[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

In your opinion, is she enough of a liability to counteract the positives of shining a light on the women's issue?

On her own no, the overall weight of the alt-right and the bible thumpers unfortunately yes. Like I said, they'll drop women's rights like a cold bag of sick as soon as they've got what they need and flip it right back round.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

On her own no, the overall weight of the alt-right and the bible thumpers unfortunately yes. Like I said, they'll drop women's rights like a cold bag of sick as soon as they've got what they need and flip it right back round.

Yeah I think so too. I know others like Julie Bindel have their issues with Kelly Jay over her willingness to "get into bed" with the right as well. Personally my favourite person to listen to speak on these issues is Helen Joyce.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Posie Parker has distinct Nazi vibes and happily flirts with the far-right, there's really no denying that. She's a liability.

Any mob gathering demonstration is going to be hijacked by extremists though - that's an inevitability... the double standard is rather interesting though... I vividly remember that when the BLM marches and demonstrations were used as a cover for mindless violence and looting, there was a clear understanding that those people were not a genuine part of the original demonstration, and were there for their own ends and thus it shouldn't take away from the genuine message of real BLM protesters. When "M.A.P" paedophiles corrupt and use the language of LGBT oppression to attempt to legitimise themselves, we must all understand that they are a fringe extreme and that most people don't agree with those abhorrent views. I agree with ALL of this, by the way.

And yet when the Nazis turn up to piggyback on women's genuine concerns, "everyone should reconsider what they're supporting"? No everyone should be aware of and call out the extremists who want to disingenuously hijack a movement for their own purposes.

There is literally no difference between saying "If nazis show up in support of your beliefs, that alone should be enough to maybe reconsider your views" and "If paedophiles show up in support of your beliefs, that alone should be enough to maybe reconsider your views". Which many people do - completely wrongly.

So no.

We should just accept that the Nazis and Paedophiles are opportunistic vultures and not representative.

I'm DEEPLY concerned about the way these things are being leveraged by the far right and the evangelists to pull more people over into their thinking. To the extent that at this point I genuinely think it's the larger concern (because as we know, those people do NOT actually give a stuff about the rights of women or children, and those will be out the window as soon as they've served their purpose).

To put it in simple terms; despite being accused of "my real feelings being clear" as to which side I come down on, take a look at the current SNP situation. I'm worried about who the future leader of scotland will be. I think we have terrible choices. But I would take Humza Yousaf (fully on board the identity politics train) over Kate Forbes (thinly-veiled evangelist nutjob) ANY day of the week.

I just wish there was a better set of options.

I think that's a bit of a copout saying that events can be hijacked since all it does is absolve these GCs of their connections to nazis. The GCs at that event didn't mind them being there. It's not like when, using your example, when peadophiles try to hijack pride events and they get thrown out and reported immediately. The GCs welcomed the support of the nazis until they realised it made them look bad after the fact, LGBT people will throw out and beat the **** out of any peadophile that tries to attach their noncery to the rainbow flag.

Your attempt at the BLM comparison fails for the same reason, BLM supporters did not stand with the looters. You've named two instances of an extreme group trying to hijack an event or protest to protect the instance of which the extreme element was welcomed with open arms until the GCs realised later that they looked bad for doing so.

And yes, considering you made out I have no self awareness, I do look at the people who agree with me when deciding if I'm on the right path or not. GCs and the far right are deeply tangled at this point, pretty much all the main voices of the GC movement are just puppets for the far right, Posie Parker, Julie Bindel, JK Rowling, etc. If I went to an event where nazis were standing beside me and were welcomed with open arms, I would rapidly consider my beliefs and the company I keep.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Tom4784

Pretty much all the main voices of the GC movement are just puppets for the far right, Posie Parker, Julie Bindel, JK Rowling, etc. If I went to an event where nazis were standing beside me and were welcomed with open arms, I would rapidly consider my beliefs and the company I keep.

