Katie Hopkins !

[chuff me dizzy]

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/948318284566458369

[Rob!]

Vile witch

[Jake.]

What’s your point?

[chuff me dizzy]

What’s your point?

MY point ? I've posted Katies tweet :shrug:

[Oliver_W]

MY point ? I've posted Katies tweet :shrug:

Are you posting it because you agree with her, or to highlight her bigotry?

[chuff me dizzy]

Are you posting it because you agree with her, or to highlight her bigotry?

Im posting it to show people her tweet, nothing sinister so calm down dear

[Jake.]

Im posting it to show people her tweet, nothing sinister so calm down dear

Right, but for what reason are you showing it?

[Livia]

I'd back Katie Hopkins in TiBB's death list if I thought it'd make it more imminent.

[Amy Jade]

Chuff if you take the numbers at the end of that link and put them between [/tw•eet] (without the dot) it will show up without people having to click the link

[tweet]948318284566458369

[chuff me dizzy]

Right, but for what reason are you showing it?

Because I can and because its about the show

[Tom4784]

Can we not give that mutant horse any more attention than she already has?

[chuff me dizzy]

Chuff if you take the numbers at the end of that link and put them between [/tw•eet] (without the dot) it will show up without people having to click the link

[tweet]948318284566458369

Ive not a clue how to do that Im not techy at all,but can make a mighty fine Yorkshire pudding !!

[RichardG]

Because I can and because its about the show

you're posting the tweet because you agree with it, why are you avoiding saying this? because you know the tweet is bigoted and hateful?

[chuff me dizzy]

you're posting the tweet because you agree with it, why are you denying this? because you know the tweet is bigoted and hateful?

Have you not read above ? please take a minute and do so ,thank you xx

[Jake.]

Because I can and because its about the show

:joker:

[Withano]

You always know you're on the right track when you disagree with Hopkins.

[Amy Jade]

Ive not a clue how to do that Im not techy at all,but can make a mighty fine Yorkshire pudding !!

Ohhh i love a yorkshire pudding. Carry on! :)

[Withano]

I don't even think she thinks this way herself, she just wants to cling on to her controversial title. Not many care anymore though.

[jaxie]

Nothing against India personally but I can think of women I'd rather have seen in a show promoting itself as celebrating women as I posted on a thread yesterday. Apparently thinking that maybe women shouldn't have to step aside for someone who wasn't born a woman is bigotry. Why is it women who must always be expected to step aside? Is it only sexism when it fits the populist shoe?

And I can't stand Katie Hopkins.

[chuff me dizzy]

I don't even think she thinks this way herself, she just wants to cling on to her controversial title. Not many care anymore though.

7.2k likes and over 2k retweets

[Withano]

7.2k likes and over 2k retweets

How is that possible, theres only 5k people in the world

[Tom4784]

7.2k likes and over 2k retweets

Why support someone who doesn't even believe what they are saying? I believe you said in another thread (apologies if it wasn't you) that the female audience in the live show was pandering but Katie Hopkins is pandering to your prejudices and you eat it up without a second thought.

She wants your reactions, she doesn't believe a single thing she's saying.

[chuff me dizzy]

Why support someone who doesn't even believe what they are saying, I believe you said in another thread (apologies if it wasn't you) that the female audience in the live show was pandering but Katie Hopkins is pandering to your prejudices and you eat it up without a second thought.

She wants your reactions, she doesn't believe a single thing she's saying.

Not me, Ive not watched the live part yet

[chuff me dizzy]

How is that possible, theres only 5k people in the world

5,000 people in the world ? Really ?

[Withano]

5,000 people in the world ? Really ?

Give or take

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Urgh, I can't stand that woman. She's truly vile! :fist:

[Ant.]

How is that possible, theres only 5k people in the world

I have 2 Twitters so maybe some people with multiple accounts are liking?

[Withano]

I have 2 Twitters so maybe some people with multiple accounts are liking?

Oh yeah probably good point.

[Jamie89]

Nothing against India personally but I can think of women I'd rather have seen in a show promoting itself as celebrating women as I posted on a thread yesterday. Apparently thinking that maybe women shouldn't have to step aside for someone who wasn't born a woman is bigotry. Why is it women who must always be expected to step aside? Is it only sexism when it fits the populist shoe?

And I can't stand Katie Hopkins.

