DV "gone wrong"

Thanks for this post and thread, it has been really useful!

I am busy sending off some information to a local politician who has asked me for comments about some of the details (!) that Jane Fae mentioned in the Radio 4 PM discussion on 29th May and I have included a copy of the screenshot.

Thanks again and thank you to Jane Fae for providing such invaluable evidence.

I agree Ellen

Also worth noting that while the TRA lobby are making a habit lately of selecting a quote and sharing it completely out of context to stir up anger and outrage and promote the (false) idea that 'terfs' are harmful, violent, wish to erase civil rights etc, people on this thread have made the effort to look, to read around the person speaking, to genuinely consider if this might be a misrepresentation/quote out of context or if this truly does represent this person's genuine, long held, consistently expressed beliefs.

It's a generosity and a care for facts and fairness that is never reciprocated.

Wow, I am so stunned at that tweet.

Domestic violence 'gone wrong'?

How the fuck can these people be being allowed to debate women's rights? Fucking HOW???

I've tweeted a screenshot of that vile tweet to several news outlets. I can't believe they don't do any checks on the ppl that they have on their programs. Hopefully, in future, they'll think twice before allowing JFF airtime.

I've been thinking about this and the recent (to me anyway) revelation about JF's use and support of extreme porn and I now believe the knitting is a deliberate ploy to appear harmless.

JF is literally the wolf dressed in grandma's clothing.

Born

"I wouldn't have had a clue about ths without MN, and I consider myself well informed. Thanks, all of you who have helped enlighten me."

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

"I so agree with this. And it's been a hell of a journey for all of us, including @MNHQ.

I would, again, like to thank MN for facilitating debate and free speech.

I know they will have been under enormous pressure from the trans lobby.

Thanks, MN, for letting us speak. It's outrageous that in 2018, women should have to say this; I am shocked ona daily basis now"

^ this.
I have lurked for some time and have become more and more shocked, angry and disgusted by what is going on at the moment. Thank you all for writing, discussing, sharing and informing.

Whenever I have listened JF on tv, I’ve had an overwhelming gut feeling of absolute revulsion. Now I know why .

I noticed this JF character acts very arrogantly and dismissively. Their attitude to feminists in any interview is patronising - they knit when on a panel discussing issues that everyone in the room, whatever side they are on, considers important. JF is using womanhood like a huge joke that only they are in on. I truly think JF knows that they are a huge sex addict - who likes extreme sex and knows that. However, with the protected trans status they have cultivated, no one can call JF out on their extreme behaviour - hence Jane's self-satisfied smile whenever they are on TV or being photographed.

This behaviour screams AGP narcissism. When you see posts by lots of Trans Women you begin to notice that this group all show the same signs, the same arrogance and it becomes impossible to ignore.

Here is an example of AGP Mya Byrne with the telling Autogynaphile Smirk - just the same as Jane Fae.

Disclaimer - discusses sexual matters, might not want to click at work or while your child is looking over your shoulder (as mine tried to :) )

GenderTrender's Example of the AGP Smirk

Miranda Yardley calls Giuliana "Goolie-ana"

Yes the inclusion of sex as a protected characteristic in employment law re discrimination but exclusion when it comes to hate crime says it all.

The reason it's excluded is because hate crime against women and girls is so prevalent it's seen as normal, not criminal, and also if it were included and the police had to investigate it all they'd never have time to do anything else (considered more important by them and most of society). Remember that police boss recently complaining that women were reporting ? DV (or sex crimes? Can't remember) too much and it was preventing his officers from having time to do their jobs, strong implication was women should stop it.

They also have very skewed priorities, see threats (did they come to pass) to girl who had been targeted by paedophile online and got her to send pics, no mention of going after the man, in their statement they didn't mention him at at, just that they had warned the girl prosecution was possible. Subtext, again. If your child is groomed online, don't bother with the police. Shocking tbh but there we are.

Then you have people like in the op who want to push the ages children are allowed to appear in porn down.

