Julie Bindel & Sharron Davies can't believe women centre their politics around the trans issue

I've really enjoyed reading this spat with @antifascist . Their style of argument really reminds me of that old piece (old = from the 90s) about the moon being a hoax.

phdn.org/archives/revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

One day, when I have time, I think I'll sit down and make up a bingo card from the arguments used in this magnificent satire. But in the meantime, I just want to suggest that:

• A retweet does not imply approval of the original tweeter's position on everything.
• The purpose of discussion is to find out what the truth is, not just win the argument. This means that you actually have to discuss, not just imply, insinuate, and express horror at the source's sinfulness.
• There is a truth out there, in the sense that the world is constituted in particular ways, and not in others. It is possible to approach to that truth through reasoned discussion when conducted in good faith and when argued and evidenced properly. Or, really, when argued and evidenced at all!
• I don't care if Davies has retweeted something from someone who has views I find abhorrent if the retweet is entirely unrelated to those other views. So what?

It's because we don't think we can win the war if the MRA win in their bid to obliterate the meaning of 'woman'. There can be no specific rights and protections for a class which does not exist. Despite the fact that that class of people can continue to be oppressed and disenfranchised.

Soooo Matilda does NOT want to live 'as a woman'?

And trans people are the most discriminated against?????

And it's GC people who are 'far right'?

Have I hit my head?

I like you am expressing opinions on a message board.

Get over yourself

Anti What's you Twitter name? I want to know if you've ever retweeted me.

Yes it's certainly intriguing watching antifascist trying to discredit Sharron Davies on a thread about Davies' expressing anti Tory sentiments. But compulsive as this is, what I'm really interested in is whether left wing gc feminists have a strategy that would allow me to vote labour and still have a chance of retaining my female rights. Is there a plan and if so, please can we hear it?

“Only women have a cervix.”
KS’s answer: “You can’t say that.”

What else won’t you be able to say?

This ^

I thought this thread was about Sharron Davis telling people not to vote Tory? 'A bad thing'

And now she's aligning herself with right-wingers, also 'a bad thing'?

I know these people will try anything in the book to try and discredit successful women like Bindel and Davies but one would hope that it would be something a little more plausible than 'no, you're the carcass.

Mine too.

I'm pretty confident that isn't what she said, but I know nothing about it.
Do you have a link?

😂👏

Unsurprisingly, I'm not too sure you understand how discourse works, AF. However, I believe you must be familiar with the maxim that it is for those who make claims to provide the proof of them.

You made assertions with certainty: you had performed no due diligence and turned out to be factually incorrect on the follow point. You then shifted your criticism to what SD ought to do which was a case of doing as you say and not as you do. You continue to extrapolate from your own motivated reasoning.

You describe factual descriptions of your actions as pompous. That does give some insight into several matters that I've addressed previously. As above, I hope that this is restricted to your online persona. I would be fascinated if you were to start a thread about what you wish to achieve through your online activities where they overlap with women's rights.

They'd probably be happy to keep it up, last week Helen Staniland happily admitted that transphobia is a gateway into fascism.

I had to go look that up…

Thing is, if we can't show fidelity to reality when it comes to sex, how on earth will we convince people that climate change is a real and pressing concern? This is about manipulation of truth and language - combating that is fundamental to making progress on other issues.

Stay away from the transference, Rufus!

Not only are you extraordinarily pompous

wait… i know this one, this is projection right?

Oh fgs
Twitter is a cesspit
Retreating someone doesn't mean you are a fan and agree with everything they say
You are just stirring now

Not only are you extraordinarily pompous you haven't made clear your position on someone with a large public platform who approvingly quote tweets holocaust deniers?

How do you think Davies should have acted when Peter Swindon's views were pointed out to her?

Some like @ScrollingLeaves and· @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus consider it to be a trivial matter. perhaps its normal in the circles you move in

I consider both your lack of due diligence and your readiness to practice calumny to be very concerning and not trivial. I can only hope that it's restricted to your online life and that your habits of mind are not indicative of those with whom you identify yourself IRL or that must be pretty unpleasant.

I gather that despite your self-appointed role, you have had no training as a witchfinder and denouncer? It is clear that your aspirations are to be judge and jury but it's very unclear as to what end or what your overall goals are for your activities.

antifascist
I said to you,
Are you saying that ‘nothing’ what so ever that a person who is is deemed wrong says can be responded to because that would be amplifying their wrong views - even if the response in question is to an entirely unrelated matter?

I have now looked up Peter Sweden and see he is a nut case who has said terrible and also extraordinarily stupid things about Jews and the holocaust. In addition I read that he has a massive following. I can understand your concern that this following of his could get even bigger if someone gets on to him through reading S D’s tweet.

I do in general though think simply ‘cancelling’ someone no matter what they say, is wrong. For example I hate Trump, but if he says something I think has a point I try to admit it to myself.

The same with Putin, whom I hate even more.

In this case I think SD just responded without knowing the rest about him. I don’t tweet but I did not know about the amplifying effect till you mentioned it. I have copied and pasted or linked even abhorrent tweets to acquaintances or here just to discuss them.

Also, you were not right to throw out the statement that she had re-tweeted a holocaust denial. Or was that a typo and you meant that she had ‘re-tweeted a holocaust denier‘?

Please avoid personal allegations of what circles I, or anyone else, move in. Of course you wouldn’t know.

I don’t have a Twitter account.
I only see what the content of a tweet is in a specific instance.

If the person who was tweeting about farmers is a holocaust denier, he was not making a denial about the holocaust in any way there.

Are you saying that ‘nothing’, what so ever that a person who is is deemed wrong says can be responded to because that would be amplifying their wrong views - even if the response in question is to an entirely unrelated matter?

Why did you at one point say on this thread that SD had re-tweeted a holocaust denial when that was untrue?

PeterSweden is an white nationalist with a serious record of Holocaust Denial,

Sharron Davies quote tweeted him approvingly. with a remark about the "media that only shows the news the[y] want to show"

His record of Holocaust Denial was pointed out several hours ago be mulitple people.

the quote tweet remains

I consider that a matter of some concern.

Others seem to consider amplifying a holocaust denier to be a tricial matter.

I guess that probably depends on how serious you consider holocaust denial to be.

Some like @ScrollingLeaves and· @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus consider it to be a trivial matter. perhaps its normal in the circles you move in

Now I have read it antifascist.

Farmers from Poland, Italy and Germany have joined the Dutch farmers protest.

All over Europe the farmers are protesting and the media is completely ignoring it.

It has nothing to do with holocaust denial.
It is about EU directives against nitrogen, related to reducing its effects on climate change, meaning farmers may go out of business, and the media apparently not reporting on the farmers’ concerns.