Harry the Owl

Indeed @DpWm being gender critical is inherent in being rad fem which makes me wonder what OP thinks GC means as they’ve not specified. OP this isn’t helping the mistrust as the people who strangely think GC basically means upholding gender roles (rather than rejecting and smashing them hence critical) are TRAs or lib fems.

You don’t have to be a RF to be GC lots of us aren’t, but you can’t be RF without being GC.

And we really need to call this out every time as not to be alarmist but the latest tack I’ve seen anti-GC people take is to declare these nasty women are doing radical feminism wrong and RF can totally be pro gender identity and therefore trans exc RFs are just being mean rather than rejecting a harmful gender ideology. Do not let RF be diluted by people who’s ‘feminism’ is male centred declaring they are RF but not GC

I am RF.

Do you have a tag that goes off when you leave the shop?

I am not GC. I am RF.

How does that work?

Oh I bet you have Bore. MN FWR a portal to an improved vocabulary.

Oh, I've got ALL the words!

Apologies for the double post, internet being weird.

I love the word mendacious, must use it more often. Thanks Bore for reminding me of it.

I love the word mendacious, must use it more often.

Quite datum, it really is bonkers!

Not sure if OP is being mendacious, disingenuous or credulous.

If only s/he had posted in their 'well known' usual name we might have more idea.

Indeed Datun

^ or that you can be a Rad From and not be critical of gender lol which is a first I must say

And I'm sick to death of people not understanding that you can't criticise a campaign for free speech based on the campaigner saying something you think think he shouldn't.

🤣🤣🤣

Honestly, you couldn't make it up!

And I'm also sick to death of the notion that only Rad Fems can be critical of GenderBollocks.

I am so tired of people I previously thought to be measured and reasonable landing upon an opinion and pronouncing that their interpretation - of someone else's words - is the only possible one, therefore we should immediately burn the heretic.

YY.

Right, well, if you're a well known and respected poster, why have you nanechanged to post this? And why, if you're a regular, would you think that demanding FWR denounce people on scant evidence because they will 'damage the cause' would get anything other than faces, given the repeated threads of this type about Posie?

Furthermore, I'm not frothing, I have barely registered the man's existence, and the only person centering men here is the person who started yet another fucking thread about one in FWR.

This is a carbon copy of the threads we were inundated with when Posie Parker was aired in America.
"How can you support her? She spoke to Christians. Stop it"

There was also a lot of
"How can you support Jennifer James, she fell out with another feminist and supports Corbyn. Stop it"

This is all very familiar....

The more everyone keeps replying to this, the more seeds of distrust are sown.

Just grey rock it and let it sink.

Need.. men cannot be feminists, radical or otherwise.

Exactly. Most women don’t claim to be feminist yet are GC. I don’t know enough about feminist theory to know whether men can be feminists. However most wont be, but will be GC.

Ergo there is a large proportion of the population that you have disagreement with.

Luckily most people support free speech, and hopefully enough will help fund Harry’s campaign. Even if it is to have the right to disagree with him on other issues.

Since when was everyone supposed to be a feminist. It would be like insisting that all MN posters were mums.

I didn't say you were a TRA. I said TRAs have been rummaging through Harry's social media, going back YEARs to find something, anything to try to discredit his campaign.

And you have fallen for it.

As OP who is 'worried' the cause will be discredited, on the basis of them trawling back years to find a fucking tweet.

Give me strength.

Harry is not a golden boy, neither is he a hero. He is fighting for free speech. Something that you are, at this very second in time, in the process of trying to shut down.

I think the lack of logic is what offends me the most.

You think I am a TRA?

With no posting history and an odd OP? I think it's very possible.

Whether you are or not is irrelevant, what matters is whether the allegations are true.

Both of those screenshots are a bit odd - the first one with the one comment in bold and one not makes me think it's either out of context or edited.

I don't like the second one, whether he's racist or not- I think it's fine to criticise the burka, but more caution/nuance would be better.

But there is an easy solution, as pp says, just ask him- he's not shy with opinions.

MN has nothing to do with running Fair Cop, why post here with so little context?

It doesn't make any sense that someone wants to still support the campaign for free speech by telling people that the free speech Harry employed on twitter is wrong.

You can't discredit a person for damaging advocacy for free speech by criticising them on the basis of their free speech!!!!

It is you, OP, who is not advocating for free speech!!! Whilst maintaining that you support the campaign for it.

Get a grip

I am so tired of people I previously thought to be measured and reasonable landing upon an opinion and pronouncing that their interpretation - of someone else's words - is the only possible one, therefore we should immediately burn the heretic.

It's bizarre. I've had people do it, to me, in real time, whilst my actual words stand there utterly refuting every false claim they try to ascribe to me.

"You believe XYZ"

• Um, no I don't. Here, I believe the opposite actually.

• Again, no, but let me reiterate once more, in writing, that I categorically don't believe XYZ, at all. Is that clearer?

Why do people do this? I don't understand this mentality at all.

So OP if you say that if you'd used you real name we'd all listen... why not tell us your real name??