Cartoon in the Morning Star

@Chriscam
I think this cartoon is awful. It’s not funny for a start but it’s based on a stereotype and myth
Using a rare example to demonise all transgendered women is appalling

This is the way I see it too - that it insinuates that all are like this. Which obviously isn't true but it seems to play on fears.

Mx Clegicus Sorry, need a sit down after all that laughing

I get the impression that some people would find the cartoon far less offensive if the crocodile had a really really sad face and/ or a reissued reptile birth certificate saying 'newt' on it, and the newts had been properly re-educated on how newt-only spaces were horrid and exclusionary, and how newt was really a psychological mindset any animal could possess, rather than a species of its own.

I'm not sure what this says about newts' rights to be biologically classified as NOTJUSTLITTLECROCODILES.

The talk of group think is a bit rich, considering that women on this board are generally against group think - the kind that makes people nod in agreement to silly stuff like 'some lesbians have penises' and sends coppers to bust people for thought crimes.

hmm indeed

You've just copied and pasted a different post and missed my point again

that's quite a jump just because I think this cartoon was offensive to trans people and I also did a hmm at the wording of "our little friend" just because someone disagreed.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis Thu 27-Feb-20 13:43:53
"Why do you talk about people with a different opinion or viewpoint in such a way as "our new friend's head?!"
Your new friend? You mean a poster, just like everyone else?
It's totally worded to patronise and sow doubt about a poster's intentions just because they disagree with group think."

indeed

But this obviously isn’t portraying trans people. The crocodile represents sexual predators using ‘transitioning’ as a means of gaining access to their victims and the pond creatures represent silly women who are so naive as to think they’re safe anywhere from sexual violence.

You won't get away with that, SpartaCleg

Wotcha Then engage with the discussion. Don't dismiss it with a curt "Neither do I"

I'm surprised and relieved to hear you say that Willis.

So are you agreeing that women are entitled and right to refuse entry to female only spaces to any *man, every man?

Even men with: dysphoria/ reissued birth certificates that now say F/ surgically or hormonally altered bodies/ an insistence that they are women / insert your own caveat?

In short, ALL men? Even the ones that you would call 'women' either with or without a prefix?

*man: adult human male

I understand you think women should NOT be permitted to say no to men, and you would like to position that as 'disagreeing with group think'. Which is OK, there are a lot of people who think women should be subordinated to men

Important also to recognise that its also more often about women speaking up to re-establish Safeguarding intended to protect children & Vulnerable Adults.
Not sex specific.

I understand you think women should NOT be permitted to say no to men, and you would like to position that as 'disagreeing with group think'. Which is OK, there are a lot of people who think women should be subordinated to men

Definitely don't think women should be subordinated to men at all (I'd go as far as saying bollocks to that!)
that's quite a jump just because I think this cartoon was offensive to trans people and I also did a at the wording of "our little friend" just because someone disagreed.

As you are ignoring all the points made and focussing on a distraction...?

False allegations?
About what?
What I said? You did seem to ignore what I actually put, there's no false allegations there.

I find it harder to understand some of the responses which followed from people & organisations who have been campaigning about the dangers of sex self-id for girls & women.

Me too. It's the same blind spot which created this mess in the first place. Arbitrary exceptions and favours for mates and 'nice' people.

It's totally worded to patronise and sow doubt about a poster's intentions just because they disagree with group think. Tends to happen as a sarcastic response to posts that read "wide eyed and innocent".

It's quite irritating when talking about changes in law being sought/made that aid violent and predatory men to be met with posts that basically tell women that there is no issue... nothing to see!

FWR is part of the forum where women are often called upon to think, deeply, widely and not to dismiss the issues under discussion so tritely!

Thing is, Willis, most feminist posters on a feminist talk board are going to uphold women's right to say no to men*. Call it group think if you like, but actually, it's more of a basic, universal, human rights kind of thing?

I understand you think women should NOT be permitted to say no to men, and you would like to position that as 'disagreeing with group think'.
Which is OK, there are a lot of people who think women should be subordinated to men, and I believe you are entitled to hold that opinion, despite my being astonished that you would think it.

But I'm not sure you'll find a great deal of company for your opinion on a feminist talk board. Your position is diametrically opposed to female rights. You'd likely find yourself in mutual company on an MRA forum, where they also tend to also believe women should never be allowed to deny a man something he wants at her own expense.

But you are welcome on this board as any of us are. MNHQ has a very broad brush of tolerance for posters who think women should not be allowed to continue to assert their legal, human, sex based rights.

*men: all adult human males. Really. All.

Way to skim over what I actually said though about how people word things to sow doubt, patronise etc.
That's some point missing, not sure if intentionally or on purpose.

False allegations are often projections.

unintentionally or on purpose

Way to skim over what I actually said though about how people word things to sow doubt, patronise etc.
That's some point missing, not sure if intentionally or on purpose.

Group think?

People, the majority of whom are women, posting on the Feminism chat board of a parenting site & concerned for protecting child Safeguarding & women's sex based rights?

OK Wilis

Why do you talk about people with a different opinion or viewpoint in such a way as "our new friend's head?!"
Your new friend? You mean a poster, just like everyone else?
It's totally worded to patronise and sow doubt about a poster's intentions just because they disagree with group think.

Its an emotional reaction.
Not so difficult to understand in the context of more & more people recently becoming aware following Lisa Nandy's response that child rapists should have their identity as women respected & protected.

I find it harder to understand some of the responses which followed from people & organisations who have been campaigning about the dangers of sex self-id for girls & women.