t matter or isn’t relevant.

Sex is highly relevant to gay people, let alone the straight world, and this whole claptrap was never going to play well once people realised what Stonewall’s policies actually are and what Pink News is pushing. You cannot redefine “mother” for the entire world because of a few trans men giving birth, for example (there’s another question about whether we are really supposed to expect to believe a person can be horribly triggered by the factual word “mother” but not by nine months of pregnancy and the equally female activity of giving birth, but let’s park that for now).

People have now realised what Stonewall is actually about and here we see the results; they’re being dropped by nearly every organisation and company going, just as many predicted they would be when corporates and the government woke up.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of all of this nonsense is “trans kids,” basically gender non-conforming young people, many of whom would grow up to be happily gay & bi, pushed down a medicalised track by mostly straight parents thanks to the likes of Mermaids and other dubious charities of that ilk.

Along the way, straight fetishists and mens’ rights activists have happily hopped onto the bandwagon to try to get women’s protected class status and spaces eroded and seen a lot of success with this tactic Expect many “trans women activists”, none of whom of course have had any surgery that might affect their precious sexual function, to slink back to straight male privilege once this whole movement is finally put on the backburner for a while.

This reckoning is coming for the ACLU too, by the way. That will take longer, but will happen.

by Anonymousreply 12106/08/2021

Pink News? Mentally ill anti-science QAnon + Fox News +++ of the Left. According to them, the universal dictionary definition of "woman = adult human female" is an "anti-trans slogan created by TERF bigot"!

The difference: Conservative Republicans I know treat QAnon as mentally ill loons / Mainstream liberals and LGBTQ+ (very including lots of crazy gays and lesbians) have their arms wide open for the likes of Pink News.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12206/08/2021

Oh great now I’m canceled!!!!

by Anonymousreply 12306/08/2021

Pink News, Stonewall and Mermaids are all financially interlinked.

When funding affects one it affects them all.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12406/08/2021

R79 Pinch me. Fucking what?

by Anonymousreply 12506/08/2021

How about MUTHER?

by Anonymousreply 12606/08/2021

Stonewall doesn't just get tons of public funding (although we're not allowed to know how much), it also takes a substantial fee whenever a university signs up to one of its stupid schemes, i.e. more taxpayer money plus also sucking off the huge tuition fees that students have to pay (the poor dears think it's for their education).

[quote]University College London (UCL) and the University of Winchester both revealed in Freedom of Information requests that they had chosen not to continue their membership of the LGBT+ charity's Diversity Champions programme last year.

[quote]It is understood the decision was made on cost grounds, with the scheme costing £2,500 a year plus VAT.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12706/08/2021

As one who dabbled in Democratic politics years ago, I can affirm that the crazies do not just reside in the Republican Party. Would that it were the case.

by Anonymousreply 12806/08/2021

It's not just Stonewall, there are also other publicly funded "charities" promoting these kinds of schemes in British universities. The Athena SWAN Charter is run by Advance HE, a public programme for increasing diversity in universities. It was originally designed to advance women in science. Now it's dedicated to "colleagues who identify as women".

[quote]Development for colleagues who identify as women

[quote]As an Athena SWAN employer, we are committed to creating an environment in which everyone can achieve their full potential and we offer development specifcally for those colleagues who identify as women.

[quote]Aurora

[quote]Aurora is a leadership development programme for those who identify as women. Run by Advance HE and in partnership with universities, the programme is aimed at enabling more women to develop the leadership side of their careers and so address the underrepresentation of women at senior levels in the sector. Full details about the programme structure and content can be found here.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12906/08/2021

There's a big debate with a trans law right now in Spain.

One part of the goverment wants to implement a trans law, but the other part of the goverment (the majority) doesn't want to do it because they don't agree with parts of the law. Both are left parties.

Of course some members of the goverment are being called terfs and all that jazz

by Anonymousreply 13006/08/2021

So now...it's "person who gave you birth fucker"....

by Anonymousreply 13106/08/2021

Sounds like another bullshit gender self-ID law, r130. What parts exactly does the PSOE disagree with? Hopefully it doesn't get through.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13206/08/2021

They disagree with the fact that you can chose your gender without any medical or psychiatric exploration, and the fact that you don't need anything more than saying you are a woman/man to be accepted as that (without any physical change).

The feminist on PSOE doesn't agree with anything of that and say that it collides with women's rights.

Of course in terms of voters there's no majority that sustain something like that.

Anyway, it's very difficult to say what happens with that law because they are not explaying anything, it's all too vague. But if they don't get the support they need the law will die (and i don't think there's any intention on PSOE to vote in favour of that law)

by Anonymousreply 13306/08/2021

Ok, good to see that the gender self-ID law did not pass in Spain and that the PSOE at least abstained. Similar recent attempts to get a gender self-ID law passed in Germany also failed and the UK government has thankfully dropped plans for one in England and Wales. The SNP in Scotland apparently still support a gender self-ID law, but they've been kicking the can down the road on that one for a long time.

by Anonymousreply 13406/08/2021

Absolutely no!

by Anonymousreply 13506/08/2021

Wee Ben Cohen's hissy fit (is that a gendered term?) is on YouTube.

