Trans intolerance is out of control

I think all 'cis-women' (I hate that expression) need to self identify as men and start invading 'men's spaces'. And there are still plenty of those. (I wonder if anyone has considered this possibility?) We may then get their backing to oppose the whole idea of 'self-identification' when you feel like it. This may be the only way to oppose it now.

I'm not against transgenderism - I have several transgender friends. I am opposed to the casual declaration of gender, when our world is still gender biased.

rocketpocket

The system is failing. There is nothing we can do about it. The Secret Barrister wrote a whole book about it which is enlightening and frightening in equal measure.

If I may argue a finer point of law here. In this kind of trial the jury is not only asked to decide whether a victim did not consent but also whether a defendant was aware the victim had not consented.

So even if a victim manages to convince a jury that she had not consented, in the absence of defensive wounds on her or wounds on him from her fighting back, answering the second question is difficult.

On balance, and especially given the completely baffling evidence given by one of the accused, I am inclined to believe her. The jury however may have erred on the side of caution here (given the consequences of a conviction). And I think that is perfectly reasonable for them to do.

It's not the jury at fault IMHO, but the law and the trial process. Which is why the public protested about it.

FWIW I don't agree with publicising the defendant's name in a rape trial. But that's for another thread.

@Maisypops

I think the distinction that needs to be made is this:

A) men being "offended" because women say "we have a right to set boundaries, to have privacy, to say no, to meet and talk with each other, to choose our relationships, to have an acknowledgement of our biological realities"

B) women being "offended" because men say "you have no right to any of those things"

People want to claim these are equal and equivalent types of "offence", and they are not.

People also distract with pleas for everyone to be nice and not say mean or mocking things, but that is an impossible thing to achieve, not ever hurting anyone's feelings or never making fun. The issue about fundamental rights and violations. Not wounded egos.

Imeant it in the way that when one person disagrees with another the first person always goes "I'm offended!". Even in cases where it's a perfectly reasonable statement or discussion
Oh I'm with you on that.
There is becoming a group of people who think any question or challenge of any thought they've ever had is offensive.

*deluded

Define "offend"
This is what's important.
Insulting someone because of their sex/ gender identity / religion / race etc is offensive. So if/when people are just trying to score cheap points on MN then it is a bit offensive. There's so much to debate without 'well I disagree with HIM look everyone see what I did there. I'm so funny '

But having a debate saying 'actually we need to seriously discuss how/why we have biological men claiming they have menstrual cycles and periods but without blood' is needed and not offensive. Some people may not like that debate, but it is reasonable.

Saying to a religious believer they are crazy and delluded is insulting, as is saying a transperson is 'delluded'. Some may well be living in a fantasy world, some may genuinely have feelings of gender dysmorphia, there's a whole range of experiences, but attacking the person or group is unkind and unhelpful.

But critiquing the basis of a holy book, debating the terms of reference for a religion, discussing thr impact of a religion would be totally reasonable. Discussing personal gender critical views, the implications of GRA, the implications of having newspeak and basic biology redefined etc are all reasonable. Some may not like that debate, but it isn't offensive.

People really ought to (in my opinion) go high. Let the TRA go low and show themselves up.

"Presumed innocent" is the status a defendant has during their trial, not after it.

Wouldn't it be great if this thread didn't get derailed into a discussion of the Ulster rugby case?

(On which, look, finally Susan and I agree on something!)

Say it a few more times. I am sure they will change all the law journals to suit you if you just type the same thing over and over over and over on Mumsnet.

The judge asks if the jury found the accused guilty or not guilty. The jury replies (or replied in this case) "not guilty".

The judge asks if the jury found the accused guilty or not guilty. The jury replies (or replied in this case) "not guilty".

The judge asks if the jury found the accused guilty or not guilty. The jury replies (or replied in this case) "not guilty".

A not guilty verdict means you go back to the presumed innocent status.

You may be found innocent before trial.
At close of trial you may be found not guilty.
Once you go to trial you cannot be found innocent.

This has been explained repeatedly but you can look it up yourself if you choose not to believe me.

@thebewilderness

"Again, they were not found innocent. If you keep repeating lies you will lose all credibility."

Where is the lie?

The judge asks if the jury found the accused guilty or not guilty. The jury replies (or replied in this case) "not guilty".

Not guilty is legally assumed innocent.

I disagree that the solution is to believe women without question or to hound men who have been found innocent.

Again, they were not found innocent. If you keep repeating lies you will lose all credibility.

These men admitted to doing things that the public found so repugnant that they rose up against them. This girl was treated so badly by the courts that the people rose up to support her.
The people have that right.

That point being that whatever YOU believe, those men went to court and were found NOT GUILTY. Which means that legally they are innocent.

Any lawyer will tell you that failure to prove guilt is not the same thing as innocent. Any 12 year old will tell you that failure to prove guilt is not the same thing as innocent.
Zombie lies never die.

- surely the protesters at the Bristol meeting were exercising THEIR right of free speech and assembly?

Well, no, they exercised their right to protest. There's no right to free assembly that involves preventing other people from exercising theirs. Physically blocking the stairs with masks on, en masse, in the way these protesters did, fulfils the criteria for common assault.

I have no issue supporting free speech as long as it doesn't cross into threats or incitement to violence.

I have issues with this but the more I think about this, the more I realise it's the only way to go. Even though it's messy.

It's only been recently that I've become properly concerned about freedom of speech. For years I assumed it was necessary up to a point but couldn't see the point of people banging on about it and assumed they were being obsessive. What's changed for me is that opposition to free speech seems to come with a basketload of authoritarian views that would corrode all kinds of reasonable freedoms and would hand power to those who would revel in abusing it. Whose main world view is "are you one of us or one of them?"

YOU can't have the right to offend trans people without other people that you disagree with having the right to offend women/BME people/gay people

Define "offend"

I have no issue supporting free speech as long as it doesn't cross into threats or incitement to violence. If you only support free speech for those ideas you agree with it doesn't last for long.

The left used to be the biggest supporter of free speech - now it has decided that's it better to try to police the narrative than to trust that democracy and open discussion will lead to the right choices.

rocketpocket "those men went to court and were found NOT GUILTY. Which means that legally they are innocent."

WRONG. It means legally there was not enough evidence given in court to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Legally not guilty is NOT innocent.

Short of actual incitement, people should be allowed to speak as they see fit.

Absolutely. This is the whole point.

I'm happy to be called a TERF and I thought that spiked article was clear, and pro discussion about the issues and not at all anti women.

I don't care to research all involved. I'm not that interested really.

I'm not sure the site's "well known" for anything and "misogynist bullshit" seems hard to qualify.

What's a GC agenda?

So, ban some opinions?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bar-troll-human-rights-barrister-12003919