Prof Stock on Lorraine this morning 9.10am

I wonder what the public reaction would be if someone made a website and just documented crimes on it that were committed by gay people, or by black people, or people of a given religion?

Well… if it was a website that set out to show that crimes were being misrecorded in statistics, or if those on the web site were put into prisons meant for protecting a group that that person didn’t actually belong in, just identified as, or… if that group was trying to remove the safeguarding of another group and needed to be tracked because the official statistics did not track those numbers, then yes, i certainly could see a reason for such a website.

That you used this as an defence shows how little critical thinking you actually have done about this.

I wonder what the public reaction would be if someone made a website and just documented crimes on it that were committed by gay people, or by black people, or people of a given religion?

I put a link to a list of male sex offenders, all of whom identify as women, because a PP decided to introduce the name of one of the vanishingly few female sex predators into their argument that GC beliefs should be discounted , because they disapprove of the politics of some GC women and that women can be "as dangerous " as males, a statement which is a total falsehood.
Male people who identify as women share the same patterns of criminality as other men. They present the same danger to women as other men. This is simply a fact however inconvenient it may be for those who try to pretend that in criminal behaviour they are just like women.

Interesting you should mention Nick Griffin though. He was platformed by the BBC on Question Time, made a massive tit of himself and the BNP faded into oblivion soon after.

Which makes one wonder why TRAs have been soooooo desperate to no-platform GC feminists and not allow them to air their views, rather than just letting them 'do a Nick Griffin'? I wonder why that could be?

I wonder what the public reaction would be if someone made a website and just documented crimes on it that were committed by gay people, or by black people, or people of a given religion?

I do happen to remember Nick Griffin BNP's Twitter feed from many years back. He would cherry-pick news articles that show crimes committed by foreigners in Britain, almost as if he had some kind of agenda against them. Almost everyone called him out for racism.

Do you still genuinely not get it or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

The reason that women want to discuss crimes by transwomen is that transwomen are male and all the research shows that transitioning does not magically take those males out of the high risk sex class, and that the male pattern of violence continues despite transition. Which is a large part of the reason that women don't want transwomen in their single sex spaces.

There is no evidence to suggest that gay people, black people or Muslim people commit crimes at any higher rate than any other demographic. But male violence is massively disproportionate compared to female violence. And transwomen are male.

Unless you can tell me the exact, objective point at which a male who identifies as a woman comes out of the high risk class of male and into the low risk class of female?

[quote 334bu]Where does Lily Cade go on the scale?

Not sure what bit of the scale I am on but these people might be more on Lilly's side

transcrimeuk.com/category/sexual-offences/[/quote]
I wonder what the public reaction would be if someone made a website and just documented crimes on it that were committed by gay people, or by black people, or people of a given religion?

I do happen to remember Nick Griffin BNP's Twitter feed from many years back. He would cherry-pick news articles that show crimes committed by foreigners in Britain, almost as if he had some kind of agenda against them. Almost everyone called him out for racism.

Yostin Murillo might give us a benchmark for transgender women to work from.

What do you reckon Margarita?

That was some burn flyingoionk

Still sniggering at it 🔥🔥🔥

Looking through twitter, people do want a balanced debate but only with non GCs!

That tweet

Where does Lily Cade go on the scale?

Not sure what bit of the scale I am on but these people might be more on Lilly's side

transcrimeuk.com/category/sexual-offences/

I couldn't have managed it. On the scale of Julia Long to Kathleen Stock, I'm halfway between Posie and Magdalen.

Now that's a spectrum I could get behind !

Where does Lily Cade go on the scale?

Looking through twitter, people do want a balanced debate but only with non GCs!

On the scale of Julia Long to Kathleen Stock, I'm halfway between Posie and Magdalen.

Loving so many brilliant women mentioned in one go.

I couldn't have managed it. On the scale of Julia Long to Kathleen Stock, I'm halfway between Posie and Magdalen. I'd like to think I'd have got a few zingers in there but I couldn't have done what Stock did.

Makes me think of 'JKR is transphobic - because someone who didn't read her essay / any of her tweets told me she is. So it must be true'

yes @NancyDrawed I had this conversation with an assistant in Waterstones last Friday. I quoted a tweet and she said 'oh, I didn't know that' and agreed it was more than agreeable. I was ordering Material Girls at the time: it should be in on Thursday. :o

It's good when adults like Kathleen Stock are allowed to join the conversation.

I didn't see this posted - with a handy primer of Stock's tewwible views :

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10177255/Theres-stake-feeling-OFFENDED-Kathleen-Stock-says-protecting-women.html

So I have watched a second time and am thinking. That was such an emotionally intelligent performance from Kathleen.

However much we all wish she had shouted and argued and been defensive at the suicide stat - that would have been soooooo counterproductive. That would have shown Kath up as argumentative bitch. The fact she stayed calm and agreeable and non argumentative was amazing. She nodded. She agreed. She said she wasn’t transphobic. And best of frikkin all (and I know this because I am currently listening to material girls on audiobooks) she reverted to her Scottish accent. Not too obviously. But a definite twang.

Pure genius Kathleen. Emotionally smart. Well done.

Now is not the time to be brash and shouty. Now is the time to calmly show you are not a witch and heathen and are in fact your neighbour. Brava!

What gets me is that Lorraine tweets her belief that TWAW, she'd never tweet what political party she supports because that would undermine her journalistic impartiality - why is this ideology different?
And of course the replies are full of people pointing out the problems with this in terms of policy making. I will never understand how we got to this point, it really is a madness.

Ok so in bed and thought I would give it a peak. Omg it’s hilarious. Lorraine is so out of her depth here. She is blabbering blabbering as you would if you were at a new boyfriends parents house and didn’t quite know what to say. Blabber blabber blabber blabber. And doc stock got her message out calmly and securely. Yes there are women and gay people who disagree. There are trans people who disagree. Lorraine. Lorraine. WAKE UP PLEASE. You are immersed in a fiction (PS read chapter 6 of Material Girls. Ooooo you haven’t read it? Really. Give away Lorraine. I thought you had read the arguments and not just been blown away by Eddie Izzard.

Anyway it was worth it to peak a few more women. Well done Kath