Part one set the scene for this interview giving the background of the interviewer and the participants.
Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1
After a long preamble, replete with many false/exaggerated claims (debunked in part one) Lamont goes in 👇
He addresses the question to trans activist, Christine Burns, who feigns bafflement and, after a little chuckle, claims it’s a mystery.
What Burns omits is the over-reach of trans-activists who right around this time were making ever more extreme demands. The specific issue that woke a lot of women up, especially lesbians, was the campaign to de-medicalise ”transition” and allow bearded, penis-wielders, to self-identify as women.
Burn’s then outlines how much progress had been made in protecting ”trans” rights including their own role in getting the Gender Recognition Act passed, in 2004.
Nancy Kelley then jumps in to make somewhat contentious claims about public acceptance of ”trans” people. She is right that there was a widespread acceptance of people we used to call ”transsexuals”. If they thought about the issue at all, people assumed we were talking about, a tiny number of, people who were post-operative. When it is explained that many/most retain their penis and are heterosexual there are significant qualifiers to that “acceptance”. Nancy also implies it is a matter of education.
Back to Burns to explain why our media are so out of step with views Kelley claims are held by the majority of the British public.
In reality most people had no idea activists were involved in a social engineering project; to reorganise society on the basis of ”gender identity” and ride roughshod over women’s sex based rights. Once that became clear opposition began to mobilise.
Lamont then reads, in a skeptical tone, some of the U.K headlines. They all seem rooted in reality to me 👇
Nancy wades in about the proliferation of articles in the media. Nancy thinks it’s too much and would really rather it wasn’t covered. Of course she does, thats the advice from the Denton’s document.
Lamont then asks Burns why so many of the criticisms come from women who ”identify as feminists”.
Burns is having none of it and invents a complete fiction that second wave feminists were working with men, like Burns, because we had common interests. 🤷♀️
Then Burn’s pivots to ”White Supremacists” . Bit of a leap there Christine, love. 👇
After he takes it upon himself to define feminism he then advances the argument that these feminists, many of whom are Lesbian, are trying to separate the T from LGB so that the rights of the other letters can be attacked.
The interviewer pushes back, a little bit, to ask Burns for his thoughts on ”Terfs”. [BTW No self-respecting woman, let alone a “Terf” accepts the appellation “cisgender”. ]
Christine, like sexist men from the beginning of time, thinks we have misunderstood.
Lamont now turns to Nancy:
Nancy doesn’t dare, outright, deny this.
Next Nancy, conveniently, overlooks that even Stonewall didn’t include advocacy for ”trans” rights until 2015.
It’s women’s rights, stupid!
The interviewer is from the United States and, to give him credit, he does not assume U.K politics is a mirror of the political landscape of our American cousins. However after raising the source of the ”transphobia” on Terf Island (It’s women’s rights, stupid) he immediately pivots to how dangerous it is to be ”transgender”.
Burn’s arguments are all about the difficulty of looking like a man and being unable to use female changing rooms. Worrying about being recognised as a man when going to get a pint of milk. This, right there, tells you he has no idea of what it means to be a woman. Men who identify as women are well on their way to having more rights than actual women. That’s male privilege Christine.
You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus, after the many worthy crowdfunders and if you are not panicking about your fuel bills.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and how it’s has such a stranglehold over our institutions, politicians and the elites who run our media.