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

Oh good grief.

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

Oi Stonewall?

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

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

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.

Insanity.

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

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

R8, good point!

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

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

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?

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.

First World Problems....

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

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

Who or what is Stonewall?

[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.

^^^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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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

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.

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.

So stupid

[quote] Who or what is Stonewall?

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

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.

Not a chance in hell.

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

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

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

[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’

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”

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?

Unbelievable!

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!

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

[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

[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.

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

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".

I love where the West is headed.

Gestation Agent sounds nice.

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

[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.)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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"

I guess its now LGBMI (Mentally Ill)

R54 The L are long gone I think.

Human Whelpers

Cunts. Stupid cunts.

R43 and R45 get it.

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Come sit with me, R66

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?

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.

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?

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

[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.

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.

Parent Who has Given Birth Fucker!

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

So, what's my new name?

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.

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!

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'.

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

Interesting article about Gender in the WP.

[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.

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.

If you have Mother issues, go see a shrink.

Stonewall and what it represents is off limits.

This is just awful!

[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.

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!

[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"?

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.

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!

Fuck ‘em!

How come fathers/men are subjected to this?

Never mind I already know.

Men men men men men.

Not people with prostrates.

Can we give Stonewall a bad beating instead?

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+.

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.

Calm your front holes, folx!

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!

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.

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.

MotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMotherMother

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

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

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

[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.

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.

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.

Oh great now I’m canceled!!!!

Pink News, Stonewall and Mermaids are all financially interlinked.

When funding affects one it affects them all.

R79 Pinch me. Fucking what?

How about MUTHER?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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)

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.

Absolutely no!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!”

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.

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

[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?

Birthing parent and sperminator would be the most appropriate combination.

R143

Mr Evil.

{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.

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

Arcus must be Luthor’s Lair.

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.

Oh Keir.

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

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

*being gay

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.

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

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

It only lasted two months, r159.

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

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.

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.

This is like a return to witch burnings.

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.

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

[quote] is a ROUGH forty-one.

Add 20 years and we might be approaching believable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trans rights are NOT gay rights, actually the opposite.

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.

R174 money being the most important one

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?

I hope I can still use "mutherfucker".

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

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.

And because men menstruate also.

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.

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.

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.

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.

^ 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.

What is Kamala doing about this situation?

MOTHERfucking ridiculous.

This kind of bullshit is actually pushing people to the right politically and socially. There’s going to be a backlash and, since we LGB are now tied to the TQ+, we’re all going to suffer.

The Scottish Government tweeted yesterday about vaccines for pregnant people.

622 likes, 3.7k replies.

R190, the replies to that tweet are dripping with derision of the choice of wording.

Pregnant people, people with menstrual periods = formerly known as women.

So men can still be called men. Do people see what's happening? They're trying to erase women from the vocabulary or even out of mind if they could.

R71 You think that your government should mandate and enforce fashion?

I've been waiting to hear the terms 'semen issuer' or 'prostrate owner', but it does only seem to be targeted at women, yet they vehemently deny it's down to misogyny.

The emperor is still nude but nobody wants to admit it.

r190 Nicola Sturgeon has a weak spot for the half baked demands of aggressive trans activists for some reason and even when trabs rights supporters sent violent death threats to on of her parties mps Joanna Cherry she refused to condemn the behaviour.

Over our dead bodies!

Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother

I wonder what these imbeciles will be calling out for in their last dying breaths?

MuTHAH.... is in the building!

R195, whatever's going on in the SNP with the trans issue is connected to factionalism within the party. Joanna Cherry, a lesbian more aligned with Alex Salmond, was ringing the alarm about trans issues. Sturgeon's supporters picked up on the trans issue as a way of attacking Cherry and weakening the Salmond wing. The fate of gay teens and women in Scotland is being dictated by Nicola Sturgeon's campaign to crush her political enemies.

I used to think this was getting ridiculously and absurdly out of hand. Now I just find it terrifying.

It is weird that Trans Rights and Islam will be the Trojan horse that takes down the Western world.

I remember someone in the early 20th said Americans couldn’t be real revolutionaries because they couldn’t bear deprivation, not washing etc and would expire at the first sign of a cold sore.So they were next to useless when really required to do anything possible for revolutions. Something like that. I am sure I butchering it, but anyway.

