Good luck Harry The Owl

the infiltration began long before that. Who initiated it?

This is what I just don’t understand. It’s the wholesale regulatory capture which has been going on in the background whilst the majority still don’t even know this is happening. This is a lobby group without any visible presence, figurehead, headquarters etc that has managed to colonize entire government institutions. They make the Masons look transparent. What is their motive? Who is funding them? I don’t agree that it’s just a patriarchal backlash. It’s something much more niche

Conversation with friends on a dog walk this morning and they wanted to know how this had all happened – how, without public consultation, without consultation with women's groups, with barely a murmur in the press, there had been a decision taken to revise the GRC, erode women's rights etc. How had Labour been so thoroughly infiltrated?

I keep coming back to Stonewall. People like Alex Drummond and other high-profile trans advocates were being introduced to ministers by Stonewall. Groups such as Mermaids, which frankly I think would have seemed very dodgy to a lot of people, were legitimised by Stonewall. We only got to the point where every ruddy police force and every NHS trust and school has been brainwashed because Stonewall provided legitimacy.

One of my friends works in the NHS and she had loads of questions after receiving Mermaids-based training and thought there was something off about it, but then thought that if they were backed by Stonewall they must be okay.

Stonewall needs to be put on trial. That organisation has done so much damage. I know that there were trans people on my region's Stonewall Committee 12 years or more ago and that feminist lesbians were made to feel so uncomfortable that they left. That was during Ben Summerskill's time. The T was only officially adopted in 2015 but the infiltration began long before that. Who initiated it?

I so much agree with your post about men's belief that they're entitled to sex, TheProdigalKittensReturn.

All my life I've been aware of the massive distress and hardship men are prepared to put their families through in the pursuit of fresh fannies and bodies new. It's around us in society but also in the wider culture. The Trojan War anybody?

The middle aged man ditching his wife and kids for a far younger woman and a sports car has long been a cliché. Nowadays there's a fresh twist, in that the woman this man runs off with may be himself in lingerie.

Or, viz Maya and Harry, have them fearing the consequences should they speak out

Quite so. It’s an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation. The idea of I don’t agree with you but respect your right to an alternative opinion is gone. People are frightened about their safety and jobs for saying anything that deviates from the new orthodoxy as imposed by Twitter. It’s intellectually stultifying and it’s suffocating freedom of speech and critical thinking

Speaking of freedom of speech ... here's the next wave of madness awaiting us ....

www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/wisconsin-security-guard-fired-n-word.html

or calling people names in order to prevent them being heard.

Or, viz Maya and Harry, have them fearing the consequences should they speak out.

Time, thank you for the link, it’s interesting to note which columnists are prepared to speak out on this case. And which columnists are on mute.

Both care strongly about free speech

This is the defining issue of the 21st century. Freedom of speech or calling people names in order to prevent them being heard.

Well, even a stopped cunt is right twice a day.

But we need to get away from the idea that we can agree with a person totally or not at all. People are complex individuals and there's nothing remotely contradictory about someone doing or believing good things in one arena and very bad in another. There are so many examples of this. A person can be a racist and also understand the risks of self-ID, just as a person can be an anti-racist and not. A person can be an actual wife beater and also have a problem with other abuses of women.

(And I do actually mean in all sincerity about Harry and Spero saving the free world from the police!)

with people not wanting to expose themselves to someone they fear might be over sensitive.

India Willoughby stated this on tv with Piers Morgan, saying it was already happening. India attributed the same cause you did.

If Harry and Spero have a moment to spare from saving the free world from the police, could they advise on the NHS and their insistence that women refusing to provide validation experiences with their breasts and vaginas, or refusing to go along with lies on command, will be threatened upto and including refusing them medical care?

Because I foresee a hole in need of digging quite urgently there.

RL is a pretty loathsome specimen in almost all things. Him and Littlejohn .....

Both care strongly about free speech. Possible in part because they write things that many will disagree with, and want to retain the freedom to do so.

I personally find the sort of debate that uses personal insults like loathsome and "specimen" dispiriting.

