I don't think I've ever read something so incoherent and self contradictory in my entire life.
She says that 0.1% of the UK population are "trans" while (apparently) 0.7% of the New Zealand population is "trans".
Her thought process is so cluttered with idealogy she doesn't stop to query her proposition that there are 7 times more trans people in NZ then the UK.
I guess all the puberty blocker over use is kicking in?
I mean you might expect 50% differences between two countries and that would be pretty high.
She actually says that 0.1% of the UK are trans women. 0.1% claim to be trans men, 0.04% say they're "other" and 0.24 say they're trans but don't state a gender. That makes 5.4% total who claim to be trans. This is from the most recent UK census in 2021.
In NZ, 0.15% of the population claim to be trans women and 0.13% claim to be trans men, which is pretty close to the UK figures. 0.41 claim to be non-binary or other, which brings it close to 0.7%.
I think the Andrew Tate comparison is utterly noxious, but it does seem like basic fact checking was done on the UK and NZ stats, No idea why there's so many Kiwis claiming to have no gender at all though!
The UK Office for National Statistics have had to admit that their trans question cannot be relied on ( after great work by Michael Biggs). The question was very confusing. It showed that most trans people were in the London Borough of Newham which also happens to be the borough with the most people who don't speak English as their first language.😄
Perhaps because of the question we were asked in the census. There was no way of saying we had no gender and perhaps some answers ended up being placed in the non-binary ragbag
You are quite correct, I mucked it up. I left out those who claim they are "non-binary" (0.6%) and then put 5.4% instead of 0.54%. Thanks for the correction.
"Of all the frat boy-style responses to the UK supreme court’s recognition that women exist, there’s one that’s stuck with me the most: “JK Rowling is Andrew Tate for women.” It’s a line that’s been shared in various forms, often with a photo of Rowling celebrating For Women Scotland’s victory. As a response, it’s got everything.
There’s the callousness, comparing a woman who set up a rape crisis centre to a leading representative of the manosphere; the faux progressive posturing (as I wrote in my book Unkind, for a certain type of man, “‘not being the far right’ and ‘not being Andrew Tate’” function primarily as misogyny entitlement tokens); above all, there’s the back-slapping smugness.
Isn’t it funny, likening women’s fight for female-only spaces to men’s fight to abuse women with impunity? Hey, rape victims, you know your rapist? That’s you, that is.
In many ways, it’s beneath engaging with. If women had an Andrew Tate, it would not be JK Rowling. Then again, women cannot have an Andrew Tate because women are not a dominant group with a propensity to violence and a misplaced sense of grievance. Followers of Andrew Tate might view women that way, as do those currently sharing the “JK Rowling is Andrew Tate” meme. Unfortunately, this is not where the similarities between these groups end. "
Started reading and stopped - so many easily rebutted errors & cringey usual-suspect cultural “tells” - I don’t have time and am too easily bored. Cannot wait for the mid-wit, cliche spouting, fauxmenist handmaids to fade into much-deserved obscurity. She may think she would never let men define what a woman is (which is not what the UK SC ruling was, but anyway) - but she very much *is* letting men define what a woman is. Also - we don’t say “folks” in NZ - except for the usual suspects - oh how they tell on themselves and their parroty bubbles.
I never read the Herald? SST? Stuffed? much even before the NZ media became an intellectually lightweight reeking pile of shite. I shall continue to take the opportunity to not read it.
And conveniently ignoring/erasing the two women on the bench who also upheld the rational recognition of what “woman” means in UK law (and in the real world, globally).
I read a good one today, "that woman's cheese has fallen so far off her cracker that it fell on the floor and a dog ate it".
Here's a thought exercise for the transers: if two nonbinary (sic) or trans have 'insert penis here' sex (and I mean the real sort, not the unhealed wound sort), do they have an equal chance of pregnancy? Enquiring minds need to know!
Her "trans sisters" with whom she wishes to share "womanhood" (and spaces that are NOT hers to give away), are overwhelmingly physically intact heterosexual men, who want to invade women's personal spaces for fetishistic 'reasons'. Their own words make this plain. And in too many schools, girls are suffering from UTIs because they have to avoid "their" bathrooms and hence avoid staying hydrated ; in too many schools, girls are being forced to change with trans-identified boys ; in too many prisons, women's very lives are at risk ...And I suspect Kylie Nixon is very much aware of all this. I truly believe many handmaidens are not actuated by "being kind", but by sheer sadism, when it's younger women and girls who are put at risk, or poorer women of lower social class.
They must convince themselves that they are “kind” to avoid facing the repugnant truth: they prioritize social approval over the lives of other women & girls.
Only something that the already-privileged can afford to do …
It makes me feel a hundred years old that some twits saw that photo, with that cigar, and that caption, ("I love it when a plan comes together"), and didn't know that it was a reference to the character of Hannibal Smith from The A-Team tv series.