I mean putting Julie Bindel in the same category as Posie Parker is a bit of a stretch, she's a Radical Feminist who advocates for women who have murdered their abusive male partners... the alt right would never align with such "misandry". JK Rowling I genuinely believe started with good intentions and was led down a path of tribalism with the back-and-forth, the rest (the idea that she secretly always had nefarious intent) is a very flimsy retcon.

ANyway - this sort of falls into the same logic as people on the right who term Antifa a "group or movement" though - that all people who are against fascism are part of some tangible group called "Antifa" and "Antifa" does bad things.

The comparison here would be, that you seem to think that anyone who has ideas and opinions about gender, or thoughts and concerns about women and children's safeguarding, are part of a tangible "GC movement" that has shared goals and some sort of leadership structure, which is obviously not the case.

What percentage of people with views on gender that fall outside of what's considered "right and good" are attending events of any kind, let alone events alongside alt-right mouthpieces? People do speak out against those that are hijacking, people do distance themselves from that by not going to these events.

There are plenty of people - myself included - who want measured progress for all with safeguarding and respectful consent forefront of the research and discussions. Whether you believe that or not isn't really all that relevant, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't and that you believe that everyone with concerns is secretly harbouring a heart full of hatred against a certain demographic for ... no apparent reason whatsoever ... but it's not the case and reality doesn't form itself around your opinions or anyone else's. Yes there are bigots - massive ones like Posie Parker and many of the other YouTube drones - smaller scale ones plenty of whom I've seen on this forum - but it's not "It's all good no debate or you're a bigot". It's such black and white thinking, it bears no resemblance at all to how any real society works.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I mean putting Julie Bindel in the same category as Posie Parker is a bit of a stretch, she's a Radical Feminist who advocates for women who have murdered their abusive male partners... the alt right would never align with such "misandry". JK Rowling I genuinely believe started with good intentions and was led down a path of tribalism with the back-and-forth, the rest (the idea that she secretly always had nefarious intent) is a very flimsy retcon.

ANyway - this sort of falls into the same logic as people on the right who term Antifa a "group or movement" though - that all people who are against fascism are part of some tangible group called "Antifa" and "Antifa" does bad things.

The comparison here would be, that you seem to think that anyone who has ideas and opinions about gender, or thoughts and concerns about women and children's safeguarding, are part of a tangible "GC movement" that has shared goals and some sort of leadership structure, which is obviously not the case.

What percentage of people with views on gender that fall outside of what's considered "right and good" are attending events of any kind, let alone events alongside alt-right mouthpieces? People do speak out against those that are hijacking, people do distance themselves from that by not going to these events.

There are plenty of people - myself included - who want measured progress for all with safeguarding and respectful consent forefront of the research and discussions. Whether you believe that or not isn't really all that relevant, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't and that you believe that everyone with concerns is secretly harbouring a heart full of hatred against a certain demographic for ... no apparent reason whatsoever ... but it's not the case and reality doesn't form itself around your opinions or anyone else's. Yes there are bigots - massive ones like Posie Parker and many of the other YouTube drones - smaller scale ones plenty of whom I've seen on this forum - but it's not "It's all good no debate or you're a bigot". It's such black and white thinking, it bears no resemblance at all to how any real society works.

Julie Bindel has specifically spoken out about Posie and aligning too closely with the right. Her and Helen Joyce even had a debate about it (I've posted it below)

Youtube video

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I mean putting Julie Bindel in the same category as Posie Parker is a bit of a stretch, she's a Radical Feminist who advocates for women who have murdered their abusive male partners... the alt right would never align with such "misandry". JK Rowling I genuinely believe started with good intentions and was led down a path of tribalism with the back-and-forth, the rest (the idea that she secretly always had nefarious intent) is a very flimsy retcon.

ANyway - this sort of falls into the same logic as people on the right who term Antifa a "group or movement" though - that all people who are against fascism are part of some tangible group called "Antifa" and "Antifa" does bad things.

The comparison here would be, that you seem to think that anyone who has ideas and opinions about gender, or thoughts and concerns about women and children's safeguarding, are part of a tangible "GC movement" that has shared goals and some sort of leadership structure, which is obviously not the case.

