Flora vs Mumsnet: the culture war is out of control

One tweet was all it took for the beloved margarine brand to pull its advertising from the ‘transphobic’ parenting site.

Joanna Williams

Margarine is now on the frontline of the culture war. Not just any old margarine, but the longtime family favourite, Flora. Until a few days ago, Flora advertised on Mumsnet. As it is 2019 we must not acknowledge that this particular butter substitute, along with a heap of other high-street brands, placed ads on Mumsnet as a convenient way of hitting its target market – women who buy stuff for their family. But in any case, that relationship is no more. Appealing to mums in charge of the food shop is clearly no longer a margarine advertiser’s chief concern.

For the uninitiated, Mumsnet is ostensibly an online forum for parents to share concerns about raising children and to offer each other support and advice. Over the years, it has morphed into something far more than this. It has become a virtual community where thousands of women meet, make friends and discuss the ups and downs of life. A quick browse through posts on the AIBU (‘Am I Being Unreasonable?’) forum offers an eye-wateringly frank and often hilarious insight into women’s lives. (Random post from yesterday, with 136 responses: ‘Do people really make their partners “wash their willy”?’)

One theme holding all the millions of Mumsnet posts together is the experience of being a woman – as a wife, mother, daughter, or all three. Unsurprisingly, what it means to be a woman is discussed most explicitly in relation to the transgender movement, and in particular the impact gender self-identification will have on women’s rights. Some contributors are concerned that the privacy and safety of women-only spaces, whether changing rooms, toilets, prisons or refuges, will be threatened if men can enter simply by declaring themselves to be women. Other Mumsnet posters have raised concerns about their own children being encouraged to question their gender identity at school.

Transgender activists hate that Mumsnet provides a forum for these concerns to be expressed out in the open, without either censorship or a clear editorial voice passing judgement on what is said. And rather than just not going on Mumsnet, or trying to challenge particular arguments made on there, Twitter warriors have instead petitioned companies to pull adverts from the site in order to rob it of revenue and ultimately have it shut down. This practice has been well-honed by the campaign group Stop Funding Hate, which ‘names and shames’ companies that advertise in the Daily Mail, the Sun or any other publication its members decide they don’t like.

Last week just one person, Helen Islan, tweeted, ‘I like Flora but there is no way I am going to buy it while it is partnering with Mumsnet which platforms nasty, trans-hostile posts on its website’. Another asked Upfield, the company that produces Flora, how its company values of being ‘intolerant of discrimination and harassment’ aligned with a promotion that marketed Flora as ‘Mumsnet rated’.

There’s a horrible, bullying narcissism in these activists’ insistence that, just because they don’t like what people are saying on Mumsnet, they will shut down the platform and stop the conversation entirely. Casually throwing around accusations of transphobia and bigotry is designed to intimidate companies into submission. Unfortunately, it works. Within less than two hours of Islan’s tweet, Upfield responded: ‘We’ve investigated. We are wholly committed to our values, which include treating everyone equally, so have made the decision to no longer work with Mumsnet. #DiversityMatters.’

Upfield’s decision makes no economic sense. Even if Flora is the margarine of choice for every single member of the trans community, the bottom line is that mums still buy more. But, as we have seen with Gillette and a host of other companies that have suddenly gone woke, making a profit no longer seems to be their reason for existing. Bizarrely, those who produce Flora now see the brand’s remit not as providing a cheap spread for the nation’s morning toast but preaching to us about how to live. The aim, it seems, is to appear morally pure rather than to be economically successful. Avoiding being labelled ‘transphobic’ overrides every other concern – from making a profit to defending the core customer base: women and mothers.

The co-founder of Mumsnet, Justine Roberts, deserves praise for defending the free speech of her site’s users. She told the Mail on Sunday that ‘we’re well used to putting purpose before profit. I do think in the end consumers will value companies which show a bit of backbone.’ Indeed. Now, Mumsnet-ers are boycotting Flora for pulling the ads and refusing to stand up for women who simply want to discuss genuine concerns. Back over on the ‘Am I Being Unreasonable?’ forum, discussion has moved on from washing willies to ask: ‘AIBU to think Upfield Global (Flora marg) can get stuffed for calling mumsnet a hate site?’ The vast majority of the more than 700 replies agree that this is not unreasonable.

Back in the late 1970s, Flora ran a series of ads featuring hapless men and the women who loved and shopped for them. The slogan was: ‘Flora, the margarine for men.’ Today, many women will no doubt draw the same conclusion. Flora is still the margarine for men. It’s the margarine for men who think they are women and are prepared to throw their weight around to stop actual women discussing issues of concern to them.

Joanna Williams is associate editor at spiked. Her most recent book, Women vs Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars, is out now.

Picture by: YouTube.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Tim Wheeler

20th October 2019 at 7:05 pm

Cannot Mumsnet fight back? It seems probable that normal, sensible Mums are more numerous than anti-free speech Trans activists and carry more market clout. Could not Mumsnet put up a banner explaining what has happened and suggesting that a boycott of Flora along a move to an alternative (they could list several) might be an appropriate response for any Mum who disagrees with Flora’s actions in supporting Trans extremists?

Identity Redacted

19th October 2019 at 9:28 pm

“There’s a horrible, bullying narcissism in these activists’ insistence that, just because they don’t like what people are saying on Mumsnet, they will shut down the platform and stop the conversation entirely”

Activists are the most intolerant of all. Tolerance is allowing others ideas even if you don’t agree.

michael savell

17th October 2019 at 5:36 pm

I suspect that a lot of these companies ,like financial concerns are rapidly coming to the end of
their productive lives and intend to leave taxpayers with their losses just so that their senior management and larger investors pockets do not go away unfulfilled.

Jerry Owen

17th October 2019 at 10:44 am

At least Mumsnet knows which side it’s bread is buttered.
Anyone that buys Flora should try real butter which is what we have reverted back to , yes it’s a bloody nuisance being so hard out of the fridge it breaks your crackers in half in the morning all over the floor .. butter side down usually. But the taste is way better.
Did Mumsnet ever come to a conclusion about women making their partners wash their willy ?

Andrew Leonard

17th October 2019 at 5:43 am

@Jessica Christon

“it is the aggressive championing of minority and ‘marginalised’ groups while being actively hostile to the majority who happen not to agree that transwomen are women, want immigration strictly controlled etc.”

You appear to being saying; why can’t people be reasonable about these things, and know where and when to draw the line?
The short answer is; because care culture has morphed into an ideology (which I call Careism).
The care oriented thinker looks at any social situation like this; how can this be altered to improve human welfare? Its an easy mode of thinking, and thus becomes habitual. The practical problem that Careism solves, is that the state’s capacity for taxing and spending has been saturated, but more ‘caring’ is still required. There are plenty of groups to ‘care’ for, but where do the resources come from? Every caree, needs a carer, in other words.

The trick is to draft people into caree and carer groups, based on immutable characteristics, combined with the assumed guilt of ‘carers’, and the oppressed status of ‘carees’, at the hands of the ‘carers’, or at least those who should be forced into that role. It’s the ideological equivalent of progressive income tax.

Careist ideologues see themselves as the pinnacle of human ethical development, and Careism is becoming mainstream. We now have a situation in which utopian thinking is coming to be regarded as moderate, and anti-utopianism is regarded as extremist. I’m not sure how the West will survive in its current state if this trend continues.

Cody Bailey

17th October 2019 at 11:55 am

“I’m not sure how the West will survive in its current state if this trend continues.”

That is the point. The destruction of western civilization, the undoing of the enlightenment is the left’s stated goal.

jessica christon

17th October 2019 at 5:52 pm

See my reply to your 5:46pm post 🙂

Andrew Leonard

17th October 2019 at 5:36 am

@Jessica Christon
It’s worth considering how much we as a society care about marginalised and oppressed groups.
We care so much about women, that we demand sportswomen be paid as much as their male counterparts, regardless of women’s sports having a small fraction of the commercial interest as the male equivalents.
We are also terribly caring about trans people – so much so that women’s sport must be completely undermined and ultimately ruined, so that trans-women can participate in it.
We care so much about women as victims of sexual harassment and rape, that we must abandon due process and ‘believe survivors’.
We also care so, so much about immigrants and their feelings, that we tell girls and women who are victims of immigrant rape gangs, to “shut up for the sake of diversity”.
We care a lot Jessica. In fact, that’s all we do. Not only that, there is no alternative. Anyone who is not a care absolutist must be an uncaring bastard, and therefore motivated by hate, and therefore not deserving of free speech rights. It’s (that is, we are) as simple as that.

jessica christon

17th October 2019 at 5:51 pm

Thanks for the replies. The examples you gave show how this is very much like an unhappy game of “rock, paper, scissors”; Women (and other identity groups) fluctuate between being the carers (losers) and the carees (winners) depending on who it is on the other side of the equation. Only straight white (real) men are always the losers in this, so it’s really quite remarkable that they’re also the ones who take it lying down more than anyone else too – for now anyway.

Incidentally, I’m hearing on the news that Gazza waa acquitted and generally a smidgen of common sense seems to be returning to public life (see also the Henriques report), so all isn’t lost yet. 🙂

Andrew Leonard

18th October 2019 at 2:38 am

an unhappy game of “rock, paper, scissors”; that’s an interesting way of putting it.
The contradictory nature of the game, indicates a philosophy that is not properly grounded in fundamentals. ‘Care’ starts midstream – it presupposes it’s dependents but fails to understand and integrate with them.
Careism is the ideologicalisation of care. Its adherents depend on the wealth, stability, and openness of Western societies, to further their ideology, but despise these societies and dream of radical change, simultaneously.

The Left is all about care. The Right is all about the building blocks of society, and how to maintain and manage these, while still allowing for social, cultural and economic evolution. Once the building blocks are understood and in place, there is still plenty of scope for care, but the foundations must come first.

“Only straight white (real) men are always the losers in this, so it’s really quite remarkable that they’re also the ones who take it lying down more than anyone else too – for now anyway.”

Are you sure? Carees are dependent on carers. “I am a white male, and I am privileged” – is a subtle way of saying “Non-whites and females are dependent on me, for I am their superior”. Political Correctness is supremacism expressed in such a careful manner, that it actually sounds like the opposite of what it is. Racist ideology still exists, it’s just that white’s have become much more sophisticated in how they express it.

Dave Swift

16th October 2019 at 10:21 pm

On the topic of the Gillette adverts, as an English working class man who has grown up with soft core and hardcore porn, Viz comic, horror movies, violent video games, lad culture and British humour, I simply laughed out loud at weirdo American men who pretended to be triggered and offended by that Gillette advert.

Imagine a 40 year old bloke in a pub in England turning down a box of free Gillette razors “because they made that horrible advert that really, really upset me, mate” – you can’t.

No English man is going to set fire to his Viz – or Reader’s Wives – collection because “They’ve put one of them offensive Gillette adverts in the latest issue”.

I can not speak for American men because I get they tend to be a bit weirder and less intelligent (patriotism/religions/cults/the alt-right/guns etc etc) – it’s quite possible to imagine a 53 year old American man shooting his Superman doll with a gun after being offended by a comic book plot in which Superman takes part in a civil rights march, or whatever, and then blowing his own foot off.

Us English men have grown up looking at all sorts of sexual, violent, vile and nasty stuff, of our own free will – Gillette razor adverts with a touchy-feely American message simply didn’t and aren’t going to upset us for the same reason the next John Lewis Christmas advert won’t upset any normal man in England. We’ll buy a new Sony Camera in J.L. for a 90 percent discount even if their next advert depicts the collapse of western civilisation and has the slogan: ‘only gays shop in our stores”.