To my trans sisters, as ever, you are always welcome in any space I am in....that'll be the mens' then, have fun y'all.....and do take Isla Bryson in there with you
Well put Katrina! That Kylie "woman"? makes no sense what so ever. .... Imagine throwing out a whole heap of your favorite books because you now don't agree with the author re a basic biological fact.
Also she is saying: " I have never let a man define what being a woman means to me", Then endorsing men defining themselves as women!!!
“Quick question: When I visit the UK next, will I need a chromosome card to confirm I have the stated-approved X and Y configuration to use the public loos? If I don’t want a mandatory genital check, I mean.”
Once again I feel compelled to note: virtually everyone knows their own *sex*. Even notable 5ARD sufferers, like Khelif & Semenya, who have to ignore the medical information they’ve been provided to maintain their abusive grifts.
What ever happened to expecting people (including trans identifying males) to follow the laws as they are, not as they want them to be?
And whatever happened to these people’s ability to correctly sex others? (Rhetorical again, as it’s there, just suppressed in favour of earning social capital at the expense of other women & girls)
What a perplexing article from Kylie.
I don't think I've ever read something so incoherent and self contradictory in my entire life.
She says that 0.1% of the UK population are "trans" while (apparently) 0.7% of the New Zealand population is "trans".
Her thought process is so cluttered with idealogy she doesn't stop to query her proposition that there are 7 times more trans people in NZ then the UK.
I guess all the puberty blocker over use is kicking in?
I mean you might expect 50% differences between two countries and that would be pretty high.
But 700%?!
Thanks for doing the maths :-) I suspect that like all articles with a 'trans' component, rigorous standards of accuracy are not required.
We are deeply fucked; balls deep in the transvestite movement called 'gender ideology'.
At the moment we are, but I also see a sliver of more room for dissent against it than I’ve seen in the six years I’ve been in this struggle.
It's going to collapse remarkably quickly once it does; I feel the wedges are in the giant troon tree, it's been mostly sawn through.
The tricky part comes now, style o' thing?
She actually says that 0.1% of the UK are trans women. 0.1% claim to be trans men, 0.04% say they're "other" and 0.24 say they're trans but don't state a gender. That makes 5.4% total who claim to be trans. This is from the most recent UK census in 2021.
In NZ, 0.15% of the population claim to be trans women and 0.13% claim to be trans men, which is pretty close to the UK figures. 0.41 claim to be non-binary or other, which brings it close to 0.7%.
I think the Andrew Tate comparison is utterly noxious, but it does seem like basic fact checking was done on the UK and NZ stats, No idea why there's so many Kiwis claiming to have no gender at all though!
The UK Office for National Statistics have had to admit that their trans question cannot be relied on ( after great work by Michael Biggs). The question was very confusing. It showed that most trans people were in the London Borough of Newham which also happens to be the borough with the most people who don't speak English as their first language.😄
I remeber that - lol!
Perhaps because of the question we were asked in the census. There was no way of saying we had no gender and perhaps some answers ended up being placed in the non-binary ragbag
I barely passed maths at school, but how did you come to the figure 5.4% who claim to be trans? I make it 0.48%... ???
You are quite correct, I mucked it up. I left out those who claim they are "non-binary" (0.6%) and then put 5.4% instead of 0.54%. Thanks for the correction.
0.1% of 68 million (UK population)= 68,000
0.7% of 5.3 million (NZ population) = 37,100
The Andrew Tate comparison is--dare I say it--part of the imported culture war. We have Victoria Smith's brilliant rebuttal to that very point in here. It's very soothing reading this: https://thecritic.co.uk/trans-activism-is-progressive-mans-manosphere/
"Of all the frat boy-style responses to the UK supreme court’s recognition that women exist, there’s one that’s stuck with me the most: “JK Rowling is Andrew Tate for women.” It’s a line that’s been shared in various forms, often with a photo of Rowling celebrating For Women Scotland’s victory. As a response, it’s got everything.
There’s the callousness, comparing a woman who set up a rape crisis centre to a leading representative of the manosphere; the faux progressive posturing (as I wrote in my book Unkind, for a certain type of man, “‘not being the far right’ and ‘not being Andrew Tate’” function primarily as misogyny entitlement tokens); above all, there’s the back-slapping smugness.
Isn’t it funny, likening women’s fight for female-only spaces to men’s fight to abuse women with impunity? Hey, rape victims, you know your rapist? That’s you, that is.
