Bridge to the Overman 🇦🇺

Why is scientific denialism of biological sex so rampant in society currently? Unfortunately, communists and Marxists have infiltrated and captured our universities, pushing communist and postmodern theory at every opportunity to create a new generation who sees the world through a Marxist, postmodern lens. (See @christopherrufo's book America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything) This results in a cohort of people who exclusively understand the world through an ideological framework of economic determinism and social constructivism born of power relationships. This ideological framework is essentially "blank slatism" that denies the reality of human biology and human nature in social and political dynamics, positing that human beings are entirely a product of their material economic conditions. Furthermore, they have been taught that having this ideological interpretation of the world is not enough – there is a moral imperative act on their ideology wherever it perceives injustice and be activists for change in society. As Marx said in 1845, “philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Therefore, the pro-regressive left (as I like to call them) believes scientific biological concepts like sex are merely social constructs, produced by those holding economic power for their own self-sustaining ends. They fallaciously believe scientific facts supported by endless evidence can be completely "deconstructed" and undermined in a manner that other non-scientific cultural concepts are within academia. And finally (and most importantly to understand the zealotry) the pro-regressive left denies the reality of scientific biology because in their Marxist ideology it is a morally virtuous thing to do. Scientific knowledge is interpreted as an evil tool of capitalist oppression instead of objective fact that should form the basis of our social and economic theories (like capitalism). Then there was a Blitzkrieg of gender ideology pushed through society under the heading of DEI during the “great awokening” as these Marxist activists left university and pursued careers giving them real institutional power to wield over society. They have even managed to codify biological denialism in law through the West by making "gender identity" a legally protected characteristic. DEI policies enable scientific biology to be denied by gender ideology and this denial rigorously enforced in workplaces, education settings, and government bodies. Anyone who stands up for scientific realism can be fired or bullied from their positions and face social ostracization, so we are now in a position where there is a chilling effect around those who would defend biological reality. Lastly, there are many well meaning people in the world that have busy lives and just want a peaceful and happy society. They may have an instinct that gender ideology claims don't add up, but they don't have time to get into the weeds of these issues and debunk all the anti-scientific misinformation. So when gender ideology propaganda tells them to "be kind' and play along otherwise trans kids will commit suicide, they just acquiesce and play along, partly because they have other priorities, party because they do want to be kind, perhaps party even to virtue signal among the wealthy elites with luxury beliefs, and partly to avoid negative social consequences in the gender ideology paradigm that has infiltrated society. This is where we are. Now its time to deconstruct the social construct of gender ideology with science and reason.

Fundamentally, at the foundation of every commie is base narcissistic belief that they can do everything a billionaire can do in terms of running a successful business and the only reason they haven't done so is because they don't own the capital (means of production) in the first place. They sincerely believe this - that they are just as intelligent, hardworking, risk tolerant, cool under pressure, and visionary as every Fortune 500 founder who created their fortune. Meanwhile that empty bowl of fruitloops (which their mum paid for) sitting on their computer desk for 5 days is starting to smell as the milk sours.

“Eat the rich” while demanding the rich continue producing, investing, hiring, innovating, and funding everything indefinitely is literally “bite the hand that feeds you” by their own standard. If billionaires are supposedly the reason society functions, then demonizing and punishing the people creating the capital, infrastructure, and businesses they depend on is self sabotage.

“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us.” — Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

With @LiberalAus and @OneNationAus both promising to reinstate sex in the Sex Discrimination Act the issue of women’s sex based rights has (finally) gone mainstream in Australia. The timing of the Liberals announcement is confirmation of the suspicion many of us had that politicians expected @salltweets to carry the burden of challenging the SDA alone as a private citizen, so they didn’t have to get their rainbow donors offside. It’s only now that she failed to overturn this madness that the Libs are realising they have to step in. It was an unfair burden for Sall to carry, yet it’s because of her persistence and tenacity that this issue is now a leading issue heading in to both the Victorian state election and the federal election in 2028. Sall (and all the TERFs who amplified her) should be very proud that persistence against insurmountable odds is finally paying off.

Fix the Act or get the Sack.🇦🇺

Australia’s top tax rate of 47% kicks in on an income that still would not allow you to afford a mortgage on the median home in Sydney. So the government calls you rich but you cannot afford to buy an AVERAGE house in Australia’s largest city.

