Oxford Student newspaper doxes Twitter account by possible criminal unauthorised use of a comptuer system

Plenty of people do. Why not you?

I'm not just going to post my personal information on here

Why ever not?

I take a more holistic view of all of this. TRAs believe that once we're at the point where everyone feels that they cannot criticise the gender identity ideology because of fear of the consequences, then victory will be achieved. I'd say that long before that happens there'll be a very strong backlash that won't just be coming from the gender critical community but will also be coming from the public at large.

Many of the "victories" that give the gender identity ideology a higher profile in the mind of the general public will prove to be defeats.

I'm not just going to post my personal information on here, but if someone worked out who I was I would have absolutely no issue what so ever with it. I say very similar things elsewhere under my own name.

Welcome to Mumsnet, OrangeStudent!

I'm so confused

If you are needing to use burner phones to protect your identity from the things you are saying, perhaps you need to reevaluate your views and conduct on twitter.

So why not use your real name on here Orange, hmm?

I think Oxford University's consideration of free speech & fundamental values may prove to be different to the one you seem to anticipate.

Yes, this as well!

I agree @R0wantrees

There's a familiarity of tone and style of expression.

Free speech includes the social consequences for your actions, individuals are entitled to argue against you and society is entitled to give you consequences for your actions. You aren't entitled to keep your job as an Oxford Professor if you hold views which are fundamentally contrary and incompatable with the values of the University.

There's a big difference between free speech and insisting on the right to dox.
Since you're so keen on people being accountable under their names, why are you using a pseudonym on here?
I'm guessing one rule for you and another for the people you don't agree with.

Are you a student at Oxford? Their standards don't seem very high if so.

Back when I was a student, many years ago, our student newspaper "Nowheresville Student" was universally known as "Nowheresville Stupid" because the standards of journalism were so woefully low. I don't think it's an unusual state of affairs in student newspapers.

However, in this instance, I think they're simply doing old fashioned muck-raking dumpster diving, albeit in a new, high-tech way, then trying to spin the results as "Don who openly holds GC views has anon twitter account in which he, shock horror, also holds GC views."

It ain't gonna win a Pulitzer, that's for sure.

Skimmed the article, don't see what he did that was so wrong. Anything happens to him just proves him right about their fascist nature.

Free speech includes the social consequences for your actions, individuals are entitled to argue against you and society is entitled to give you consequences for your actions. You aren't entitled to keep your job as an Oxford Professor if you hold views which are fundamentally contrary and incompatable with the values of the University.

I think Oxford University's consideration of free speech & fundamental values may prove to be different to the one you seem to anticipate.

Moron is a disgusting term

I think our new visitor is right about the legalities of the situation.

Take the low-tech example of that old-fashioned tabloid journalism technique, dumpster diving.

If celebrity A fails to shred stuff before it goes in the bin, knowing that journos do this sort of thing, they're a fool.

If they employ a firm of commercial cleaners to (among other things) shred their documents before they go in the bin, and the firm fails to do this, and a journo digs them out, celebrity A should be suing the firm of cleaners for breach of contract, not the journo.

Ditto this situation - HenryWimbush's legal beef is with twitter, not the people who did the doxxing.

As for why one might keep details secret and seek anonymity, it could be to hide unsavoury views. Or it could be that even mainstream feminist views are being used as the basis to send rape and death threats and approach employers. Or it could be that you work in a job where you are allowed to be politically active so long as it is not tied back to your place of employment, so you choose to do your activism under a pseudonym (this will apply to most junior civil servants for e.g. - they can for example go on political demos, but not put posts on social media of the form "I, real-name, who works for Ministry Blah, thinks politician Bloggs is a complete waste of space and doesn't read any of the briefs we send him or understand them once they've been read.") Or it could be that you want to talk in general terms about something covered by an NDA (for instance, equal pay claims are routinely covered by NDAs, and someone who has successfully brought an equal pay claim might want to say, in an online discussion, when confronted with a sexist who says "the gender pay gap is a myth", "oh yeah, so how come I won an equal pay claim then?"). Or it might be because you want to discuss a very contentious issue (Brexit, Indie Ref, voting Republican) without losing loads of your friends over it. Lots of reasons for online anonymity, most of them not in the slightest bit sinister.