Women haven't been asked to step aside. There are 7 cis women in the house and 1 trans woman. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be any women who were born women, however you are saying there should be no trans women. I understand your view is that trans women shouldn't be included as part of the female cast (although I disagree with that), but it's not the case that people who are supportive of India's right to be in there are trying to take rights away from other people, it's about wanting both to be included.

[Jase.]

Chuff do you agree with her tweet? Legit curious.

[Vicky.]

Nothing against India personally but I can think of women I'd rather have seen in a show promoting itself as celebrating women as I posted on a thread yesterday. Apparently thinking that maybe women shouldn't have to step aside for someone who wasn't born a woman is bigotry. Why is it women who must always be expected to step aside? Is it only sexism when it fits the populist shoe?

And I can't stand Katie Hopkins.

Basically this.

Though India is clearly a genuine transsexual, and is extremely critical of the ridiculous transactivists who reckon penises are female and lesbians are transphobic for not shagging male people. I don't mind calling her a woman (given the definition of woman appears to have changed to include male people, though noone can actually give a definition of woman that does not refer to biology or stereotypes, or is not circular) or using she for her. But she is NOT female. Female is a biological thing. This should have been billed as an 'all woman' launch or something.

India is very stereotypical and seems to think all female people should follow stereotypes too. India reckons its vile for female people to not shave their legs and such. Because of these opinions, India is a douchebag anyway. I genuinely hope she can change my mind though.

[jaxie]

Women haven't been asked to step aside. There are 7 cis women in the house and 1 trans woman. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be any women who were born women, however you are saying there should be no trans women. I understand your view is that trans women shouldn't be included as part of the female cast (although I disagree with that), but it's not the case that people who are supportive of India's right to be in there are trying to take rights away from other people, it's about wanting both to be included.

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?

[Denver]

Great housemate vile human being

[Black Dagger]

Great housemate vile human being

She was a one note tired hag in the house.

[Cal.]

Remember when she wanted to build on being a gay icon after her stint in CBB15 lol

[Jamie89]

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?Thanks Jaxie. Basically I disagree with the idea of needing to have specific experiences to be considered a woman. People have vastly different experiences in life across all sorts of factors such as race, culture, social status and gender identity too. Yes there are certain biological differences that a trans woman will never experience (and there are things about being a trans woman that cis women will never experience), but I think it's still ok to have those different experiences and for both to be considered women... just different women with different experiences.
The way I think of it is like woman being more of an umbrella term that can include both cis and trans women, rather than saying that cis and trans women are the same, their differences can still be acknowledged whilst at the same time both be considered women in a broader sense, if that makes sense. I think there's a common misconception that when someone says "transwomen are women too" they're saying that "transwomen and women born female are the same" and it therefore diminishes the experiences of cis women, or lumps cis women into a category where they're the same as males, or takes something away from women or is a redefinition, but that isn't the case, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

So yes the house could have been all cis women but if it's meant to explore what it is to be a woman in 2018 then I think it makes sense to be inclusive of India as a lot of people would consider her a woman, and you say yourself that you support her to live as a woman so is it not contradictory to say she shouldn't take part in something that explores what it is like to live as a woman?

You're last paragraph I think I sort of explain in the above, in that I think trans women are part of a wider categorisation of women, and so still fit with this theme, whereas I don't think you'd fit in with a trans or gay theme (I don't know you that well I'm just assuming based on you asking the question [emoji23] ) However as an example, one of my friends is a trans man (born female) who is also bi-sexual, and if he was part of either of those scenarios I'd be in favour of it and would think he'd make a great addition, for example if he was part of a gay male cast he'd able to bring a different experience and perspective of what it is to be those things than most people could (he's bisexual but is married to a man so in many respects has a lot of the same social experiences that gay men have), so even though he isn't technically biologically male or gay, he's often treated as both by society, and bb after all is meant (supposedly) to be a social experiment.

[bots]

I'm afraid i'm very skeptical about the inclusion of India. I think it was a cynical ploy by the producers to create a bit of controversy for the shows launch. Did they need to generate that controversy, not sure, but, I think to a degree India is being exploited for it, which to me goes against the theme they wish to promote, and by that, I refer to the exploitation of women

[chuff me dizzy]

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?

