On my goodness, it's so predictable, but the response was to castigate me for not supporting sex-work (gee buddy, I'll just go unlearn it increases human trafficking and only gives a veneer of safety) in addition to men trampling on women's rights and sex-based protections. Also, isn't it interesting they think "ideology" is offensive and therefore want to sling it back with "TERF ideology", which is merely a lack of adherence to their ideology. I suppose my set of ideas and ideals consist of "reality is real" and "we should not pretend reality is not real". I call it: the reality ideology. I think everyone should subscribe to it ;)
My response (to his response to my review, featuring the usual name-calling and self-righteousness and the "it's not what you said, it's how you said it in bad faith because you don't support my ideology" ):
"I "suddenly" logged on to book a trial since the timing wasn't right last time, but thought I'd read your policies first. It's great you took an interest in not only what I did on your website (yes, that *is* also my banking password*) but all of my online writing, including an article on how legalising prostitution increases human trafficking and gives only a veneer of safety to abuse. It is fine if you consider your organisation a social club for those who believe in dismantling sex-based rights and protections and promoting sex work, but you should probably rename it.
You brought up gender identity and sex-work totally unprompted, you have a political axe to grind. I, as a prospective student, have a culture to evaluate.
"TERF" is used 99.9% of the time for female critics only, usually in a manner inciting sexual violence to the extent that there is a compilation on the website terfisaslur.
The way you talk to people in the capacity of company director is more damning than my review. And you don't need to engage with me in "good faith" to know that excluding sex from a long list of anti-discrimination policy is indicative of a sexist culture. (Interesting Catch-22: anyone who brings up the omission of a legally protected characteristic must be ignored for the very fact of bringing it up.) But, if you are keen to surround yourself with the sort of people who only support those with a Y chromosome and women who service men, calling people names and telling them to "rack off" in your signature is the correct approach. Keep going :)"
"Psychology for World Domination" -- can I pre-order that? 😉🙂
But "your TERF-y Substack"? Someone there actually said that? Hope you have, expect you have, certified copies as they/he/it/whatever deserves to swing for it -- figuratively speaking, of course ...
Regardless, you've made a pretty solid and quite damning case for that "sentence". Particularly liked this bit right out of the chute:
AV: "sex and gender identity are distinct concepts, one cannot substitute one for the other."
Amen to that -- pretty much the crux of the whole transgender clusterfuck, an egregious bait-and-switch. Though a great many people seem congenitally incapable of defining what they mean by both of those terms, "gender" and "gender identity" in particular. Probably a major reason for that sad state of affairs.
But apropos of which, you might have some interest in a post -- "The Problems with Gender Identity" -- by Lisa Selin Davis on the Substack of evolutionary biologist Colin Wright, and several of my comments there in particular:
I see you're not currently subscribed there, though Wright is now offering 7-day free trials if you were interested.
But Davis has had some solid observations on the topic -- there and on her own Substack -- although I think she's muddying the waters somewhat herself. Substantially more illuminating is a comment, which I've quoted there, by "Hippiesq", the mother of a dysphoric teenage daughter:
Hippiesq: "If 'gender identity' were just the degree and specificity of feminine and masculine qualities, it might have some real usefulness in terms of being able to discuss differing personality traits - and maybe that was the origin of the term."
Amen to that. But "gender" and "gender identity" just boils down into synonyms for personalities and personality types, for "sexually dimorphic" behaviours and roles of one sort or another. Of course, as you put it, they're "distinct concepts". Even if a great many "gender ideologues" try to move heaven and earth convincing everyone of the contrary.
Why it is rank insanity to claim that some dick-swinging dude with a few feminine traits should be entitled to play in women's sports. We might just as well create separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts, for all of the myriads of other personality types.
"France Is Bacon", indeed. 😉🙂 Apropos of which, a favourite quote of his: "Therefore shoddy and inept uses of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways".
