Reality check

ChickenMe "what would hostility and prejudice look like?"

Good question. I wondered that too. Here what the CPS says:

"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."

www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

Again, to be crystal clear, I did not and do not say that GC feminists have engaged in criminal acts.

I think we should remember that this latest little outburst of rage, DARVO and unfounded accusations has been brought on by calmly saying we will continue to talk about biological fact and present political arguments in a polite, reasoned way. Not surprisingly, this insistence is deeply threatening if your biggest weapon is #nodebate because none of your arguments stack up. The rage is a sign that we're on to a winner with the strategy of politely talking about things.

"Nevertheless, she persisted."

Women, don't be afraid or intimidated by this

I agree.

One way or another, it has to stop. If you won't stop it voluntarily, and MN won't do anything to stop it, then we will have to turn to the government, and persuade them to give us some adequate legal protections.

"Legal protections"-for what? For being disagreed with?!

This is all wishful thinking-you think you're some sort of secret police. Jog on.

Women, don't be afraid or intimidated by this

Bowl I was paraphrasing this bit from the cps "Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice..." and I didn't use the word hate in the context you ascribe to my post.

I do get where you're coming from, but there's no threat intended at all. I've also been quite clear that to be prosecuted you'd have to have committed a crime. What worries me for the posters here is that's they are leaving themselves vulnerable to hate crime flagging should they in any way get tangled up in a criminal matter, either by something they did or attended or were involved in, or by malicious allegations against them.

You can believe me or not, but I'm female, have been subject to male control and violence, and actually give a shit about women and children. That doesn't stop me having a brain in my head to read the COS guidance on hate crime flagging and see a vulnerability for GC posters whose comments could be perceived as hostile or prejudiced.

Fermats I have NC I am not an agent provocateur.

I resent the chilling effect of this OP.

I and many other people want to see MN shut down.

That sounds to me like the view of a very selfish and self-centred person.

That is the suggestion of someone who does not care how much good a site does, if it doesn't centre them.

I assume you aren't serious.

One way or another, it has to stop. If you won't stop it voluntarily, and MN won't do anything to stop it, then we will have to turn to the government, and persuade them to give us some adequate legal protections.

What has to stop? Peaceful discussion on a forum? What exactly are you wanting to stop. Please be specific, rather than ‘all this hatred’ sort of an answer. What exactly are the real life things you want to stop?

People disagreeing with you isn’t hatred.

Adequate legal protections? Gender reassignment is listed as a protected characteristic under the EA, as is for example disability, religious belief etc.
Can you please clarify what extra protections you feel are needed that are on top of those given to the other protected groups?

How is discussion on MN directly ‘trashing lives’? I will remind you that to date:

No feminist has punched a transwoman to the floor
No feminist has attacked a transwoman physically
No feminist has threatened a meeting of transpeople with a bomb
No feminist has masked up and prevented transpeople from meeting or speaking

Pratchet
Yes, I won't lie. We don't have to lie and no one can make us lie.
So don't. Just stop doing it.
Easy. Problem solved.

Is there any answer other than because we're women?

In reality I think MN is actually quite small, and therefore TRAs sense it is possible to shut it down.

Super
What would "hostility and prejudice" look like?
The police have also a duty to comply with the Human Rights Act and that includes freedom of speech, thought etc If a poster isn't breaking the law, what have they to fear? I refuse to live as if we are in communist Russia.
A poster could say eg they don't agree with homosexuality-heck I could stand outside in the street with a placard stating that-and not break the law. Insulting is gone from Sec 5 POA and it's not a crime to be offended.
And further to that it would rely on MN releasing your details to the police to prove that the poster was you.
The assault was perpetrated against feminists as was the bomb threat so why the talk of "both sides"?
Have an eye on the law yes but don't let things put you off speaking

I think you are right Pratchet . It's a PITA to have to think and rethink before we post, but I know how important it is. And not only to consider the tone and content of a post, but of individual parts of a post as snippets are often reproduced out of context to suit a particular agenda.

