120
HumorIt's Women's History Month: Let the shitshow begin! Let's track receipts of men being promoted as "women" this month.
I thought it would be fun (?) to keep a running thread of the media, businesses, nonprofits, private and public institutions that promote men-as-women in celebration of Women's History Month.
If you run across any type of social media or news story today that promotes men to celebrate Women's History Month, please start us off. [Edit: Let's keep this going for the whole month, and I'll update the list below as the TiMs pour in.]
This dude. Thanks to the sexists at Library of Congress.
This dude. Thanks to the sexists at Hershey's.
This dude. Celebrating men in female powerlifting, idiotic head coach of the Minnesota Lynx, Cheryl Reeve played handmaiden today.
More dudes celebrated for Women's History Month by the sexists at UTA who have chosen to screen the documentary Disclosure (supposedly about transgender representation in Hollywood, but when you watch the trailer it looks like 99% men).
More dudes centered during Women's History Month in a statement by Executive Director and President of SEIU503, a union in Oregon for care-workers (so mostly women). I wonder if they would honor a request for a female care worker by a vulnerable patient.
More dude inclusion at the events (some of which are highly cringe) listed for the monthly programming at Old Dominion University.
If we celebrate women this month, we have to make sure the word can't be defined, otherwise we might exclude men. According to Netflix, women are "beyond definition."
More dudes honored this month by the Sonoma County Library system (California) who have decided that men can be women and that, heck, if we're talking about women this month, then of course "non-binaries" are also relevant.
We MUST INCLUDE THE DUDES according to Pramila Jayapal, Congressmember for Washington state district 7, who insists in this tweet.
Random dude we should consider "trailblazing" this month according to WX11 News.
Dudes must be front and center for Women's History Month, thanks to the sexists who run Apple Podcasts.
Two dudes repping for Victoria's Secret's "woMaN iS uNdeFInABle" marketing campaign this month. But what more would we expect from a brand run by billionaire perv Les Wexner who was close friends with Jeff Epstein up until his death?
This gross AGP dude again - allowed to transplain womanhood for IWD, thanks to the sexists at the Independent who know this bullshit drives clicks.
More dudes getting rammed down our throats for IWD by social media platform @feminist - owned by two opportunistic tech bros Jacob Castaldi and Tanner Sweitzer who also run @chnge (clothing company) @march @itsfeminism.
Another dude included for the month of March series on athletes called "Like a Girl" produced by sexists at Fuse Media. Apparently, they believe as long as a man gets hair extensions, he plays sports "like a girl."
Another skinwalking AGP dude who isn't allowed to see his kids celebrated this month by the sexists at University College Dublin.
Three beastly dudes honored by the sexists at Storycorp this month.
Second sighting of Imara Jones, big ol' dude, this time featured by the sexists at PBS as part of their March line up.
More dudes for Women's History Month from PenisNews (but not unexpected).
To mark IWD 2023, another dude speaking for women, hosted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. He advocates killing TERFs: "Cis women need to deal with TERFs, not just us. And by deal with I mean make them terrified and their lives a misery! Hand holding does not work, trust us. They made their choice. They need to be smashed out of existence!!! Be anti-terf!!!"
Jill Biden gives award to a DUDE for IWD. Looks like he could snap her like a twig.
Notorious handmaiden Megan Rapino dedicates her TIME ' Woman of the Year' award to dudes.
Text from the judgement summary (emphasis original):
"2200909/2019 Maya Forstater v (1) CGD Europe (2) Center for Global Development (3) Masood Ahmed
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
Important notice for press and public: this summary forms no part of the Tribunal’s decision. It I provided so as to assist the press and the public to understand what the Tribunal has decided.
This case was decided against the background of the previous decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that Ms Forstater’s belief (described in shorthand terms as “gender critical belief”) is protected under the Equality Act 2010. The present decision does not therefore involve any assessment of that belief. It is concerned with the complaints of discrimination and victimisation based on that belief.
The Employment Tribunal has decided that the following of Ms Forstater’s complaints under the Equality Act are well-founded:
Direct discrimination because of belief by a decision not to offer her a contract of employment.
Direct discrimination because of belief by a decision not to renew her Visiting Fellowship.
Victimisation by the removal of her profile from the Respondents’ website.
Three other complaints, two of direct discrimination and one of victimisation, were unsuccessful.
The Tribunal’s decision in relation to the successful complaints involves a finding that Ms Forstater was at the relevant time employed in the limited Equality Act sense (similar to being a “worker” under other legislation) by CGD Europe (“CGD(E)”) and Center for Global Development (“CGD”). She was employed under a contract to provide services under the terms of which CGD(E) and CGD were not clients or customers of a business or profession of hers.
The Tribunal found that the decisions not to offer Ms Forstater a full contract of employment and not to renew her Visiting Fellowship were taken at least in part because of her belief, and therefore amounted to direct discrimination. The reasons for deciding this include a finding that the way in which Ms Forstater expressed her belief, in particular in tweets, was not such that objection could reasonably be taken to it, when considered in the context of the ongoing debate.
On the complaint of victimisation, the Tribunal found that CGD(E) and CGD had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the removal of Ms Forstater’s profile from their website, against the background of her recent previous allegations that she had been discriminated against. The Tribunal applied the provisions in the Equality Act about the burden of proof, and found that Ms Forstater had been victimised because of her previous allegations.
Remedies are to be determined at a future hearing."