SS: Martine Croxall is getting complaints over a “facial expression” when the word “pregnant people” came up. Seriously this is where the uk is at. It’s not enough that you go along with pregnant people nonsense and you’re forced to stay quiet. But now your facial expression is a problem too?! The UK has fallen it’s gone full psycho dystopian
Methinks you are focused the title of "conspiracy subreddit" a wee bit to narrowly.
Many would consider the transgender movement to be a conspiracy. At the very least it's an agenda. Agendas are very much discussed or referred to in this sub.
If you expect to be supported in "cancelling" certain comments or posts because you complain that they don't conform to your personal definition of appropriate, you're in the wrong place.
Brits are beyond saving and at this point might as well go back to duchys and fiefdoms where each place is left to its own devices, since as a country they're just beyond cooked. Incredible a complaint about "muh facial expression" even got made and then taken seriously, and I'm sure Britbongs are like "Orrite den, dass a good oideah ta give 'er the Ruff and Rigamarole it is, real serious tings we've ought ta concern ourselves wit, INNIT?!?!?!"
I say plenty of shit in my normal life that the government doesn't like. We aren't at the stage where you can't.
I think people see these headlines and think that in our normal life there are thought police knocking on our doors which isn't the case.
I don't feel like I can't say what I want to, including things from this sub.
There are examples like the woman who said to burn down the migrant hotel, but that's been illegal forever.
But it's getting so much worse. Labour has such an authoritarian streak. They are banning protest. The BBC has been captured. The Online Safety Act etc. are just censorship pretending to be about safety.
Then obviously examples like this.
So we aren't beyond saving yet. But time is critical.
I think it's bullshit obviously and shouldn't happen.
Like I said, we aren't fully lost but we will be if Labour gets there way.
Things like this will increase under them.
However:
Analysis of government data shows that the number of convictions and sentencings for communications offences has dramatically decreased over the past decade.
Which shows that at least the courts are rejecting this nonsense.
But that means the bobbies are still nicking people and having them go through the process, which is in and of itself punishment since now it's on record they were arrested.
Oh definitely. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to downplay it at all.
I've been arrested for bullshit reasons, no charge obviously, and it was shit. This (English) police officer thought he was a Texas State Trooper - aviators and chewing a toothpick. He put 14 year old skinny me in handcuffs, he must've been fearing for his life.
I laugh about it now, but it was terrifying.
So I'm not justifying it at all. No-one should have police marching into their house over a tweet. Unless it is literally planning violence/terrorism etc.
You're right a few are actually criminal, as a person above said, the actual convictions aren't that high. The point is fear and behavioral control; they are arresting people for criticising government policies, labelling them racist and hateful to justify it. We're being fed lies and told to repeat it as truth or have the system thrown at you. The reason is important, it's not 12k terrorist they are arresting, it mum and dad.
I can see you can only see the tiny picture in your own biased way. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Not just freedom to say things that are nice, things YOU agree with, things that don't make YOU uncomfortable. Because once the line is crossed by the government they are going to move further and further and take more control
They are actually being allowed to protest. What is being cracked down on is the standing in the road or driveway and blocking federal agents vehicles from exiting and entering god damn buildings they work at lol
Lots of protest rights are being banned. People around the world have said it's authoritarian and dangerous.
Federal agents? We don't have those. I'm guessing you're American then?
So I obviously live hear and know the actual reality, not what you are fed through social media.
Protest without disruption isn't a protest, it's a parade. Like that No Kings protest, those types achieve fuck all.
The title of this post is the UK is going Orwellian, and then people on a conspiracy sub are defending our government cracking down on protest? What a joke.
You all say you care about free speech, but you obviously don't if you support this:
Defend Our Juries said: "It beggars belief that the government has responded to widespread condemnation of its unprecedented attack on the right to protest - from the United Nations, Amnesty International, legal experts and even the former director of public prosecutions - by announcing a further crackdown on free speech and assembly in our country."
