TERFS vs Womanhood

Before I begin I want to clarify a couple of things...

First, I am not a feminist of any kind. I am an egalitarian.
People are people and NO ONE should have more rights than another. [all people are equally bloody awful]
I have a bunch of issues with a lot of forms of feminism, most notably the concept of a patriarchy that oppresses women at every turn. OBVIOUSLY there are communities & cultures that applies to but hearing privileged white western females complaining how hard done by they are (while advocating a feminism that has no place for people like me*) sticks in the craw.
I grew up in the UK - born in 1978 my youth was shaped by a very female led society:

• Queen Elizabeth II
• Margaret Thatcher
• Female teachers (out of 4 schools I recall less than 10 male staff)
• Female GPs, ophthalmologists & hospital staff (I had lots of eye appointments in my youth)... fairly sure the only male medical pros I encountered were dentists.

Moira Stewart reading the news, Gloria Hunniford on the radio, Madonna was the queen of pop, women were going into space, I could name more female 80s sportspersons than male (Fatima Whitbread, Tessa Sanderson, Jane Torvill) - it literally never crossed my mind that being 'a girl' was in any way shape or form a barrier to doing ANYTHING.
Yes, I know that's not everyone's experience but why precisely would I have thought men were in charge of anything?!

The second point is that I am AGENDER* (https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/5145961804380033180
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2373217817352024212) - I am biologically female and have birthed offspring from my own unmentionables - but I absolutely DO NOT ascribe to this concept of womanhood, sisterhood, female solidarity. My experiences are my own and not dictated by my genitalia.
The idea that because I have no Y chromosome / am possessed of a uterus / have a tendency to wear bras (or any other criterion for femaleness you might come up with) should have ANY impact on my world view or life experience seems ludicrous.

So what is it that I want to say about TERFs you ask?
Well, obviously I do not identify as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist but that is not to say I don't have an issue with the contentious Gender Recognition Act.

First up I absolutely support Trans rights. EVERYONE should be able to live their life free of oppression, hatred and disenfranchisement.
Secondly I absolutely support the concept of gender recognition being de-medicalised. The current system is INSANE.

Personally, I would like to see gender recognition done via a solicitor in the same way as a Deed Poll document changes a person's name for all official purposes. I changed my name age 15 by common usage in 1993 and by Deed Poll circa 1999 for a passport.
Three gender options: male, female, non-binary. Can only be changed every six months or so. Great solution!
This would be suitably easy yet official, and would rule out the principal objections to 'self identification' that a good number of 'women' (who are promptly ostracised from the debate as TERFs) not unreasonably have (more about that in a sec).
What a lot of TERFs / cis people at least CLAIM to fear is that predators will hide behind legislation which is genuinely needed to protect trans people. It is the FORM this legislation takes that needs some proper thinking about. And successive gov'ts have not shown themselves to be any good with the joined-up-thinking. For example, civil partnerships were introduced in the UK without a procedure in place to dissolve the union. 

These objections are founded in fear and habit.
Females of the species (NOT just CIS women) have for generations experienced certain 'special treatments' - women are routinely given lighter jail sentences, women's prisons frequently have far better living conditions than male jails, women are given preferential treatment in domestic violence cases and child custody hearings. THIS IS SEXISM. Even though I or my female offspring could benefit I DO NOT APPROVE.
I have blogged before about this:
(https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2393350157861380543)

HOWEVER, some 'perks' of womanhood exist for solid reasons, such as:

• sex segregated toilets
• sex segregated changing rooms
• sex segregated hospital wards
• refuges

I have no objection whatsoever with an 'actual' trans person using any of these spaces and I abhor people who do have a problem with that. Women can be assaulted by women, men can be assaulted by men. What nobody should want is a scared mum being charged for gender discrimination for challenging the person who only chooses to identify as a woman to perv over kids in the swimming pool changing room. I personally think it is that loophole of self-identification that worries people.
You notice I specify 'sex segregated' here? As an agender person I take no offence at using the facility assigned to my biological gender both for my own protection and for the security of those around me. I do realise that others experience this differently but the point that it is not just for your own comfort or safety is, I feel, important.
I have experienced some odd gender moments - being challenged by a man as to why I was 'following' him (I was walking to work the same route), having a man be extremely embarrassed when I walked in on him in the loo (I was a cleaned, doing my job) - the idea that men feel no embarrassment or vulnerability is frankly ludicrous; they often treasure their single sex spaces as much as women do. Men want to feel some protection from bogus allegations of assault and to feel safe when they pee.