The West would rather be subjected to absurd statements of fact or look the other way when people’s throats are cut than say anything that could be construed as Transphobic or Islamaphobic. That is how our enemies will destroy us. Our inability to be thought unkind will be what destroys us.

r199 Nicola Sturgeon should be throughly ashamed of herself. I also think some of the crazy and polarising domestic political policies she is pursuing could cause enough of a split amongst her party, voting base and those willing to be open to independence that it could cause any future Scottish independence referendum to be lost and the unionists prevailing. From the SNPs point of view not smart politics. If Scots vote to stay part of the union you can bet for the health and stability of Scottish and wider UK society another referendum would not be granted for a 20 or 30 year minimum.

People on this thread need to calm the fuck down. Jesus fucking christ don't you have real problem in life?

R203, as a British lesbian Stonewall UK is causing real problems in my life. Here they can't even bring themselves to use the word "lesbian" - it's "LGBT mum", when these two women are very obviously lesbians or bisexual women. When the organisation that supposedly represents me - at least as far as government departments, public and private services and general policy goes - cannot even bring itself to use the word lesbian or to talk about the specific experiences and needs of lesbians, and instead lumps lesbians into one big "LGBT" blob - primarily so that it can make everything about "gender identity" and not sexuality - then that is erasure and it's of great concern to me. For Stonewall, the word "mum" is only ok if it can be applied to all LGBT, not just lesbians or bisexual women.

Government, local councils, businesses, universities, etc., all the institutions that are "working with" Stonewall for their lesbian, gay and bisexual policies, need to understand that Stonewall UK is completely unrepresentative of gay people in the UK today. As a lesbian who would like to have a kid in the future, Stonewall is not just letting me down, it's creating a scary environment.

[quote][R199] Nicola Sturgeon should be throughly ashamed of herself. I also think some of the crazy and polarising domestic political policies she is pursuing could cause enough of a split amongst her party, voting base and those willing to be open to independence that it could cause any future Scottish independence referendum to be lost and the unionists prevailing. From the SNPs point of view not smart politics. If Scots vote to stay part of the union you can bet for the health and stability of Scottish and wider UK society another referendum would not be granted for a 20 or 30 year minimum.

According to The Guardian Nicola Sturgeon is close to entering into a formal coalition with the Greens which would give them a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament. The Greens would get cabinet places in exchange for their unwavering support.

The Greens are VERY strongly in favour of removing all gendered language out of law. 5 male MSPs voted against the Scottish Government's rape law that a rape victim should be allowed to select the SEX of the doctor who examines them, not the GENDER. The backlash was so intense the SNP MSPs (excluding Sturgeon) voted to change their own legislation.

Sturgeon will always put political ideology first - the idea that she didn't know Alex Salmond was assaulting civil servants is preposterous - and she will want Scotland to be the most trans inclusive country in Europe.

But there will be one hell of a fight.

Can't I? I'm pretty sure I used it today and will continue to do so. Oh well.

Rest in peace Magdalen Berns; she saw this coming.

r205 Thats bad news truly r204 I think Stonewall will be much diminished within a decade

^ From a credibilty standpoint, it's not just diminished, it's already dead and buried. They sold us (gays, lesbians and bisexuals) out so that they could latch onto the trans ideology and stay on the NGO gravy train. Quislings.

Will we have to rename cult classics to things like "Birthing Persons Dearest?"

Olivia seems like the most reprehensible character so far. All the others have plenty of flaws, but she is deliberately evil in her behavior. She keeps Paula close and acts as a friend, mimics the liberal beliefs of Paula, but then wants to deliberately emotionally injure her by stealing the men she dates, which she has already done.

All the other characters seems more unaware of their behavior but she knows exactly what she's doing. The only one that comes close would be Armond as he is deliberately trying to sabotage Shane, but it's not on the same level. He's not trying to act like he's a trustworthy friend to Shane.

Does this make Olivia a narcissist?

^Oops! Wrong thread!

Isn't it the Greens who have been completely sympathetic to lowering the age of consent for children and sexual relations? And to other "problematic" issues concerning children?