Totally agree :clap1:

[Kazanne]

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

[chuff me dizzy]

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

I agree, she can never be a fully fledged woman she's a wannabe

[jaxie]

Thanks Jaxie. Basically I disagree with the idea of needing to have specific experiences to be considered a woman. People have vastly different experiences in life across all sorts of factors such as race, culture, social status and gender identity too. Yes there are certain biological differences that a trans woman will never experience (and there are things about being a trans woman that cis women will never experience), but I think it's still ok to have those different experiences and for both to be considered women... just different women with different experiences.
The way I think of it is like woman being more of an umbrella term that can include both cis and trans women, rather than saying that cis and trans women are the same, their differences can still be acknowledged whilst at the same time both be considered women in a broader sense, if that makes sense. I think there's a common misconception that when someone says "transwomen are women too" they're saying that "transwomen and women born female are the same" and it therefore diminishes the experiences of cis women, or lumps cis women into a category where they're the same as males, or takes something away from women or is a redefinition, but that isn't the case, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

So yes the house could have been all cis women but if it's meant to explore what it is to be a woman in 2018 then I think it makes sense to be inclusive of India as a lot of people would consider her a woman, and you say yourself that you support her to live as a woman so is it not contradictory to say she shouldn't take part in something that explores what it is like to live as a woman?

You're last paragraph I think I sort of explain in the above, in that I think trans women are part of a wider categorisation of women, and so still fit with this theme, whereas I don't think you'd fit in with a trans or gay theme (I don't know you that well I'm just assuming based on you asking the question [emoji23] ) However as an example, one of my friends is a trans man (born female) who is also bi-sexual, and if he was part of either of those scenarios I'd be in favour of it and would think he'd make a great addition, for example if he was part of a gay male cast he'd able to bring a different experience and perspective of what it is to be those things than most people could (he's bisexual but is married to a man so in many respects has a lot of the same social experiences that gay men have), so even though he isn't technically biologically male or gay, he's often treated as both by society, and bb after all is meant (supposedly) to be a social experiment.

I don't think we are going to agree but you express yourself well and have a positive point of view. You identify me as a cis woman and I am not. I am a woman, a female, that's my gender. By calling me a cis woman you are literally robbing me of my gender. I respect India's right to live as a woman and I hope it makes her happy but that's just the thing, she can live as a woman but she can never be a woman, a female. It's not possible, even with surgery.

[Jamie89]

I don't think we are going to agree but you express yourself well and have a positive point of view. You identify me as a cis woman and I am not. I am a woman, a female, that's my gender. By calling me a cis woman you are literally robbing me of my gender. I respect India's right to live as a woman and I hope it makes her happy but that's just the thing, she can live as a woman but she can never be a woman, a female. It's not possible, even with surgery."Cis woman" is purely meant as a way of differentiating from "trans woman", its not a further categorisation or a means of taking anyhing away, it's just to make the conversation easier to understand - I'd only use it in a conversation about trans people and it's only used so as to identify who is being referred to, there's nothing else intended and it's certainly not to be taken offensively. It's the same as if it were a conversation about race and the terms "black woman" or "white woman" were used to discuss differences, compared to "cis woman" or "trans woman". Yes I don't think we'll agree [emoji23] but I felt that should be clarified as the use of that word often gets misinterpreted.

[Rustic bauble]

I wanted to thank you for your reply Jamie because you managed to disagree intelligently without calling me names which happened in another thread. And I'm glad you see the point.

You say women haven't been asked to step aside but for India to be in the house, it means someone who was born a woman can't have that place in a house supposedly celebrating women. Therefore a born woman has had to make way for India.

India has 'been a woman' for two years, having lived as a man and fathering a son, for fifty years. I can't see how that qualifies her as a woman. What does someone who lived as a man for fifty years really know about being a woman? Would you put a two year old child into the house as a woman? Good luck to her if she wants to live as a woman. I fully support that if it makes her happy but it does not make her a woman with the same experiences as those of us born to it.

If this house was celebrating trans women or gay men, would you put me in as a representative when I know stuff all about living as a trans woman or a gay man?


Well put together...and well said.

[Rustic bauble]

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

...and they are the facts...with no offence meant :wavey:

[Tom4784]

I like India but she will never be a fully fledged woman,she may have the cosmetics outside the nips and tucks and things to make her look more like a woman but she has no womb,she has no ovaries and wont give birth as a natural female would.Having said that so be it if she wants to be seen as a woman,she is quite an attractive 'woman'but facts are facts.

So, by your definition, is a woman that has a hysterectomy no longer a woman?
Are women that can't give birth for whatever women not a woman in your eyes?

