Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transphobes gunning hard for 'paedophilia' angle all of a sudden

Are you referring to the post below? If so I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. It reads to me like they were calling the woman who was the subject of the story an entitled twat. Not you.

Are you seriously on a thread about trans issues or any other thread coming on to defend that poster on the basis that they might have been misunderstood?

No

And it isn't right that I have had to make the case here in public - and looks like it's been ignored again.
 
Are you seriously on a thread about trans issues or any other thread coming on to defend that poster on the basis that they might have been misunderstood?

No

I'm not really defending what was said, so much as pointing out that you misunderstood it. It wasn't calling you an entitled twat. It was calling the woman in the story that.
 
I'm not really defending what was said, so much as pointing out that you misunderstood it. It wasn't calling you an entitled twat. It was calling the woman in the story that.

Oh well that's nice for you then that it didn't seem personal to you, good for you
 
Right, what is your point caller?
That you've taken offence based on your mistaken interpretation of a post. I thought pointing that out might help you realise you weren't being attacked. But if you'd prefer to think that you were you can. 🤷‍♂️
 
It wasn't personal to you, either. It was about the woman in the story.
A loaded phrase about one woman holds (some level) insult to all women.
I think that all black people may hold it against me if I were casually racist towards an individual black person.

I think it would be fair play for a woman to call me out for casual sexism against a different individual.

And of course you may feel that the quote wasn't particularly sexist but gromit has fsome prior history of questionable posts and being mindful and sensitive is about listening to others when they say they say something that they took issues to.
 
That you've taken offence based on your mistaken interpretation of a post. I thought pointing that out might help you realise you weren't being attacked. But if you'd prefer to think that you were you can. 🤷‍♂️

Yes point it out to us when we have taken offence at something in your view we shouldn't have done.

Thank you for your sterling input, 135 messages. Appreciate you leaping in and having a word with me. :rolleyes:
 
A loaded phrase about one woman holds (some level) insult to all women.
I think that all black people may hold it against me if I were casually racist towards an individual black person.

I think it would be fair play for a woman to call me out for casual sexism against a different individual.

And of course you may feel that the quote wasn't particularly sexist but gromit has firm and being mindful and sensitive is about listening to others when they say they say something that they took issues to.
That might be true. But it wasn't what she complained about. She claimed that he said her pronouns were 'entitled twat'. But he didn't.
 
That might be true. But it wasn't what she complained about. She claimed that he said her pronouns were 'entitled twat'. But he didn't.
I might take this and discuss it with someone who had been here a while, but who the fuck are you and why should I care?
 
Yes point it out to us when we have taken offence at something in your view we shouldn't have done.

Thank you for your sterling input, 135 messages. Appreciate you leaping in and having a word with me. :rolleyes:

Lol. Looking back at the post isn't it obvious to you now that he was calling the woman in the thread an entitled twat and not you? You're either doubling down on your mistake to save face, or you enjoy being the victim when there was clearly no attempt to victimise you. But you do you. I don't really care one way or the other.
 
Lol. Looking back at the post isn't it obvious to you now that he was calling the woman in the thread an entitled twat and not you? You're either doubling down on your mistake to save face, or you enjoy being the victim when there was clearly no attempt to victimise you. But you do you. I don't really care one way or the other.

And 3, 2, ignore...
 
The fact you chose to have a go at me on a thread specifically about transphobia is telling.
 
I might take this and discuss it with someone who had been here a while, but who the fuck are you and why should I care?
Because the truth doesn't depend on post count. But like I said you do what you want. I don't care.
 
The fact you chose to have a go at me on a thread specifically about transphobia is telling.
I didnt have a go at you. I tried to explain that you'd got the wrong end of the stick, and that you weren't being attacked.
 
