Trans intolerance is out of control

TIRF all I can say is google the name of said female barrister and you will get a clearer viewpoint of who she is and what she stands for. She is no longer practising (following police reports and allegations that she made a death threat to a student) and now spends her days trolling victims of child sexual abuse on twitter and calling them liars. Truly a delight.

My point is that this website is very well known for printing misogynistic rubbish and I for one have an issue with that even if it does sometimes print something seemingly in favour of the GC agenda.

Did you read any of those articles Susan?

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/calling-out-false-abuse-allegations/18349#.WuAnUcgvw2w

(the only one I read) was by a female barrister who commented on a peer reviewed Dutch study analysing the differences between proven-false rape claims and others.

What's your issue with it or were you playing to the audience on a "feminism site and everything"? Should some opinions not be allowed? Should academics be censored when you don't like their findings?

Going back a few comments, I think there's a danger in leaving the Free Speech fight to right-wing figures such as Katie Hopkins etc.

Maajid Nawaz (for whom I have a lot of time) often refers to the 'Control Left', of which the #nodebate stance of some TRAs is a good example.

There's quite a wide free speech coalition at the mo - sure, Katie Hopkins features, but there's also Peter Tatchell, Julie Bindel, Shappi Khorsandi (whose experiences growing up in Iran explain her stance) and many more.

I don't always agree with Brendan O'Neill and his Spiked pals but you'll still read articles there on subjects that other publications won't touch with a ten-foot pole. More power to them.

Mumsnet is full of comments like that as well...sadly

All right full is an exaggeration...but loads

What specific examples are there of Spiked supporting horrific abuse?

I don't think anyone used that specific term. However, there is a definite 'women lie and ruin men's lives' vibe from their articles, as well as a lot of focus on false allegations and suggestions that women are overreacting about sexual assault. I think it's quite hard from a feminist viewpoint to support such a publication, but maybe that's just me.

What specific examples are there of Spiked supporting horrific abuse?

And if Spiked is more simed at men - whether you like the general tone or not - this might make a lot of men who have no resl opinion in it start to tske notice.

Yes, it might. Until Spiked write an article defending the rights of MRAs to litter Twitter with misogynistic slurs and rape threats. Remember that for the most part, Spiked represent MRAs and their interests. I am not sure I would want the kind of men who read Spiked on my side (and of course they won't really be on side anyway). You might feel differently.

Better get on and get some work done now....

It is about the safety and dignity of those bio-females, not about the validity or otherwise of other beliefs.

The problem is that by not allowing discussion on whether those beliefs are reasonable and accepting these (arguably) clearly false beliefs as legitimate and building policy around them, we have no grounds for asking for protection for women separate from trans identified males. So I think that's a bit naive.

I honestly didn't expect them to be found not guilty but they were and as such their clubs have no legal right to fire them from their jobs

That statement is wrong as to the legal position.

And if Spiked is more simed at men - whether you like the general tone or not - this might make a lot of men who have no resl opinion in it start to tske notice.

Have the players challenged the decision to fire them?

Come on, that's the same argument as asking if the alleged victim has appealed against the verdict

No it isn't. You and the writer of that article are mixing 2 completely different concepts.

In terms of employment law and contract an employer has every right to dismiss an employee for reprehensible, but non criminal conduct. That can include conduct away from the work place and which is not connected to the direct carrying out of the employee's duities.

The employee has every right to challenge that at an employment tribunal. Employees do challenge dismissals and often win.

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

They physically blocked women from getting into the meeting. Only one group was having their right to free speech attacked here.

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.

I agree and I am acutely aware of potentially coming across as transphobic. That is why I don't like the narrative of 'trans is illogical and doesn't exist'. That is denying many people's lived reality. Instead, I prefer to say 'there are certain legal protections that need to be afforded to biological women by making certain spaces bio-female only'. It is about the safety and dignity of those bio-females, not about the validity or otherwise of other beliefs. I don't see the sense of arguing about whether anyone can be born in the wrong body anymore. That is evidently what people do believe and they are unlikely to come round on this point.

It was possible to conduct this balancing exercise e.g. with gay rights versus religious expression, so I cannot see why it can't be done here. In fact it already exists- in the Equality Act.

That’s actually one of the best articles I’ve read on the issue and reflects my views exactly - short and straight to the point with no convoluted insider language that just confuses most folk.

Suburban

Have the players challenged the decision to fire them?

Come on, that's the same argument as asking if the alleged victim has appealed against the verdict.

As rocket said, you can't expect to be able to disagree with people and offend them, without allowing them to do the same to you.

Of course not. I don't mind if people disagree with me about Spiked's position. I would hope some also agree, but if not, I can live with that.

Yes, I think we should have open debate and I believe it is possible to do so without offending trans people and instead focus on issues of safety, dignity and equality. If the only thing GC people cling to is free speech, that's a bit of a dangerous position. The EDL and Britain First are also all about free speech- so are Milo Y and Katie Hopkins. You risk being lumped in with crazy extremist groups if you maintain that you can say absolutely anything.

Also, it becomes a bit circular- surely the protesters at the Bristol meeting were exercising THEIR right of free speech and assembly? So are the MRAs on twitter calling for TERFs to be beheaded. Spiked would defend them to the hilt as well. I don't think it gets us anywhere.

Susanbunch

Fair enough, if that's what you think. (I think you are wrong but surely that's the entire point of these kind of discussions)

As rocket said, you can't expect to be able to disagree with people and offend them, without allowing them to do the same to you.

I honestly didn't expect them to be found not guilty but they were and as such their clubs have no legal right to fire them from their jobs.

So have the players challenged the decision to fire them? Or do you think they feel that, guilty or not guilty of rape, their disgusting behaviour, both before and after the trail, is enough to warrant their dismissal?

When you highlighted those particular articles as evidence of bias, you show your own biases pretty clearly.

Yeah, how shocking. On a feminism site and everything. Imagine a feminist having issues with numerous articles written to make women out to be hysterical, vindictive liars, intent on ruining the lives of decent men. Gosh, that really is a head-scratcher.

Really have no problem with 'revealing my bias' on this one.

Okay, rocketpocket, we do disagree. Deeply. Fair enough.

The tone of their articles is misogynistic in the extreme. I have read articles on there that physically disgust me.

It is NOT as simple as saying they were found not guilty. Of course they were- the entire system is stacked in their favour. Society is full of rape myths about vengeful women inventing rape allegations. Those are perpetuated by Spiked and other 'free speech' outlets. They are also used to publicly humiliate and shame the complainant in that case. That sort of free speech benefits men and silences women and ensures that men can always hide behind the free speech excuse and use lack of criminal convictions (in a system stacked against them) to accuse women of lying.

I do not think people should be allowed to say whatever they like. I do not think Katie Hopkins should be allowed to publicly spread her bile. Spiked are big fans of hers by the way. I do not think MRAs should be allowed to create a culture whereby women are routinely subjected to sexual violence, but are called liars and hysterical if they dare speak out about it.

So yes, we will have to agree to disagree. I secretly hope other readers of this section react with disgust at what Spiked write though, regardless of exercise of free speech.

Ereshkigal

Amongst other things, yes I have!

Have you come here to stand up for women's freedom of speech Patriarchy? That would be great!