On my goodness, it's so predictable, but the response was to castigate me for not supporting sex-work (gee buddy, I'll just go unlearn it increases human trafficking and only gives a veneer of safety) in addition to men trampling on women's rights and sex-based protections. Also, isn't it interesting they think "ideology" is offensive and therefore want to sling it back with "TERF ideology", which is merely a lack of adherence to their ideology. I suppose my set of ideas and ideals consist of "reality is real" and "we should not pretend reality is not real". I call it: the reality ideology. I think everyone should subscribe to it ;)
My response (to his response to my review, featuring the usual name-calling and self-righteousness and the "it's not what you said, it's how you said it in bad faith because you don't support my ideology" ):
"I "suddenly" logged on to book a trial since the timing wasn't right last time, but thought I'd read your policies first. It's great you took an interest in not only what I did on your website (yes, that *is* also my banking password*) but all of my online writing, including an article on how legalising prostitution increases human trafficking and gives only a veneer of safety to abuse. It is fine if you consider your organisation a social club for those who believe in dismantling sex-based rights and protections and promoting sex work, but you should probably rename it.
You brought up gender identity and sex-work totally unprompted, you have a political axe to grind. I, as a prospective student, have a culture to evaluate.
"TERF" is used 99.9% of the time for female critics only, usually in a manner inciting sexual violence to the extent that there is a compilation on the website terfisaslur.
The way you talk to people in the capacity of company director is more damning than my review. And you don't need to engage with me in "good faith" to know that excluding sex from a long list of anti-discrimination policy is indicative of a sexist culture. (Interesting Catch-22: anyone who brings up the omission of a legally protected characteristic must be ignored for the very fact of bringing it up.) But, if you are keen to surround yourself with the sort of people who only support those with a Y chromosome and women who service men, calling people names and telling them to "rack off" in your signature is the correct approach. Keep going :)"
*I mean, obviously not, just making fun.
"Psychology for World Domination" -- can I pre-order that? 😉🙂
But "your TERF-y Substack"? Someone there actually said that? Hope you have, expect you have, certified copies as they/he/it/whatever deserves to swing for it -- figuratively speaking, of course ...
Regardless, you've made a pretty solid and quite damning case for that "sentence". Particularly liked this bit right out of the chute:
AV: "sex and gender identity are distinct concepts, one cannot substitute one for the other."
Amen to that -- pretty much the crux of the whole transgender clusterfuck, an egregious bait-and-switch. Though a great many people seem congenitally incapable of defining what they mean by both of those terms, "gender" and "gender identity" in particular. Probably a major reason for that sad state of affairs.
But apropos of which, you might have some interest in a post -- "The Problems with Gender Identity" -- by Lisa Selin Davis on the Substack of evolutionary biologist Colin Wright, and several of my comments there in particular:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-problems-with-gender-identity/comment/40409053
I see you're not currently subscribed there, though Wright is now offering 7-day free trials if you were interested.
But Davis has had some solid observations on the topic -- there and on her own Substack -- although I think she's muddying the waters somewhat herself. Substantially more illuminating is a comment, which I've quoted there, by "Hippiesq", the mother of a dysphoric teenage daughter:
Hippiesq: "If 'gender identity' were just the degree and specificity of feminine and masculine qualities, it might have some real usefulness in terms of being able to discuss differing personality traits - and maybe that was the origin of the term."
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-nothing-sacred-looking-into-the/comment/21199572
Amen to that. But "gender" and "gender identity" just boils down into synonyms for personalities and personality types, for "sexually dimorphic" behaviours and roles of one sort or another. Of course, as you put it, they're "distinct concepts". Even if a great many "gender ideologues" try to move heaven and earth convincing everyone of the contrary.
Why it is rank insanity to claim that some dick-swinging dude with a few feminine traits should be entitled to play in women's sports. We might just as well create separate sports leagues for introverts and extroverts, for all of the myriads of other personality types.
"France Is Bacon", indeed. 😉🙂 Apropos of which, a favourite quote of his: "Therefore shoddy and inept uses of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways".