i knew this was going to happen, how is there NOTHING that is not linked to a trans issue?!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
A woman has been arrested in connection to sarah's murder. There are countless cases of women luring women/people to their deaths like myra hindley. I was horrified recently when my daughter bounded in saying she accepted a lift from a female neighbour who stopped to offer because it had started to rain.
I've told her under no circumstances is she to get in any car whether they're known or unknown. Its sad that I am giving her the impression women can't be trusted but unfortunately that's the kind of world we live in.
Edit - apologies for derailing
Yep, it's even more sickening when there is a woman aiding and abetting.
agreed but i'd argue that the safer of the two are women (obviously a kid shouldn't accept ride from strangers tho)
So I'm not allowed to comment on something in general terms without having personally being through a process myself?
I don't see adoption and surrogacy as being the same thing. Adoption is kids that need a home. Surrogacy is using womens bodies as a commodity and especially in the context of a trans couple who have chosen to prioritise cross sex hormones/ and/ or surgery over their want to have kids. Please note I'm not talking about couples with fertility issues. I am talking about people who have chosen to give themselves fertility issues. This happens to be an opinion.
And yes I agree that it is utterly wrong to push a trans agenda on kids and telling them they're born in the wrong body for liking something gender non conforming. That's why I'm here
It’s because women aren’t allowed to talk about sex based violence, for fear of all the whataboutery they’ll get in response. On the one hand, we have that Sarah Everard meme with the final caveat “of course trans women have it worse and are MORE at risk of violence” and on the other hand (seen in a tweet last night) there are women discussing all the ways in which they’d felt threatened and unsafe in public but having to say “but of course ALL PEOPLE feel unsafe sometimes”.
It’s All Lives Matter, essentially.
I don’t like the way some trans couples going down the surrogacy route view the women they use as surrogates. There’s just something so entitled about it. Like, this woman is literally giving you her body so you can have a child because you chose to duck your own bodies up with hormones and surgeries, or because pregnancy makes you ‘dysphoric’. So show some respect, treat her like a Queen and stop acting like you own her body.
Got no problem with them being parents in a general sense how ever. As long as they’re not pushing their own kids to be trans.
Also, isn’t it illegal to pay a surrogate, in the uk at least I think only expenses can be covered or something like that. So it’s not it’s ‘easy money’ at least not here.
Last edited:
I've heard this is a trick men use sometimes as women are more likely to accept a lift from a woman "helping". So sad.
My parents made me go Karate lessons as a teen to learn some self defense but tbh, I am small framed so I still feel I don't stand a chance against a man in the street. All we can use in self defense is a poxy grape alarm (which I don't have, but maybe should). I've signed the pepper spray petition.
Surrogacy commodifies a woman’s body and turns children into a commodity too. Not my cup of tea. This summarises well my main problems with it: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47826356
It's another reason why gender ideology should not be pushed on kids, kids who are in no way near mature enough to make decisions that will have an impact on their long term future. Even an adult who goes to lengths such as cross sex hormones and surgery should be thinking long and hard about it
That awful guy from Pink News is a perfect example of this. Carrying on like it's a guarantee he will have access to a surrogate when he hasn’t found one yet. When someone asked why he didn’t even attempt to adopt, he was furious - why should anyone tell him how he starts a family, he said? Well, because you can’t have a biological family without involving a third party. And they have autonomy and welfare that must be considered above and beyond your desire to have a baby. Couples using IVF aren't the same because that only involves a risk of harm to themselves, and as adults that's their choice. It makes me very suspicious when people who can't conceive a biological child for whatever reason automatically go for surrogacy and don't even consider adoption or fostering to be honest. Maybe I am biased on that because I grew up with one biological parent and one not so personally I feel the 'genetic link' that people want so much to be vastly overrated.
Well, yes and no. It's illegal to have a commercial surrogacy arrangement but I am still worried about how this is developing for several reasons. First because a court has to assess 'reasonable expenses' as these are allowed. These are often in the tens of thousands and it isn't really policed as to what they are being spent on, so it is likely money is changing hands in a form of 'payment'. Second because the Law Commission is looking at surrogacy and whether we should have commercial arrangements. Finally, there was a case last year called Whittington at the Supreme Court that I don't know if anyone is aware of. But basically, the court found that damages could include the price of seeking a commercial surrogacy arrangement abroad. This is not good news to me - they're essentially letting someone have as compensation the price of something that we do not allow here, which doesn't really make sense and I feel is the SC overstepping the mark given that there is legislation preventing commercial surrogacy at present. It's not looking good, I don't think.