Politicians could fix this issue - for free - in a sitting week. An amendment to the sex discrimination act to reinstate the correct definitions of woman & man, plus clarifying that the ordinary meaning of sex is biological, would fix this issue. The choice is simple: fall behind the rest of the world while becoming an ideological laughing stock, or crossing party lines to fix bad legislation & ensure no more Australian citizens are punished for acknowledging reality. Any politician who says this issue is too difficult to fix is either malicious or incompetent.

An Inman at Lakemba Mosque in Sydney: “Jihad for the sake of Allah is the only way to conquer the world and impose the ruling of Islam” “The Jihad will continue until judgement day” I wonder if this falls under Albo’s new “hate speech” laws.

Australia's federal courts are showing how you embed a nonsensical falsehood into law and impose an obligation to believe or pay tribute to that falsehood onto every citizen without any democratic deliberation, debate, or consent of those subject to the obligation. They are exposing what the Gender inquisition always intended and continues to work tirelessly to inflict on the whole world wherever it has not already succeeded. A belief system that was manufactured out of thin air by a group of marginal and mediocre academics within the last 20 years is being taught to every schoolchild from the earliest age as the only truth and is already the basis of yearslong inquisitions resulting in ruinous penalties that violate the most basic civil liberties and rights in the name of affirming of a harmful delusion.

@LAHall454981 @DoNoHarm79 Are you saying there are no men in women’s prisons, sports, or pretending to be female doctors? Way to try to minimize what’s happening to women’s rights in Aus you retarded muppet.

@DoNoHarm79 One measly little app, though...

In The Australian 🇦🇺 newspaper today. “Sex-based protections designed to protect women can now be employed by biological men who identify as women to ride roughshod over women who refuse to comply with their demands.”

I don't think this is it. The issue is that leftists empathise with the criminal (and impose all kinds of causality attached to imagined emotional and cognitive states of the criminal due to their environment (upbringing, colonial history, socioeconomic, etc)) but they completely fail to empathise with the actual victims of their crimes and what they have endured, their emotional injuries and trauma being victimised, their socioeconomic consequences, etc.

"Empathy" is often used to explain bleeding-heart liberalism, but this is exactly backwards. It is precisely the liberal's lack of empathy, his failure to imagine the mindset of the malicious anti-social criminal, that drives his misguided politics. Important to realize this.

Receipts The Liberal Party could have chosen to fix this issue when they were in power But some of them decided to pretend this was a culture war instead of human rights for half the population

The inequity that exists today is straightforward: every productive worker in the economy is subsidising a public service that cannot be made to perform, cannot be made to shrink & cannot be held accountable. My response to the Budget for the @australian theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/i-gre…

"Sex" and "gender" used to be synonyms which is why this can be confusing. But now in the age of Wokism, leftist academics have rendered the term "gender" to be an ideological term used to describe cultural norms, stereotypes, expectations, etc., which is maliciously used by trans activists to bait and switch with "sex" when it suits them to gain access to single sex spaces. Write the Bill to explicitly say "sex" and explicitly state that "sex" based rights are explicitly prioritised over any references or appeals to gender, gender identity, or gender ideology that may exist in any local or state laws, institutions, etc. This is the way. It is not enough for the coalition to do a U-turn on "sex," you have to also explicitly lock the door on "gender identity" behind you as we leave this shameful and tragic era behind us.

Last year I moved a Bill in the Senate with @SenatorAntic that would re-establish the definition of man and woman in the Sex Discrimination Act. My Nationals colleague, Alison Penfold, will introduce a similar Bill to the House soon. Yesterday the Federal Court made a decision that proved that these changes are needed. The court's decision effectively prevents women and girls from having their own single sex spaces. The Nationals will fix this by supporting laws that define two biological genders, male and female, in the Sex Discrimination Act. This won't take rights away from anyone but it will ensure that women and girls (and men and boys) can protect spaces that they wish to reserve for them. We will ensure that there is protection for services, activities and spaces exclusively for women.   There are two biological genders, male and female, and that is a real thing. It is just common sense for our laws to recognise that.

Everyone blames her personally, but Wokism is much bigger than her, the ideology much more expansive and powerful. Is she didn’t do it, any other Labor leader would have, sooner or later, because that is what the ideology demands. We would be wrong to think our current situation is the result of one bad decision by one individual and it’s just about reversing that one decision. It’s bigger than that, the battle is larger than that. Wokism needs to be destroyed as an ideology, not merely one amendment reversed, or we will always be behind playing an infinite game of Whack a mole where the same concepts are implemented under different names.

That spring in your step when you've just sold out your sex for woke points by removing the definitions of sex, man and woman from the Sex Discrimination Act.