Over and over I hear that 'trans people aren't a threat' and it's certainly true that a trans person is far more likely to be a victim of violence. However, being trans is not, in itself, proof of goodness or innocence.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
Saying 'a trans person wouldn't rape' is as dumb as claiming female paedophiles don't exist or that children can't kill. I believe that ALL people need their rights and safety protected as far as is feasible. 

Another issue I have is the erasure of womanhood - even though I don't buy into it myself.
Not so long ago women had to fight to be able to buy sanitary products freely (you used to have to ask in the chemist and be handed a plain brown papered package because menstruation was shameful). I am all for the erasure of the insidious PINK of 'feminine' products (I mean WTF with the pink OUIJA BOARD?! (https://dangerousminds.net/comments/hasbros_new_ouija_board_for_girls) 
Now it's all 'people who menstruate' and 'we're pregnant' and IVF being taught in gender neutral terminology. 
I am all for inclusivity BUT when we're talking about things which are exclusive to biological females being stripped of that recognition is very discomforting.
When I was pregnant *I* was pregnant, not the man whose (ahem) contribution was over in 5 minutes. I've heard IVF dads rant against that use of 'we' when they're not going through all those invasive tests, procedures, hundreds of injections... Obviously there is no simple solution to the terminology but I can see why feminists are pissy.

Women fought for generations for recognition and now they're being erased from the narrative. Cis women are the bulk of female identifying people and now they're being just as 'misgendered' as the small number of disenfranchised trans / non-binary / agender / gender fluid etc people under the previous system. How is that right or fair?!

Generation RANT

A tweet I saw today (04/03/20):

“Young people are so privileged” says member of generation

that bought up all the houses on the cheap and got free uni education

and loads of free shit and voted to remove young people’s rights

and opportunities and burnt up the planet so young people are screwed.

I disagree with this on so many levels. Buckle yourselves in - RANT AHOY!

Generations 101:
LOST GENERATION born 1883-1900 (currently dead)
GREATEST GENERATION born 1901-1927 (currently 93+)
SILENT GENERATION born 1928-1945 (currently 75-92)
BABY BOOMERS born 1946-1964 (currently 56-74)
GEN X born 1965-1980* (currently 40-55)
MILLENNIALS born 1981-1996* (currently 24-39)
GEN Z born 1997-2010* (currently 10-23)
ALPHA GENERATION born 2011 or after (currently 9 and under)
* dates disputed

For the record my parents are Silent Generation (1942 & 1944) I'm Gen X (1978) my eldest is a Millennial (1996) and my youngest is Gen Z (1999)

Disclaimer: this rant is from a British perspective - I am well aware that the generations in other nations struggle with entirely different issues.

1) Young people are so privileged
Well, lets see... today's young person usually comes from a smaller, wealthier family than their parents' generation, they have better education, better diets, better health, longer life expectancies... Today's young people have greater legal protections and better working conditions than ever before so, yeah. Privileged. More on this topic to follow.
The theme of younger people blaming the older generation for their woes, and conversely older people bitching about how easy the younger generation has it, are timeless - go look at Aristophanes' The Wasps (circa 446-386 BCE) for a generational conflict over two-thousand years old. There is eff-all unique about this.
It is basic, timeless human nature: parents always think their kids have it easy (and in many ways they do) and kids always think their parents fucked it all up (and in many ways they did) - each generation has different difficulties and challenges, that is the way of the world. One day you will be the older generation and to blame for every complaint the current youth have.

