Borederforce

They're not YOUR pronouns if they're coming out of MY mouth.

I'm an ER doctor: don't even think about it.

@grannies4equal @AdamsSandr4794 They don’t need any experience of being transgender, because what’s being discussed is the effect of gender pretenders on everyone else.

@AdamsSandr4794 Core thing about GCs: They know zero about what being transgender is or means. (This doesn't stop them, even when judges point out their ignorance) A transgender woman is not a man. A transgender man is not a woman. Insisting they are exposes their own ignorance & rigidity.

I submitted this response to Mr Murphy's article. It was not published. Sir, Conor Murphy writes that words are important yet relies on vague terms such as ‘culture’ and ‘differences’ to avoid describing specific, immutable characteristics like race, sex, ethnicity, and disability, before conflating these attributes with self-declared identities. These are fundamentally different things: one is objective, the other subjective. (Why do we tell others what they should call themselves? Tuesday, March 24) Comparing the use of nicknames to using incorrect sex-based pronouns is unconvincing. If Patrick wishes to be called Paudie, this is simply a diminutive; it does not alter any underlying fact about him, nor require others to address him as anything other than he is: male. If some in his classroom take issue with the phrase ‘boys and girls’, straightforward alternatives such as ‘everyone’ or ‘students’ includes all without distorting language. Respect matters, but so too do clarity and coherence, especially in education. Privileging one person’s subjective feelings over another’s understanding of reality is a real tension that he fails to address. Yours Sandra Adams

@conorsmurf “Call themselves” is doing a lot of work here, when what you actually want is to force everyone else to pretend men can transform into women and get naked with little girls in the changing rooms.

My article is now online.

Dear Irish Times You didn’t ask me on but discussed me and my work in detail so let me assist on the question posed in your heading and a few other gaping holes. 1. I am the CEO of an organisation called @TheCountessIE. We incorporated a number of years ago. I am one of three directors. 2. We weren’t “involved in a failed Referendum” but this description from @IrishTimes is quite the tell. For us as grassroots leaders of a No/No campaign that spanned 30 locations over 7 weeks, this was a landslide victory. We view the 73.9% who voted to retain A41.2 as our constituency. 3. Our constituency do not want men in female spaces or services, prisons or shelters, sports or quotas. They know a man cannot be a woman and equality is predicated on certain accommodations like single sex spaces which provide safety, dignity and privacy for women and girls. They do not want their children indoctrinated into gender, or any other ideology at school. Far from being a twitter constituency as you describe, they are the majority. 4. Our advocacy stopped the Government removing the word woman from Maternity legislation. Our advocacy stopped the rollout of mixed sex toilets in schools. Our advocacy helped defeat the planned collapse of the gender ground and transposition of hate speech. 5. We have evolved to address the impact of immigration which like trans, is a sacred pillar of the new left that the electorate were not allowed to vote on. We observe how the media behaves the same way with regard to each of these issues. 6. We are alive to, and well versed in, the use of an ad hominem response because we dare challenge the narrative. 7. We know we represent the majority and will continue the work. 8. The work has been recognised globally. @TheCountessIE has addressed/briefed the UN alone three times, the EU parliament, Houses of Parliament, US Assistant AG among others. 9. Thank you for the ongoing coverage of the issue at hand which is the risk presented to women and children by the policy of housing unscreened male migrants en masse in residential areas. Le meas, Laoise de Brún BL

@Ryah1415620 @clustertrumped @Jos_11111 @JournalismSEEN @Jonathan_Hinder Why would you be getting checked every three months, do you think? Fertility testing every three months is highly abnormal.

@clustertrumped @Jos_11111 @JournalismSEEN @Jonathan_Hinder I didn’t pay the NHS did :) actually - I’m getting bottom surgery soon which is the only reason I froze, otherwise I was fine to continue cos I get checked every three months. How about you remove your uninformed opinion from other peoples health care

Jonathan Hinder MP @Jonathan_Hinder in the puberty blocker debate ‘Infertility is not a risk but an expected outcome..let’s be absolutely clear about what this would mean - the British state sterilising healthy little children - in plain sight, not by accident, but consciously and deliberately. How could we do this to children. It would be the most appalling state scandal you could imagine’

@holybullies @EggBoxOfTricks @JournalismSEEN @Jonathan_Hinder They ARE considered dangerous. That’s why they’re only used rarely and for as short a time as possible.

@EggBoxOfTricks @JournalismSEEN @Jonathan_Hinder If puberty blockers are dangerous for trans kids to use, then they should be considered dangerous in all cases. Your problem is thst your dislike of trans people os making you biased.

@elegationvain I think they just piggybacked on the “conversion therapy” panic as way to frame their objections as acceptable in a zeitgeist that sees things almost entirely through a lens of progressive anxieties. Is it happening? Sure. Is it common? No.

Absolutely. This is how many of the straight GCs cope. They showcase their love of gay people as a way to defend from accusations of bigotry. But by saying "we're just saving gay kids", they're delaying saving the kids who are actually vulnerable to "GAC".

@sleepy_devo @Sargon_of_Akkad You literally acknowledge your own willingness to lie (and your opinion that people who refuse to are assholes) in the opening tweet of this thread.

@Sargon_of_Akkad This is probably one of the larger divides between us nowadays sargon I'm interested in what is true, regardless of which political faction it helps or hurts You've adopted a postmodernist "truth is downstream from power" position, which has corroded your moral sensibilities

nobody reasonable actually thinks that trans women metamorphose into biological females you fucking retard. the ask is not "believe that men are women", it's "don't be an asshole". you don't have to like trans people. you do have to leave them alone.

@michaelpforan @bettytasticss I actually think history is full of cantankerous pricks being willing to say true-but-potentially-offensive things first. And in my experience the reaction of a lot of people upon meeting such a ‘prick’ about this subject, is relief.