What percentage of people with views on gender that fall outside of what's considered "right and good" are attending events of any kind, let alone events alongside alt-right mouthpieces? People do speak out against those that are hijacking, people do distance themselves from that by not going to these events.

There are plenty of people - myself included - who want measured progress for all with safeguarding and respectful consent forefront of the research and discussions. Whether you believe that or not isn't really all that relevant, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't and that you believe that everyone with concerns is secretly harbouring a heart full of hatred against a certain demographic for ... no apparent reason whatsoever ... but it's not the case and reality doesn't form itself around your opinions or anyone else's. Yes there are bigots - massive ones like Posie Parker and many of the other YouTube drones - smaller scale ones plenty of whom I've seen on this forum - but it's not "It's all good no debate or you're a bigot". It's such black and white thinking, it bears no resemblance at all to how any real society works.

On reflection, JK Rowling was always a dickhead. The only east asian character in the book just happens to be called Cho Chang? And plenty of jewish commentators and voices have pointed out that the goblins are basically riddled with anti-semite tropes. I think she just hid it well when she was pretty much universally beloved and spiralled when her mask slipped a bit. The only credit I'll give her is that she was likely more radicalised by the company she keeps, that doesn't excuse her being a dickhead though.

The antifa example is as misguided and foolish as your attempt to make out that Posie Parker welcoming nazis to her protests is no different to LGBT throwing out peadophiles from LGBT events. Centrists are so ****ing pointless.

Oh, the whole safeguarding kids bull**** that, if this was a few decades ago, you'd been spouting the same **** about gay people. A few decades from now, your views on trans people will be seen in a similar light. A trans child is not undergoing operations to transition, they aren't doing anything to themselves that can't be reversed at any time. Who exactly are you safeguarding by pouring doubt on them? It's certainly not the trans kids who will suffer for it. As for women, look at crime rates, a cisgender person is more likely to harm a trans person than the other way around. As for things like the prison debate, transwomen prisoners are not allowed with cisgendered women prisoners if they are convicted of a violent crime.

The rate of suicide of and hate crimes towards trans people is skyrocketing all the time, and there's a clear correlation between more trans people dying and more anti-trans rhetoric and hatred becoming common place. I don't really care about your concerns of safeguarding against transpeople, when it's rare that a transperson has the chance to grow old.

All your handwringing is just tiresome to behold. It serves no one but your own ego.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Tom4784

The antifa example is as misguided and foolish as your attempt to make out that Posie Parker welcoming nazis to her protests is no different to LGBT throwing out peadophiles from LGBT events. Centrists are so ****ing pointless.

Would you like to make an attempt at explaining why defining Antifa as an organised group is any different to defining "GC" as an organised group? It's literally identical. "You're part of the GC mob" / "You're part of that Antifa lot". Literally exactly the same thing. I assume you can see that or you'd at least have given a token argument for why it's different, other than "LOL no! Wrong! Stupid!"

Oh, the whole safeguarding kids bull**** that, if this was a few decades ago, you'd been spouting the same **** about gay people. A few decades from now, your views on trans people will be seen in a similar light. A trans child is not undergoing operations to transition, they aren't doing anything to themselves that can't be reversed at any time. Who exactly are you safeguarding by pouring doubt on them? It's certainly not the trans kids who will suffer for it.

I have no issues with kids and gender experimentation so long as gender ideology is allowed to be properly discussed rather than a dogmatic zeitgeist of one-sided opinion pushed as fact, and also so long as it's not used to brush aside the possibility of other issues for the children in question. 90+% of kids swapping gender around the age of puberty are female-to-male, many (most) don't go on to transition as adults, and many have other unrelated mental health issues that end up being completely brushed under the carpet and unaddressed which is absolutely shameful. Again, this is where it comes down to being heavily interwoven with female oppression; the reasons young girls are rejecting their female bodies are complex, tragic and rooted in patriarchy. But "who cares" about that, right? Even the very respectable, very well educated professionals who try to examine this phenomena are doxxed, harassed, bullied and have their places of employment harassed to fire them by hoards of slack-jawed terminally online 20 year olds. It's gross.