[jaxie]

"Cis woman" is purely meant as a way of differentiating from "trans woman", its not a further categorisation or a means of taking anyhing away, it's just to make the conversation easier to understand - I'd only use it in a conversation about trans people and it's only used so as to identify who is being referred to, there's nothing else intended and it's certainly not to be taken offensively. It's the same as if it were a conversation about race and the terms "black woman" or "white woman" were used to discuss differences, compared to "cis woman" or "trans woman". Yes I don't think we'll agree [emoji23] but I felt that should be clarified as the use of that word often gets misinterpreted.

I shouldn't need further categorisation. I'm a woman, India is a trans woman. Can I ask do you call non trans men cis men?

[Gusto Brunt]

But she answered her own statement...

She has no penis...

So not a man. ;)

[Cal.]

Chuff if you're so proud of your own opinion (you clearly do agree with her) why were you trying to hide the fact you agreed with her by saying you were just posting what she had said? :laugh2:

[Jamie89]

I shouldn't need further categorisation. I'm a woman, India is a trans woman. Can I ask do you call non trans men cis men?I said it's not meant as further categorisation, it's just used to make what's being discussed easier to understand so you know who's being referred to. This is all just semantics it's not about labelling so there really isn't any need for offense to be taken. I would refer to a non trans man as a cis man if the conversation was about trans people, as I said in my previous post. It's no different to you saying "non trans men" in your post. You used those words to identify a man who was born male, that's exactly the same as saying "cis man"

[Greg!]

Legend Denise DRAGGED the vile specimen. :clap2:
948334934099456000

[jaxie]

I said it's not meant as further categorisation, it's just used to make what's being discussed easier to understand so you know who's being referred to. This is all just semantics it's not about labelling so there really isn't any need for offense to be taken. I would refer to a non trans man as a cis man if the conversation was about trans people, as I said in my previous post. It's no different to you saying "non trans men" in your post. You used those words to identify a man who was born male, that's exactly the same as saying "cis man"

Thanks for explaining about the men, I was curious. It's been a very interesting discussion, thanks for the chat. Remember though that we may not mean offense but to appear to be recategorizing someone's gender can be offensive.

[Ammi]

...Jamie..:worship:..as always, outstanding posts from you...I love how your thoughts work..:love:..

..I was going to try to put together a post myself, although it's more or less what you have said anyway Jamie..but I found this piece which says everything really for me so I'll just copy and paste it instead...I mean this time of all times with BB celebrating women and 'how far women have come in society', it feels that journey has barely started for the trans community which is very sad indeed...I think the last sentence of this blog is particularly poignant and heart-breaking because it's sadly how many people still feel toward trans people, which is...yes we accept you are who you are but you're not really 'one of us'...:sad:....


“Silenced by men first and now trans women, will women ever not feel silenced?” she wrote. She was angry about having her voice ‘policed’ for the benefit of trans women, who she thinks are not truly women. She was bewildered that she’s been called a transphobe after saying things like, “my being born with a vagina matters in the conversation around the rights of trans women”.
Her anger also stems from the fact that trans women are pushing for a more inclusive vocabulary: ‘chestfeeding’ instead of ‘breastfeeding’, for instance*. Her understanding, as I understand it, is that granting trans women these rights somehow reduces, nullifies, counteracts the rights of cis women.
The author elaborately describes the ways in which the presence of trans women using ‘cis’ women’s spaces around her traumatises her. She writes, “Saying that because you are a woman, your penis is a female penis and should be seen as a vagina in change rooms… while women constantly still deal with being sent dick pics, and being flashed, and forced to see penises when we never consented to. As a rape survivor this can be especially difficult for me.”
She’s also mad at Caitlyn Jenner: “A celebrity rich famous woman who had been a man for so so many years and a woman for very few winning a women’s award over women who had far far more right.”


Her entire piece essentially hinges around the point that since, according to her, trans women are not truly women (why care about what trans women think of themselves), they should not be allowed into spaces meant for (cis) women. Because apparently, “when a trans woman enters that space, cis women often feel invalidated, offended, and angry.”
It is important to note here that this is the kind of exclusionary talk that Republicans in the US have been rolling back protection that allows trans people access to bathrooms of their chosen gender. It is the very same brand
of transphobia that encourages their exclusion from colleges, schools and workplaces — this toxic idea that they are the ‘other’, and that this otherness needs to exist somewhere else, somewhere we don’t have to look at them.