I'm talking about the Equality Act. That was my entire point. Why don't they align?

Sex is a protected characteristic
It might be in civil law but it's not for hate crime legislation.

And "gender identity" is not. It is "gender reassignment

Feel free to read the CPS guidelines where they refer to "gender identity" as the hate crime qualifier.

Oh, they mean like the hysteria of calling non-preferred pronouns "literal violence"? That kind of hysteria?

Ah, that must be how we can tell someone is really truly deep down a woman. They’re happy to use a misogynist term like “hysteria” to trivialise and dismiss women’s concerns.

@ijustwannadance

That's why it's so unsettling isn't it. Someone made a tenuous link about that on another thread and its when i really started to wake up to what some of these men's agendas might really be about. Not saying more as i don't want to get deleted.

Wow, the utter misogyny there.

Interesting to see quote from MRA Janice Fiamengo retweeted by minnymum. Originating from Guiliana who claims, "Cause of Anti-trans fake fem cult" is "...low level hysteria caused by social media".
Bear in mind that Guiliana has been quite influential of late, prolific amongst TRA's & often retweeted... even by Maria Miller!

Women as a class" are not a hate crime qualifier in law, but gender identity is.

Yes. Why do you think that might be? Sex is a protected characteristic. And "gender identity" is not. It is "gender reassignment".

Right. Why isn’t this being reported as hate speech?

Because it's not according to law. (Technically there's no such offence as "hate speech" anyway)

A poster on here was reported to the police and interviewed under caution for a gender critical, non violent post, but this blatant incitement to violence against women as a class is allowed to fly?

"Women as a class" are not a hate crime qualifier in law, but gender identity is. The Police are duty bound to investigate an alleged offence against one but not the other* Regardless, what was written is unbelievably crass, but it's not incitement to violence. At all.

*Before anyone jumps in with Nottinghamshire Police's trial, this was for recording purposes only. Nothing was or could have been charged with misogyny as an aggravating factor as they can't decide to change the law

Jane Fae submitted evidence as a trans representative to Maria Miller's report on transgender equality.

How the fuck did they choose these people? All the written evidence was desperately one-sided, coming from trans-activists like Anna Lee (puberty is optional - kids, take hormone blockers), batshit, unhinged men like Action for Trans Health and now this extreme porn stuff from Fae.

How could they have been so stupid?

It's also interesting that these still fully intact biological males, who love this violent and mutilation porn, are the ones pushing furiously to allow young teens to take pills to halt puberty and mutilate their bodies with surgery. Surgery that they have zero intention of having themselves.

On consent, which they seem to have some interesting ideas about. For sure it is easier to get younger people to "consent" to things. The men in to Rotherham etc knew this.

Men who are keen to get things "consistent" so they can enjoy 16/ 17 yo be abused in porn need to be given a fucking wide berth. IMO.

So if I've read this right, this person was one of those types who spend a very very very large amount of time vociferously defending "free speech" specifically the freedom of men to make and consume pornography of the type outlawed in the legislation quoted above, and additionally feel it is inconsistent that 16 & 17 yo should not be "allowed" to appear in films with this content (permanent damage to vagina, anus, breasts and etc and so on).

I see.

(Of course someone may point out that women may also make and consume this material. Funnily enough, they don't really, very often, and the people getting so interested in free speech when it comes to violent porn are IME men).

That review of the book. A little passage that leapt out at me:

Yet this isn’t what bothers me most about this work. Throughout Beyond the Circle, the discrimination heaped on those who step outside the heteronormative “charmed circle” is compared directly with that faced by women and gays (the latter being her terminology – “gays” not as a lazy, unthinking shorthand for LGBT people, but for what she sees as a privileged subset thereof). Despite her good intentions, Ozimek grasps onto those favoured targets for ‘pendulum swung too far’ and ‘underserved special status’ accusations and just doesn’t let go. And in this respect, what she argues is neither accurate nor fair.

Very interesting indeed. Pendulum swung too far and undeserved special status indeed ... I think someone's agenda is showing.