A majority doesn’t need special provisions for safeguarding its rights. A minority does.
It relies on everyone’s help to make sure its rights aren’t denied or abused. That’s why I hope you’ll join Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in making a resolute stand on the issue of WWP rights…
Hold on a second. Are you telling me you don’t even know what WWP stands for? That only goes to show how little respect you have for the founding tenets of British democracy.
You must be one of those complacent individuals who take their rights for granted and ignore Goethe’s immortal words: “Of freedom and of life he only is deserving who every day must conquer them anew.”
In other words, if you fail to uphold WWP rights, you risk losing your own. So start by learning what WWP is.
It’s Women With Penises, a minority whose rights are stamped in the dirt every time a WWP is denied entry into so-called safe spaces: women’s lavatories, changing rooms – and yes, showers at my tennis club. Luckily Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is led by a man who is prepared to tackle this challenge, the gravest one the nation faces.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sir Keir Starmer: “’For the vast majority of women this is all about biology and of course they don’t have a penis.
“We all know that and of course they need safe spaces and we’ll support that. But there is a small minority of individuals who are born in a gender they don’t now identify with.
“Some go through a process, others don’t, and that is traumatic for them and I respect and support them.
“[For] 99.99% of women it’s all biology, we must support their safe spaces, but let’s not disparage or fail to support the small group of people who struggle with their gender identity and I think we can resolve this if we all approach it in that spirit.”
Sir Keir’s commitment is so unequivocal that he is prepared to fight even for those rights that seem to be mutually exclusive. “Of course they need safe places,” he says, talking about WWOPs, Women Without Penises. At the same time, we mustn’t “fail to support the small group of people who struggle with their gender identity.” Perhaps we should let WWPs in and then kick them out immediately.
WWOPs don’t like the idea of WWPs entering their dressing rooms for two reasons. One is physical, the other metaphysical.
The metaphysical reason is outdated modesty: they don’t want WWPs to see their nudity, partial or total. But this only means they refuse to accept WWPs as fully fledged women. This suggests a bias, a preconceived notion that has no place in our progressive society. Hence this objection must be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.
The physical reason deserves more attention. WWOPs are afraid that a WWP may use the P part of her designation to rape them. And one has to admit with chagrin that isolated instance of such rapes have indeed been reported.
Yet by the same token a danger also exists that a lesbian WWOP may also rape a heterosexual WWOP in the very same dressing room from which troglodytes wish to ban WWPs. Moreover, since lesbians greatly outnumber WWPs, that risk is statistically much greater.
You may argue that at least lesbian rape lacks a penetrative aspect, but this would only deepen the hole of troglodyte views you’ve dug for yourself. This argument proves that you’ve never seen the inside of a progressive sex shop, whereas even a flying visit would teach you that a genuine P is no prerequisite for sexual penetration.
So what are we going to do? Slam the door of every women’s lavatory in the face of any woman who can’t prove her heterosexuality or absence of penis? And how do we propose she could prove that? (Nothing from you, I know what you’re going to say.)
Now we are beginning to understand Sir Keir’s conundrum. On the one hand, he wants to protect WWOPs from rape. That means keeping WWPs out. On the other hand, he wants to respect WWPs’ rights to go wherever they please. That means letting them in.
I can see only one solution: passing a law eliminating all differences between, or rather among, sexes. We are all one sex or gender (a semantic nuance that escapes me, this side of grammatical categories): human.
Any of us may enter any space we wish, safe or otherwise. Yes, that may increase the risk of rape. But who said that a fight for freedom should involve no risks and sacrifices? Our forebears had to die for us to have the rights we enjoy, and here we are, whinging about the remote possibility of a WWP raping a WWOP here and there?
Let’s hear it for Sir Keir Starmer, the last bastion of rights still standing. And aren’t you happy to know that we have no problems more pressing than WWP rights to occupy the attention of our politicians?
Skyrocketing inflation, cost of living and crime rate; the possibility of a nuclear war; the sorry state of public finances; education replaced with indoctrination – none of these exists in Britain. One only wonders how this blissful period will be viewed by our descendants centuries from now.
They’ll note that, in the first quarter of the 21st century, Britain had many women with penises. And no politicians with balls.
P.S. The Mirth of a Nation: The dictionary of Cockney rhyming slang is about to receive a new entry, “Don’t be such a Jeremy”. Every few months a TV interviewer hilariously mispronounces the surname of Jeremy Hunt, MP. An easy mistake to make, in his case.
P.P.S. Is it just me, or is there something incongruous about a Socialist politician being called ‘Sir Keir’? Wrong honorific, surely? ‘Comrade’ is much more appropriate.
A LOCKER ROOM or a public toilet is now a sanctuary where men can openly expose their private parts to a female and not be arrested? This swimmer guy runs around the locker room naked in front of the females and no one arrests him?
The right has moved so far to the left that there’s nothing left for Labour to do except argue over who is the most oppressed minority.
Sir Keir seems like a good chap to me. A steady hand, not like that Corbyn fellow.
I admit you stumped me with WWP – I had no idea. But it sort of forces us to ask then, what is a woman? Fortunately, Matt Walsh has produced a documentary entitled “What is a Woman?” in which he interviews “authorities” on this subject. Unfortunately, none of them can define “woman”. They are unable to define it biologically, of course, because they pretend both sexes can be a “woman”. Then that forces us to ask, what exactly are men pretending to be women (WWP) actually pretending to be? Warning: do not watch the documentary unless you can stomach the most insane non-answers you could possibly imagine, and faked hysteria upon hearing certain words.
Let’s keep it simple. A woman is anyone who self-identifies as such. Such paraphernalia as penises, five o’clock shadows, basso voices and men’s watches are irrelevant. So if a chap who looks like Charles Bronson at his best says he’s a woman, that’s it. And if you disagree, well, no punishment is too harsh.
All this begs the question, are there MWOV (men without vaginas) and MWV?
Yes on both counts. Need you ask?