Pedophile Manifesto

If you run any campaign based on smears and lies, knowing the propensity for yobbery of a large part of the population then you are partly responsible for the consequences. Irresponsible lies and smears about foreigners during the Brexit campaign make some of the leaders responsible for the well-documented rise in racist incidents in my opinion and I know many people who would agree with that. A large part of the campaign against self-ID revolves around perverts supposedly queuing up to gain access to women's spaces, trans people supposedly trying to force lesbians into sex etc. Given the amount of times Mumsnet mods have had to step in on this forum and delete posts/issue warnings when people have been deliberately trying to blur the line between trans people and paedophiles, I'll wager that talk of perverts etc has been the cornerstone of a lot of the 'I peak-transed another person today' incidents that people crow about on here. There's nothing extraordinary about drawing a link between negative propaganda about a particular group and negative consequences. What is extraordinary is denying it or saying you had nothing to do with it when some numbskull beats up a trans person because he thinks they're all perverts.

If you go around spreading lies about a group of people, then you take some responsibility for the negative reaction that brings forth, whether it's verbal or physical.

If you are aware of male violence and deliberately provide them with exactly the one-sided information to bring forth a violent response then you are complicit in their violence.

MillytheKid This is quite extraordinary to read, especially on a feminism and women's rights board of a parenting website.
I'm not easily shocked.

Yes, I'm sure you 'explained' it in a way that would elicit that type of response

What!
Interesting you're defending the aggressors by saying their action was provoked. The law doesn't agree.

So your thinking, as well as threats of retribution for speaking out about the violence, is clear for all to see.

If any of this becomes a reality, I predict a violent backlash and I am genuinely concerned for those individuals with genuine GD, who have gone about their lives unobtrusively, being caught in the cross fire.

Transsexuals have been highlighting this for ages.

Self ID will be abused. And it will cause suspicion.

Transsexuals are genuinely concerned.

(And no, it's got nothing to do with women talking about it. God, it's never ending isn't it?)

3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

Women are being demonized for spreading the truth.
Not just women, either, which is an indication of how powerful the lobbyists are.

I think the two varieties of excusing male violence by arguing that women provoked it are far closer in motivation than Milly would like to admit.

Man arrives and pronounces.

"Shut up, you women, in case you upset me and make me hit you".

Where have we heard that before?

Nope, women are not responsible for "bringing forth a violent response" from men. Not in domestic violence situations in not in any other situation either. Men are responsible for their own actions.

No one's talking about domestic violence so don't try and change the subject. If you go around spreading lies about a group of people, then you take some responsibility for the negative reaction that brings forth, whether it's verbal or physical.

Nope, women are not responsible for "bringing forth a violent response" from men. Not in domestic violence situations in not in any other situation either. Men are responsible for their own actions.

I have broached various issues raised by the TRA movement. The almost unilateral response was that men abusing this, or perceived to be abusing self id to gain access to their female relatives, will get their heads kicked in.

Yes, I'm sure you 'explained' it in a way that would elicit that type of response.

If any of this becomes a reality, I predict a violent backlash and I am genuinely concerned for those individuals with genuine GD

Your concern is genuine and touching.

Knicknackpaddyflak absolutely spot on, DH is and has friends of the Essex/White van man variety, I have broached various issues raised by the TRA movement. The almost unilateral response was that men abusing this, or perceived to be abusing self id to gain access to their female relatives, will get their heads kicked in.

If any of this becomes a reality, I predict a violent backlash and I am genuinely concerned for those individuals with genuine GD, who have gone about their lives unobtrusively, being caught in the cross fire.

Newspapers please copy. And publicise the crap out of this horrific document, and what is paving the way to it.

One of the biggest issues with self ID in it's proposed form as I keep pointing out to my very pointless MP, is precedent. If a person is of the opposite sex because they say they feel they are - no other proof necessary - and can therefore access all provisions for that sex in spite of the severity of the impact on other uses of that sex - then how do you argue with a fifty year old man who says he identifies as six years old and is entitled to attend an afterschool club, and go away to camp with the Brownies? If a passport can be changed to reflect personal choice rather than fact, how will public bodies deal with someone who identifies as severely disabled and would like 'equality' of access to a car for the disabled for their wheelchair, carers and disability benefit?

At some point, someone is going to have to have the guts to draw a line; this is the bloody yellow brick road to utter chaos. I wish the liberal elite in their bubble would realise this stuff will not wash with Essex Man and White Van Man, and someone actually trying this stuff on someone's child will lead to seeing lynching make a return to the UK. It is going to create a hell of a backlash against inclusion where there was no real problem, and it will be down to gutlessness and heads up backsides. I have honestly never been more disgusted with the entire political establishment.

Didn't this originate with 4Chan, to take the piss out of 'progressives;? (as in the 'freebleeding' phenomenon):

www.snopes.com/fact-check/lgbtp-adding-letter/

I'm reluctant to research further as I'm at work and don't want god knows what showing up on my internet searches. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Swiss cheese already?

The section of the document where the person posting it on Twitter says it 'directly references trans tactics' actually doesn't mention the word trans, it talks about twitter, email and phone campaigns.... but, of course, trans people are the only group who have ever used those type of things during campaigning
As Mumsnet has had to point out on previous discussions relating to pedophiles, so-called trans campaigning tactics are exactly the same tactics that have been used by a number of groups down the years.

I don't think paedophiles will get the same traction as the Trans Movement has .
I see their agenda and it's horrible. And yes I see iit is lifted from the Transactivists handbook of sneaky underhandedness which has worked well for them. But the Trans Movement relies on a combination of sympathy and ignorance to gain traction.
Many people cannot see them as anything other than tragically disphoric. And this is completely deliberate of course. Despite them saying "you don't have to be disphoric to be trans and all the blue / pjnk brain bollocks. That came later. But the trans moment was built on the back of genuine transsexuals who are usually sympathetic characters and generally no more dangerous than the rest of the population. That was their foot in the door. They are trying to modify a law that already exists.

Trans does not elicit the same visceral disgust response as paedophilia. Nor, as it is understood currently, should it.

Everyone knows and understands that paedophile = adult who wants to rape children.
No one needs this explaining to them or needs telling that it's a bad thing.

There is no such thing as a sympathetic paedophile type for the movement to latch on to and promote.
Trans are telling us they are not dangerous, and in many (most?) cases this is likely true. Even though their agenda is to dismantle a lot of safeguarding and needs to be challenged.

I see that paedophiles are attempting to latch on to and repeat the success of the Trans agenda, but I think it's unlikely to work.
We already know what a paedophile is. Renaming themselves won't help them.

Protecting our children is instinctive as evidenced by the fact that when this danger is pointed out to people re the Trans movement they usually peak immediately.

Accepting paedophiles in the same way as trans people will be a step too far for most people. At least I sincerely hope so.

Or mention the word beginning with T on a thread about the word beginning with P (or vice versa).

And you aren't allowed to query whether changing safeguarding practices, encouraging children to hide things from their parents, keeping secrets and allowing children to take advice online from adults they don't know (encouraged by charities) is going to lead to child abuse.

ijustwannadance, you aren't allowed to say that, or make any comparison at all between the two. If you do the thread will be deleted.

Abolishing legal protection for childhood and children is paving the way for this.

😱