Having considered it a bit more I think I did phrase it clumsily by saying "why can't they just adopt" so I'm sorry for that @Inforapenny I certainly didn't mean to imply that adopting is an easy process but the 'just' made it seem like that
All really good points, @judgejohndeed Who covers hospital expenses and consultant visits and that sort of thing. It seems like a messy minefield
All really good points, @judgejohndeed Who covers hospital expenses and consultant visits and that sort of thing. It seems like a messy minefield
Surrogacy is just so problematic for everyone involved. There's instances where the Mum gets stuck with a baby she didn't want if the intended parents change their minds, and there's cases where the Mum wants to keep the baby so the intended parents are left high and dry. It's really not easy. My gut instinct is to say the women who carry those babies should get to decide what happens to them but equally there is obviously some unfairness there on the intended parents, especially if they have paid throughout. But that to me is why it seems like such a bad idea overall - a woman can't possibly know in advance how she's going to feel once she's given birth, and it seems extremely bleeping draconian to make her sign away her baby before it is even formed and then hold her to that later. There's a lot of interesting scholarship around the 'fetal container model' of surrogacy if anyone is interested. One thing I find fascinating is that some people will say if the mother wasn't the egg provider then she has no claim to the baby as it's not biologically hers - except of course that ignores all the things her body has done to nurture that child during pregnancy, it's symbiotic. Women aren't containers for babies even if they aren't the egg provider. Anyway I could legit write another damn PhD on this topic so I will stop but there is a lot of very interesting work on this if anyone is so inclined!
I can’t believe I’m defending Owen Jones but Churchill was responsible for the death of millions in Bengal. (Bengal Famine/Bengal Holocaust).Anyone see the holier than thou trans women are women snot bag that is Owen Jones on GMTV this morning?
He started by saying Winston Churchill allowed the deaths of 3 million people but the public don't 'like facts'
5 mins in he just has to start wheeling out the trans tropes of how badly they're treated, there are no trans journalist blah blah blah but facts only suit him some of the time. It is fact that trans women are not biological women but he cherry picks which facts he accepts.
Moreover an hour before his whinge fest there was a very obvious trans journalist/activist on the same TV show bemoaning about trans rights...which flies in owen Joneses arguement that trans are forgotten about.
Fyi the trans activists was a sorry excuse for a bloke in a pair of dangling earrings (blokes voice, face, stature) ....yes cos that definitely makes you a woman.
And it wasn't even a trans discussion it was conversion therapy for gay kids...trans jumping on the band wagon again.
Anyway we all know what fetish excites Owen Jones, good for him but can he now please go away and be discreet about it. No one needs to know.
For a number of people it’s not that they don’t like “facts” it’s that they have been taught a narrative of idolatry of Churchill as a saviour, and not the less savoury parts of his history. Although for some people, they know full well about what Churchill got up to (Gallipoli anyone?) and still don’t want to confront that he was not a perfect being. Churchill is a good example of how we need to more closely examine our own history and colonial past and what we are teaching/taking away from it.
Owen Jones is a snivelling, self serving misogynist who sold his soul for a Guardian column.
I agree, I think the only way it can really work well is if it is done by a close friend/family member of the couple tbh
yeah I agree about the Churchill thing, of course, what annoyed me was saying "people don't like facts" it is so patronising, I would imagine most people are not aware of such events as we are never taught them at school which is where most people learn basic history, it has nothing to do with ignoring facts
the second tweet really makes it look performative
And what about trans men? Are they immune to male violence because they now identify as men? Christ it sickens me that when talking about trans issues, biological females are ignored. Not surprising though
A friend of mine (who supported me through my grape) is a small-scale influencer and posted some talking stories on IG about Sarah, women and how common assault was etc. I was nodding along, and then her closing statement was "but of course as cisgender women we have no idea what trans women are going through. They are in more danger than we are and we must protect them". I'm bleeping astounded. Someone I've had respect for for years and she's fallen into this. How can anyone with half a brain cell believe trans women are such high risk when all the statistics demonstrates they are not. I'm so disappointed.
I'm frustrated and I don't know what we can do. We are being silenced and simply quoting statistics is now deemed bigotry.
I'm frustrated and I don't know what we can do. We are being silenced and simply quoting statistics is now deemed bigotry.
Your friend has a serious case of factose intolerance
Attachments
- Status