The things we’ve seen over the years, ladies …we’re really not upset or angered by razor adverts. Be very, very sceptical if you ever encounter a grown man who tells you otherwise.

It wasn’t a culture war – it was an advert made by some people for a multinational company. It wasn’t an attack, an assault, a combat mission nor even an insult. Americans typically love that syrupy feel good stuff as you will know if you’ve had any exposure to American film/telly culture over the past 50 years.

Identity Redacted

19th October 2019 at 9:34 pm

The ad had a backlash because it generalised men as a problem for society and that’s messed up. You might not care that their spreading that message to boys but others don’t want our kids seeing that propaganda

Ven Oods

16th October 2019 at 6:55 pm

“Upfield also claims Flora contains very little trans-fat…”
Which rather begs the question… whose side are they on?

Martin Bishop

16th October 2019 at 8:02 pm

Lol.

Mike Ellwood

16th October 2019 at 6:14 pm

The best reason to boycott Flora is that it is shite, as are all butter-substitutes.

Mind you, Mumsnet is a very odd place, from all I have heard about it.

Jane 70

16th October 2019 at 4:24 pm

@JESSICA CHRISTON

I think you’ll find this article interesting Jessica:

https://unherd.com/2019/10/woke-revolutionaries-will-make-injustice-worse/

Excellent critique of the sheer lunacy of the SJW movement, by John Gray, a favourite writer of mine.

jessica christon

16th October 2019 at 5:52 pm

Thanks Jane, you find some interesting corners of the web and that was a good read. It reminded me of a thought experiment (I can’t remember the name of the guy who came up with it) that goes something like; design a society without knowing who you will be in it.

In the UK we’re not as politically engaged as they are in other countries (that’s why Brexit has been so easily thwarted) so it may take us a longer to see any real change, but the point that you cannot expect people to support a system which delivers no benefit to them was spot on.

Ven Oods

17th October 2019 at 10:23 am

An interesting read, convincingly argued. Could be summed up in the sentence:
‘ “But history has no lessons for the “woke”. ‘

Winston Stanley

16th October 2019 at 2:59 pm

Clearly “our society” needs a written constitution and a bill of rights that includes a First Amendment – freedom of speech. Any party that does not propose that – like the Brexit Party – is frankly not serious. Without individual, personal freedom of thought, conscience and speech, any party manifesto is just an attempt to reconfigure the power of the capitalist state over us to pursue its own class interests and to force us to fit in with its latest material interests. We need a shift away from the power of the state and toward the liberty of individuals. If the state cannot handle freedom then that is just too bad for the state. Maybe the state needs to change rather than the ppl. Ppl are not just toys for the state to manipulate and to play around with according to its latest interests. “This what you believe now. This what you say or it is off to the detention camp. We will show China how to do it.” That debases all of us and it is a slander on humanity. Money is no compensation for making yourself a plaything of the state, however “grave” it may present itself. Humanity and human dignity is graver.

Ed Turnbull

16th October 2019 at 1:03 pm

I bet I’m not the only one around these parts who’s heartily sick of the constantly psychopathologising of opinions of which the wokerati disapprove. Transphobia, islamophobia, homophobia et al – all made up horsehit words. Those who confected the trans and islamophobias had observed how effective ‘homophobia’ had been in stigmatising any dislike, or criticism, of the gay lifestyle, and thought “Yep, that works. We’ll have a bit of that action”. Characterising your opponents opinions as a mental illness – a phobia – used to be a standard tactic in the USSR for dealing with dissenting voices. It was reprehensible then, and remains so today.

In my fifty-odd years on this planet I’ve met many people who simply don’t like homosexuality (for whatever reason), but a dislike – an antipathy – is *not* a phobia, an irrational fear. In my life I’ve only met one person who was genuinely phobic of (male) homosexuals. A phobia, I think, that arose from a repressively religious upbringing.

