You've been looking in the wrong direction, the dangers are coming from the Left - read OP

I (no one can) can't look through your posts to see if you ever hinted or stated that trans people don't exist. Stop being disingenuous.

Here's a link (that you won't read) about what is a trans person, as you seem very confused about the situation altogether.

It's a quirk of desktop vs mobile. There's no link on desktop for previous comments but there is a link on mobile.

Apologies, there’s nothing wrong with your profile. As nachouser pointed out:

Who knew wearing fishnets and leather makes a person trans 🤣

At the risk of disagreeing with you (it was me btw), and don’t get me wrong, I like you, so don’t take it personally, but I don’t think it was particularly prescient as Richard weighs in on everything these days that’s trending on Twitter as a means of staying relevant in a world where he is, frankly, no longer relevant.

I suggest you prepare yourself as I’m ‘bout to tear the arse out of the joke, and that’s never fun, but anyway - yes, the ‘punch them in the face’ IS a meme, an Internet meme, in much the way that Dawkins illuminated the concept. He coined the term ‘meme’, but takes no credit for the original concept which is as old as the Ancient World.

A quick Google is all that was necessary for those who weren’t familiar with the meme, and for those who imagined it was literal, well there’s no helping those people - they already heard what they wanted to hear and weren’t interested in engaging their critical faculties.

Some of those people, such as Murray and Dawkins, while it’s plausible to suggest they’re old farts who are out of touch with reality and popular culture, it’s more likely they intentionally ignore the context in which the joke was made in order to further their attempts to induce moral panic in society about the threats posed to civilised society by being indifferent to an ideology which they do not share. It’s quite a common tactic - pick any ideology you’re opposed to, and then associate the worst of human behaviours with that ideology, and the rest takes care of itself. I’ve no doubt you can think of numerous examples.

Aaaanyways, the context in which the joke was made is this -

'I was gonna come here and be really fluffy and be really nice and say yeah be really lovely and queer and gay... Nah, if you see a TERF, punch them in the f****** face.' 

Initially, the idea is in keeping with Dawkins perception of womanhood, that women are all fluffy and nice and would never use such language and all the rest of it, but the speaker switches it up and subverts expectations, and that’s where the joke lies. They initially conform to common social stereotypes associated with femininity, but then subvert those expectations and stereotypes with an emphasis on an entirely different set of stereotypes and expectations of femininity.

I don’t know about Dawkins and Murray’s exposure to ideas which didn’t conform to their beliefs, but I dare say their experiences of girls and women are so limited that they can only imagine the version of femininity which suits themselves, and the idea of a girl or a woman who isn’t all fluffy and nice is an affront to their expectations, so much so that they imagine that someone who does not conform to their expectations must not be a woman. It’s difficult to say whether they are actually genuinely so cloistered, or whether their indignation is a pretence, a facade…

But, maybe it is possible that they have never encountered a woman who embodies the stereotype of the Irish Mammy, you know, the woman who would chase after you with a wooden spoon or a rolling pin, ram a soupspoon of cod liver oil down your throat and tell you it’s good for you, call you “a fart of a bastard” if she’d ran a bath for herself and when she went to get a towel you took the opportunity to enjoy a hot bath for the first time in your life, ruining the experience for her… or maybe that was just my mother, I don’t know 🤔

The point is anyway, that the idea of femininity isn’t just one single collection of ideals from which anyone can pick and choose to claim that their choices constitute a ‘real’ or ‘genuine woman’ as Dawkins puts it. Or maybe he’s just never read the book or seen the film adaptation of Gone With The Wind; Vivien Leigh is mesmerising, inspiring even, to a child of a certain age. I don’t know if either Dawkins or Murray have ever read Frankenstein, which polarised critics at the time of its publication, some who called it “a tissue of disgusting absurdity”.

Upon discovering the author was a young woman, some people reacted in pretty much the same manner as Murray and Dawkins; that it wasn’t possible, there must be some other explanation, that it must have been the work of her husband, but they were having none of it -

”The writer of it is, we understand, a female; this is an aggravation of that which is the prevailing fault of the novel; but if our authoress can forget the gentleness of her sex, it is no reason why we should; and we shall therefore dismiss the novel without further comment".

Imagine a world deprived of one of the greatest works of English literature because some crusty old farts determined the author was not a ‘genuine woman’? It should put this incident into perspective - it was a joke, and while there are a couple of explanations I can think of which would explain why some people don’t appear to have understood that it was a joke, the most likely explanation is that they are deliberately trying to present the incident out of context in order to portray it as an example of the threat to civilised society posed by people they were already prejudiced against before this incident even occurred.

I wouldn’t call it prescient, just prejudice, in that they go looking for examples of evidence to support their claims, and when there isn’t any evidence to support their claims, they’ll invent and fabricate evidence to support their claims, often by deliberate misrepresentation of circumstances and absence of context in order to form a persuasive narrative.

It’s often more simply referred to as propaganda, and there are many examples of the phenomenon throughout human history. It’s not as though the Church invented the concept, it existed long before they did, they just used it to portray gay men as predators and child molesters. When it emerged that the Church were protecting predators and child molesters, I found myself among people who were using the same propaganda tactics to portray Catholics as being predators and child molesters, and that’s why I’m always reminded of this meme -

It’s a joke btw, just in case anyone is determined to take it literally 😒

Yourself and Richard must have lead a sheltered life 🤣