I hate the way CSA is used as a weapon against gay/trans/queer people when in reality it's overwhelmingly straight men who are the perpetrators.
A friend made a brilliant argument that the best way for abusers to access women and children is always going to be 'manface'. Be a husband, a father, a man in a position of authority. Why the fuck would you need to pretend to be a woman, especially when, if you got caught, you'd be more likely to be treated as a weird pervert than presenting as a straight cis man?
 
I think you are correct, you should ignore this thread.

It is making you upset, so take a break from it for a couple of hours/days.
Should I be upset by a thread discussing the rights or wrongs of my existence?

Yeah I should be upset.

I don't know who that random wanker was who decided to wade in out of literally nowhere to have a go at me was, that pillock is on ignore, but I can't ignore the whole rest of the world, can I?

Especially not when I might actually get punched in the face for not being cis (has actually happened to me btw)
 
A friend made a brilliant argument that the best way for abusers to access women and children is always going to be 'manface'. Be a husband, a father, a man in a position of authority. Why the fuck would you need to pretend to be a woman, especially when, if you got caught, you'd be more likely to be treated as a weird pervert than presenting as a straight cis man?

Yep, all the Christian/far right groups trying hardest to smear trans people as abusers seem to be absolutely riddled with abusers and people willing to cover up for them
 
I have seen people, a few years ago, using an alleged post/communique from a paedophile saying that 'MAPs' (that's 'minor attracted people') could ride on the coat tails of greater LGBTQ acceptance to become just another sexuality.

Now even if were genuine, and I guess it might be - how is it the fucking fault of LGBTQ people for existing and seeking acceptance for their lives? There is absolutely zero sign of any acceptance of paedophilia from the LGBTQ community. I mean, you can probably find one or two fucked up individuals under a rock somewhere, but they'd be utter outliers and would be viewed with horror.

A few years ago now (pre-covid) there was a 4chan op which attempted to claim there was a campaign to add paedophiles to the LGBTQ acronym. It was shown very clearly to be a 4chan op with screenshots of them planning it and discussing it. But it still became gender critical lore that this was a real thing and not a homophobic smear by a bunch of 4chan trolls.

This fed into a series of essays by a gender critical feminist called DrEm who pulled out some dubious quotes from some early queer theorists, claimed Foucault was a paedophile and the instigator of queer theory and attempted to drag Judith Butler into it based on the fact she wrote about the incest taboo (an obsession of some second wave feminists who in fact were the biggest instigators of calling for the liberation of child sexuality - read Firestone and Millett for details).

The claim was that queer theory is a paedophile plot aimed at lowering sexual bounderies and trying to get rid of the age of consent. This was widely adopted as a fact on mumsnet and other online GC spaces with embelishments such as fantastical claims that puberty blockers were being promoted by paedophiles to create mentally damaged adults with children's bodies who could legally consent to sex.

Soon everything got dragged into this narrative. LGBT education became an attempt to promote queer theory and paedophilia by extention. Drag Queens are grooming kids to accept lowered sexual bounderies. LGBTQ organisations were secretly capturing government institutions and bodies like the UN to promote a pro-queer theory and undermine child safeguarding. Trans people were rebranded as autogynephiles* trying to push sexual fetishism into public spaces. Pride marches were dangerous attempts to normalise sexual behaviour in front of kids. Dickheads like Wings and Glinner began calling everyone groomers. And the conservative right in the states were obviously all over it.

That's where the claims in the report you started this thread came from. It all feeds into this vast paedophile conspiracy which is believed and promoted by almost all of the rank and file gender criticals and has been cynically exploited by people like Bindel - who know it's a load of nonsense, who know the damage this kind of thing did to lesbian and gay people before, but are still happy to go on right wing tv shows and drop dog whistles alluding to it.

It's really fucking dangerous, it's going to get people killed and what is most frightening is that those promoting these conspiracy theories like Safe School Alliance and LGBAlliance are being promoted as reputable feminist organisations who just care about women's rights and are presented across almost all the legacy media as innocent victims of an insidiuous and violent queer campaign to silence them and prevent the truth being exposed.