As for women, look at crime rates, a cisgender person is more likely to harm a trans person than the other way around.

Cisgendered people are more likely to harm transgender people than the other way around - perfectly true. What part of that means that cisgendered men won't abuse poorly-thought-out safeguarding changes made for trans women in order to access women's spaces with ill intent? Both things can be true and that's why it needs more thought, it's not "one or the other". I have always said that the following two statements are BOTH true of the "bathrooms debate";

- The individuals MOST at risk in any scenario, are trans women in male bathrooms (cis male perp). Being blunt, "passing" trans women are at high risk of sexual assault, "not-so-passing" trans women are at risk of violent attack. I genuinely consider male bathrooms a 100% unsafe place for a trans woman to be. I'm not debating that -- and I don't know the right answer to that issue, other than self-contained toilets becoming the norm.

- The demographic with the HIGHEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE at risk by the numbers are women. ALSO from cis male perps, NOT from trans women, but some Trans Rights Activists are seeking fundamental safeguarding changes that would allow male-presenting individuals access to women's spaces, placing women at increased risk. There's an adamant denial that this is the case, or that this is a risk, but it's BS. Of course it's a risk, of course it's a loophole, and of course there are predatory men out there who would (will, and already do) exploit it.

Like I said I have no idea what the answer is because the reverse also allows male-presenting people access to women's spaces - since trans men would still be using female change spaces - again NOT saying that I think trans men are a risk - but predatory cis males could access those spaces by simply claiming to be trans men.

I don't know the answers. I just want people (professionals) to be able to discuss the question without harassment and threats and that's currently not happening.

I don't really care about your concerns of safeguarding

That much is abundantly clear; you only care about safeguarding of one small niche of the population at all, and women/children are not relevant to that.

[Oliver_W]

I guess it's the difference between pro-woman and anti-trans. There might be some intersection, but that doesn't mean they agree on everything.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I guess it's the difference between pro-woman and anti-trans. There might be some intersection, but that doesn't mean they agree on everything.

Most of them are simply anti-trans, and they use women as a shield for their hate.

There's a reason why most of these 'defenders' of women are often oddly silent when the right wing acts out against women. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Tom4784

Most of them are simply anti-trans, and they use women as a shield for their hate.

The big names on youtube (a lot of them men) yes, the vast majority of people who are not "in the public eye" and have concerns about women's rights, women's spaces and child safeguarding ... this is simply flat-out false. Even if you believe they're wrong about their concerns, it's not true to say that they're "pretending to have them" and using it a shield for random, directionless "hate". It's fairytale "good-and-evil" thinking with no rational foundation.

[Crimson Dynamo]

the news media like to frame any woman who speaks up for womens rights as "anti-trans"

[Tom4784]

Julie Bindel considers bisexuality to be a 'fashion accessory' and is pretty much anti-LGBT while Helen Joyce has said that less people should transition and that trans people are a huge problem to a sane world, in her words.

The same trans people that will rarely live to see old age, due to suicide or violence against them.

The calls are coming from inside the house.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Tom4784

The same trans people that will rarely live to see old age, due to suicide or violence against them.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim? Before you insist that I "google it" .. I have, and I can't find anything that makes this an even vaguely plausible statement.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim? Before you insist that I "google it" .. I have, and I can't find anything that makes this an even vaguely plausible statement.

The only murder that immediately springs to mind is Brianna Ghey but given the trial hasn’t taken place yet we don’ know why she was murdered

Ava White was murdered for asking someone to stop filming her so it doesn’t take much

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The only murder that immediately springs to mind is Brianna Ghey but given the trial hasn’t taken place yet we don’ know why she was murdered

Ava White was murdered for asking someone to stop filming her so it doesn’t take much

Stabbings are a regular thing, it's horrific but there isn't always a reason other than senseless violence.