As others have said too (and I hate to sound like the thread police!) but we need to be aware that some people may not be posting in good faith, and some people may be posting in order to derail a thread, and goad posters into making unwise posts. It may be sensible to ignore these posters, I knoe I have a tendency to jump in and correct things which are incorrect or untrue, but once everyone does that the thread goes into a death spiral.

Sometimes posters need to be ignored and not spoken to directly, and their points challenged indirectly in a positive way.

And leave these posts to stand, women can see these tactics.

I don't understand.

Why is it that the reasoned debate, grounded in biological fact, that happens here on FWR could lead to legal trouble - but sites like Kiwi Farms, 4chan, and some sections of Reddit where there is blatant, offensive transphobia, including actual slurs, are left alone?

Seriously, why us? Is there any answer other than because we're women?

Haven't rtft but I think one is of the problems we face is that GC feminists are seen as extremist. If most people read emotive posts about how we want to bully trans people with our propaganda and how we are being constantly deleted on MN and having to leave the forum because our transphobia isn't tolerated, it looks pretty bad. Anyone who takes the time to read the guidelines and see how stringent they are, or read the threads and see how they focus on women and girls and not on bullying people will see that's rubbish, but the vast majority of people won't- they'll just think that if we're breaching guidelines on transphobia we must be pretty bad.

I honestly don't know what we can do about this and it frightens me. Sometimes people are on the wrong side of history because they do fucked up things but sometimes it's because history tells a particular story, and the injustices involved in that can take decades or centuries to become clear to the general public.

Ah, that's a relief, Super.

Spot on as always, Bowl. And yes, my mind immediately leapt to DARVO, Stilettos.

materialist "I think any woman who has been in or near a violent relationship with a man can read between the lines, but thanks for the warning!"

Clearly I'm missing something here. Can you explain what you're getting at materialist?

Fermats to clarify, I wasn't levelling any of those things at GC activists - sorry if it came over that way. My point is that it's all too easy for anyone involved to point a finger, make an accusation and throw in an allegation of hostility and prejudice towards transgender people.

I don't have any dealings with TRAs but from the way they are described here in terms of power, resources and strategies, GC posters who are involved in activism should maybe watch their words on that front, not just because mnhq would rather they stayed inside the guidelines.

if you get caught up in something, or had an accusation levelled at you, and someone says to police that they believe you have a record of hostility and prejudice towards transgender people, then it will be flagged as possible hate crime, and your posts would be scrutinised.

A few points, because this does sound a tad threatening to me, that my posts could be scrutinised by police. And I’m sure you didn’t mean that in any personal way at anyone here at all but I’m going to use that statement as an illustration of the techniques used by people who perhaps do mean it. I speak in generalities now, it’s a generic ‘you.’

A crime needs to be committed before it can be a hate crime. I have committed no crime, nor do I intend to do so - I am a law abiding, peaceful, non violent lefty hippy.

Having an opinion on gender critical matters is not hateful
Expressing an opinion on gender critical matters is not hateful
Peaceful expression of political opinion is not unlawful
There are no laws against blasphemy

If they believe you have a record of hostility and hate - now hang on there just a moment because I see this technique a LOT. It’s a statement placed in a post that assumes a negative and builds the rest of the post on this and this does the following - again I speak in generalities

1. It sets the tone as factual when it’s not. It’s a statement designed to set the tone as ‘x has a record of hate and hostility.*
2. It forces JADE (justify apologise defend or explain behaviour.)
3. It derails.

So I read that, and now what am I about to say, as Ms. Jo Average? I’m now at pains to post some sort of justification that I’m not engaging in any kind of hatred at all. I’m quite indignant about it! I go to great lengths to prove I am not! So now my energy is wasted on a rebuttal of a point I shouldn’t have be making because speaking about gender critical matters is not hateful. Nor is concern for safeguarding of children. Nothing I’ve said is hateful.

So I’m on the back foot, defending myself as women so often do, the thread is derailed and the default position is now that we are all so hateful that we need to think about the police combing through our posts.

do you see what is happening here? these are control techniques.

It’s not a nice thought is it?

• create false statement that sets a position
• detail and force apology/justification
• create implicit threat involving power structure/law enforcement.