Much is said here (and has been said in the past) about how trans women are different from cis women, because, in the words of this author, they “looked male for part of [their] life, [they] experienced a different life. [They] got privileges.”

Earlier this year, Nigerian writer-feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie sparked a row after implying that trans women were not ‘real’ women because they enjoyed male privilege before transitioning into women — a statement that overlooked the abuse and discrimination that gender non-confirming people undergo all their lives as a result of their dysphoria.
So what does it take to be a woman? Where does gender lie? Is it in the organs we possess? Then, are women who’ve undergone hysterectomies or mastectomies still women? Are men who surgically give up their penises still men? We’re moving past these definitions, thankfully, and embracing gender as mutable and perceived personal identities that cannot be boiled down to a checklist of character attributes.

Trans women are women. They are as much women as ‘natal’ or cis women, and the ‘they have different experiences’ argument does not invalidate their womanhood. If it did, would we be okay with creating separate spaces for white women because their experiences were different from those of women of colour?
And this is precisely what makes the arguments of this author so hypocritical and baffling. On the one hand, she claims with fantastically faux magnanimity that she is willing to support “surgeries and pronouns” for trans women, while on the other, rejects their femininity altogether.

Cis women can be — and sometimes are — great allies of the trans community because of our shared heritage of oppression, our frequent brushes with abuse and our common burden of trauma, even though these experiences are extremely diverse and cannot be clubbed blindly together. All of us come from a place of knowing what it’s like not to have access to our bodies, of having control taken from us, of being told every single day what we’re supposed to look like. Both cis and trans women carry the weight of femininity and are fighting for the same things: the right to life, to be safe in our homes and on the streets, to not be objectified, parodied, paraded. And most significantly, all of us face a common oppressor: the patriarchy.
The difference is that cis women have, after centuries of struggle, gained a (fragile) foothold in the world. We can now vote, own property, work. Some of us can even hold public office. In no way is this the ideal; we are still a deeply regressive society that objectifies, discriminates against, abuses and kills us on the daily — BUT we’ve succeeded in getting out there. We are fighting for representation in popular media and are making baby steps towards achieving some. Cis women are even going on to lead (a very, very small fraction of) countries and are taking corrective steps to try and undo centuries of damage.
And so when the author says that cis experiences cannot be equated to the trans experiences, I agree. Indeed, it cannot, because in almost all parts of the world, cis women do not undergo the kind of widespread egregious violence and systemic abuse that trans women do. All women have limited access to safety, security and their bodies, but it’s much worse for trans women. In the US, trans women are 4.3 times more likely than cis women to be murdered — and these are only conservative estimates since they are likely to be misgendered by the police after death.

Deaths from this community form the bulk of hate violence-related LGBTQ murders. We still haven’t agreed on a language that honours their chosen identities. We ignore their desired pronouns and even in the presence of media guidelines, journalists continue to exhibit shocking disregard for their lives and deaths. India Clarke, a transgender woman, was found beaten to
death in Florida in July 2015. A local news channel decided to report the news of her death with the text, “Man dressed as woman found murdered”.

Trans and gender non-confirming people are harassed and rejected by families, schools and colleges (“Nearly 80% of transgender people report experiencing harassment at school when they were young,” a TIME story says). In addition, “employment discrimination can cause high rates of unemployment or underemployment, which can lead to homelessness and prevent individuals from accessing necessary healthcare.”
“Transgender people are also four times more likely than the general population to report living in extreme poverty,” which forces them to be homeless or relocate to unsafe neighbourhoods, which adds to disproportionately high mortality rates among the gender non-confirming. Their discrimination and oppression is systemic. It is everywhere. And it is fatal.
But this is a slippery slope, this comparison of miseries between cis and trans women, of wanting to say, “Look! My problems are bigger!” and it makes sure that we stay stuck, squabbling over the shape and texture of our respective traumas. But our allyship needs more than just commiseration — it needs an understanding that as cis women, we come from a place of privilege: the privilege of being able to, in a largely bigoted world, biologically confirm to accepted and desired gender norms. And that this bestows on us safety that our trans and gender non-conforming friends have never known. Our allyship needs an acknowledgment of these facts and a willingness to welcome and accommodate as we want to be welcomed and accommodated.