It’s the same with islam: many people have issues with the tenets of this ideology, but their concerns are not an irrational fear. (In fact, it’s inherently rational to fear an ideology that commands it’s adherents to murder unbelievers and regards women as, essentially, chattel).

Similarly with the trans issue – few, perhaps no, people are actually *phobic* of this nonsense. But they *are* heartily fed up with being told they must validate the delusions of a tiny proportion of the population. Now, I’m a very liberal-minded bloke and I’ll defend the right of any bloke to don a frock and claim he’s a woman named Susanna, *as long as his doing so infringes on none of my rights*. And that includes my right to call bullshit when I see something that’s patently absurd or untrue. Using the force of law to compel people to agree with the statement “transwomen are women” is no different than Winston Smith being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5.

Identity Redacted

19th October 2019 at 9:46 pm

Well said. Disagreeing is not hatred.

Winston Stanley

16th October 2019 at 11:38 am

The Tories have just made it an automatic six month prison sentence for, as the DM puts it, offences “in which people spread hate ‘recklessly’ without intending to do so”, by which is meant words used on the internet or elsewhere. Cases may include using the “wrong” pronoun or defining “woman” in an illegal sense. None of us voted for this, so much for British democracy, it is a sham. This is the behaviour of a totalitarian state, under which we obviously live.

> Now trans and gay hate crime will mean SIX months in jail after judges are ordered to crack down with harsher sentences than those that are given for domestic burglaries

… The guidelines, which judges and magistrates must follow unless they can show doing so would run against justice, are the first to apply to public order offences – which include the offence of ‘stirring up hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation’.

This is the only public order offence for which offenders can be convicted for what they say, write, broadcast or post on the internet or social media.

Most cases of hate crime sentenced in the courts are convictions for ordinary offences – considered aggravated – because the criminal targeted a victim from a minority group.

The Sentencing Council said the least serious offences of stirring up racial hatred, in which people spread hate ‘recklessly’ without intending to do so, should be handed community punishments rather than jail time.

But the same does not apply to spreading hatred on religious or sexual orientation grounds.

For these offences, the new rules say the least serious offences should attract a six-month jail sentence.

For those who commit the hate crime from a position of authority, or plan to incite serious violence or whose activity was persistent and widespread, the typical jail sentence should be three years and as much as six.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7577477/Now-trans-gay-hate-crime-mean-SIX-months-jail-judges-ordered-crack-down.html

Winston Stanley

16th October 2019 at 12:02 pm

Which is why the state TV media was going on incessantly yesterday about a supposed rise in hate crime (and the Bulgarian soccer yobbos dovetailed nicely), to prepare the public for this new legislation. “Hate” and “crime” is the pretext that the state uses to take away your rights to free thought and expression.

Ed Turnbull

16th October 2019 at 12:41 pm

Interesting. But what’s the betting these new provisions won’t be applied equally across all groups in society? There’s a certain vibrant religious community (that we’re not allowed to name, lest we get carted off to chokey) that’ll be free to continue spouting its religious and misogynistic hatred.

We seem to have arrived at a time when equality before the law (how jejeune!) is ‘problematic’ and seriously unwoke.

Jim Lawrie

16th October 2019 at 12:53 pm

With 100,000 perceived hate crimes reported last year, we all will end up in prison because someone has denounced us.

Jim Lawrie

16th October 2019 at 1:23 pm

it is an indication of their weakness that they hide behind any fashionable cause to achieve their aim of shutting us up. They know that increased efforts to force us to accept such dictats has resulted in more attacks on trаnnies. If trаnnies think the establishment care about them they will find out the hard way that they don’t. Trаnnies are just useful idiots.
When I mistakenly typed “trаn” drivers instead of train driver yesterday my post went into moderation.