Just 2 days ago another kid was stabbed in Leeds at a house party .

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Stabbings are a regular thing, it's horrific but there isn't always a reason other than senseless violence.

Just 2 days ago another kid was stabbed in Leeds at a house party .

What about the ‘particular’ kind of stabbing that’s prevalent between rival gang members nowadays !!

Truly horrific!

:::

Some stabbing are intended meant to kill, though; gang member sometimes go in for “bagging”, which is when they stab the victim in the rectum, so that they need a colostomy bag for the rest of their life. This is meant to be the most humiliating punishment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

That much is abundantly clear; you only care about safeguarding of one small niche of the population at all, and women/children are not relevant to that.

Because if it's only happening to what you consider 'a small niche' of the population then it doesn't matter, I guess. Who cares how many trans people die, just as long as you can demonise them to fuel your hysteria?

After all, if you don't think trans people need binning, then you obviously hate women and children, right?

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim? Before you insist that I "google it" .. I have, and I can't find anything that makes this an even vaguely plausible statement.

You've already decided it's not true, and I've grown quite tired of straight people expecting me to be a prop to their character development. It's a well known thing in the community that you have few older LGBT of the first three letters and less still of the T. The aids crisis, hatecrimes, and suicide have contributed to that. Over half of trans youth today has had suicidal thoughts, and there's a large number of those people who have and will attempt suicide before the age of 20. You don't get many older transpeople because so many of them die of suicide before they have the chance to grow old. Many trans youth today won't see old age either, not that you care, given that it's just a 'small niche' of the population after all.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Tom4784

Because if it's only happening to what you consider 'a small niche' of the population then it doesn't matter, I guess. Who cares how many trans people die, just as long as you can demonise them to fuel your hysteria?

After all, if you don't think trans people need binning, then you obviously hate women and children, right?

This is a massive misrepresentation of anything that's been said by anyone in this thread. There's no hysteria or even high emotion other than your own. I don't think you "hate" women and children, I just think you're largely indifferent to concerns that aren't directly related to those who you consider to be "the worst off", so you haven't actually given them a second thought.

You've already decided it's not true, and I've grown quite tired of straight people expecting me to be a prop to their character development. It's a well known thing in the community that you have few older LGBT of the first three letters and less still of the T. The aids crisis, hatecrimes, and suicide have contributed to that. Over half of trans youth today has had suicidal thoughts, and there's a large number of those people who have and will attempt suicide before the age of 20. You don't get many older transpeople because so many of them die of suicide before they have the chance to grow old. Many trans youth today won't see old age either, not that you care, given that it's just a 'small niche' of the population after all.

So "no", then. The available stats on violence against trans people and suicide don't confirm your insistence that it's "rare" for trans people to reach old age because of suicide and murder at all, because you made it up based on a supposition, and not any sort of actual statistics.

Violence against trans people is a huge problem, and suicidality in the demographic is indeed very high as well. No one is pretending it isn't a problem, or that it isn't worth addressing, but your suggestion that most trans people die early violent deaths is simply false or a massive exaggeration for effect. You didn't say these deaths are statistically high amongst trans people compared to other demographics (true), you said that it's "rare" for trans people to make it through life without being murdered or killing themselves (verifiably untrue).

Maybe if you'd focussed a little more on critical thinking, compromise and the ability to cobble together a sound argument that isn't just "getting really angry and aggressive at everyone because that'll show 'em", and a little less on "your character development"...

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Just as i thought you can't actually tell me why the goblins are offensive . you just keep saying the same thing over again like a broken record, ranting away frothing at the mouth without saying anything of substance.

I think i might buy Hogwarts Legacy .

I think you should buy this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Delusional-...c=1&th=1&psc=1

What's in it for me to prove anything to you? You're a drone that can't think for themselves and will make out that something isn't true unless someone goes out of their way to prove it to you. A zealot is a zealot, you'll believe your feelings over the facts and so why waste my time trying to convince you of anything? You aren't worth the effort, only the derision.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that some Jewish people haven't taken issue with the goblins in HP then that's on you, your delusions don't matter to anyone but yourself. You are entitled to your own foolishness.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

He won't and he can't, I doubt even he knows "why" they are.

