In support of Amy Dyess

And I'll say again: if you're blinded to the underlying issues because it's too shocking for you that a woman had the effrontery to lose her temper - you should probably unpack that, before attempting to unpack either Amy or Charlie, who both belong to groups that are in need of support from women.

she seems like she has really thought this through and doesn’t deserve to be attacked

Who do you think was attacking her, on twitter, exactly?

She attacked a bunch of women and didn't much like it when people pointed out that them politely defending themselves wasn't an attack on her.

Get the L Out have always said their protest was lesbians and allies. Charlie was the victim of the ideology Get The L Out are protesting. She didn't speak for lesbians, she held a banner in support of.

And, again, Amy's in the US. What has a protest by a small group of women in the UK got to do with her, exactly?

Good analogy about this using the Prodigal Son parable by Dyketagnan on Spinster:

spinster.xyz/@Dyketagnan/posts/102693772151609117

I can’t see her swearing anywhere maybe I missed that bit

Yes, I know Amy personally.

Right. Thanks for confirming.

Not interested in personal feuding: only the underlying macro level issues.

Just had a look at her twitter feed she seems like she has really thought this through and doesn’t deserve to be attacked.

I don't know Amy very well, to be clear. But well enough to have got the measure of her.

what we probably need to do is examine our own -often overly hostile - responses to women's anger.

Do you really mean this? You think "fuck off imposter" is a reasonable way for anyone to speak to someone they've just criticised online, when the person they just criticised tries to engage with them respectfully?

Saying that calling out Amy on this is to do with a hostile response to women's anger is a bit bloody rich! Amy was plainly being a dick. Her sex is absolutely irrelevant here.

You seem very invested: to the extent you join MN to "not just bandy about insults". Is there some personal connection we're missing?

I've been on mumsnet over a decade, since it was all green fields and Cod was here. I am a regular on FWR (spend far too much time here!)

Yes, I know Amy personally. I've changed my name as I don't want to deal with any more of her bullshit. There's lots of personal stuff I could share here, but I won't. I'm going to stick to the public stuff.

These women are putting themselves at considerable personal risk and it's up to them who they want to protest with
Yy to this

I fail to see what it's got to do with Amy, who's thousands of miles away in America and who has proved time and again that she doesn't understand the UK context
And yy to this. It kind of boils your piss a bit when a self indulgent American tells women in the UK who they can or can't march with at Pride.

This is what Julie Bindell said to Amy:

Amy, from one lesbian to another, please don't do this – these women have courage and integrity. They were wrong and they have admitted it, actually I see them as victims of the transgender cult. The last thing we should do is reject & blame them now. We should welcome them home.

And this is what Amy said in return:

You’ve never spoken to me before. You’ve gone out of your way to ignore and not support me. It’s because I’m the real deal. I’m too gay for you to handle. You’re a political lesbian who doesn’t even know what a butch is, so stay out of it. I don’t know you and don’t want to.

Amy's over inflated sense of self importance is very obvious here. Amy likes to see herself as as an important media personality, a journalist and a film maker. However, lets put this into context, she has just 3,300 twitter followers on an account she's been running in her own name, for 5 years. Normally I wouldn't comment on someone's social media following, but for someone who claims to be a content creator, she's not exactly influential. I have a sizable proportion of that number, on a GC account I've been running only a year or so and I'm a nobody! Just another GC account.

Julie Bindell, on the other hand, genuinely is an important media personality. She has a solid history as an activist, writer and journalists. She is a household name among left wingers and beyond. She has 39,000 twitter followers.

In what planet does Amy think it's reasonable to say to Julie Bindell that she's "gone out of her way to ignore and not support" her. Why does she assume Julie Bindell even knows who she is? Pure narcicism IMO. And the rest of the tweet is just laughable. " I’m too gay for you to handle." Seriously?! To Julie Bindell? How can people take this in any way seriously?

Then, someone tweeted Amy I’m a huge fan of yours AND Julie’s, and it really saddens me to see you treating her this way. You are both fantastic , iconic women to me

And Amy responded:

She attacked me. Did you miss that? Everything I wrote to her is spot on. You should go talk to her instead. I’m allowed to defend myself.

Please can anyone explain how Julie's comment is in any way an attack? Is isn't. The tweeter who just said she was a huge fan of Amy's gently pointed this out but got called a troll and blocked by Amy.

So no, I can't support Amy. This isn't about her point of view, which she is entitled to. This is about the destructive behaviour of a self-important bully, and women standing up to her.

Been following the discussion on Twitter, and I think I’m in agreement with previous posters. AD is entitled to her opinion and to disagree with the prevailing ‘yay, brave detransitioners’ narrative. She is not entitled to have everyone agree with her or not have a problem with her calling a 19 year old lesbian a traitor, or untrustworthy.