@bettytasticss You've just missed the point. It doesn't matter how true what you say is, if you're being a prick you won't convince anyone. All you do it drive them away. Fine if you're not interested in convincing anyone but that exactly the point of departure.

My take is that a split has formed with "the Gender Critical Movement" between those who have achieved or who support the professionalisation of the grassroots movement into effective lobbying and strategic litigation organisations/charities and those who were prominent in the grassroots movement who can't or won't support that change. I think there are a few causes for the aggression and I don't think this indicates that the GC movement has run out of steam. I think it's the exact opposite in fact. 1. Those who adopt a more "hardline" stance are more concerned with ideological purity than with being effective. They see a focus on political reality as capitulation and prefer to maintain a stance that does not compromise on what they consider to be fundamental commitments. They spend most of their time doing grassroots activism, social medial campaigning, maybe making videos or doing live streams. Lobbying politicians, influencing development or change of policy, litigation, and basically anything that is likely to actually bring about change in law and policy but which requires engagement with people who disagree with the Ultra stance is rejected. The only engagement they want with those people is an opportunity to insult them or to yell at them. Working with someone who disagrees is not an option. 2. Because of this, some committed to the more hardline stance are seeing people they think are going about things all wrong making gains in law and policy and are lashing out. This is because they think things are going in the wrong direction (they have no plan or seemingly no intention of doing anything to be effective beyond yelling at people online). It's the success of the professional side of the "GC movement" that is leading to this kind of civil war from the more hardline grassroots. They see the professionals as elites and attribute their success to capitulation. 3. Because these more hardline grassroots activists are mostly focused on social media rather than law and policy, they are much much more focused on language purity than others. I think everyone within the GC movement is concerned with language but some think that it's more important to actually change law and policy than it is to be linguistically pure. It would be great to have both but if you need to choose between the two, that is the overarching fault-line imo. The hardliners will say that they would like to see law policy changed too and I'm sure that right but that is not what their actions reveal. They don't have an effective campaign to make these changes, partially because they see attention to political reality as capitulation. 4. There is a lot of long term thinking but no short or medium term thinking. The fact that political movements in the past have effectively changed social and cultural norms is used as evidence that it is possible that one day if only everyone agreed with them, they could change the political realities on the ground. But they have no plan for doing that. Instead they just spend their time insulting people who use the wrong language or taking shots at the people (overwhelmingly women) who have actually been effective. 5. Because of this divide, it might look like the split is between the grassroots and the professionals but I don't think that's true. There is clearly a huge overlap between both and mutual support and appreciation. Without the grassroots the professional side would not exist and without the professional side the grassroots would barely achieve anything in terms of systematic institutional and legal change. But some within the grassroots who are used to positions of prominence can't or have no interest in becoming professional. They either don't have the skills or the temperament to behave professionally or they have no interest in it. So they spend their time throwing stones at the women who have actually achieved something in law and policy.

@Logikahh @AndInTheEnd2 @JoEllisReally Why would you not lay out your argument regardless, if it’s so straightforward.

@AndInTheEnd2 @JoEllisReally My point is rather straight forward. If you're asking that question I already assume you're coming from a bad faith and disingenuous approach.

One thing I keep coming back to with bathroom bans is that removing trans women doesn’t remove risk. It only removes some perception of risk. Women can assault other women. Men can break the law regardless of signs on the door. Bad people don’t follow rules. In most areas of society, we accept that risk can’t be reduced to zero, so we punish wrongdoing instead of restricting everyone ahead of time. But in this debate, the standard sometimes becomes: if harm is possible, access should be restricted. That’s not how we handle risk anywhere else. Imagine driving privileges, guns, etc., all being handled that way?

@yusufkrfz @elonmusk It must be great to be a perfect man with full knowledge of the au fait opinions of the future.

It's not about erasing history, it's about acknowledging its dark pages. If figures like Wellington and Nelson were directly involved in the slave trade, colonialism, and racism, then forever glorifying their statues as “heroes” is the real travesty. The past is not being forgotten it's simply being cleansed of a fabricated heroic myth. Orwell is actually pointing in the exact opposite direction here, Elon

This would be a travesty

@Anglo_Ouroboros @Sargon_of_Akkad Can you point out what’s wrong with what she said there?

@Sargon_of_Akkad This is indefensible Carl.

Posie is not the enemy, everyone should calm down.

I think of all the weirdnesses of this fucked up time we lived in, this sort of smug, fanatical credentialism will be looked back on as one of the most weird.

@travis4nh The scoldy wokesters think the founding fathers were all in their 70s+ guaranteed.

American hero

@lisakeb007 @FTeal5531316 @GoodwinMJ Yup! It’s just feels like less of a betrayal.

@FTeal5531316 @GoodwinMJ Is this also true of the Lefty men you know?

Every woke middle-class feminist who talks about every cause under the sun except the women & girls who are being brutally murdered and assaulted by mass immigration should read this ⬇️ telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/…

@ZoeJardiniere Immigration destroys native fertility rates, and abortion has killed a third of Gen Z. compactmag.com/article/mass-i…

Completely random but I just noticed this about Tuco's actor in Breaking Bad. Despite his entire character being about fighting (to the point he wears diamond encrusted boxing gloves on a neck chain) he has clearly never punched anyone before - look at the way he forms a fist.

@Rathmacan associated with smoking.

@Rathmacan It’s ridiculous to say the flavours are “targeted at children” anyway. Make the packaging bland by all means, but the suggestion that only teens like raspberries and watermelons is patent nonsense thought up by idiots. It’s become a crusade against nicotine itself, not the harms>

He has changed his mind on this, because as he said, a lot of users spoke to him. Contact your TD and let them know, maybe they can also see sense.