2) says member of generation
Right, can I just stop you right there. Being a member of a particular generation does not automatically follow that you have lived a life with any particular privileges. 
My generation largely grew up in the thriving 90s - boom years for many but especially hard on those of us who were welfare dependent - no food banks in those days! (And let's just mention here that the supposedly blessed Silent / Boomer generations had to deal with dig for victory and rationing!) 
From that perspective today's youth ARE privileged because so much is available, and not just in terms of food. In my youth if you wanted to know a thing it was hours of research at the library IF your parents let you go, now immense amounts of information are just a click away and accessible everywhere... so long as you have the tech, which not everyone can afford.
'Available' is a loaded word because whilst it might be present not everyone has it. Not every household in the '60s had indoor plumbing, not every household in the '80s had a phone, and here I am in 2020 still sans automobile. Don't assume the two are synonymous.

3) that bought up all the houses on the cheap
Yes, houses were cheaper in the past and even allowing for lower wages and so on have you SEEN what interest rates were like in the 80s and 90s?! Also, if they hadn't bought those houses what would you be living in? If your landlord hadn't bought that property for you to rent would you expect it to still be sitting there, in livable condition, at a 1970s price?! If people HADN'T invested in property there'd be a lot of people living in squats and a lot of those homes would be rotting shells.
Seriously though, if people hadn't bought property in the past where would the youth of today be? I have a roof over my head because my parents invested in property, my daughter works in property rentals, my youngest is renting in an investment property at uni.
And here comes another privileged generation comment: back when your parents or grandparents or landlords bought their house or investment properties (dependent on specific dates, obviously) here are some of the other things they may have been contending with: 

• No minimum wage
• No statutory sick pay
• No maternity paid leave and for many older gen women they were actively excluded from the workplace after having a child

That oh so 'lucky' older generation usually had a sole (male) breadwinner paying 15% interest on a mortgage and heaven help him if he got sick or laid off. Women didn't have it any better being expected to stay at home... suffering from financial dependence, thwarted aspirations and worse if the marriage was unhappy. There weren't the refuges and help against domestic abuse like there are today and marital rape wasn't even outlawed until 1991! Now OBVIOUSLY not all domestic violence / rape victims are women but given that almost all the currently available support is geared to female victims the point is negligible. A woman had little choice but to stay because although divorce has been available (there's that word again!) for generations it is fairly meaningless if one party has no where to go and minimal means of supporting themselves.
The younger generation has minimum wage and sick pay and maternity pay and civil partnership and rights for co-habiting partners and work welfare and maximum working hours etc etc etc precisely because of the shit your grand/parents endured. Debt might be higher now but there's far better terms and conditions.

4) and got free uni education
FFS GO LOOK UP UNIVERSITY TAKE UP RATES. Just 4% in the early 60s (when my parents were 18-ish and working rather than studying) according to this source:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/24/has-university-life-changed-student-experience-past-present-parents-vox-pops
It might have been 'free' but very few got the chance. And then Labour fought against the state footing the bill because university was seen as privileged, elitist, intensely Tory... 
My kids have spiralling uni debt but they wanted degrees and understood the concept that if you want it you have to pay for it.

5) and loads of free shit
What on earth are you talking about now?! My parents never got anything handed to them. Neither did I.
My dad left school at 15 with no qualifications, worked his arse off in the building trade, got zero support when he got sick in his 50s and lost his job. He paid that 15% interest rate and went without for every damn thing he has.
My mum's parents forced to quit her education after her O-levels because education wasn't valued. She was forced out of work when she was expecting me in the late 70s, she cared for her parents at home until they died in 2000. Tell me, what did she get free? Or that she doesn't deserve what little she has.
I was a teen mum, forced to subsist on welfare because subsidised childcare didn't exist. my youngest attempted suicide after I was forced back to work and she was left home alone. I put myself through 5 1/2 years of uni only to end up living off my mum's pension caring for her full time as a stroke survivor. I am nearly 42 and I haven't even started supporting myself yet. Nor am I ever likely to be able to.
But yeah, sure, all us oldies got handed everything on a plate. Whatever.