Amazing. I applaud your extremely high opinion of your own power, stude. When adolescents and those who are old enough to know better conflate a difference of belief system (with respect paid to one side by the side other, but not the reverse) to hatred and phobia, it demonstrates very clearly the failures inherent in the system.
With the ongoing adventures of Pluckrose et al, and the standing up to be counted of many academics who are tired of being accused of bigotry, I’m hopeful that we can settle into old school academia where ideas and beliefs can be robustly discussed and taken apart as they should be.
But it’s important that everyone has a voice and the authority to challenge orthodoxy. No?

I'm sure he'll be fine. He only speaks the truth.

Founder of TransOxford issued the following statement after the WPUK meeting referred to above:

twitter.com/i/moments/990001689422979077

"l‘m not condemning the meeting of WomansPlaceUK but the shameful campaign of bullying and intimidation organised by the students and transactivists outside of the QuakerHouse.
I’ve studied in Oxford, once a capital of freethought and freespeech, known for its fair debates with respect to the opinions of one’s opponents and refreshingly skilful and witty arguments challenging their views.

Bullying, although surfacing occasionally, was never welcome, especially, in the LGBT circles having too many victims of it knowing only too well how much it hurts. But last night the tables have turned - and the bullied became the bullies

I founded TransOxford in 2015 to promote the greater unity and more extensive communications between the separate transgender groups some of which had no idea of the others existing in the same city.

It eventually became a connecting hub between the trans groups in London Brighton, Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Bath.

I was promoting unity and understanding between these groups and the society around them, acceptance and equality and, most importantly, social integration of trans people with the rest of the world.

After all, we all are humans and have more things which unite us than divide us. I stepped down after a while having my doubts about the direction transgender movement was taking and being too busy with my motherhood duties.

Being a woman, i’m a feminist. In the eyes of some radical feminists, I may be a ‘delusional male’ which doesn’t bother me. I look like a woman, live as a woman, accepted by the world at large as a woman, and that’s enough for me, I need no further justification.

My friends include feminists who care for the real cause: women’s safety, health, equal opportunities, empowerment of women and recognition of their achievements.

In today’s Britain where misogyny isn’t a crime but transphobia is, we have too little time to discuss biology and chromosomes. We need to talk about the more important issues. And yes, we all need to talk...

But every time I suggest this to the trans activists, I hear the same arguments in reply: they won’t listen to us, there’s no room for debate, transrights aren’t debatable, they only invite cisgender people...

I believe that ‘cisgender’ and ‘terf’ are as much hurtful and derogatory terms as ‘trannies’. Let’s avoid that language!

I think WomansPlaceUK do invite everyone as long as they have something to contribute to the debate. I know a number of transsexuals who attended and spoke at their events (and were immediately branded as apostates by the transcommunity).

‘No debate’ is the only option? What are you going to do with so many women and transsexuals who support WomansplaceUK ? Eliminate them? Charge them with hatecrime after your lobbyists push through another piece of legislation?
Inviting anyone for an open debate is not a hatecrime. WomansPlaceUK has only five things on their agenda they want to discuss. Only five. Is that too much?

They want an open debate on how the new transrights might affect womensrights - what’s wrong with that? It is obvious that their rights will be affected in some way - so why not discuss their concerns in a civilised and evidence based way?" (continues)

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3234661-Condemnation-of-the-shameful-campaign-of-bullying-intimidation-against-WPUK-meeting-by-founder-of-TransOxford

StarsAndWater Free speech includes the social consequences for your actions, individuals are entitled to argue against you and society is entitled to give you consequences for your actions. You aren't entitled to keep your job as an Oxford Professor if you hold views which are fundamentally contrary and incompatable with the values of the University.