In his mind, it's enough that he told us someone said that they were, that's all the proof we're supposed to need.

He'd never sink to actually substantiating something he said, we're all just meant to believe him, and if we don't ... "google it"

Again, whether a bunch of people covering their eyes and thinking that something they can't see see doesn't exist believes me or not is irrelevant. Your belief is not required, your input ultimately changes nothing. You are free to be as ignorant as you please.

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

This is a massive misrepresentation of anything that's been said by anyone in this thread. There's no hysteria or even high emotion other than your own. I don't think you "hate" women and children, I just think you're largely indifferent to concerns that aren't directly related to those who you consider to be "the worst off", so you haven't actually given them a second thought.





So "no", then. The available stats on violence against trans people and suicide don't confirm your insistence that it's "rare" for trans people to reach old age because of suicide and murder at all, because you made it up based on a supposition, and not any sort of actual statistics.

Violence against trans people is a huge problem, and suicidality in the demographic is indeed very high as well. No one is pretending it isn't a problem, or that it isn't worth addressing, but your suggestion that most trans people die early violent deaths is simply false or a massive exaggeration for effect. You didn't say these deaths are statistically high amongst trans people compared to other demographics (true), you said that it's "rare" for trans people to make it through life without being murdered or killing themselves (verifiably untrue).

Maybe if you'd focussed a little more on critical thinking, compromise and the ability to cobble together a sound argument that isn't just "getting really angry and aggressive at everyone because that'll show 'em", and a little less on "your character development"...

Just more waffle that ultimately translates into 'I love hearing the sound of my own voice'.

You know what's funny? You tried to make out that I was someone that lacked self awareness, but you in this thread have thrown out the usual excuses to prevent yourself from looking critically at your own view and who else supports it. 'B-But anyone can hijack an event!' Yet I'm the one that lacks self awareness, apparently.

'Violence against trans people and high suicide rates is an issue, but I'm immediately going to downplay both because they don't fit with my world view beyond this basic statement to cover my ass'. Trans people are a 'small niche' after all, and you've made it clear how little you think they matter. How many suicidal trans kids is okay with you, what's the benchmark number of dead children that will make you actually care? That's a rhetorical question, btw, just before you type out another 50 paragraphs of self important waffle.

Your last paragraph, I don't compromise with bigots so why are you trying to make out that I should? No rights have ever been assured or protected by compromising them. Gay rights began with a brick, and we'd have never gotten as far as we have by being asking for rights from those who would do us harm. I'm not going to go around hugging transphobes to make them feel better about themselves when violence and suicide rates against the people they hate is on the ****ing rise. You just keep pushing the narrative that LGBT people should just be accessories to make you feel better about your views, and god forbid they don't support those views. I'm not here for your ****ing benefit, you are not the ****ing main character of the world.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"her rabid, hideous fanbase"

= normal people and not a tiny micro minority of shrieking pink-haired trans mob fascists who don't own property, pay tax and have no investment in society

lol

get a grip

[Crimson Dynamo]

" many jewish commentators have commented on the tropes present "

looking forwards to the list tomoz

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

" many jewish commentators have commented on the tropes present "

looking forwards to the list tomoz

"Google it, I'm not here to educate you."

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

"Google it, I'm not here to educate you."

If you want to cover your eyes and make out that something doesn't exist because you can't see it, do so. Your main character syndrome doesn't matter to anyone else but you.

[Niamh.]

Also I read that Irish people should be offended by her using the name Seamus Finnigan, no idea why unless you think naming an Irish character with a common Irish name is offensive. It isn't.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Also I read that Irish people should be offended by her using the name Seamus Finegan, no idea why unless you think naming an Irish character with a common Irish name is offensive. It isn't.

This is how stupid it's become now ,I hadn't actually heard about the Irish name wow .