But time and again, sadly, we, as women, seem to make the same mistake we have been complaining about for decades: we force trans women to keep proving themselves to us. We keep asking them to repeat the story of their choices, their transition (or the lack of it), and their abuse in order to grant them a seat at the women’s table.
(Then we go off, funnily, and continue our fight for the right to have a seat at the ‘men’s’ table.)
How much did we protest when the sexual assault case against Bill Cosby’s ended up in a mistrial despite 60 women’s testimonials? How angry were we at the Brock Turner debacle? How many times have we rallied against a system of misogyny that forces us to recount our abuses in full — and then refuses to believe us anyway?
And have we learned nothing from this? Are we truly only as fair as the system that oppresses us all?
This, if nothing else, is a common thread that binds all women: we appear to be doomed to be stuck in a cycle of repeating ourselves, asking for protection and never being heard.
Towards the end, the author of this piece waves a poisonous olive branch by saying, “I will call you by your pronoun, I will fight for your right for safety, surgery, trans safe spaces and even trans- inclusory womens’ spaces, but you also have to be ok with me wanting my language and my cis only spaces.”
But if you listen closely, you can almost hear her say in the background that she doesn’t believe these surgeries and struggles make someone a woman. “No,” she seems to tell trans women, “get all the surgeries you want, but you will never be one of us.”
In every single way, her show of allyship is the worst, scariest kind of lip service. One that says “I will support you — but only by sharing memes about inclusionary feminism or ‘liking’ pages on trans rights.”
She’s saying, “You are safe for me only in theory. You are palatable only in pixels. You are supported only from the other side of a screen.”
She’s saying, “I want your body nowhere near mine.”

[y.winter]

Can we just celebrate the fact that Ammi is here and be friends again :love:

[pontyboi]

Right, but for what reason are you showing it?

Like any post to start a debate.

Katie Hopkins is vile imo and has become so irrelevant she's resorting back to what made her "famous" by bullying others or being controversial to get the attention she craves yet judges others for.

[Bones]

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/948318284566458369

Amen! I love Katie :hug:

[Babayaro.]

Amen! I love Katie :hug:

Why? She's a horrid, bitter old ****. :shrug:

[Bones]

Why? She's a horrid, bitter old ****. :shrug:

Why not? Should i love everyone that you like, and hate everyone that you hate?

[Babayaro.]

Why not? Should i love everyone that you like, and hate everyone that you hate?

What is there to like about her?

[Bones]

What is there to like about her?

Wanna have a list?

[Babayaro.]

Wanna have a list?

On you go

[DanielM787]

Katie is a bitter old troll, who try’s to cause havoc to stay relevant in the media :nono:

[Bones]

On you go

KAtie, Katie Katie. There you go. Now explain why you are liking someone?

[Babayaro.]

So quickly moving on

[Bones]

So quickly moving on

Go ahead, i love Katie. All that counts :) And she was second on CBB, so i guess someone someone else loves her too :)

[andybigbro]

Can we not give that mutant horse any more attention than she already has?

I agree with this.

[Kazanne]

So, by your definition, is a woman that has a hysterectomy no longer a woman?
Are women that can't give birth for whatever women not a woman in your eyes?

Dont be silly Dezzy,if a woman has a hysterectomy she is still a woman she has just had to have her bits removed due to ill health and as for those who can't have children,they still have the organs they just don't work as they should.

[Bones]

She almost did win CBB, not bad :)

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

How is that possible, theres only 5k people in the world

5,000 people in the world ? Really ?

Give or take

:joker:

[reece(:]

Why not? Should i love everyone that you like, and hate everyone that you hate?
What's the point of being on a forum if you cannot justify your self?

Katie is vile gutter trash, clearly trying to be controversial for attention again.

[Bones]

What's the point of being on a forum if you cannot justify your self?

Katie is vile gutter trash, clearly trying to be controversial for attention again.

Who came 2th on CBB, so there is someone else who loves her, not just me. Is this forum allowed only to Katie haters?

[Christmas Lights]

Dont be silly Dezzy,if a woman has a hysterectomy she is still a woman she has just had to have her bits removed due to ill health and as for those who can't have children,they still have the organs they just don't work as they should.

Why do people keep giving Katie Hopkins the attention she DOESN'T deserve :bored: . Katie Hopkins is a vile ugly gargoyle who's famous for being controversial and upsetting people .

These debates are open to people's opinions , but if you want to go even deeper then you could say before we were born and in the womb as embryo's we were all female before we were fully developed, and by chance some became male and some became female and that's why men have nipples.

