Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[HoratioCuthbert]

Well if that's your friendly picture taking technique don't ever come near me with a camera Magnus.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Not even drawing conclusions, as I wasn't there like!

 

[elbows]

It isn’t me throwing transphobe/terf about with gay abandon as has happened on this very thread. Presumably all those who’ve been called it are fair game?

I will never forget what started me throwing those terms around more freely on this thread. Disgusting, transphobic language that someone started throwing around, which encouraged a few others to temporarily drop their pretence of being anything other than transphobic. There were a number of people I was giving the benefit of the doubt to until that day, never again.

 

[Sea Star]

.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Well if that's your friendly picture taking technique don't ever come near me with a camera Magnus.

Victim blaming.

 

[bimble]

The person now awaiting trial is tara flik wood (aka the she wolf), isn't it - who allegedly said this prior to what happened ffs. And people here are trying to say it was the camera that caused this 'scuffle'



Its just silly to think you have to defend/ support this if you want to help trans people or want self id or anything else.

 

[Sea Star]

I will never forget what started me throwing those terms around more freely on this thread. Disgusting, transphobic language that someone started throwing around, which encouraged a few others to temporarily drop their pretence of being anything other than transphobic. There were a number of people I was giving the benefit of the doubt to until that day, never again.

I know I started early on with use of the t word, but I've backed off a bit now. But I wasn't wrong
I don't think anyone has overly acknowledged that a fair few of those people I called transphobes a couple of years ago have since very much shown their true colours now. You have to remember that trans people are very sensitised to certain phrasings and words. I've got very good at spotting those who only want to attack trans people.

 

[elbows]

Sub judice and contempt of court issues bimble, please be more careful and dont encourage others to get into dangerous legal territory right now.

 

[Shechemite]

Sub judice and contempt of court issues bimble, please be more careful and dont encourage others to get into dangerous legal territory right now.

Naming the person in court and displaying an (already much publicised) tweet?

 

[elbows]

Naming the person in court and displaying an (already much publicised) tweet?

Well I'm not a lawyer but if I see anything even starting to approach unsafe as far as my guesstimates are concerned, I'm bound to get worried and nervous because posts invite responses, and even if the original post isnt over the line then some casual response very easily could be.

If I am miles off on this then I will be happy to learn otherwise, but I'm sure I cant be the only one who sees impending doom with this line of conversation?

 

[bimble]

People have been speculating that it was a 'scuffle' caused by the way she held her camera. I don't think its out of place to post the tweet that the accused wrote before the event. Will insert the word allegedly.

 

[spanglechick]

The person now awaiting trial is tara flik wood (aka the she wolf), isn't it - who said this prior to what happened ffs. And people here are trying to say it was the camera that caused this 'scuffle'

View attachment 127588

Its just silly to think you have to defend/ support this if you want to help trans people or want self id or anything else.

Wanting to fuck people up at a demo is a sentiment you'll find on these boards. It's not one I share, generally, but it's not unheard of.

You don't see trans exclusionary people as being as bad as say, the EDL - but other people do.

 

[elbows]

Will insert the word allegedly.

I'm not used to being the one making stern points about sub judice stuff. I'm not convinced you've got the right impression of the limits, but I might be full of shit, someone else please help on this!

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Victim blaming.

don't know, wasn't there

People have been speculating that it was a 'scuffle' caused by the way she held her camera. I don't think its out of place to post the tweet that the accused wrote before the event. Will insert the word allegedly.

People meaning me. I said it looked like people winding each other up followed by an inevitable scuffle. The
I also said it was impossible to draw many conclusions from watching the video, and clearly people missing the more light hearted nature of my comments about cameras. It's all going a bit leftbook in here.

 

[elbows]

Whatever the legal realities of sub judice stuff, I'm pretty sure that the perception that the word allegedly can make a meaningful difference is usually applied to issues of libel and slander, not issues relating to talking about court cases that have not yet concluded.

 

[bimble]

Then nobody should have been allowed to discuss the incident at speakers corner at all until the trial in 2 months is concluded. Don’t think it works that way.

 

[TopCat]

Essentially this attack and the bookfair attack were shit actions worthy of condemnation. To do so is not inconsistant with supporting trans people.

 

[Spymaster]

Sub judice and contempt of court issues bimble, please be more careful and dont encourage others to get into dangerous legal territory right now.

Don't be daft. If it was a genuine tweet by the actual person, that has been widely viewed already, there are no legal issues with posting it here.

 

[elbows]

It may well turn out that I am wrong. But I dont think it is just daft to have the concerns I have, based on the following sort of story.

UK attorney general plans crackdown on 'trial by social media'

The UK's Attorney General is pondering whether to tighten up contempt of court laws and target Facebook and Twitter users who comment about live criminal trials.

In a call for evidence made this morning, Jeremy Wright, QC, MP, asked for examples of court cases “in which social media has had an impact” to be forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office.

He is concerned that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not “protect against trials by social media”, mainly because very few of the general public know anything about the law.

