Brilliant as ever. Thanks for giving us a laugh Andrew, as we try to navigate these insane times. The idea that that a small number of well organised people can control the majority, couldn’t be clearer at the moment.The thing that’s harder to explain is how so many supposedly intelligent people, in positions of power and influence, appear to be the most sheep like and cowardly.
Indeed, but they’d get a lot more respect if they stood against the insanity and they’d give others the courage to do likewise. I can only assume that it’s not just cowardice but a complete lack of critical thinking.
I tend to go with cowardice on this one, though it’s possible it varies. My Senator is Kirsten Gillibrand, who at one point was deemed, and certainly seemed to think herself to be, the leader of the “Resistance.” She knows perfectly well what a woman is. She just got reelected to another six-year term, yet she is cowering in the backwaters on low-ranking committees as if her next election was tomorrow, while the face of the “Resistance” in Congress is now Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
I agree, cowardice is a big reason. Understandable in some circumstances but if everyone had stood together and said no, this is wrong, we’d be in a much better place.
I'd like to take a moment of your time to let you know that For Women Scotland and Sex Matters both have crowdfunders up & running, as they haven't managed to fully fund this case yet. It's been estimated that all of these legal actions over the past few years to attempt right the gender insanity has, so far, cost us over £5,000,000. This has been raised by crowdfunders. And how tragic that we've been forced to do this to protect our rights.
Great read Andrew, brought a smile to my troubled brow. I guess it had to be the Scot’s who questioned such a thing, as for centuries men have walking around in skirts. So clearly it has been a conundrum lurking below the surface for a long time. 🫤
After First Amendment issues, THIS is why I voted against the Democratic presidential nominee. Exactly as you state, if a person or party cannot acknowledge a basic biological truth, how can you trust them on any other issue?
My money's on the court kicking this back to Parliament to clarify the law. It could be easily done, but with a Labour government that doesn't want to touch this issue with a bargepole for fear of incensing activists within and without, and with plenty of MPs who couldn't find their own backsides if the palms of their hands were glued to each cheek, I don't have any faith that they will prioritise it. I fear we may not know what a woman is for some time to come.
If the Supreme court comes up with a convoluted description of a man and a woman, then society will have to redefine what we currently know as male and female. Perhaps a simple XX or XY with a sub sect “ indecisive” or “confused” will do the trick.
All the gender identity people would need to do to talk sense instead of nonsense is to cease to contend that identifying as the opposite sex makes you in reality a member of the opposite sex, which is clearly nonsense, but rather that such identification means that you should be treated in all respects as if you were a member of that opposite sex. They could press for a law to that effect. whether or not they gain sufficient support for that contention, they would at least be pursuing something that made some sort of sense.
But no, they have to be pursuing a falsehood, a fraud, a feeble, fatuous and futile fiction, because their intention is to confuse and destabilise society, just as with that other doctrine of critical Theory, decolonization and the destruction of our history. The purpose of these movements has nothing to do with helping anyone, only with damaging them, children, women and all of us generally, so that in time Big Brother will take over.
I answered this question on Quora with "a human who has, or had, or has the potential to produce large, immobile gametes". For this I was called "a dumb Nazi c*nt"
Well, our elected representatives have, on many occasions, shown we cannot trust them, so it is really no surprise they vacillate when asked such a simple question.
I have a friend who is 65 years old and has completely bought into gender ideology. As far as I can tell, in her mind, she separates "sex" from "gender".
My daughter, when she was 18, was convinced she was a man. I asked her, what is gender? She admitted she actually had no idea.
It's been clear for some time now and indisputable since Trump's first campaign that the political class is now made up 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 entirely of utterly unprincipled careerists, interested in nothing but their continued tenure in office. Political types as a class were truly astonished that Cheney, Kinzinger, and others would give up any hope of a further career as a GOP politician to vote in favor of the impeachment of Trump. Sadly, I don't see any way out of this environment. The two-faced posture of politicians who vote against their own convictions as to the facts or the law, all in order to advance or preserve their positions, has largely been normalized among journalists and public intellectuals.
It's fascinating Ketanji Brown Jackson says she can't answer because she's not a biologist.
She accidentally admits it comes down to biology. So we should ask a biologist.
Dawkins is a biologist, let's ask Dawkins.
Dawkins: "A woman is an adult human female".
It's demoralising to see the ruling class being so incredibly disingenious.