Winston Stanley

16th October 2019 at 2:22 pm

I recently explained the materialist explanation from the Marxist perspective. It may all look random or like the new laws originate in the realm of pure ideas, with their own internal development, but actually the shift in ideology and law reflects shifts in the economic base and in the material interests of the ruling class. The justification given for the new harsher speech crime laws was that “public order is essential to the normal functioning of society.” That needs interrogation, why does the capitalist state decide that these new laws, concerning a miniscule minority, are essential to its own interests? The answer lies in the need of the capitalist state to make a profit and to accumulate capital in the present material conditions in order for the capitalist system to function and to survive.

> … The major shift within the workers is ethnic and cultural and that is the real concern of the capitalist state. The idea now is to subsume all workers under the principles of abstract commonality in “equal rights” rather than under the old principles of more concrete commonality. Gay and trans fit into that overall emphasis of abstract commonality in individuality. The more “kinds” of workers that the state can subsume under those abstract principles, the more that it makes them the guiding principles of all. It is presented as “morality” but really it reflects the material interests of the ruling class and the aim is to condition and to orientate the workers to accept their place under the capitalist state in the context of the new social relations, the new abstract individual commonalities that replace the old, more concrete commonalities. It all comes down to that the state wants to expand its workforce and it seeks to do that by promoting the principles of abstract commonalities over the older more concrete commonalities. The workers are now diverse and the state needs to condition the workers to accept and to internalise that diversity as their own identity. It does so through the enshrinement of abstract commonalities.

Jim Lawrie

16th October 2019 at 3:21 pm

Winston Stanley;

Transgenderism, being an artificial category, holds the promise of inventing ever more protected categories, thus diluting our natural identity. These being alien to our evolutionary experience, the judges and politicos see the opportunity to step in and make the rules. In their favour.

C J

16th October 2019 at 11:22 am

What we need is a corporate Darwin Award for those companies that exit the corporate gene pool through their own stupidity (or at least move towards an exit)

Ven Oods

16th October 2019 at 6:58 pm

I had a similar thought.
While I’d feel sorry for any employees who lose jobs if Flora goes south, the same would not apply to the brain-dead wonk who made this decision.

Philip Humphrey

16th October 2019 at 9:34 am

“Stop funding hate” should stop funding themselves. All these activists do is stir up division, discord and resentment.

Jane 70

16th October 2019 at 10:21 am

‘Stop Funding Hate’ should just stop- end of.

Genghis Kant

16th October 2019 at 11:03 am

To be more accurate they should call themselves ‘Hate Stops Funding’.

Ven Oods

16th October 2019 at 7:04 pm

Deft!

Identity Redacted

19th October 2019 at 9:40 pm

They got Daily mail to stop their Lego promotion. So basically kids got less free Lego because of them

bf bf

16th October 2019 at 9:04 am

Looking on the bright side many lives could be saved by this move. Less of this hydrogenated and oxidized (spoiled) trans-fat free radical soup disgusting gunk will be sold. So less arteries will be scared and heart attacks induced.

Besides butter is both natural and tastes 10 times better. (before you reply that “BUT Saturated fat clogs arteries” etc etc……this has well and truly been debunked many many times in high quality peer reviewed scientific research)

Jim Lawrie

16th October 2019 at 10:05 am

Nanny boy.

Jane 70

16th October 2019 at 10:20 am

Having recently switched back to spreadable butter, I quite agree. It tastes delicious and is free of the awful’ engine oil’ reminders of most of the alternatives.

Danny Rees

16th October 2019 at 9:03 am

I totally agree that feminists should be allowed to slag off trans women wherever and whenever they want and if they cannot be it’s muhsoggyness.

Danny Rees

16th October 2019 at 9:01 am

“Back in the late 1970s, Flora ran a series of ads featuring hapless men and the women who loved and shopped for them. The slogan was: ‘Flora, the margarine for men.’ Today, many women will no doubt draw the same conclusion. Flora is still the margarine for men. It’s the margarine for men who think they are women and are prepared to throw their weight around to stop actual women discussing issues of concern to them.”

LMFAO this on Spiked which constantly complains feminists portray women as victims.

Ven Oods

16th October 2019 at 7:03 pm

Of course, in instances where women *are* victims, an exception to that tendency would seem reasonable.

