3 thoughts on “David Kurten: Transgenderism and this insane ban on free speech”

1. David is right of course, no question.

   However, if we cannot change it, let’s embrace it, pick it up and run with it.

   This is a golden opportunity to corrupt their purpose as they have corrupted ours – this is a game for two players.

   Want a position open only to women?
   Well then, simply turn up at the interview and despite your beard, basso profundo voice and six foot plus height, calmly say that you DO self identify as a woman and therefore are one.

   Want to swim on a women only night, or join women only gym….?
   Well, you know what to do, don’t you?

   Women have invaded (or attempted to) every male preserve from the ‘boy’ scouts, to the SAS.

   Now here is an antidote that, if applied in anyhthing like numbers, WOULD blow their corruption out of the water and render it unworkable.
   Chaos would ensue, and there’s nothing they could do about it…. Hoist by their own petard.

   Brought down by their own techinque turned against them.

   What’s sauce for the gander, is sauce for the goose.

   I employ no tart irony in this comment,
   no reductio ad absurdum,
   no tongue in cheek humour or
   dark sarcastic wit .

   I mean it, every word if it.

   They have finally overreached themseves
   – this is their Bridge Too Far.

   Here at last, is a weapon for US.

   And THEY have given it to US for free.

   If it’s poetic justice you want – (and why wouldn’t it be?)
   Try That for Size….

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. One of the reasons why I voted Leave was that I hoped that equality legislation would be cut back.
   Of the eight protected characteristics – race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity and transgender status – the latter four should lose protection as they are lifestyle choices, and maternity rights should go down to the US level of 12 weeks unpaid. Premises owners should also be free to ask breastfeeders to use the Ladies, or leave. It’s their business and their customers and the rights of the majority to eat their food in peace should prevail.
   Disability should also be cut down to a common sense level – it should not include anything behavioural or resulting from lifestyle choices.

   LikeLike

   Reply

3. When was the last time the Westminster Parliament actually debated anything controversial – really debated? All debates now on matters such as transexualism, domestic violence, gay marriage, the family courts, etc, etc, are simply a succession of MPs parroting the PC line. Anyone who takes an opposing view – if there are still such people in Parliament – doesn’t dare express it. Gareth Bennett, who probably shares the views of many of his constituents, was either very brave or very naive.

   I am coming to the view that this new totalitarianism, which seeks to impose radical ideology without putting up a single argument in its favour and uses the law rather than reasoning to propagate itself, is far more dangerous than feminism, though they are related through their Marxist ancestor.

   I was having a conversation with a transgender person recently who said he (her preferred pronoun) despaired at those who pretend to identify as an alternative race or even species: it was giving transgenderism a bad name. I replied that logically I could not see any difference. Society needs to be able to debate these issues freely and express its views; the advocates of the ideology need to argue their case rationally and show the science which proves their case.

   Of course, it won’t happen. Anyone who opposed gay marriage on legal grounds, or because it represents a profound failure to understand the true purpose of marriage, was dismissed as a bigot and homophobe, removing any need to argue the case.

   Meanwhile, the so-called ‘Conservative’ government will continue to introduce new PC legislation for which no one has voted, and principles such as freedom of speech, democracy and due legal process will vanish into history.

   LikeLike

   Reply