The question for Stonewall and organisations/people wanting to change the law is whether media appearances like that are changing anyone's mind.

I'd suggest not, which is a major problem for them.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13606/08/2021

Indeee, R136. I wonder what hearts and minds were won today...

Benjamin Cohen’s performance about sums up the standard of “debate” on Stonewall’s side (pathetic to non-existent) as well as giving some clues as to why PinkNews reports the (terrible) way it does.

The trans rights activist side has frequently declared that it will not engage on debating these issues (note that Stonewall declined to appear even to repeat the party line on this occasion, presumably after its CEO’s disastrous previous attempt to sound credible in public), and now is seemingly incapable of even attempting to state its case.

Of course, a critical issue with being invited to do so, as well as being out of practice at sounding like grown-ups, is that self-ID arguments are inherently incoherent and illogical. They are consequently, very difficult to defend and strenuous attempts are made not to be drawn on them, lest the whole thing fall apart very fast from there. Usual tactics are to deny, obfuscate or just generally accuse everyone in a several-hundred mile radius, including trans people of necessary, of “transphobia.”

The reporter didn’t quite pin Cohen down on being quite wrong that Stonewall are not campaigning to remove single-sex spaces. Stonewall are, of course, doing so; see link on their own website which says precisely this. Another reason, along with incorrect legal advice, that they’re getting the boot from corporates whose female staff have been reading Mumsnet and are cross.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13706/08/2021

On tv debate calling transphobic to others without giving a real reason doesn't look good.

I don't understand these activist, some issues are extremely controversial without any real gain (this is a perfect example of that), and you have to convince people who has no idea of trans issues (and in some cases doesn't even care), so you are not preaching to the choir. This is not twitter

by Anonymousreply 13806/08/2021

Stonewall, Cohen, Mermaids and all the other trans lobbyists thought they had everything sewn up, that all the policy and legislation they were proposing would sail through with very little public scrutiny, in particular the proposed gender self-ID law. Stonewall believed it was all-powerful and its position could never be questioned.

Hiding behind the "LGBT" acronym, they thought they could get away with anything because the general public and many politicians confused their trans demands with gay issues. Then JK Rowling came along and shone some light on the issue and their bubble has been burst. They have no support from society, despite having cultivated a climate of fear that meant it was impossible to question the fallacy that a man is a woman simply because he says he feels like a woman.

The UK government has since abandoned the gender self-ID bill for England and Wales but none of those little shits from the Harry Potter movies, who came out one-by-one to condemn Rowling for saying women have periods spoke out against that, just like they haven't spoken out against the High Court's decision that under-16s can't consent to being given puberty blockers. They'll tell a woman to shut up because that's what the trans lobbyists instructed them to do, but they wouldn't dare actually argue for trans issues, beyond repeating the sacred mantra "transwomen are women".

I can't wait to see the Scottish government try to force gender self-ID through the Scottish parliament - if they dare to present that bill, that is.

by Anonymousreply 13906/08/2021

This is one of those issues that the reactions on twitter are very different than the reactions in real life.

But calling everyone (even people who clearly care for trans rights) a bigot and a transphobe generally doesn't make the debate more productive

by Anonymousreply 14006/08/2021

Mermaids. Furries. This is all a complete and planned joke. Billionaires are just having such a grand old time.

Billionaire hick-voice:

“Yooou queeeers. You think yer gonna git gay miirage? I’ll show you queeers gay miirrage will cause the destruction of the werld! Git me all them trans and them ferries—furries! We gotta a war with those faegs!”

by Anonymousreply 14106/08/2021

I don't understand. If you're a trans woman who hasn't had surgery (you still have a penis and testicles) and your semen is used to inseminate a trans man who hasn't had surgery (you still have a uterus and can bear a child)....who is the father and who is the mother? Do those words no longer obtain? Are there new words? This gets very complicated very quickly.

by Anonymousreply 14206/08/2021

This dude is the gay community’s Lex Luthor. He is behind all of this.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14306/08/2021

[quote] Wait, why are we not allowed to use the word ‘mother’ but we're still allowed to use the word ‘father’? Because 'person who inseminated the person who gave birth' seems aggressive.

Agree, that may be a bit too aggressive. What if we compromise and seek out a middle ground, and go with - a person who penetrated and pumped their seed into a person who spawned an organism. That should make fathers happy, right?

by Anonymousreply 14406/08/2021

Birthing parent and sperminator would be the most appropriate combination.

by Anonymousreply 14506/08/2021

R143

Mr Evil.

by Anonymousreply 14606/08/2021

{quote}I don't understand. If you're a trans woman who hasn't had surgery (you still have a penis and testicles) and your semen is used to inseminate a trans man who hasn't had surgery (you still have a uterus and can bear a child)....who is the father and who is the mother?

Even trans-people won't fuck other trannies, so this is not something they will ever have to worry about.

by Anonymousreply 14706/08/2021

R143, Pritzker is just one of the billionaires funding this. There’s also the Arcus Foundation.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14806/09/2021

Arcus must be Luthor’s Lair.

by Anonymousreply 14906/09/2021

Have you ever been taken to the doctor because you were a feminine male?

[quote]As a child, Harries had been taken by her family to see a doctor because she displayed feminine mannerisms.

I really hope that awful Equality Act is left up to the states. If there is any justice in the world, it will be.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15006/09/2021

Oh Keir.

The content is as dull as expected but he loses points to release the video through Pink News.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15106/09/2021

[quote] I really hope that awful Equality Act is left up to the states.

What you are asking for is essentially the current situation, and would defeat the purpose of the act. Several of the blue states already have enacted the protections afforded by the Equality Act. The intention is to make these rights federally guaranteed so that backward, redneck states could not evade their obligations.

However, in this current political climate, if it requires 60 votes to get around the filibuster (as it likely would) it stands almost no chance of passage in the Senate.

by Anonymousreply 15206/09/2021

[quote]However, in this current political climate, if it requires 60 votes to get around the filibuster (as it likely would) it stands almost no chance of passage in the Senate.

Great.

by Anonymousreply 15306/09/2021

The Equality Act wants to substitute gender for sex. It wants to erase sex. it wants to erase sex-based a rights and protections.

Fuck that shit.

If they don't fix thus then they can go to hell with this legislation.

by Anonymousreply 15406/09/2021

It’s unfair that gays are intertwined with this. I’ve been harassed at work for being, getting frozen out, job loss—but I’m not going to support that act because little gender-non-conforming kids are going to be the most affected by it. You can always get another job but you can’t get your penis and testicles back.

by Anonymousreply 15506/09/2021

*being gay

by Anonymousreply 15606/09/2021

R150, she and her entire family are lifelong scam artists. You should watch the documentary “ Little Lady Fauntleroy”. Her mother became a therapist online and signed her consent as a “therapist” for transitioning.

by Anonymousreply 15706/10/2021

His family are a scam, r157, and that explains why he's trans today.

by Anonymousreply 15806/10/2021

Who would have predicted Lauren's relationship her boyfriend Bruce wouldn't last?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15906/10/2021

It only lasted two months, r159.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16006/10/2021

No way in Hell I'm changing the name of my show to [italic]Birthing Person's Family[/italic].

by Anonymousreply 16106/10/2021

In other news today, Maya Forstater, who was sacked for expressing the opinion at work that one's sex can't be changed, has won her appeal (after initially losing her case against her former employer) that gender critical beliefs are a protected belief. Yay! At least now in the UK you can't be sacked for saying that sex is real. Hopefully this is the start of some route to sanity, although you can bet that the transloons and their loon allies will still be doing foaming and frothing and trying to cancel every view that does not adhere with their ideology.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16206/10/2021

Unfortunately, Marion Millar, a feminist activist in Scotland, is still being charged over allegedly "transphobic" (i.e. gender critical) tweets. Hopefully the ruling in the Maya Forstater case, will provide her with some support.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16306/10/2021

This is like a return to witch burnings.

by Anonymousreply 16406/10/2021

It was actually very shocking r164 when Forstater lost her initial case against her former employer as the judge ruled that it is illegal to express the opinion that one can't change one's sex. Thankfully that's been overturned.

by Anonymousreply 16506/10/2021

Yikes, the clip at R159 is a ROUGH forty-one.

by Anonymousreply 16606/10/2021

[quote] is a ROUGH forty-one.

Add 20 years and we might be approaching believable.

by Anonymousreply 16706/10/2021

Lauren in more innocent times.

The family are a bunch of nutters. In 1992, a year after the Oprah appearance, the family tried to sue the UK Government for "mismanaging the economy". They lost and were left with a lot of debt. Then in 1993 their fancy dress shop burned down in Cardiff. The father was charged with arson and fraud and went to prison.

There was a story on the Popbitch gossip site that one of the tabloids had a tip off that Lauren was working as a prostitute working street corners and gave them a time and date she'd be working. A journalists and photographer duly went along and saw her there, took some photos, but they noticed the man picking her up in their car was one of her brothers. Anything to get in the papers.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16806/10/2021

That’s right R165. A shockingly bad first-instance decision, with horrible reasoning in the judgment, that emboldened a lot of nonsense online against “TERFs.”