6) and voted to remove young people's rights and opportunities
Is this a Brexit comment? I suppose it must be cos it doesn't make any kind of sense.
First up, we never voted into the EU. I thought we voted into the EEC (which was a good idea) but it turns out we joined in 1973, BEFORE the 1975 & 78 referendums (and the youngest person to vote for the EEC would now be 60!). 
The EU came into being in 1993 (although the fate was sealed with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992). This was never a democratic process. And that, for me, is a huge problem. We never voted to give anyone EU "rights and opportunities" so why should we be vilified for voting to leave a situation we the electorate never chose to be a part of? A few alleged perks don't negate the restrictions our nation has suffered.
Freedom of movement has, to a large extent, meant that work hungry migrants (who, I want to make perfectly clear, I have no problem with whatsoever) have been willing to take the jobs so many of our native young people turn their noses up at. I've encountered a fair few barely literate young adults who think that their GCSE grade D in PE entitles them to better than scrubbing toilets for minimum wage. What is it about our society that results in such a shoddy work ethic?!
As most young British people are working in the UK I'm not clear what Brexit is supposedly doing to harm them. People travelled / worked / studied abroad before this, they still do and always will. Not to mention, a lot of people travel / work / study OUTSIDE the EU.
Young people HAVE rights, and opportunities - loads of which are unconnected to the EU. Given the fact that Brexit is the ONLY example of direct democracy in recent British history you could only ever blame GOVERNMENTS, not an electorate, for any other perceived slights to the youth of today... and neither the gov't nor the electorate is all Boomers anyway so you still can't blame a specific demographic! 

7) and burnt up the planet so young people today are screwed
The industrial revolution is where today's environmental woes began and given that dates back to 1820-1840 no fucking way are you blaming that on people born over a century later. 
It was far older generations than mine who were responsible for Bhopal and Chernobyl, my generation has suffered for the actions of previous generations; the kids who died at Aberfan from the coal board's greed would have been Boomers; the smogs of my parents' youth were the fall-out from their great-grandparents. The young people of the past were screwed over too.
But contrary to popular bullshittery we didn't just sit there and take it - the activism of previous generations is WHY there's a growing vegan movement, why there are renewable energies to invest in and electric cars to buy... It was Boomers who were protesting at Greenham Common, Silent Gen behind CND, both for Greenpeace... The oldies were trying to save the bloody planet before the disillusioned youth were conceived! 
Environmental activism isn't a 21st century phenomenon and nor is it mid 20th century people's fault it's not fixed.

But here's what for me at least is the kicker:
The man who tweeted this is actor / comedian / director David Schneider who, according to Wikipedia, was born May 22nd, 1963. Making him a Boomer like the people he's so harshly criticising. He doesn't even seem to have any kids whose futures he is worried for.
He apparently went to an independent boys school and then uni all the way up to doctorate studies. He is exactly the privileged generation he bitches about on social media. Maybe this is his definition of comedy?! I for one am intensely annoyed by incredibly privileged people like this guy spouting outrage about the conditions of a working class they have never been part of.

Unpopular Opinion Piece

So...here in the UK the Charlie Gard case has been all over the media for ages and now, following his death, I feel it's time to express my thoughts.

And as the title suggests...this is not going to flow along the same lines as the popular opinions on the subject. If you are easily offended I suggest you click away.

Brief(ish) background to the story for non UK / living-under-a-rock type peeps:
Charlie Gard was born on 4th August 2016 and died on 28th July 2017 - his life support was finally switched off after a number of legal battles.
He was hospitalised from the age of two months. Initially admitted for breathing difficulties it turned out he had Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome which was considered, in his case, to be terminal.
Charlie was unable to move, breathe, open his eyes, cry (so there could be no consensus on whether he was in pain) and so forth.
The world renowned Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London where he was being treated believed he should receive only palliative care and be allowed to die; his parents (Connie Yates and Chris Gard) not entirely unreasonably wanted to take him to the US for experimental nucleoiside therapy.
A number of hearings were held; ethics committee, High Court, Court of Appeal, European Court of Human Rights...all agreed with GOSH. Eventually Charlie was allowed to die, aged 11 months and 24 days.

