Crispin Blunt: Strident women's rights campaigners provoked trans people to be angry and confrontational.

When will the 'it will never happen people' start being honest, and admitting its happened already, multiple times but they think the amount of times it has happened and will happen is fine, as such 'collateral damage' of females is fine when weighed against hurt feelings of males?

This is exactly it. It's happened, it's happening, just not enough for most people (esp men) to notice, or care. For now.

Karen White who, guys?? Blunt reckons women aren't at threat from transwomen, and men aren't going to pretend to be women to harm women. Either Karen White is a transwoman, and therefore women are at risk from some transwomen, or Karen White was pretending to be a woman, and therefore women are at risk from men pretending to be women. Maybe you should have done some more 'studying' before opening your gob, Blunt, that's not the only case of this happening. There's no acceptable number of women harmed before we say enough is enough. One is too many. Maybe try looking 'quite deeply' in to that, and the trauma sexual assault victims are left with in the aftermath.

Quite. Just watched a video talking about the trans prisoner paradox.

Simulataneously men would not abuse self ID or pretend to be trans, never. BUT 1/50 male prisoners claim to be trans. And anyone who says they are trans is indeed trans.

Either 'transwomen' are the most dangerous group in society (which I do NOT believe and surely TRAs do not either?!) or this is clear evidence of people saying they are trans when they aren't? (though of course, when the criteria is 'anyone who says they are, then how can anyone NOT be tras when they say..hmm)

Of course one is enough, but evidence shows its WAY more than one, as it would be. Abusive men look for any lophole. To claim they would not abuse this easily abused loophole is just fucking barmy to me. When will the 'it will never happen people' start being honest, and admitting its happened already, multiple times but they think the amount of times it has happened and will happen is fine, as such 'collateral damage' of females is fine when weighed against hurt feelings of males?

For anyone who may have missed it Crispin Blunt praised Mark Field MP for grabbing a female Greenpeace protestor around the neck and pinning her to a pillar during a Mansion House speech:

"I think @MarkFieldUKK_ is to be commended. With in practice minimum use of force he efficiently eliminated a potential threat to people and the event in the absence of any alternative. It’s called taking responsibility and leadership.”

www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/crispin-blunt-mark-field-greenpeace-16465416

Strident, gosh! That would mean having a voice that could not be ignored and using it to say something important forcefully. Sort of like the Votes for Women campaigns back in the day?

What's his problem with that, exactly, I wonder?

Is that what he said, the issue affects up to 500k? It affects around 35 million, Crispin. Has he forgotten women exist? Are we Scotch mist? He really isn't too bright to say the least. How do these fools pass the selection process?

This will be deeply unpopular on here but I wonder how many people Magdalen Berns managed to alienate with her strident, hectoring, patronising "I'm so much more clever than you" videos.

I know she virtually has sainthood on here. The current attacks on her on Twitter are vile, cruel and indefensible but I do seriously wonder if she did more harm than good to your (general your) cause.

I find it very puzzling when people with no apparent skin in the game, like Crispin, or Maria Miller, are prepared to make utter fools of themselves over this issue

I'm really surprised he's doubled down. His initial intervention was so anachronistic and embarrassing I honestly thought he'd slope off and go back to the under the radar, behind the scenes work, or come back publicly with something a bit more pragmatic. Seemingly not.

I find it very puzzling when people with no apparent skin in the game, like Crispin, or Maria Miller, are prepared to make utter fools of themselves over this issue

calling feminists 'strident'. deary, deary me

i wonder if it's sunk cost. once you've started to believe utter bobbins, if you are the kind of person who always assumes you're right, you've got to keep believing that bobbins. otherwise you'd be wrong. which CAN'T EVER HAPPEN

I wonder what skin he has in this? They ALWAYS have skin in it.

I remember when he stood up in the commons and said this effected 200,000 to 500,000 people in the UK, yet only 7,000 trans people filled in the consultation. Such a strange difference eh?

Oh and that's 100,000 suicides attempts (at least).

What a foolish, ignorant, pompous man. So oozing with bs even for a politician

'strident' ....really?
when someone shows you who they are, believe them

Unless you get quite deeply into this and think this through and have both the empathy and the time to get yourself into that place of understanding it's quite easy to think that there are real problems here about men pretending to be women in order to assault women. That men will seek to take improper advantage of rights afforded to people to take a particular gender identity for improper reasons

How could "empathy" possibly lead one to the conclusion that it's not a problem if men pretend to be women in order to assault women?

Empathy for whom?

(paraphrasing my comment above which I've asked to be deleted. I think this is a very important question but it's probably a bad idea to answer it.)

Oh for the confidence of a mediocre man. So 'well informed' yet unable to see the evidence, such as Fairplay for Women's sex offender statistics or research around sports.

"Blunt says he is dismayed at the talk of “balancing” trans rights with women’s’ rights." Yeah we can see you Blunt, as you'd much prefer to steamroller men's rights right over women's.

Well women are staying better informed than you and we're not going anywhere, not whilst men like you continually bleat about wanting to break down our boundaries.

Oh and at the time he didn't just describe Truss as lacking empathy but also as 'overburdened' because she has too many briefs. I doubt Blunt has ever levelled that accusation at male Tory ministers. I suspect that's because he doesn't expect them to bend to his will.

I'm just.......

Do you think they make these wildly ridiculous statements in the hope we'll just be too gobsmacked to reply?

It's TRA bingo. Women have no empathy, they're hysterical and over exaggerating the risks, they're 'aligned' with the US Christian Right (this one always makes me lol), they don't really understand because it's a bit complicated for their brains etc etc. He's been well briefed by Stonewall, but this is an appallingly one sided article and the journalist should be embarrassed for failing to robustly challenge him. It's just PR.

and that is unsurprising because this is a central assault on their identity

Well he got that but right; it is a central assault on women’s identify.

I presume that is what he meant...

And he's spent so long demanding women do what he says, he's absolutely gobsmacked when they don't.

He was incandescent with Lis Truss. He couldn't believe his bloody ears. She actually ignored him. And did what she thought was best. I bet she can't stand him.

And all these women who are so strident, and yet simultaneously, easily manipulated.

I also liked rights aren't conflicting, just overlapping.
Maybe we just need to be nicer.

I think most people haven't got a clue in this area. Basically, we do not understand trans issues.

It's embarrassing.