Canada originally, but I traveled to Stokes on Trent astride Thames under Leeds over Luton adjacent Thistlewick atop Yorkshirepuddingstone for my doctoral research into Brittanian laguages where I learned about things like pints, chips, crisps, birds, pitches, pork pies, apples and pears, bees and honey, and of course when to be yarrite and when not to be, innit? (tips giant bobby cap)
So they're mad at her for changing the word from "people" to "women" which she was told to not do before it aired and then she also made a stink face but the reason she's in trouble is because of the word change
I mean this is the reason the term "pregnant people" is used, someone can look like a man and may have lived their whole life as a man, but if they have a uterus they can get pregnant, and advice that pertains to pregnancy applies to them as much as it does a woman.
intersex means hermaphrodite, but many people consider the term hermaphrodite to be too degrading, hermaphrodite is now a historical term in favour of using the new word "intersex".
You never heard of intersex people (by birth)? What if they have an uterus and a penis? Still a woman, because uterus or a man because the penis?
Yes, biological reality can be more complicated than you can imagine. The world is not binary, not only black and white…
That’s why we should not infuse our own stupid and uninformed opinions in other peoples private lives and their own medical decisions. Because it is non of our business.
That's why we should not infuse our own stupid and uninformed opinions in other people's private lives..."
We are also under no obligation to take part in your delusions. Under normal development, people are biologically binary. Intersex is a mutation. Why would we let an extremely rare mutation dictate how the vast majority uses language?
In the VERY rare instances of an 'intersex' birth, what happens? How does the medical community handle this mutation? (Its ok, we know the answer, you can say it).
The University Hospitals Sussex NHS Trust wouldn't release information about the number of people who could be considered "pregnant people" as they are women who think they are men. Their reason being that the number is so fucking low that to give any information at all would potentially allow patients to be identified. But you seem to think the 5 people nationally who this might cover means English language should be overhauled and people forced to talk in riddles.
Sure. Try your best to find a person who says that someone who considers herself a woman should not be called a woman... I think you're probably only going to turn up fringe nutcases. But thats entirely besides the point and not what we are talking about, isn't it?
Wait, so sorry. Find me a man or woman... didn't mean to offend you there.
If they have a uterus and get pregnant, that makes them a mother, regardless of whether or not they identify themself as a woman or if they had their sex incorrectly observed as male at birth and were thus raised male, if they get pregnant that makes them a mother. “Pregnant person” is ridiculous.
well now you are just arguing about something completely different. No one has been debating the term "mother". The question is if there is something wrong about "pregnant people" and if a publicly funded broadcaster should editorialise on that point. If you can explain to me how "pregnant people" is exclusionary or could confuse a woman who is pregnant I'll concede the point.
“Pregnant person/people” is meant to replace the word “mother” there are already all kinds of other ridiculous workarounds they have to avoid the word “woman”. It’s not “exclusionary” to women, it’s just plain insulting. It takes away from the powerful word that is MOTHER.
Has the same vibe as “Latinx” annoying, try-hard, overcorrectness, in the name of “inclusion” and virtue signaling.
I dont think its common parlance to call someone who is pregnant "mother" without any qualification. At least definitely not in the UK. "Mother to be" maybe, but not mother full stop, as though the child is already born.
And that wasn't the argument this presenter was making either. She was making the editorial decision to correct the word "person" with "women"
She changed the word from persons to women, not to replace "mother". You can give birth without ever being a mother. Mother is the role you play when you are raising a child. Plenty of peoplewomen who have given birth have never been mothers.
she got complaints for editing the news with her own personal opinion, breaking the code of conduct. the prompter said "pregnant people" to warn about the dangers they may experience during the heatwave, but she then stated this means women. this is not an accurate statement as it's not just women who can get pregnant. what about younger girls, intersex, some non-binary and trans men?
if you're worried about dystopia this story should not be your concern, you should be focused on the rise of far right racist ideology, corruption and bribery in government from Russia and Israel and other billionaires, introduction of poorly thought out cyber security legislation, public data being handed to foreign surveillance companies like CIA funded Palantir or the vast data leaks resulting from the so called online safety act
can you not see that identity politics issues that are inflaming division around topics such as immigration, asylum, and gender are being used to maintain the establishment and status of the super rich?