In many ways, it’s beneath engaging with. If women had an Andrew Tate, it would not be JK Rowling. Then again, women cannot have an Andrew Tate because women are not a dominant group with a propensity to violence and a misplaced sense of grievance. Followers of Andrew Tate might view women that way, as do those currently sharing the “JK Rowling is Andrew Tate” meme. Unfortunately, this is not where the similarities between these groups end. "
Thanks - great response from Victoria Smith. And, yes, it's clear that Kylie has imported the JK/Andrew Tate psuedo comparison, How boring of her!
Appropriate as appropriation is one of their signature moves …
Sorry, I didn't find this funny at all. And I emailed her to tell her so.
Started reading and stopped - so many easily rebutted errors & cringey usual-suspect cultural “tells” - I don’t have time and am too easily bored. Cannot wait for the mid-wit, cliche spouting, fauxmenist handmaids to fade into much-deserved obscurity. She may think she would never let men define what a woman is (which is not what the UK SC ruling was, but anyway) - but she very much *is* letting men define what a woman is. Also - we don’t say “folks” in NZ - except for the usual suspects - oh how they tell on themselves and their parroty bubbles.
I never read the Herald? SST? Stuffed? much even before the NZ media became an intellectually lightweight reeking pile of shite. I shall continue to take the opportunity to not read it.
Admittedly, it’s a hard read, because it’s so bad.
And conveniently ignoring/erasing the two women on the bench who also upheld the rational recognition of what “woman” means in UK law (and in the real world, globally).
Misogyny much, Kylie?
I read a good one today, "that woman's cheese has fallen so far off her cracker that it fell on the floor and a dog ate it".
Here's a thought exercise for the transers: if two nonbinary (sic) or trans have 'insert penis here' sex (and I mean the real sort, not the unhealed wound sort), do they have an equal chance of pregnancy? Enquiring minds need to know!
Yes, that’s why we are not allowed to say “mothers” anymore, we have to say “pregnant people” and other nonsense.
Her "trans sisters" with whom she wishes to share "womanhood" (and spaces that are NOT hers to give away), are overwhelmingly physically intact heterosexual men, who want to invade women's personal spaces for fetishistic 'reasons'. Their own words make this plain. And in too many schools, girls are suffering from UTIs because they have to avoid "their" bathrooms and hence avoid staying hydrated ; in too many schools, girls are being forced to change with trans-identified boys ; in too many prisons, women's very lives are at risk ...And I suspect Kylie Nixon is very much aware of all this. I truly believe many handmaidens are not actuated by "being kind", but by sheer sadism, when it's younger women and girls who are put at risk, or poorer women of lower social class.
They must convince themselves that they are “kind” to avoid facing the repugnant truth: they prioritize social approval over the lives of other women & girls.
Only something that the already-privileged can afford to do …
Amen, brother/sister! It's the very epitome of hyperprivileged virtue-signalling.
It makes me feel a hundred years old that some twits saw that photo, with that cigar, and that caption, ("I love it when a plan comes together"), and didn't know that it was a reference to the character of Hannibal Smith from The A-Team tv series.
I didn't know - and I'm almost a hundred years old - lol! Thanks for sharing this :-)
Ha, and it's of course the jumping to Andrew Tate, not the ignorance '80s American pop culture that makes them twits.
It has probably escaped her, but JK was extracting the Michael.
Looks as if she succeeded from the amount of pearl clutching going on.
Well it is definetly good for a laugh🤣🤣
To my trans sisters, as ever, you are always welcome in any space I am in....that'll be the mens' then, have fun y'all.....and do take Isla Bryson in there with you
Well put Katrina! That Kylie "woman"? makes no sense what so ever. .... Imagine throwing out a whole heap of your favorite books because you now don't agree with the author re a basic biological fact.
Also she is saying: " I have never let a man define what being a woman means to me", Then endorsing men defining themselves as women!!!
Thanks, Katrina that was very entertaining.
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/if-i-cannot-inspire-love-part-1
Dusty
“Quick question: When I visit the UK next, will I need a chromosome card to confirm I have the stated-approved X and Y configuration to use the public loos? If I don’t want a mandatory genital check, I mean.”
Once again I feel compelled to note: virtually everyone knows their own *sex*. Even notable 5ARD sufferers, like Khelif & Semenya, who have to ignore the medical information they’ve been provided to maintain their abusive grifts.
What ever happened to expecting people (including trans identifying males) to follow the laws as they are, not as they want them to be?
And whatever happened to these people’s ability to correctly sex others? (Rhetorical again, as it’s there, just suppressed in favour of earning social capital at the expense of other women & girls)
You can share what ever you want with your mates all we ask is that you and every other XY stay out of XX spaces.
Does Stuff get any taxpayer funding?
I just checked with the Taxpayers' Union website, and Stuff has got nearly $5 million.
What a load of garbage. Are you seriously a journalist? OMG..... Are you actually being paid to produce this sort of rubbish?
If you're referring to me, I didn't write it.