@geofiasco @MGrahMcIntosh @shaneybaby76

@OvermanBridge @MGrahMcIntosh @shaneybaby76 Fuck you people are fucking stupid. You can’t even link basic fucking concepts together, or see the gaping holes in your own logic, and you want to interfere in the private lives of strangers Fuck all of the way off

Following today's Federal Court ruling which is a blow to women’s rights, it is time for a review of the Sex Discrimination Act. Our laws need to work for Australian women, not against them.

Not every day I accurately see someone identify Krenshaw as the formalised source of intersectional identity grievance politics, an updated form of Marxism aka neoMarxism - 10 points! But women and feminism have a bigger issue than understanding what a woman is (if you can imagine that). If feminism can’t figure out how to frame motherhood as something positive women should aspire to and be proud of - instead of singularly as a fork of patriarchal oppression - then the Wests fertility crisis will continue to accelerate, while other cultures exceeds ours, until in a few generations they will be living in black bags, confined to the house, beaten if they speak, and being a “gen Z boss in a mini” skirt will become urban legend in Islamic Eurostan.

I actually have no sympathy for women aggrieved by the Giggle v Tickle decision. As the Public Image Ltd song goes: "This is what you want, this is what you get." In the 30 years since Kimberlé Crenshaw published "Mapping the Margins" and birthed Intersectional Feminism those values have come to philosophically dominate every level of bureaucracy and academia. Women have acquired tremendous political, cultural and institutional power. Female tastes define our entire society. At an economic level, it's lead to the creation of whole skyscrapers full of pointless jobs, sinecures, crèches for the daughters of intersectionality to occupy. Pick me girls and "based" women have still benefited from this, even as they decry it. The ones that complain the loudest, the "TERFS" or whatever - they wouldn't have a shred of cachet in civil society were it not for 90s feminist metanoia. Despite all these changes women are not any happier than they were running around in hoop skirts demanding voting rights. Of course not. Go and read the literature. Female happiness, contentment, equality, these were never part of the bargain. Intersectional feminism describes infinite tesseracts of oppression and privilege that never end. The war will never be over. You will go to a International Women's Day Morning Tea, full of men in women's clothing, and you will be miserable and unable to say anything, trapped in a monolithic grievance complex, forever. That was the deal you signed on to. That was written on the tin. This is what you voted for. Still vote for. It is tempting to consider legislative solutions to this. But the people proposing them have never dealt with women prone to making bad choices. You have to let women wallow in their mistakes and understand the full weight of them. Otherwise they keep making them. This generation of women will have to be made to live with the bad decisions of their mothers. Maybe their daughters too, just to really drive it home. And to unmake the societal chaos intersectional feminism has wrought, men can't be the ones to fix it with a Bill or a regulation. Somewhere out there, a woman aggrieved at the fact the law no longer recognises women are even real, will write a monograph, like Crenshaw did in 1991, and then over 30 years, the process can run in reverse. Feminist philosophy undergoes various epistemic ruptures every 30 years or so anyway. They're due for another gestalt switch. Maybe the next one will be less shit and they won't accidentally delete their entire gender from the statue books. In the meantime: "This is what you want, this is what you get."

Of course men deserve single-sex spaces and sex-based rights where sex is relevant. For example, men have a legitimate right to request a male doctor or carer for intimate reproductive or personal hygiene care. They also deserve male-only spaces for privacy and dignity where that is justified (like a change room or toilet). However, there is a clear asymmetry in risk. Biological males who identify as women entering female spaces pose a significantly higher risk to women’s safety, dignity, and privacy than the reverse. Women have far more to lose when single-sex protections are erased, which is why the issue is framed primarily as a women's rights issue. Single-sex spaces are valid when sex is relevant to the purpose of that space - such as women’s shelters, changing rooms, lesbian bars, or female sports. A gay bar excluding women or a lesbian bar excluding men is reasonable. But banning men from ordinary hotels, most jobs, or general public venues is illegal sex discrimination. Can you follow along? And no - we don’t pay people more because they claim to do a better job. We pay based on merit and objective performance.

@OvermanBridge @MGrahMcIntosh @shaneybaby76 Do men deserve single sex places, and sex based rights as well? Like, can they ban us from attending certain venues, like hotels, or clubs, sporting events, certain jobs, public life … should they get paid more than women because if you ask them, they do a much better job

@geofiasco @MGrahMcIntosh @shaneybaby76

@OvermanBridge @MGrahMcIntosh @shaneybaby76 What are these women’s rights you speak of that need defending?