Either way though it doesn't bother me but i think the whole gender binary thing get's out of hand , and i sometimes think they only put people like India in BB just for the sake of it well these days not so much as all kinds of people have entered the BB house . But back in BB5 when Nadia was put in BB it was so obvious it was done as a publicity stunt as some fascination, and Davina enjoyed revealing to most of the housemates of Nadia's previous gender, so it was all treated like some fetish prank that Davina was lapping up.

And she clearly only won because she was trans but i thought it was wrong how she kept her gender reassignment a secret from her fellow housemates . Even when they asked if she could have kids she could of told them but instead the conversation was just awkward .

[Alf]

So much anger on here.

I put it this way, some people like to listen to Katie talking about subjects in the World that effect us all. And some people like to watch Raph, Isabel and Chanelle bitching about each others own egos on Twitter. Personally I find the former the far more interesting of those. Each to their own!


Here's a Katie talk




w1EhxwVKPy0

[Miranda123]

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/948318284566458369

There goes Katie, stating the bloody obvious again

And the twitterati cant handle it lolol

I love FREE SPEECH!!!!

[Jake.]

There goes Katie, stating the bloody obvious again

And the twitterati cant handle it lolol

I love FREE SPEECH!!!!

Except you don’t, because any person who happens to disagree with you is just a “loony leftie” or w/e the “insult” was

You only like “FREE SPEECH!!!!” when it goes in conjunction with your own views. Hence why it doesn’t work.

[Miranda123]

What's the point of being on a forum if you cannot justify your self?

Katie is vile gutter trash, clearly trying to be controversial for attention again.

Children should not be allowed online at all, until they have the experience of life that brings wisdom

[Miranda123]

Except you don’t, because any person who happens to disagree with you is just a “loony leftie” or w/e the “insult” was

You only like “FREE SPEECH!!!!” when it goes in conjunction with your own views. Hence why it doesn’t work.

Silly you

I am not castigating you for saying what you like, just pointing out that you are wrong when it comes to fact

you can call John, Joan, as many times as you like, but when he is dead, he will still be John

[Miranda123]

Because I can and because its about the show

Be careful Chuff, this forum no longer allows free speech, only politically correct fake news!

[Tom4784]

Silly you

I am not castigating you for saying what you like, just pointing out that you are wrong when it comes to fact

you can call John, Joan, as many times as you like, but when he is dead, he will still be John

What you are stating is an opinion, not a fact.

You are also oversimplifying things to an extreme extent that is no long accurate to the reality of identity. Identity is something we forge and create for ourselves, would you like someone else dictating who and what you are? Denying you your right to your identity because it offends them?

[Tom4784]

Dont be silly Dezzy,if a woman has a hysterectomy she is still a woman she has just had to have her bits removed due to ill health and as for those who can't have children,they still have the organs they just don't work as they should.

So you don't need to able to give birth or have the organs needed to be seen as a woman?

[reece(:]

Be careful Chuff, this forum no longer allows free speech, only politically correct fake news!

Looks a bit muddled between free speech and hate speech to me!

[Tom4784]

Be careful Chuff, this forum no longer allows free speech, only politically correct fake news!

Freedom of Speech means that you can state your opinions and other people can also weigh in on those opinions. It is not a magical shield to protect you from criticism. Freedom of speech works both ways. you can't pick and choose.

When you signed up to this site, however, you agreed to adhere to the rules, the primary one being not to post things that are overly offensive. You can have extreme opinions but the way you present them can and will trip you up.

Nobody will ever get infracted for saying 'I disagree with India being counted as a woman because _______' that's an argument but to be overly offensive with it like saying 'oh she's just a ******, man in a wig etc.' that's where people will get picked up (Not saying anyone in particular has said that, just an example of what isn't acceptable).

[Livia]

In my opinion, you don't need a womb to be a woman, or breasts or any other bits and pieces. All you need is the complete absence of the Y chromosome. Because if you do have one, you're either male, or you're a transsexual woman.

[Miranda123]

you're posting the tweet because you agree with it, why are you avoiding saying this? because you know the tweet is bigoted and hateful?