I seem to remember that this "sympathy" to these perverts went back a long way.

Aimee Challenor was welcomed into the Greens and a lot of them would be happy to see them back as a candidate.

To refresh recollection:

Aimee Challenor, a bio male, was enthusiastically embraced by the UK Green Party as an up 'n coming trans politician, but was dropped (reluctantly) when they found out Aimee failed to disclose to them that Aimee's campaign manager was her father, who was charged with and later convicted of raping and torturing a 10 yr old girl in the family home.

Aimee was then promoted by UK Lib Dems, until this information about Aimee made “her” too much of a liability.

Aimee has continuously been active in ensuring that Stonewall UK's transgender policies and ideologies are promoted to UK govt agencies, UK companies, and UK nonprofits—who pay Stonewall £££ in exchange for Stonewall seal of approval points.

Last year, in 2020 Aimee was brought on & then rapidly ditched as a Reddit admin, when these facts about “her” ties to pedophiles came to light—to recap, that (1) Aimee's father, David, is now serving 20 years for child rape, and (2) also, Aimee has now married an admitted pedophile, who posts kiddie fantasies.

Funny—all these major institutions 'n corporations just love them some trans. But let an actual bio woman in the UK dare to misgender someone, and she gets a visit from the local constabulary for “hate speech.”

r215 She should have no influence or special access to shaping UK public policy.

Its a bit alarming to me that words that refer to biological concrete reality like woman or man or mother or father are being termed as not inclusive whilst words and names that refer to things slightly less concrete more nebulous and subjective eg whether a particular person shall be referred to as the he she or they pronoun is sared and its very important that people refer to them using the correct word.

So biological reality the words are not inclusive and potentially offensive

Subjective contentious and less concrete words around sense or identity of gender are super important and its terrible not to use required word.

so why are the wishes of pregnant women to be called mothers or pregnant woman ok to disregard but its not fine to disregard gender pronouns? Why the moral distinction between when feelings and wishes and the preferred or desired terms are to be used and when their not?? Morally it makes no sense to take away from 99% of pregnant woman a term they desire so as not to "upset" less than 1% of people and its much more like 0.001% who are pregnant biological females who think of themselves as men?

That is madness and morally makes no sense.The idea any politician would want to mainstream this is shocking.

Let’s be honest here. This is the March through the Institutions so that eventually we are subjected to so much double speak that the majority basically become silent and not we have by default lost Democracy . If you want to see how that goes listen to Joe Rogan’s latest podcast with Yeonmi Park, who escaped North Korea, pretty horrifying. Not for the faint of heart.

r217 But you see I think the pushback is going to be so strong that it will not succeed ultimately. The authority and status of Stonewall is now coming under the spotlight in the UK and I think if the trans activists push too far and continue trying to coopt the dems then it will become a supertoxic issue in US elections and hurt the dems.

But Stonewall is just one aspect of the whole trans agenda, r218. Scotland is still in the trans cult grip, while many non-government policy things are still being rammed through, e.g. universities, companies trying to get their staff to state their pronouns. There is at least a fightback in the UK, with an attempt to unravel some of the legal and policy damage that has been done, but this needs to be universal, e.g. if Spain passes its gender self-id law that will allow 14 year olds to consent, without parental approval, to transitioning, that will do untold damage, the same with this stuff going through in the US.

It will take at least a generation to start undoing the damage that has been done in the past decade. The real challenge to the trans ideology will come once those who are being nudged into transitioning as teens and ending up with mangled bodies reach adulthood and start taking legal action against those people and institutions who told them to do this.

We also need the LGB to split from the T.

[quote]I've been waiting to hear the terms 'semen issuer'

I think "semen shooter" or "sperm spewer" sound more poetic.

If we do not reject this madness with every bone in our bodies, then we have tacitly given our consent; and that is all they need to move forward.

They need our consent.

The gays need to start their own [bold]Gay[/bold] organizations. No alphabet trail of crazies. If you don't identify as gay, you are out.

Period! Finito! Done! No ifs or buts, just gay.

I think we need a Gay Lesbian and Women alliance to oust this bullshit. Get the groups that say that everyone is represented and show the Trans LB everything else they don’t represent diddly sqat.

It isn't nice to fool Mother Nature.