Now that the sex inclusionists have lost, they suddenly want to offer compromises and olive branches.
Too late.
Replying to @localrach
I just donโt get why they want the government involved in this. This can be handled by school districts or WIAA or case by caseโฆ talk about government overreach
Election day, and these assholes still haven't figured out that when there's cost-of-living stress around the kitchen table, social issues become unimportant.
All the early voting analyses center around "Dems are voting" and "Repubs are voting." And act like that info tells you something.
Yet, the largest political classification in America is "Independent".
People are seriously underestimating disaffected Republican voters. Just because Republicans are turning out doesnโt mean theyโre voting Republican. Not every Republican who shows up is going to vote for the GOP. The under 45 Republican voter is a serious problem.
I suspect weโll see a larger third-party vote tomorrow than many expect.
Democrats donโt need massive Republican crossover to win. They need independents to break decisively in their favor, while enough disaffected Republicans either stay home or cast protest votes for third-party candidates.
Thatโs the dynamic I think a lot of people are overlooking.
I'm reminded of the studies that show that a large number of transpeople are autistic.
One of the classic symptoms of autism is unnuanced thinking.
Examples below.
Replying to @waslottie @marcuse99903226
"...go back to the days when cis clinicians had absolute control over trans ppl's lives"
Maybe some of the trans people are shitty at controlling their own lives and could use some help.
You maybe are fine. Never assume the person next to you is. You don't live in their skin.
Boomer Baltimore fans will remember when the Colts had to go into the final game and playoff with a halfback (Tom Matte) playing QB.
Jo goes scorched earth on Stonewall.
A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one.
While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: โStonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] โovercoming the cotton ceilingโ.โ
When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it isโ.
In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman โ theyโre non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read โResearch suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'.
@thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/artiโฆ
In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your former CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male.
Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high.
Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.
Just imagine how ashamed Matt's parents must be of him.
The great thing about this issue is that both sides can legitimately accuse the other of authoritarianism. :-)
Putting aside the debate about the relative value of USAID to the taxpayer, it was a negligible faction of US budget outlays.
The fact that DOGE was deployed on USAID and not the massive, fraud ridden DoD told us right there: the Administration is fully neocon.
Replying to @RepMikeLevin
USAID was one of the largest criminal enterprises in the world. Stealing our tax dollars and giving it to bad actors across the planet for mass subversion, color revolutions, assassinations and paying off the worst of the worst. Very little helped people and if it did it took away from Americans to do so. Good riddance!
Human sacrifice went out of style some years ago, to the disappointment of some.
Dude says that space research and exploration needs to be free from ROI, then immediately posts that NASA needs better ROI.
Replying to @charlesboyer
Yes, we HAVE to get the cost per launch down so that we can actually take full advantage of the system. We do this primarily by increasing the flight rate
"I'm glad "Nationalize Starlink" is gaining acceptance."
Yes, it's very popular with the fascists.
"Your children are not yours to own or control."
No, they are ours to raise according to our best abilities. A level of control is required.
If the state decides that our "best abilities" are legally insufficient, they are free to take over (and pay all the bills).
Replying to @merlot_sk @EstrogenEden
First off, you're strawmanning my argument, second off, my argument still holds. Because that's still their choice. You can support your children's choices regardless of the consequences. If they're adults, their choices are theirs. Your children are not yours to own or control.
There is no parental distinguishing between good and bad choices, it seems.
Replying to @merlot_sk @EstrogenEden
You can't claim to love your children if you won't respect their choices, should they choose to make them. Or maybe I'm being too strict with that definition. But regardless of if you love your kids or not, you clearly don't respect them.
OK. New policy, here, folks.
If the poster parroting unsubstantiated paranoid claims is immature enough to use a cartoonish drawing as their picture, its a block.
