I don’t think every detrans person has the sun shining out of their backside, but I think telling them they’re not proper lesbians (or telling Julie Bindel she’s ‘too gay to handle’ - lol) is out of order.

tearing each other a*part

According to Trans-speak, “lesbians” are attracted to female and male persons (provided they ID as women). Charlie considered herself a lesbian until recently.

Recently two men on the GC side disagreed, and went separate ways. No one batted an eyelid. Women seem to be held to different standards.

As in genuinely, I'm not just bandying about insults.

You seem very invested: to the extent you join MN to "not just bandy about insults". Is there some personal connection we're missing?

As I said upthread: what we probably need to do is examine our own -often overly hostile - responses to women's anger.

testing agree. It’s likely to push them back to the TRAs.

I am not a fan of getting involved in personality arguments when it's the broad political points that are important.

It's great that not everyone gets sucked into the trans ideology, but what gender critical feminists want is to change the minds of those who have bought into it. Criticising those who have changed their minds doesn't seem helpful to me.

Also the ‘I can’t help it’ discourse is equally harmful to the ‘I chose to be gay’ one. Why keep pitting them against each other? Does the reason for sexual orientation really matter.

I thought the whole point of pride was people marching together in solidarity for other people.

Yes, that's right.

Really, what the fuck has it got to do with Amy what a group of 14 women want to do in the UK?

Her issue, as a narc, is to find a way to make it all about her, and here we are helping her do just that.

I must say I dislike the ‘real lesbian’ vs ‘political lesbian’ debate. Some lesbians have said that they made a conscious choice not to have relationships with men at a younger age. However, Amy and others insist that this means that they are not genuine lesbians and that they are actually bi. Julie has been in a lesbian relationship for over 30 years. Who cares if at one point in her life she had a boyfriend? And so much of what we think is natural instinct is actually socially constructed. So I think it’s dumb to exclude lesbians just because at some point in their lives they dated men. Identities can change over the course of a lifetime.

Amy is a narcissist in my opinion. As in genuinely, I'm not just bandying about insults. She has a massively self inflated sense of importance and manipulates and bullies other women while painting herself as the victim. I'm disappointed to see the usually razor sharp mumsnetters so taken in by her.

I've got to wonder if Amy started this thread.

Amy is not being called out for having a difference of opinion. Amy is being called out for being vile to other women.

Charlie joined a Pride protest to hold a sign that said "gender ideology harms lesbians" along with a 19 year old detransitioned lesbian.

Such Pride protests are risky There is huge hostility from TRAs towards gender critical women who dare to speak up. The women protesting always said they were "lesbians and allies" - the ally being Charlie who is bisexual. These women are putting themselves at considerable personal risk and it's up to them who they want to protest with.

I fail to see what it's got to do with Amy, who's thousands of miles away in America and who has proved time and again that she doesn't understand the UK context.

She didn't disagree respectfully - when Charlie engaged with her she said "fuck off imposter".

Her comment to Julie Bindell was hilariously self obsessed. I really can't believe we're reading the same thread!

I thought Amy's argument revolved around the detransitioners marching with "Get the L out" at Pride.
(Unless I am mistaken and it's about something else).

WRT "Get the L out" and having a problem, I think she's wrong.

Surely anyone can march with a cause they believe in, whether they are of the "class" of people pertaining to the cause or not.

I'm a straight women who supports "Get the L out" because I have empathy with lesbians. She's saying I can't march? Even hold a sign?

I think she's wrong. It's not a good idea to push people away who are allies.

I thought the whole point of pride was people marching together in solidarity for other people. Otherwise why would straight people and children (Pride is often referred to as family friendly) be welcome in the first place?

For me there are a couple of perspectives from Charlie and Thomasin's POV that complicate this. I do fully agree that Amy's POV is valuable and valid; we cannot have any of these debates if we deny opinions of those central to it all.

Charlie came out as lesbian at school first which is when she began to receive homophobic bullying. This, coupled with being 'gender nonconforming' (aka normal) plus gender ideology led to her transitioning. Later on when older she discovered she was bi.

Another thing I've been wondering about regarding the way detransitioners so quickly become passionate about the GC / lesbian cause is that they've experiences a level of trauma and a common reaction to this is to try to help others.

I had another point but toddler, kids, gah.

Birds I think she is bisexual.

I haven’t seen this debate but to me it comes down to one simple fact: is Charlie as lesbian? If yes then she surely has the right to be part of the lesbian movement. The fact she had been taken in by a cult and only recently broken free doesn’t stop her being a lesbian (if she is one rather than bi).