Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

SJW meltdown


Oliver Sutton

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
3 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Yes, great example.

I actually picked up the video from the hardcore feminism bit of mumsnet where the hardcore feminists are jumping up and down about transgenderism.

From the outside this looks like yet another SJW cause along with extreme feminsim but it's entirely corrosive to feminism as feminsim is about gaining equality (and then advantage...) for women and then this is totally undermined if a man can just say "I'm a woman" and be, in law, a woman.  So the great feminist striggle (Sisters!) is now delivering its gains to men.  What happens if all 30 million men in this country, in the event of a big war, say "I'm a woman so you can't call me up"?

It is dividing the SJW s into those who will pick up any cause just for the hell of it and those capable of standing back and saying "well this is just getting silly now".

They're gonna need to build a lot more women's prisons as this becomes orthodoxy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

It seems at least most people here are all for the fundamental rights for women plus men and women with different sexual preferences, but it starts breaking down with transgenderism (likely due to the artificiality of sexual realignment, the vagueness of the condition, and transgendered people having other overlapping issues), even if they're a heavily stigmatised and bullied group. And the more militant wings of the civil rights groups starting to cannibalise each other over this and helping the term, Social Justice Warrior, become a punchline or slur word.

And it doesn't help they've been co-opted to a certain extent in the past decade or two by Corporatists (represented by the Clinton clan and Blairites) who erected a Potemkin Village to humans rights and social justice, while looting and exploiting behind the scenes. 

And finally people have mindlessly just kept on barking "racist", "transphobic", "homophobic", and "misogynist" for so long and seemingly at virtually everything that, not unlike overused antibiotics on livestock, its lost its effectiveness and even reasonably tolerant regular people tune out from the activists and over opinionated (while their economic prospects and quality of life stagnate or worsen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
13 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

It seems at least most people here are all for the fundamental rights for women plus men and women with different sexual preferences, but it starts breaking down with transgenderism (likely due to the artificiality of sexual realignment, the vagueness of the condition, and transgendered people having other overlapping issues), even if they're a heavily stigmatised and bullied group.

No, I don't think that's the case at all. I expect most on here* are perfectly happy for transgender people to have rights just like anyone else. Where it falls down is when activists, who by and large are not transgender themselves, start demanding we deny biological reality. Obviously people should be protected from any unwarranted collective persecution, but the reform agenda has moved so far beyond that.

 

* Except Errol who would send them to a gulag in Siberia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
4
HOLA445
10 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

No, I don't think that's the case at all. I expect most on here* are perfectly happy for transgender people to have rights just like anyone else. Where it falls down is when activists, who by and large are not transgender themselves, start demanding we deny biological reality. Obviously people should be protected from any unwarranted collective persecution, but the reform agenda has moved so far beyond that.

No, they have the right to exist. Just as everyone else. But I wouldn't provide any special benefits or allow them to hold marches/produce propaganda/push for changes in laws. I would also enforce rigid 'traditional values' education in schools.

Basically, they can do what they like in private - just so long as they shut up about it. The State would define what is 'normal' and what the nation as a whole stands for as healthy normality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
1 hour ago, Errol said:

Basically, they can do what they like in private - just so long as they shut up about it. The State would define what is 'normal' and what the nation as a whole stands for as healthy normality. 

The state defining what's normal? That's a scary thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Not really. The state should define what the nation as a whole stands for. Do we want gay marriage, do we want gay propaganda, is the role of the Church important, what is a family, do we want sex education for 5yr olds etc etc. These sorts of questions.

Once this is clarified, then you have a clear way forward for schools and education. Anything outside of that is permitted to exist (for adults), but on no account should it be allowed to be accepted as 'normal' or propagandised. 