I am willing to listen to what Liddle has to say if it is a topic I am interested in, if only to work out why I disagree with him, though I normally don't bother. In truth I have been underwhelmed with much he has written on this topic, some of which seems rather sloppy, and consider him overrated. However, like him, I am entitled to my opinion.

Liddle raises awareness in a different demographic. I'm happy not to shoot the messenger.

Madness isn't it.

Harry now looking at the NHS and children.

www.facebook.com/100038073817732/posts/152437049368755/

The judge gets a mention in Rod Liddle's ST column today

Not really sure that means much. RL is a pretty loathsome specimen in almost all things. Him and Littlejohn .....

Share token for Rod Liddle's piece

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/its-not-only-jeremy-corbyns-mob-that-welcomes-anti-semites-its-the-whole-bourgeois-left-pq0rlgvbt?shareToken=3867b8f6b0b24891b62e194dfd7b8317

Destinysdaughter
Thanks for posting, I might send it to my Labour Party candidate.

What an interesting article, Destinysdaughter. Thanks for posting.

The penis havers noticed that their old methods of forcing women into things were beginning to work a bit less well in some societies, so they came up with a new version with added gaslighting.

A lot of this is difficult for women to understand because we tend not to allow our sexual impulses to completely take over our lives, and we also haven't been socialized to see harming other people to meet them to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The moment where you finally get it, that this (not just the trans stuff, "this" in terms of all the societal bullshit men impose on women) really is all about men's access to whatever form of sex they want with whoever they want to do it to, is a bit like the moment the ghost faces start melting in Raiders of the Lost Ark. I think some women gaslight themselves into avoiding that realization because it's too frightening.

Worth remembering that hate crimes reported double in the UK over the past 5 years

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/15/hate-crimes-double-england-wales

with Stonewall claiming that LGBT+ crimes are significantly under reported.

Trouble is after Harry shining a light, what is "reported" hate crime, which are really "hate" and which are really "crimes". Stonewall helped write the guidance, Stonewall wants to see reporting increased. Stonewall is a lobbying organisation.

In a diverse society we cannot tolerate hate. However reporting potentially trivial incidents, eg Harry liking a tweet, will be counterproductive. Less police time for real crimes and real victims, and a failure to focus on unacceptable, often dangerous, racial, religious and sexual harassment.

It may also lead to a belief that you need to handle transgender people with kid gloves. For example, say, being very very careful during an interview process, whist at the same time doing your best to find concrete reasons why you don't offer someone a job. Too many trivial reports from TRAs could mean transgender people generally are perceived as "snowflakes" with people not wanting to expose themselves to someone they fear might be over sensitive.

Like crying wolf too often, a call for help won't be listened to if used too often.

Fascinating discussion above about why all this is happening. This article has an interesting take on it.

rdln.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/class-identity-politics-and-transgender-ideology/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

So police are now recording not only hate speech that is not criminal, but also hate speech in which there is no evidence whatsoever of hate

The judge gets a mention in Rod Liddle's ST column today

No hate. No crime. But you’re nicked

A confusing time for Mr Justice Knowles, presiding at a landmark case in the High Court. It’s about how police record “non-criminal hate speech”.

Frankly, if it’s non-criminal, why are they recording it, you might ask. But that wasn’t what threw the judge. It was the suggestion that a comment reported as hateful by a victim must be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”. Knowles scratched his head: “That doesn’t make sense to me. How can it be a hate incident if there is no evidence of the hate element?”

A reasonable question that was not successfully answered. So police are now recording not only hate speech that is not criminal, but also hate speech in which there is no evidence whatsoever of hate.

I mean, what happened? Did the brief period of materialist sense collectively scare the penis havers because they realized reason will lead to freedom, so society must be dragged back into the ephemeral, where understood words are cannibalized and no one knows which way is up anymore? Why is everyone going along with this morass of gibberish?

I think it is the unintended consequences that prompted the backlash.
As long as most women went along with the traditional social hierarchy many of the advantages of recognizing women's civil rights accrued to men.
It was not until women began to challenge male dominance in the eighties that the backlash began in earnest. Now, women outnumber men in college admissions. This is viewed as a problem that needs to be solved.
Independence. Women not being dependent on men is the problem that men are trying to solve, with a philosophy of subjectivity in the name of equality, of course.