Brilliant as ever. Thanks for giving us a laugh Andrew, as we try to navigate these insane times. The idea that that a small number of well organised people can control the majority, couldn’t be clearer at the moment.The thing that’s harder to explain is how so many supposedly intelligent people, in positions of power and influence, appear to be the most sheep like and cowardly.
Probably because they are the people who have the most to lose if they don't comply.
They are cowards who would rather lie than do what is right if the latter means they could lose their power, influence and possibly money.
Indeed, but they’d get a lot more respect if they stood against the insanity and they’d give others the courage to do likewise. I can only assume that it’s not just cowardice but a complete lack of critical thinking.
I tend to go with cowardice on this one, though it’s possible it varies. My Senator is Kirsten Gillibrand, who at one point was deemed, and certainly seemed to think herself to be, the leader of the “Resistance.” She knows perfectly well what a woman is. She just got reelected to another six-year term, yet she is cowering in the backwaters on low-ranking committees as if her next election was tomorrow, while the face of the “Resistance” in Congress is now Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
I agree, cowardice is a big reason. Understandable in some circumstances but if everyone had stood together and said no, this is wrong, we’d be in a much better place.
💯💯💯
I'd like to take a moment of your time to let you know that For Women Scotland and Sex Matters both have crowdfunders up & running, as they haven't managed to fully fund this case yet. It's been estimated that all of these legal actions over the past few years to attempt right the gender insanity has, so far, cost us over £5,000,000. This has been raised by crowdfunders. And how tragic that we've been forced to do this to protect our rights.
The Lumberjack Song has a lot to answer for.
Haha! I had to look up the Monty Python words again. Good point!
Great read Andrew, brought a smile to my troubled brow. I guess it had to be the Scot’s who questioned such a thing, as for centuries men have walking around in skirts. So clearly it has been a conundrum lurking below the surface for a long time. 🫤
Hard to believe it isn’t satire. How can these people be so cowardly.
First-rate sarcasm, Andrew. Cold and devastating.
After First Amendment issues, THIS is why I voted against the Democratic presidential nominee. Exactly as you state, if a person or party cannot acknowledge a basic biological truth, how can you trust them on any other issue?
My money's on the court kicking this back to Parliament to clarify the law. It could be easily done, but with a Labour government that doesn't want to touch this issue with a bargepole for fear of incensing activists within and without, and with plenty of MPs who couldn't find their own backsides if the palms of their hands were glued to each cheek, I don't have any faith that they will prioritise it. I fear we may not know what a woman is for some time to come.
If the Supreme court comes up with a convoluted description of a man and a woman, then society will have to redefine what we currently know as male and female. Perhaps a simple XX or XY with a sub sect “ indecisive” or “confused” will do the trick.
All the gender identity people would need to do to talk sense instead of nonsense is to cease to contend that identifying as the opposite sex makes you in reality a member of the opposite sex, which is clearly nonsense, but rather that such identification means that you should be treated in all respects as if you were a member of that opposite sex. They could press for a law to that effect. whether or not they gain sufficient support for that contention, they would at least be pursuing something that made some sort of sense.
But no, they have to be pursuing a falsehood, a fraud, a feeble, fatuous and futile fiction, because their intention is to confuse and destabilise society, just as with that other doctrine of critical Theory, decolonization and the destruction of our history. The purpose of these movements has nothing to do with helping anyone, only with damaging them, children, women and all of us generally, so that in time Big Brother will take over.
I answered this question on Quora with "a human who has, or had, or has the potential to produce large, immobile gametes". For this I was called "a dumb Nazi c*nt"
And by calling you that they neatly proved that they don't have any arguments. So you won that skirmish.
Well, our elected representatives have, on many occasions, shown we cannot trust them, so it is really no surprise they vacillate when asked such a simple question.
I have a friend who is 65 years old and has completely bought into gender ideology. As far as I can tell, in her mind, she separates "sex" from "gender".
My daughter, when she was 18, was convinced she was a man. I asked her, what is gender? She admitted she actually had no idea.
Brilliant article. The opening had me laughing out loud.
It's been clear for some time now and indisputable since Trump's first campaign that the political class is now made up 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 entirely of utterly unprincipled careerists, interested in nothing but their continued tenure in office. Political types as a class were truly astonished that Cheney, Kinzinger, and others would give up any hope of a further career as a GOP politician to vote in favor of the impeachment of Trump. Sadly, I don't see any way out of this environment. The two-faced posture of politicians who vote against their own convictions as to the facts or the law, all in order to advance or preserve their positions, has largely been normalized among journalists and public intellectuals.