The only bright side is Forstater’s refusal to drop this has shone a light on a lot of the garbage “arguments” that are involved in this debate.

by Anonymousreply 16906/10/2021

People like Judge Taylor are dangerously naive straights with little grasp of the issues, who confuse trans and gay and really do believe that they're fighting the good fight for human rights. They have very little understanding of gender identity theory and probably think gender identity is some kind of extension of being gay.

This is why those of us who are gay need to make a big effort to disassociate from the trans nonsense and explain how it's a threat to the very existence of gay people. Yes, we believe in equal civil rights, but, no, we do not believe in the erasure of biological sex. These naive straights (and many naive gays) really don't understand what's going on.

by Anonymousreply 17006/10/2021

Wait. So, R159, so is Lauren a trans woman and Bruce a trans man? So they are actually a straight couple? Or is it just too confusing to be bothered with?

Seriously fuck this bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 17106/10/2021

R162 recommend reading Forstater's attorney's brief, if you’re legally inclined. Great insight into the framework for what should be protected speech under the relevant civil rights framework.

Meanwhile, UK government agencies are quickly ditching their membership in Stonewall's equality scheme, under which Stonewall provides on-site pronoun training and reviews an employer's gender-neutral spaces, in return for a good ranking on Stonewall's equality index ( for an annual fee, of course). From the Telegraph (sorry):

[quote] Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education) is among a growing number of major employers, including the UK's equalities watchdog, have quit the programme in recent months.

[quote] An investigation by this newspaper on Thursday disclosed how Stonewall has advised organisations to replace the term mother with “parent who has given birth” to boost their ranking on its coveted league table of inclusive employers.

[quote] Campaigners are demanding a public inquiry into how the “lobby group” Stonewall secured such an influential position at the heart of Government.

The UK is seeing a backlash to Stonewall's under the radar, idiotic activism in education and other government offices.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17206/10/2021

Trans rights are NOT gay rights, actually the opposite.

by Anonymousreply 17306/10/2021

For most straight people, trans are just next level gays. The trans “folx” do not disabuse them of this false notion because it garners sympathy, respectability and access to money.

by Anonymousreply 17406/11/2021

R174 money being the most important one

by Anonymousreply 17506/11/2021

Did Forstater express her opinion on twitter and not at work and someone there said it made them uncomfortable despite there being zero evidence that she was discussing this at work?

by Anonymousreply 17606/11/2021

I hope I can still use "mutherfucker".

by Anonymousreply 17706/11/2021

Lauren Harries was a child con artist, going on shows like Oprah and correctly guessing the value of antiques. It was a sideshow.

by Anonymousreply 17806/11/2021

I always see people blaming the "LGBTQ's" for all of this shit - we need to cut the alphabet soup loose asap now that peak trans is happening on a mass level.

by Anonymousreply 17906/11/2021

And because men menstruate also.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18006/11/2021

R174, my experience is a bit different. But then again, I don’t know how young straights think about all this.

Older people are baffled by the sudden proliferation of trans and don’t think it’s a good thing. But that’s just the people I know. Gen X makes the distinction.

by Anonymousreply 18106/11/2021

There's no such thing as "transgender". There are only two human sexes: males and females. It doesn't matter how anyone "identifies", self-perception is irrelevant, human sex is immutable and trying to trick other people into believing you're something you're not is the definition of predatory.

by Anonymousreply 18206/11/2021

R176, as I understand it, it was even the case that no-one at Forstater’s employers personally claimed themselves to be uncomfortable, but complaints had been made about Forstater’s personal Twitter posts to the employers and that was enough.

Claims online that Forstater had “misgendered” / been rude to trans colleagues are total fantasy designed to elicit sympathy for people who don’t exist; this didn’t happen. The case was not about the right to be unpleasant in a work environment, which Forstater was not and didn’t ask to be, but whether a person can be terminated for holding and expressing certain views outside of work time. Fairly chilling in and of itself, but given the views in this case were “being a woman is an identifiable biological fact and not a concept,” “gender identity may vary but it’s not possible to change sex,” and “a person’s sex is quite important”, as opposed to anything untrue or actively offensive, it’s all the more shocking that Forstater lost her job.

For the benefit of Twitter “lawyers” who think they’ve cracked the case, U.K. employment law says not having your contract renewed when you might expect it to be can in some circumstances be a dismissal so no slam dunk there.

by Anonymousreply 18306/11/2021

Absolutely frightening, r183. What was the Judge Taylor thinking of? It sounds like woke straights have been led to believe that saying "biological sex is real" is equivalent to the N-word or saying gays should all be killed.

by Anonymousreply 184Last Saturday at 12:25 AM

^ That is why orgs like the LGB Alliance are so important: to stop the T from continuing to parasitise the legacy lesbian-gay organisations and lesbian-gay progress in general.

by Anonymousreply 185Last Saturday at 3:19 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!