I think plenty of people agree with this approach, it's just that lots are afraid to speak out (for fear of SJW attack).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

And it's the state's job to dictate that rather than reflect? No, definitely no! The furthest I could tolerate there are a few attempts at steering opinion in a given direction, although looking at their efforts to do so elsewhere even that leaves me uncomfortable. You're asking for an environment in which it's difficult to even discuss it. "Only this view of the world can be talked about" is abhorrent even when the view in question is unambiguously fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410

I think that freedom is far more important than 'Should the State set norms'

The present day froth and frivolity about SJWs, Transgender etc. is a passing fad and should be endured.

Rest assured, the next generation will repudiate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412
12
HOLA4413
13
HOLA4414
22 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

......  What happens if all 30 million men in this country, in the event of a big war, say "I'm a woman so you can't call me up"?

 

 

Unfortunately that is one argument that, fairly soon, is unlikely to be applicable - given the ongoing moves in both legally and shaping public opinion towards women not just in the services but at the front line. Women being conscripted, next time it occurs, has already been legislated for in the U.S.  It's only a matter of time before it happens in Europe, the UK and other developed nations.  A sad day for humanity when it does though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
3 minutes ago, anonguest said:

  A sad day for humanity when it does though.

Have to agree. Having read accounts of bayonet assaults and clearing the Argentine trenches on Mount Tumbledown and Longdown by the Scots Guards and 3 Para respectively during the Falklands War - I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
Just now, grasshopper said:

Have to agree. Having read accounts of bayonet assaults and clearing the Argentine trenches on Mount Tumbledown and Longdown by the Scots Guards and 3 Para respectively during the Falklands War - I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.

Neither would I. In any case it's unlikely to happen, the last thing the army wants is a bunch of untrained people with no desire to be there on its hands, and the last thing the government could afford is to equip them all, when it barely manages to equip the regular army. But that's beside the point, I don't see women being involved as making it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
23 hours ago, Big Orange said:

It seems at least most people here are all for the fundamental rights for women plus men and women with different sexual preferences, but it starts breaking down with transgenderism (likely due to the artificiality of sexual realignment, the vagueness of the condition, and transgendered people having other overlapping issues), even if they're a heavily stigmatised and bullied group. And the more militant wings of the civil rights groups starting to cannibalise each other over this and helping the term, Social Justice Warrior, become a punchline or slur word.

And it doesn't help they've been co-opted to a certain extent in the past decade or two by Corporatists (represented by the Clinton clan and Blairites) who erected a Potemkin Village to humans rights and social justice, while looting and exploiting behind the scenes. 

And finally people have mindlessly just kept on barking "racist", "transphobic", "homophobic", and "misogynist" for so long and seemingly at virtually everything that, not unlike overused antibiotics on livestock, its lost its effectiveness and even reasonably tolerant regular people tune out from the activists and over opinionated (while their economic prospects and quality of life stagnate or worsen).

yes, because the idiot have defined 31 genders.

Look, there are only two....and the transgenders swap...still only into two. Everything else is mental health.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
18
HOLA4419
Just now, Errol said:

No. They don't. They are still the same gender they were born as, regardless of any surgery/treatment carried out.

they swap sex...for which there are only two.  Sex and gender have been separated by the language SJWs.

Of course there are myriad abnormalities in the population, but these are not the sexes as nature intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
3 minutes ago, Bloo Loo said:

they swap sex...for which there are only two.  Sex and gender have been separated by the language SJWs.

Of course there are myriad abnormalities in the population, but these are not the sexes as nature intended.

You're wrong. Gender really is fluid. This morning I felt more feminine than normal, so I popped a pair of panties on under my suit and took twice as long in the bathroom. I'll probably have a gin and tonic with my lunch rather than a Stella. and I'll spend more time bitch-writing under Femail articles.

I may even use the ladies bathroom for my morning dump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
21
HOLA4422
22
HOLA4423
23
HOLA4424
24
HOLA4425
45 minutes ago, Errol said:

I've always heard that the female toilet facilities are in a shocking state. Far worse than the male ones. Apparently loads of women have trouble using toilets correctly.

There's a 'correct' way of using a toilet??!     :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information