*somewhat ironically the only people outside of 4chan trolls and dubious anonymous twitter accounts I have seen call for paedophilia to be accepted as a legitimate sexual identity are Ray Blanchard, founder of autogynephilia theory on which a lot of the more anti-trans side of this stuff is based and sexologist James Cantor who has openly called for the P to be added to the LGBTQ. Both are staunchly gender critical and well respected in the movement.
 
Last edited:
It all feeds into this vast paedophile conspiracy which is believed and promoted by almost all of the rank and file gender criticals...
It is batshit crazy! Surely they can't really believe it? They just want an 'excuse' to hate trans people, so suspend disbelief. Which in a way is more worrying because it suggests they can't be convinced by the arguments against.
 
Cos you know, every time I get into an argument, it's my own fault, there is no goading going on or anything hur hur hur
 
I very much enjoy things traditionally seen as masculine, and I strongly believe that it is entirely possible to do so without dragging along a whole bunch of toxic baggage. One of the more shameful and insidious things that bigots do, is to try and recast masculinity as something that is inherently toxic, while simultaneously accusing the other side of doing that very thing. They twist criticisms of "toxic masculinity" into an attack on men in general, rather than of specific attitudes and behaviours.

I for one refuse to cede that ground to them. A masculine man can be considerate and accepting without compromising himself.
Why do we need masculinity at all? It doesn’t seem relevant to me in any area of my life.
Can’t we just like things and not label them masculine or feminine?
 
It is batshit crazy! Surely they can't really believe it? They just want an 'excuse' to hate trans people, so suspend disbelief. Which in a way is more worrying because it suggests they can't be convinced by the arguments against.

They may be motivated by transphobia but I think they do believe it sadly, to a greater or lesser extent obviously. I forgot to mention the transhumanism angle, promoted by former Economist editors Helen Joyce in her book Trans which received rave reviews across the press. A lot of it is mainstream or noddingly alluded to in a lot of more mainstream anti-trans rhetoric. It's also now been picked up on by Piers Corbyn and a lot of covid conspiracy people who are seeding it throughout that scene and the far right.
 
They may be motivated by transphobia but I think they do believe it sadly, to a greater or lesser extent obviously. I forgot to mention the transhumanism angle, promoted by former Economist editors Helen Joyce in her book Trans which received rave reviews across the press. A lot of it is mainstream or noddingly alluded to in a lot of more mainstream anti-trans rhetoric. It's also now been picked up on by Piers Corbyn and a lot of covid conspiracy people who are seeding it throughout that scene and the far right.
I remember when conspiracy theories were mad but essentially harmless like faked moon landings and flat earth. But they seem to b have taken a much darker turn. Maybe they are being deliberately used by the far right more and more.
 
Why do we need masculinity at all? It doesn’t seem relevant to me in any area of my life.
Can’t we just like things and not label them masculine or feminine?

Because people are different. We're not all some homogenous mass, and neither are we entirely unique, as social creatures we tend to clump up into different groupings. Femininity, masculinity, and all the things in between and outside of those two are part of how humans come to express themselves. How is that so hard to understand?
 
I remember when conspiracy theories were mad but essentially harmless like faked moon landings and flat earth. But they seem to b have taken a much darker turn. Maybe they are being deliberately used by the far right more and more.

I think they always have been to some extent. Certainly to pursue antisemitism. But the internet is perfect for the kind of join the dots analysis which underpins conspiracy theories. They used to have to pour through government reports or books by other conspiracy theorists hundreds of pages long. Now anyone can find a weird post on Reddit, a bit of speculation from some crank site and a misunderstood or out of context quote from a scientist or politician and weave them into an elaborate narrative that supports what they'd always secretly suspected all along about a group of people they didn't like much.

And it's about to get a lot worse as deep fake technology becomes more commonplace.
 
Back
Top Bottom