Disclaimer: I have based my opinions on my personal ethics and philosophy and information on the case available in the public arena; I have no medical expertise.

So...

My take on it is that Connie and Chris never had Charlie's interests at heart. I have little faith in the medical profession but despite every damn expert telling them, telling the courts that their son had no hope of life they believed blindly in a 'cure'.

THERE WAS NEVER A CURE. The EXPERIMENTAL nucleoside therapy offered at best (speculatively, as it had never been tried on a child so severely affected) a 4-10% improvement in muscle tone. He would still have been utterly immobile, non-verbal and requiring mechanical ventilation for life (life meaning probable death within early childhood anyway). Connie & Chris were clinging to a dream of Charlie being a normal healthy child and at every stage they seemed to fail to recognise the gravity of his situation.

Repeatedly they stated that if Charlie was suffering they would stop fighting for him...how could they know??? Of course he seemed peaceful. He couldn't move. He couldn't cry. If severely brain damaged (as all medical testimony asserts) it's possible even his blood pressure wouldn't spike to indicate distress. No parent likes to hear their child cry but to have my child unable to express fear, suffering, pain...NO. And yes, if you haven't read my other posts I am a mother. I would definitely bury a child rather than endure them suffering that.

All the expert opinions were that Charlie had suffered catastrophic brain damage from seizures; seizures were nigh on impossible to detect after he became immobile. In their final front-of-court statement Chris Gard said: "we now know had Charlie been given the treatment sooner, he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy little boy" (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/charlie-gards-father-chris-delivers-heartrending-statement-outside-court_uk_5976159ee4b0e79ec19ad93d) This is fundamentally untrue. The best case scenario for Charlie was paralysed, ventalated, entirely dependent. The same statement said: "far from showing catastrophic, structural brain damage, Dr Hirano and other experts say his brain scans and EEGs were those of a relatively normal child of his age" ...if true* that is terrible. Charlie's life would have been effectively locked-in syndrome; an intelligent conscious mind trapped in an unresponsive body. No sane parent could ever want that for their child.
*There is a definite question as to whether this is true as no statement to that effect was made by ANY medical professional / expert at ANY point. We can only take this as the opinion of his parents. Every professional / expert opinion preceding was that catastrophic brain damage had already occurred.

Connie and Chris' final legal fight was to allow Charlie to die at home...which imho only confirms their insanity. People on life support simply do not die at home. At a time when the NHS is considered to be stretched to breaking point they wanted an incredible amount of money to be spent on pandering to their wishes after incredible amounts of money had already been wasted on court cases and futile care...I'm afraid I don't have a lot of sympathy. Dying in hospital, where he had spent most of his short life, or hospice made little difference. To die at hope was purely for the parents' 'need' with no consideration of the cost, either as financial or potential distress to their son.

Thankfully the courts saw sense and poor Charlie is finally at rest. My heart bleeds for what he endured.

Gun Ownership Restrictions and Common Sense VS the NRA

All quotes: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you/#

"Why don't we treat this like every other thing that we use? I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U. S. citizens, and we're allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit these people from buying a gun." - President Barrack Obama

There were a whole bunch of responses to this statement, particularly of the "To restrict someone based off what they read is a dangerous course. I don't care if it's a book, a website or a letter, it is punishment without due process. Restricting the rights of a person without due process is the opposite of what we claim to be about." (Observations99) variety. Now obviously Americans take their civil liberties very seriously but what is the alternative? The same argument that is applied here - visiting a terrorist organisation's website does not make you a terrorist was previously used as a defence against child pornography websites, that looking at these things did not make you a paedophile...which is now understood to be nonsense. Websites generate revenue from hits - by visiting a criminal website you may be supporting that crime financially. It has been established that there is no legitimate reason to look at child pornography 'for research'; similarly there is no legitimate reason to be visiting an ISIL website. Waiting for a paedophile to physically hurt a child is irresponsible, waiting for a terrorist sympathiser to mount an attack is waiting too long. If someone is pointing a gun at a woman and her child do you wait for them to pull the trigger or do you call for help / attempt to intervene / cause a distraction BEFORE they get shot? Preemptive measures will always be unpopular and someone will inevitably suffer for it BUT is the right of the individual greater than that of the masses? I don't think so. I would rather be wrongly subjected to restrictions than have my children slaughtered because those restrictions couldn't be applied to someone who really deserved it. The idea that a person's travel can be restricted on suspicion but their ability to buy weaponry can't...totes illogical.

