Jo Bartosch in the MOS

in her email, Kelley suggested that the BBC article would end up being ‘transphobic’ because it represented trans women as ‘sexual predators’, which was a ‘central anti-trans argument’.

This in itself is very interesting and disturbing framing.

What she is saying is that certain arguments, irrespective of their factual truth or validity, should not be allowed if they are used by "the other side". The people with the bad ideas.

This is a really dangerous thing to accept, even when we think the other side is wrong. Take for example some of the genetic racists, who will point to statistics on black underachievement in academic tests. The fact is, that these statistics are true and no one really has a clear explanation as to why. So of course they are used by people who want to claim some races are genetically inferior.

But there are those who don't want to talk about these facts at all simply because they fear their use by such people, and who try and use rather unconvincing arguments about things like implicit bias to gloss over the information. This is a bad thing - it not only means the underlying problems aren't addressed, it ends up lending credence to the racists. Because people can see they are the only ones who seem to be looking at the information.

It's not a good outcome and it's very typical of identity politics groups like Stonewall.

👍🏼 Done. And shall be again. And again. Etc.

It's not about a minority of people taking advantage. It's about every single predator in the country being able to take advantage. And being patted on the back for it and being called progressive.

@Datun, that is so perfectly put. May I quote you to my MP (and every other bugger I'm writing/speaking to about this)?

[quote Appledrop]The Daily mail should now do an article on this person, the person in this short but very shocking tiktok video?

mobile.twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1461468365881589770[/quote]
And this is the problem. That person is just one person. There are always nasty wankers out there, aren't there?

And that's what the ideology claims, that you can't judge everyone on the basis of one.

But the whole point is that the ideology gives every single man like this the opportunity to fuck women over.

It's not about a minority of people taking advantage. It's about every single predator in the country being able to take advantage. And being patted on the back for it and being called progressive.

So yes, I do think that men such as this need to be showcased.

The Daily mail should now do an article on this person, the person in this short but very shocking tiktok video?

mobile.twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1461468365881589770

That was an excellent piece by Jo. The comments show people's confusion because it's such big topic to get your head around and the language used adds to the confusion. There's also an element of disbelief that all this has been going on, on top of all the other stories in DM about women's sport, GIDS, erasure of female centred words etc etc etc. It's no wonder people are scratching their heads, confused.

Well, it's completely explicit now, isn't it? Stonewall says that lesbians that don't want to touch a penis are "sexual racists".

How Nancy Kelley can say that as a lesbian herself boggles the mind.

Among the many things I like about that article is the clarity of the language around exactly who lesbians are being asked to sexually accommodate: males, with male genitalia, who claim to be women.

A welcome shift.

One thing I’d disagree on is she implies that Stonewall only went militant under Nancy Kelley when Ruth Hunt was pretty much the same, she just didn’t do interviews. I meant she didn’t call us anti-Semites, but apart from that?

Probably a data protection thing? Just because one person breeches the protocol doesn't make it legal fir eveeyibe to publically publish it does it?

The mermaids leak messages weren't publicly shown either. One assumes it would himder any legL case if there's one open?

As the email from Nancy Kelley has been leaked, why has it not been published.

Said this on the WH thread, but no one should let go of this - Stonewall, the biggest LGBT+ charity in the UK, in calling lesbians who do not submit to sex with males who claim a lesbian 'identity' as bad as 'racists', are advocating for corrective rape.

This should be the end of them. It likely won't be, but it should.

Another much needed article !

The sooner the lies are exposed the better

Imagine if this had been a film or tv studio, or a church, or royal family, or political party, who was being allowed to vet and filter and cancel BBC news stories of sexual abuse by some of its stars or members.

We know Jenni Murray was silenced on this issue on the BBC's prime women's discussion programme, and this at a time when most people now know a family with a child demanding hormones and even surgery, but who must have looked at the mainstream media and thought they were going through this alone because there was no discussion.

What else have Stonewall vetoed over the years? I cannot believe we have got to this stage and not one mainstream, primetime investigative journalist outlet has wanted to cover this phenomenon that everyone I know now knows at least one child in the grip of, in some cases entire sibling or friendship groups, and I don't live in a hip or trendy area.

Question: How much of what NK said in this email did EB know prior to the woman's hour interview?

EB laid one journalist mine for NK over JKR.

Others on the women's hour thread said they felt EB had set up the interview to be part 1 of 2 expecting NK to drop clangers which would later unravel.

It makes more sense and explains that sense, if EB knew about NK email and how this madness isn't going to wash in the slightest with a significant amount of the public.

The “trans” umbrella has been a great smokescreen up to now.

and a lot of general confusion

I just love how the headline refers to Stonewall as the trans lobby group. Never truer words said.

On of the comments says BBC have now switched to Involve UK.

Just had a quick look and they seem to be full of gender crap and 'inclusion' too.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but Jo did hints on Twitter yesterday - I'm going to pop off to read it and come back some time later. Thanks Bore

I'd be interested to know what input Stonewall have been having into drama series plotlines behind the scenes.

At least the people in the comments are absolutely bloody outraged. Well, those who even understand what the fuck Stonewall are talking about when they say women can have penises.

They are having to read the article several times because it's so bloody ridiculous.