Jolyon Maugham, GLP and scary stuff re parental consent

I think we need to be renegotiating some of these banned terms with MNHQ - loads of stuff has gotten zapped lately that was never prohibited before and no warnings are being issued on threads.

Thanks, nauticant, informative.

I mentioned the fat acceptance movement and a few similarities it now has to mainstream trans activism, including an unorthodox approach to science, the treatment of those who leave the movement, and a philosophy that seems supportive while perhaps making those involved feel alienated from people outside the movement.
I also mentioned that I do believe fat people are treated worse in our society, just as I do believe genuine transphobia exists. I just think these movements as they exist now aren't the way to solve things.

This person was shown to be a founder of the PIE.

That looks to be incorrect. There is an unclear Scottish Daily Mail article:

www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20140621/281681137957838

which talks about Hein but focuses on Ian Dunn who was one of the founders of PIE and people have taken the fact about Dunn and applied it to Hein. This mistake is now widespread. Hein was a member of PIE (member 194) and presumably supported its goals.

One interesting thing is that when Peter Tatchell learned about Dunn, Tatchell publicly distanced himself:

twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/1061286201053847552

2 years later the current activists when caught out won't even do this, instead they blame (typically women) and then block.

Can't ultimately let them censor un-offensive, legitimate terms.

Hmm, not sure what was said, but I was talking about dysfunctional & unhealthy group behaviour - it is surprisingly common within groups. People think these groups are rare but in fact human nature quite often throws up this type of behaviour.

I do find it very odd that anything using this word would be deleted. In fact, being overly sensitive and defensive about using this descriptive term seems to me to be a very strong indication of a truth that's been disturbed.

Healthy group dynamics encourages questions, criticism and open-ness.

Any group that is censorious about disagreement, criticism or questions .... has features of this type of group ... that I can't use the bloody word for. But is a group that one should be wary of.

I missed that.

Is there an acceptable paraphrase?

Bloody hell that was quick collidascope

Did a google. The LGBTetc community are all putting out statements expressing sadness about Hein's death.

This person was shown to be a founder of the PIE.

It's as if safeguarding, Saville and common sense never existed.

ScotsGay did WHAT?

Here's one of the GLP's advisors liking a tweet mourning the death of a founder of PIE.

Does anyone ever wonder how much genuine support there is out there for transing children and believing that people like Eddie Izzard are really women? There's a lot on Twitter, but even there I think it's a case of empty vessels making most noise. In the real world, I suspect most people think it's ridiculous.

I suspect the GLP will soon sever ties with Mumsnet because Mumsnet has the audacity to allow women to speak (somewhat, in very couched terms, which still, on the whim of a mod, get you a ban, when they were fine yesterday).

[quote HDDD]Someone may have said this already on one of the JM threads but I'd totally missed the Mumsnet/Good Law collab www.mumsnet.com/news/86-percent-of-child-maintenance-service-users-say-it-was-used-to-control-or-abuse-them?utm_source=boxingday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-12-26&utm_term=2020+and+all+that%3A+the+end-of-the-year+Mumsnet+roundup&rei=202653[/quote]
Thanks for that! It's mentioned in the New Year update (goodlawproject.org/news/new-years-update-good-law-project/), but hasn't made it into this section of its website goodlawproject.org/issues/no-one-left-behind/

It’s noticeable that JM gets relatively few likes for his tweets about trans issues compared to other issues and his large following. I don’t think he has as much support for his position as he thinks he has.

Whatever his motivation is/was, one of the most insidious aspects of the TRA ideology is how difficult it is to reverse ferret.

As soon as you "join" you are overwhelmed with positive and affirming support. You're equally instructed to cut off any negativity.

So down the rabbit hole you go.

I read a really upsetting blog from a girl who'd de-transitioned. She'd become completely dependent on her online support and their validation of her transition, having been urged to block anyone who didn't offer their 100% support of her trans journey.

Then, she started getting some "uncomfortable" (you can guess...) communications and when she expressed her discomfort she got accused of kink shaming and threatened with a mass block of all the "friends" she had come to depend on.

It's a well known tactic.

You'd think JM would be too clever to fall for this (and there is no doubt he is very clever but he's also I suspect very ambitious and fame hungry).

Like others, for a time I suspect he enjoyed the adoration of the TRA's and each tweet that got him more "likes" (the more on board he got) played to his SJW mentality and the desire to be celebrated.

That's his Achilles heel.

He's too clever to be wrong so however the ridiculous the argument he wants to play in response to the Bell case, he's going to do it anyway - because being told by his peers he's lost the plot is far better than admitting to himself that he's fucked up and failed to understand the issues at hand.

I just wonder why people are so keen to ascribe a personal motivation when so many men have clearly needed no such thing.

I take your point and maybe it is just plain old misogynistic one-upmanship. Maybe he is using the suggestion of a personal interest to lend his campaign more credibility. Either way, I think it's a matter of transparency. If there is an interest he should declare it and likewise the opposite if not. JM has hinted that this issue affects someone he loves. He is asking people to donate to support legal action, I think that it's only right and proper that he is open about his motivations. We are used in this country to campaigns that seek to change laws and protocols brought by people with a personal connection, or experience. With such cases we know where we stand and what is driving the people involved. I think it's a bit rum to either be loose with the truth about a personal connection or not to be declaring one, it doesn't allow people to make informed decisions about their support.

Good to hear!

Someone is already doing some serious digging into GenderGP’s finances...