Well it is absolutely the truth, so Chuff should have no problem agreeing with it

For those of us who deal in fact, not fiction, a man cannot turn into a woman, nor vice versa, they can live as one, and have cosmetic surgery to help them resemble the other sex, but bilogically, they will remain the sex they were born into, that is a FACT, ask any Doctor, FACT not FICTION

Having said that, we can all choose to live how we please and should not face abuse for doing so

FACT IS STILL FACT PEOPLE..........................Even if this Forum pretends that it is not fact but transphobia #fakenews

[Miranda123]

Freedom of Speech means that you can state your opinions and other people can also weigh in on those opinions. It is not a magical shield to protect you from criticism. Freedom of speech works both ways. you can't pick and choose.

When you signed up to this site, however, you agreed to adhere to the rules, the primary one being not to post things that are overly offensive. You can have extreme opinions but the way you present them can and will trip you up.

Nobody will ever get infracted for saying 'I disagree with India being counted as a woman because _______' that's an argument but to be overly offensive with it like saying 'oh she's just a ******, man in a wig etc.' that's where people will get picked up (Not saying anyone in particular has said that, just an example of what isn't acceptable).

I have not insulted India at all, in fact I like him

But I will not accept the fake news that he is a she, he is a man who feels more comfortable living life as a woman, and that is his absolute right, and I would never do anything to make him feel uncomfortable, but in the same way that India refuses to acknowledge any drag queens (eddie Izzard et al) as transgender, I refuse to acknowledge him as a female human being, because he is a male human being

Thats a fact

Thr ironic thing about all this is, I am sure that I could have a very interesting debate with India about this subject as he does not seem to shy away from differing opinions, go figure......

[Miranda123]

Looks a bit muddled between free speech and hate speech to me!

And when you know the difference between debate and hate, you will be a man my Son lol

[Tom4784]

Well it is absolutely the truth, so Chuff should have no problem agreeing with it

For those of us who deal in fact, not fiction, a man cannot turn into a woman, nor vice versa, they can live as one, and have cosmetic surgery to help them resemble the other sex, but bilogically, they will remain the sex they were born into, that is a FACT, ask any Doctor, FACT not FICTION

Having said that, we can all choose to live how we please and should not face abuse for doing so

FACT IS STILL FACT PEOPLE..........................Even if this Forum pretends that it is not fact but transphobia #fakenews

It's not the truth or a fact, Katie Hopkins opinion is her opinion and nothing more.

[Babayaro.]

Imagine carrying on with the "fake news" thing


:skull:

[Miranda123]

It's not the truth or a fact, Katie Hopkins opinion is her opinion and nothing more.

Ask your Doctor! FACT!

[Rob!]

I have not insulted India at all, in fact I like him

But I will not accept the fake news that he is a she, he is a man who feels more comfortable living life as a woman, and that is his absolute right, and I would never do anything to make him feel uncomfortable, but in the same way that India refuses to acknowledge any drag queens (eddie Izzard et al) as transgender, I refuse to acknowledge him as a female human being, because he is a male human being

Thats a fact

Thr ironic thing about all this is, I am sure that I could have a very interesting debate with India about this subject as he does not seem to shy away from differing opinions, go figure......

You obviously don't like HER though because you haven't even got the very basic good grace and respect to refer to her as a female, which is how she at the very least, identifies. That should be enough.

[chuff me dizzy]

Be careful Chuff, this forum no longer allows free speech, only politically correct fake news!

Been that way for a long time and they wonder why old posters don't come on any more

[chuff me dizzy]

I have not insulted India at all, in fact I like him

But I will not accept the fake news that he is a she, he is a man who feels more comfortable living life as a woman, and that is his absolute right, and I would never do anything to make him feel uncomfortable, but in the same way that India refuses to acknowledge any drag queens (eddie Izzard et al) as transgender, I refuse to acknowledge him as a female human being, because he is a male human being

Thats a fact

Thr ironic thing about all this is, I am sure that I could have a very interesting debate with India about this subject as he does not seem to shy away from differing opinions, go figure......

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[bots]

In my opinion, you don't need a womb to be a woman, or breasts or any other bits and pieces. All you need is the complete absence of the Y chromosome. Because if you do have one, you're either male, or you're a transsexual woman.

That's the bottom line really, people are who they are. Medical science and hormones can be used to make people more comfortable with what they have been given, but we are what we are.

Someone who transitioned still has exactly the same thoughts, the same emotions, the same soul. To suggest different is plain wrong.

That doesn't excuse any form of persecution however, but I have seen no evidence of that on this here forum.

[Tom4784]

Ask your Doctor! FACT!

I'm not sure you understand what a fact is.