u r my strongest soldier truly.............

instituting the EHRC would have provided a clear target for legal challenges because it was so insane. a total vacuum free-for-all, knowing your swivel-eyed activist mates are well-funded and the judiciary are all bent as fuck, achieves most of the same ends while keeping your nose clean

why forcefully segregate society from the top down? organisations will do it themselves if they're worried about a wave of well-funded lawsuits from daring to act like human beings. nothing to do with us, Mr ECHR inspector sir, these are all private organisations simply choosing how they operate.

i was a little confused about why the government didnt just ram through the EHRC guidance earlier this year, since i figured they were stupid and hateful enough to just damn the consequences. that they hesitated was uncharacteristic, and now i'm wondering if it was because this status quo suits them

you cannot stop stuff like this without cracking down on the organisations doing it, hard. you cannot do it without taking a stand and making this kind of horrific behaviour legally unviable by defining clear rights for trans people. and the wretched cunts in government will never ever do that

"we never really got rid of the aristocracy" is something i knew intellectually but it's really something to see the entire public realm get smashed by a tiny gaggle of rich shitheads with no claim to authority other than pure cash. not even the pretense of rule of law, just pure might makes right

members of a charity set the law on who you can associate with. who elected them? no one. what's their mandate? cash. whose values do they represent? billionaire arse-grabbers. are there any checks and balances on this system? no.
can this meaningfully be described as a democracy? categorically, no.

Sex Matters can functionally legislate on this matter because they have a bazillion quid and nobody has the guts to fight them. our elected government is already a cruel parody of democracy, but this goes way beyond that. the more i think about it the more insane i feel.

"heh, you forgot about the group of people who the ruling explicitly takes time out to explain in detail why they are also scum and can be excluded from any space you care to choose"

i want to believe that is possible, but it won't happen if we can't even describe what they have done that warrants this treatment.

no viable political future for this island exists that does not include smashing this movement, making its views unacceptable in public life, permanently removing it from every level of political power, and prosecuting the monsters who orchestrated it. it must be treated like ideological leprosy.

but these people hate trans kids and cheer when they die. they get their dicks hard by fantasising about inflicting hideous, inhuman cruelty on the vulnerable. their views are not merely a gotcha to be answered with "of course i disagree, TWAW :D" in interviews. they need to be called what they are.

it's a tough sell rhetorically too because of how hard this cult of rape-worshipping child-abusing male supremacy has been pushed as sensible. if you call these people what you are, you sound hyperbolic and insane to the public. "all that, just because the wizard lady made some mean tweets?"

anyone out there in the public sphere in the UK today saying "trans women are women" is cool and i encourage them to keep doing it. the thing is the GC movement's monstrous cruelty often goes unaddressed, even by supportive allies the issue is framed as principled disagreement.

i appreciate that e.g. the Green Party is taking a much firmer stance on this than it once did, but it mostly takes the form of essentially saying "we reject the framing that our slogans from the late 2010s are bad now, and we will keep saying them". the terrain has changed.

literally exactly what i was thinking of when i wrote that reply

"because we're definitely feminists and not just a bunch of arse-grabbers, pedos and rapists"