It is a contempt of court, punishable by a two-year prison sentence, to publish anything that causes a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings. This includes things such as the defendant’s previous crimes. The rough idea is that the defendant should be tried on the facts of the case rather than his or her personal history. The contempt risk is supposed to be judged on the likelihood of jurors (or potential jurors) being able to find information about a case that is not presented in court, though in the internet era courts take a harsh line about appearance of that information anywhere at all.

And yes I am aware that most of the examples given in those sorts of stories are a good deal more dramatic and obvious than the stuff I was going on about. But unless people can provide a nice clear guide as to where exactly the line sits, why is it daft to be concerned about this sort of thing? For example, if we dont know exactly what evidence will be presented in court, we dont know what stuff that is out there somewhere is actually safe to draw attention to, surely?

 

[Spymaster]

Wanting to fuck people up at a demo is a sentiment you'll find on these boards. It's not one I share, generally, but it's not unheard of.

You don't see trans exclusionary people as being as bad as say, the EDL - but other people do.

Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.

So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?

Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength and nature of that opinion. This is of course, bollocks.

 

[elbows]

Well I get 17 pages of result on u75 is I search for sub judice, and some of them are in contexts that are at least somewhat related to what I've been going on about. So I dont think this is something I've just dreamt up or something that has never been acknowledged on u75 before. Indeed I'm sure various people were openly taking care on this front in this very thread in the past without anyone questioning why they needed to.

 

[TopCat]

Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.

So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?

Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.

This.
I think some of this has been due to hanging with people who historically have used political violence against the police and to a lesser extent facists. Even though CW for instance just piss about with banners and flares, the retoric remains and I think was/is an influencer at Hyde Park.

 

[elbows]

Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.

I cant say I've noticed that argument being made, which is not to say it has never been made but that other, far more nuanced, positions have been described of late.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Don't whether he meant me, I just said it is hard to see and hear everything that happened in that video and that sticking your camera right in someone's face is a pretty antagonistic thing to do. A lot of what happened between then and the fight is obscured by noise and people.

 

[Sea Star]

Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.

So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?

Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.

Easy answer: no one deserves a punch in the face. And no one is arguing that anyone does either.

This isn't just about women either. It seems to me that the TERF position is more likely to be held by men than women anway.

Not sure that many women have concerns tbh. More seem concerned about the way the TERFs have been behaving in my experience.

Women that have concerns and are willing to discuss them are already engaging with trans women. Those who hold transphobic positions are mostly unwilling to hear us. TERFs are probably only a few hundred people anyway. A tiny faction punching (no pun intended) way above their weight.

My view has always been, ignore the TERFs and engage with women who genuine wish to engage with us.

 

[TopCat]

Easy answer: no one deserves a punch in the face. And no one is arguing that anyone does either.

This isn't just about women either. It seems to me that the TERF position is more likely to be held by men than women anway.

Not sure that many women have concerns tbh. More seem concerned about the way the TERFs have been behaving in my experience.

Women that have concerns and are willing to discuss them after already engaging with trans women. Those who hold transphobic positions are unwilling to hear us. TERFs are probably only a few hundred people anyway. A tiny fractio punching (no pun) way above their weight.

My view has always been, ignore the TERFs and engage with women who genuine wish to engage with us.

People you label terf are on the whole women not men.

 

[Spymaster]

Easy answer: no one deserves a punch in the face. And no one is arguing that anyone does either.

This isn't just about women either. It seems to me that the TERF position is more likely to be held by men than women anway.

Not sure that many women have concerns tbh. More seem concerned about the way the TERFs have been behaving in my experience.

Women that have concerns and are willing to discuss them are already engaging with trans women. Those who hold transphobic positions are mostly unwilling to hear us. TERFs are probably only a few hundred people anyway. A tiny faction punching (no pun intended) way above their weight.

My view has always been, ignore the TERFs and engage with women who genuine wish to engage with us.

Aren't all terfs necessarily women?

 

[spanglechick]

Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.

So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?

Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.

I'd agree, which is why the more I think about it, the more the EDL analogy works for me.

And most trans-exclusionary people aren't radfems, which is why I've mostly long since stopped using the acronym. Like the typical edl type, they are people suffering systemic oppression (patriarchal / class-based) who are concerned about the ways in which another oppressed group (trans women / Muslims) might make their oppression worse.

And in organising against this, they end up engaging with some utter cunts (suck my girl dick types / Islamist extremists) and tarring everyone with the same brush, while focusing on a small number of extreme issues (prison populations / hate preachers) which - while they need sorting, don't need some kind of mass movement that tends to demonise the whole group (trans people / Muslims), and at worst, is responsible for its own hate crime and scumbaggery.

 

[elbows]

Women that have concerns and are willing to discuss them are already engaging with trans women. Those who hold transphobic positions are mostly unwilling to hear us. TERFs are probably only a few hundred people anyway. A tiny fraction punching (no pun intended) way above their weight.

My view has always been, ignore the TERFs and engage with women who genuine wish to engage with us.

Part of the reason I've been so focussed on them in the last couple of months is that I dont understand the scale and influence of them, and I was hoping to learn but Im still not really too sure at all.

 

[TopCat]

....