Stephen J

16th October 2019 at 8:55 am

Isn’t that company guilty of the same thing as that which the ridiculous “mumsnet” has set out to self police?

The trans fatty spread that is masquerading as butter has had a good run at persuading people of its benefits, but perhaps realises that it should shut up about trying to persuade mumsnet readers about the benefits of other trans claimants before they realise that the king has no clothes.

Philip Humphrey

16th October 2019 at 9:38 am

As I understand it, there is no more trans-fat in Flora than there is in butter. It doesn’t use hydrogenated vegetable fat. Same is true for most other reputable margarines.

Stephen J

16th October 2019 at 9:47 am

If it is vegetable “fat” I would be interested to know from which part of the vegetable this substance is extracted?

Winston Stanley

16th October 2019 at 8:26 pm

They must get it from fat vegetables like tomatoes or like melons. I cannot see skinny vegetables like cucumbers or green beans having much fat on them.

George Haworth

16th October 2019 at 8:52 am

So Mumsnet is now an epicentre of bigotry? Can there be any more conclusive evidence that the demand for bigots now massively exceeds supply?

Geoff Cox

16th October 2019 at 8:09 am

Excellent last paragraph to beatifully round out a great article.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

16th October 2019 at 7:28 am

It is interesting that Ireland changed the law to allow so-called ‘transgendered’ people to self-identify and there was almost no reaction whatsoever. Since that time, Ireland has not experienced a massive wave of male sexual predators abusing the law in order to rape or spy on women. Why this mass hysteria in the UK? It seems that the Irish are a little more rational than their neighbours.

jessica christon

16th October 2019 at 6:45 pm

Maybe they know where they’ll get a kicking and where they won’t.

Andrew Best

16th October 2019 at 6:39 am

Pathetic is not a strong enough word for this modern insanity
To enfranchise a few thousand trans gender people in the world they will accuse the female half of our species of being trans phobic!
B******s
The more they do this rubbish, the more they work against themselves

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

16th October 2019 at 7:29 am

Calm down, old chap. They’re not marching in in their millions in order to kill you in your beds.

Jim Lawrie

16th October 2019 at 9:07 am

Why do you attempt to reword “thousands” worldwide to “marching in their millions”?

A ten year old girl ought not have to share a toilet with a man. She has the right to use that women only space unaccompanied by an adult, human female – aka a woman.

Schoolgirls are acting together to enforce women only space in their schools. Ought they to be arrested?

Andrew Leonard

16th October 2019 at 3:08 am

“Avoiding being labelled ‘transphobic’ overrides every other concern – from making a profit to defending the core customer base: women and mothers.”

Fanatical careism is destroying us.
Careism has become an example of a ‘black hole’ ethic – absolutist reasoning that is taken so far by so many, that overwhelmingly powerful gravity wells form in the moral fabric, which capture all related values and render them null and void.
We have to escape from the cult of careism.
We have to start focusing on the building blocks of society, and make these, and *not* welfare, the starting point of our social reasoning.
Careism is the social equivalent an individual who frames everything in terms of pursuing happiness, but no matter how hard they pursue, is never happy.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

16th October 2019 at 7:30 am

What on earth has your post got to do with the article?

Jim Lawrie

16th October 2019 at 9:08 am

That question describes 99% of your posts.

Andrew Leonard

16th October 2019 at 10:22 am

It gets to the essence of the article, not the concrete particulars.
Don’t worry about it if you’re not good with abstractions.

jessica christon

16th October 2019 at 12:01 pm

@Andrew Leonard
I saw a post of yours on another thread arguing that western countries were taking “care culture” (I think you called it) way too far. I like the term “care culture” but I don’t think that it’s a problem in itself – it is the aggressive championing of minority and ‘marginalised’ groups while being actively hostile to the majority who happen not to agree that transwomen are women, want immigration strictly controlled etc. If the care was directed towards the majority, I don’t think there would be an issue with it because the crowd is wise.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.