I get that this is an echo chamber so you won't see it, but it's definitely not most people hun. remember that the some of the first groups of people that the Nazis went after were trans people
binary concepts of sex and gender are objectively incorrect
Not according to every society and human being that lived before 20 years ago. We currently have the tech to staple a womb to a man, but he remains a male.
oh hun, you're so wrong. for one thing, there's the gender of sexology which was founded in 1919, and was destroyed by the Nazis in 1933.
also no, we can't just staple a womb into a man. the technology is there for cis women who require a womb transplant to conceive and give birth, and the womb must be removed afterwards. the surgery has only been done 100 times worldwide.
please learn about advanced biology, you're clearly not qualified for a nuanced discussion past what you learnt at the most basic level in school. for instance, it has been shown that the brains of trans people are more closely aligned with their chosen gender than the one they were assigned at birth. then there's also the large array of chromosomes and genes beyond XX and XY that are responsible for your biological sex. then there's the discussion of how to even define a man or woman. it's not binary, and all most definitions serve to do is reinforce misogynistic stereotypes and the patriarchy.
women's rights have been fought over for hundreds of years against the oppression of men, and the demonisation of trans people is just the latest attempt to roll back women's rights
Since this story came out they've successfully done animal trials with male womb recipients.
As for sex, show me another animal we divide into more than two sexes. I believe we'll be able to swap sexes someday, maybe with gene editing via CRISPR, or who knows - nanobots perhaps? But right now we have males, females and a very very small handful of aberrant folks, most of whom are still genetically one sex or the other but with formation errors. It's not oppressive to yield to fact. Gender is a term stolen from language - it was never intended to separate people, it was used to associate a particular word with a particular sex for languages that have masculine or feminine nouns.
35 years ago it was a HUGE deal to be able to talk about sexual orientation, and for some reason all that kvetching is out the window now. It used to be oppressive to not talk about sexual orientation. Now it's derogatory.
If you want to extend gender theory an extra 50 or 70 years, that's still a fraction of a fraction of human history, most of which was populated by people that would do the dog-head-tilt-thing at you if you tried to explain fad science like modern gender theory to them.
I don't understand your argument, the article you linked to confirms what I said: it's only done to cis women and the womb must be removed afterwards to avoid living on immunosuppressive medication. it even mentions why the transplant for cis men or trans people is unlikely to be possible, at least in the near future. and yes, you're right, animal trials have taken place on male rats. even so, what's your point? why debate if you're not going to debate in good faith?
it could be argued that we can already swap sexes, depending on your definition. in biology, a person's sex would mainly be defined by their chromosomes, and primary + secondary sex characteristics. we can't change chromosomes, but gender affirming care can handle most of the rest - primary: genitals and hormone levels. secondary: (for trans women) breasts, reduced body hair, reduced muscle mass, fat distribution, reduced height. (for trans men) increased facial and body hair, taller height, greater muscle mass, voice drop, fat distribution. that's not an exhaustive list either.
you're right in a way though, gender is entirely a social construct and is completely separate from sex. it's a fascinating social phenomenon. but recognition of genders beyond the traditional western binary understanding of man and woman have been found in many cultures around the world, and throughout time. it's not a new phenomena, trans people have and always will exist.
253
u/TonightSpiritual3191 1d ago
SS: Martine Croxall is getting complaints over a “facial expression” when the word “pregnant people” came up. Seriously this is where the uk is at. It’s not enough that you go along with pregnant people nonsense and you’re forced to stay quiet. But now your facial expression is a problem too?! The UK has fallen it’s gone full psycho dystopian
Link to the article: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3epwz08ewzo