Lifted from the comments, via Mr Muldoon, a rather coy omission:
A less pretentious, and rather more frank, account of the above can be found here. Note that Mr Tickle – Roxy Tickle – was enabled in his mission by the University of New South Wales, via a $50,000 grant, and that his methods of persuasion included equating insufficiently compliant women with the Ku Klux Klan, and making phone calls to the site’s owner at her home.
When not suing women who would rather not participate in his fantasies of sudden-onset womanhood, Mr Tickle spends his time sharing Instagram photographs of his underwear and neck hair, and cartoon sex toys.
Readers are invited to imagine the mindset of Amnesty International and their fellow enthusiasts of transgression. A mindset in which you have to pointedly not share an obviously relevant piece of information in order to maintain the pretence of righteousness:
Or, “If we let them see the reality of the situation, they won’t comply. So we mustn’t let them see the reality of the situation.”
Imagine that’s your thought process, consciously or otherwise.
A more honest and realistic report might say, “Weirdly vindictive cross-dressing man launches three-year-long harassment campaign against women who object to the imposition of his compulsions – namely, making women and girls uncomfortable for his own gratification.”
Or, “Weirdly vindictive cross-dressing men who exult in violating the normal boundaries of women and girls are an obvious danger, and should be regarded accordingly.”
Something along those lines.
Update, via the comments,
Mags asks,
“Roxy Tickle.” Why do they always have porn names?
Once registered, it is an oddly common phenomenon.
Pst314 adds,
Tickle is a living reminder that some people should be discriminated against.
Well, the blunting of normal, quite rational discernment does seem to be the goal. As Ms Grover put it,
If you’ve got a man in a female only space, you’re dealing with someone who has no respect for boundaries. You’re already dealing with a predator. Good men don’t go into female spaces. Female spaces exist to protect us from the men who want to go in.
I would suggest that compelling people, with the force of law, to pretend that men are actually women, and compelling them to deny the reality that, as a group, cross-dressing men pose a significant statistical threat, is itself unjust. To impose unrealism in this way, to suppress discernment of the obvious, is hardly benign. To compel people to pretend that, as the judge put it, “sex is changeable.”
And so, in the name of protecting women, and as a result of amending laws intended to protect women, women must now welcome intrusions and dangers that would previously have been recognised, but which now, it seems, no longer can be, at least not lawfully. Not only in terms of a social media app used by women to find roommates and travel companions, but also with implications for changing rooms, toilets, sports, prisons, and even rape shelters.
But, ah, smell the progress.
Recent Comments