Let’s Talk Wokery
Peter Tatchell seems to be the go-to commentator on the anti-women’s rights movement which masquerades as a trans civil rights movement. I have transcribed this interview, by Alex Phillips, from GB News here:
The interview opens with this statement by the interviewer. I think she means this is a delicate topic and the campaigners are vociferous. She highlights the fact the term “terf” is thrown about with abandon. What she doesn’t say is the term “terf” is often accompanied with threats of rape and violence.
Calm down, dear
Peter’s response is to tell “people” to calm down; he often uses “people” when it is perfectly clear he means women. This is likely because he knows its a sexist putdown directed at the female type of people. Reassuringly Uncle Peter advises us that he does not see a conflict between women’s rights and the rights of men to identify as woman. Nothing to see here. Calm down you hysterical women. That is what I hear when he repeats the “calm down” mantra, ad-nauseum in every single interview, which I have seen, on this topic.
Tatchell includes males as women and is at pains to claim these men can be victims of misogyny. In fact the word itself is defined as hatred of women and derived from ”gyne” , meaning “woman” which is also the root of less obscure words such as gynaecology. Whatever males are suffering from it is not, therefore, misogyny. Naturally he references murder rates which I have covered before to show that trans-identified males are more likely to be perpetrators than victims. Posted in the link below. .
So here Tatchell is “forced-teaming” women. This is a tactic to convince a group they have common interests with another group/person this “alliance” may in fact, run counter to their own interests. In this instance it has been used to good effect, especially in the “professional feminist” sector, they have been de-fanged by capitulating to the invented category of male-born women. A woman’s movement that does not centre the female sex is not worthy of the name. As I demonstrated above this category of male retains a male pattern of violence. I might add that this category also show no less propensity to sexual violence against women. I based this observation on incarceration rates of males in female prisons, in the United Kingdom. 18% of those in the male prisons are detained for sex offences, the percentage of males in the female estate, for sexual offences, is over 40%. You can argue this is abusive males gaming the system, the end result is the same. A policy of allowing self-proclaimed women in the female estate demonstrably exposes women to unnecessary risk. Tatchell is asking women to treat a potentially more dangerous category of male, as a “sister”. As a side issue I do wish someone would push him on whether or not he believes in Lady Penis; not because I think a surgically modified male is a woman, but so the general public know what Tatchell is advocating for/demanding of women.
Peter then slips in a reference the fact that GB news have mixed sex toilets and he, a man, doesn’t see what the issue is. Once again he uses “people”, not women when it is perfectly obvious it is women who don’t like sharing intimate spaces with the sex that rapes us. This is a deliberate tactic.
Nice reply from Alex Phillips who reveals she doesn’t like mixed sex toilets and has to go out of her way to find toilets she feels comfortable using. She also, correctly, suggested that developers love uni-sex facilities because it is a way to reduce costs. Tatchell doesn’t challenge her on this point.
Next up Phillips asks Tatchell about the, cowardly, decision of Oxfam to withdraw a game celebrating female role models. There have been various theories about why Oxfam decided to erase women of achievement in response to staff complaints. Some say it is because one of the women was JK Rowling. Others say it is because Ellen Page no longer identifies as a woman. Either way the game has been removed which looks like a bit of Trans-washing by Oxfam who have been rocked by quite a few sexual abuse scandals in recent years.
False Equivalence: The “N” word
So how does Peter respond? He does a bit of #BeKind re the pronouns and then makes an astonishing pivot. He uses the analogy of racism to equate the erasure of successful women with people stoping using the “N” word. Is he saying it is offensive to trans-identifying males to see any celebration of successful women?
A man for the Salary
Are women allowed to be offended by the growing list of men who have been handed awards reserved for women? Some of who are not even full-time with their colonising. See Philip/ Pippa Bunce. A man for the salary and a woman for the photo-gallery.
Father Tatchell goes on to offer forgiveness for accidental (accurate), pronouns. Providing you repent and seek redemption, of course. How benevolent.
Alex then draws an apt comparison between the witch-hunts and the militancy of the pronoun police. Somebody coined the term “outrage archaeology” which describes the phenomonon of actively seeking an adrelanine rush from digging out, often historic, opportunities to generate a feeling of “synthetic offence”.
Alex continues to raise the fact that Tatchell has been the target of abuse by trans-activists himself. Something I covered here 👇
I suspect his desperation to insert himself into this debate is motivated by self-aggrandisement, misogyny and a desire to ”queer” boundaries. His answer is to claim he has always campaigned for trans rights but he did sign a letter asking for a civilised debate and then, shock horror it turned out to have been signed by the wrong kind of feminists; who, of course, Tatchell calls “trans-critical”. He is keen to point out that letter “did not, in any way, criticise, deny or abrogate the rights of trans-people” , it merely called for civility. In conclusion Tatchell seems to acknowledge the tactics of the trans community are self-defeating.
I wonder if he got some pushback for acknowledging the aggressive tactics of trans-activists because the next interview I saw he made some astonishing arguments to claim there was “bad on both sides” . I will cover that interview next.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
One thought on “Peter Tatchell Two”
Yes, I bet Mr. Tatchell would like to “queer” some boundaries – specifically with regard to the age of consent. Why does anyone even near the mainstream media still take him seriously enough to interview, especially on topics which primarily affect women and girls?