"Safety laws are applied to all individuals equally - both law abiding and non-law abiding.

The example Obama uses is that everyone must get a driver's license and pass a test to prove they can safely drive a vehicle. Even if you are a known felon, child molester, tax avoider, etc you can still get a license. Then everyone must register their vehicle regardless of how they acquired it. Again.. doesn't matter what laws you have broken (or not broken) in the past. I will also mention that a car is considered a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.

The only time special scrutiny is applied is after you have committed a crime directly related to driving (drunken driving, reckless driving, etc). Then your license and ability to drive be revoked or curtailed." - Sean

This statement raises some interesting points: the ownership restrictions on cars doesn't affect the majority and we don't question the existence of those restrictions anymore (once upon a time driving licences hadn't been invented and literally anyone could get behind the wheel without censure). Virtually anyone can own a car, virtually anyone (in America) can own a gun - but is that really such a good idea? And cars have to be registered, taxed, insured; the driver licenced...why isn't this applied to guns? Why are people free to buy multiple weapons without checks? Why aren't they required to purchase insurance against the use of those guns - to cover you if a bullet ricochets and hits someone or damages their property, for example? Procedures that would have minimal impact on the responsible but be something of a deterrent to others. A car has a valid, practical use...hunting is the only valid, practical use of a gun and that doesn't apply to most American gun owners.

"How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? Nobody. Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car (analogous to a background check for every gun purchase), Nobody. Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? Nobody, they call for stricter penalties on the perpetrators. Yet you demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? Because you want to take our guns, you have no interest in banning cars." - George Mason

Okay, this is gonna be fun...

• How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? - It's harder to commit a crime with a car that can be easily traced back to the owner. It's a deterrent and it means the gov't know you have that car...shouldn't the gov't know about that home arsenal you're putting together?!
• When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? - not sure how alcohol and the crime committed by drunk drivers is linked here, but the sale of alcohol is licensed and restricted.
• Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? - plenty of people actually. The ability of cars to travel at well over the legal limit is contentious. The popular UK car Vauxhall Corsa has a top speed of 113 MPH; 43 MPH over the top speed limit in the country. Totally unnecessary to enable people to break the law.
• Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car? - actually again plenty of people would like this to be a thing. Just imagine how many lives would be saved each year!
• Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? - again, this is actually a thing. It'd do a lot for public health too. And coming from the nation that came up with prohibition that's just funny.
• You demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? - because a car is a transport vehicle, because alcohol is an intoxicating substance but a gun is a WEAPON PURELY FOR KILLING. WHY ARE YOU TOO FUCKING DUMB TO SEE THAT???

Also, why are you so hung up on linking alcohol and driving? Car drivers can't use mobile phones, eat or drink while driving. Driving while on drugs, driving while tired...there are many factors in non-deliberate road deaths and I don't know about America but in the UK there are all sorts of rules and regulations aimed at preventing these things. A person receives points on their licence for infractions and at a certain point will lose their licence. A person who receives certain medical diagnoses can lose their licence as unfit to drive...why doesn't this apply to gun ownership? Infractions like improper storage and wrongfully discharging a firearm would incur penalty points; visiting terrorist websites and diagnoses such as psychotic illness would involve a revoking of a licence. No one can just go buy a car, they have to have a valid driver's licence...allowing any idiot to go buy a gun is all kinds of nuts. Only a true dumbfuck would put an individual's 'right' to own an offensive weapon over the rights of innocent people to not get slaughtered.