Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

OJ has a special message for us…

567 replies

Cuppasoupmonster · 19/01/2023 13:14

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1616008459958231040/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1616008459958231040&currentTweetUser=OwenJones84

Gave me a laugh over my coffee anyway 😆 does he remind anyone else of arguments with their little brother? ‘You’re going to lose. Why are you hitting yourself’ etc 😂

Interesting he has never ever once engaged with any of the thousands of points as to why gender ideology is indefensible at best and harmful at worst, it’s always just ‘You’re going to lose… tiny minority… section 28’

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
WalfordBarbwireFence · 15/02/2023 21:34

teawamutu · 15/02/2023 09:33

Yeah. Monty's refusal to distinguish between women declining to play along and literal violence can get a bit much.

Show quote history

You're telling me!!!

One shouldn't mock people for their mental health issues but I strongly suspect that I might be forgiven for suggesting that, after an admittedly brief perusal of her witterings, in several topical areas her feet would appear to have well and truly slipped off of the pedals.

Boomboom22 · 15/02/2023 09:52

It's cognitive dissonance. They believe women and tw are the same. It's irrelevant if they rape etc as the identity trumps sex. Plus a weird idea that a man who says he's a woman magically becomes vulnerable in the same way as women and physically weak like a woman etc all the sexist stuff

teawamutu · 15/02/2023 09:33

WalfordBarbwireFence · 15/02/2023 09:15

Ta, ducks. Still none the wiser but it gives a steer for a bit of Googling!

Post-Googling: Oh, FFS!!

Show quote history

Yeah. Monty's refusal to distinguish between women declining to play along and literal violence can get a bit much.

WalfordBarbwireFence · 15/02/2023 09:15

TheKeatingFive · 15/02/2023 08:27

Monty is Katie Montgomery

Ta, ducks. Still none the wiser but it gives a steer for a bit of Googling!

Post-Googling: Oh, FFS!!

TheKeatingFive · 15/02/2023 08:27

Monty is Katie Montgomery

WalfordBarbwireFence · 14/02/2023 23:52

ShireWifeofNigelFarage · 14/02/2023 22:32

Clearly the answer is LOJ - he’s offended on behalf of the other three combined!

Show quote history

Aye - makes sense. I'm assuming Willoughby is India Willoughby. Not sure who Monty refers to, though.

Bit pretentious of Willoughby to assume an entire country as a forename, mind.

That being said, I did in my early twenties enjoy a brief relationship with a lass whose parents had named her Vienna - apparently because that is where they convinced themselves that he'd "sowed the seed that did the deed." I don't think that they had any pretensions, though. Nor her.

ShireWifeofNigelFarage · 14/02/2023 22:32

WalfordBarbwireFence · 14/02/2023 22:14

I apologise if this is not appropriate (I'm finding my feet) but I saw this and thought of this thread, given recent responses...

Clearly the answer is LOJ - he’s offended on behalf of the other three combined!

WalfordBarbwireFence · 14/02/2023 22:14

I apologise if this is not appropriate (I'm finding my feet) but I saw this and thought of this thread, given recent responses...

OJ has a special message for us…
MavisMcMinty · 14/02/2023 17:35

A zealot, maybe?

MavisMcMinty · 14/02/2023 17:34

Ooh, I remember one of Liz Truss’s former uni tutors during her leadership campaign last summer, who said that she was determined to be right, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against her belief. Don’t recall if he gave it a name though.

beastlyslumber · 14/02/2023 17:23

RoyalCorgi · 14/02/2023 15:11

It is a fascinating exercise in someone continuing to believe something even when the evidence for its falsity is presented to you directly. Is there a name for that? There ought to be.

Narcissism.

ILikeDungs · 14/02/2023 15:15

RoyalCorgi · 14/02/2023 15:11

It is a fascinating exercise in someone continuing to believe something even when the evidence for its falsity is presented to you directly. Is there a name for that? There ought to be.

Might find it in the DSM-5?

RoyalCorgi · 14/02/2023 15:11

It is a fascinating exercise in someone continuing to believe something even when the evidence for its falsity is presented to you directly. Is there a name for that? There ought to be.

ILikeDungs · 14/02/2023 15:09

Dan Hodges responding to him on twitter: "...if you try to frame those who oppose rapists being placed in women’s prisons as extremists, then a majority of the country become extremists."

LOJ has done this to himself. We watched it, in real time. Where does he go from here?

ShireWifeofNigelFarage · 14/02/2023 15:05

The journo of the Scottish Express piece is deffo terfy
She’s been putting out some really good articles.

SinnerBoy · 14/02/2023 15:05

PoliticalFootball · Today 12:20

I think that you've phrased that very well and I agree entirely, especially the part about the system failure, which allows rapists to choose to be imprisoned in the women's estate.

Hoardasaurusterf · 14/02/2023 14:30

PoliticalFootball · 14/02/2023 12:20

The fault in OJ’s argument is not that the misdemeanours and crimes of particular individuals are being used to demonise certain minorities - that bit is true. You can look around a crowd at a pro-women meet and see some men and women who you know you’d never agree with in a million years on feminism, immigration, abortion etc… and the bollocks about ‘protecting women and children’ is the oldest trick in the Patriarchal handbook in the vein of ‘she’s my woman, only I am allowed to lay hands on her’. They come along and there’s nothing we can do to stop them coming along (although I personally went over to the guy with the ‘gaystapo’ placard in Glasgow and told him to get to fuck with his disgusting homophobia and I was one of many doing the same)

OJ’s problem is that he thinks that that precludes anyone standing up for anyones rights to ensure that good laws are put in place that look past ‘individual cases’ and just provide ‘robust’ frameworks that prevent harms from happening. I’ve examined my conscience and I’m clear OJ. I don’t think the Isla Bryson incident is bad because it’s an instance of a trans woman being a rapist and therefore all trans women are rapists. I look at it and think - policy and law has been proved to be woefully inadequate because it has allowed for that rapist to end up in a womens jail. Something has gone wrong. Badly wrong. The nuance of this seems to be totally lost on you OJ. And I wonder if you’re actually deliberately taking this angle to discredit all the women who are simply fighting for our rights for single sex exemptions and single sex spaces. And I wonder why that is.

There are lots of people trying to make political points out of real-life tragedies at the moment and it’s ugly but entirely predictable. That’s how our sound bite, gesture politics world works these days. But don’t you dare try and dismiss the concerns of gender critical women by intimating that our concerns are simply based on a petty distaste of a certain minority. It’s demeaning and misogynistic.

Agree with every word!Also, I was at George Square too and many people were complaining about the Gaystapo sign! We were at the front so could only see the sign and not who was holding it but those around us were all disgusted!

mrshoho · 14/02/2023 12:37

PoliticalFootball · 14/02/2023 12:20

The fault in OJ’s argument is not that the misdemeanours and crimes of particular individuals are being used to demonise certain minorities - that bit is true. You can look around a crowd at a pro-women meet and see some men and women who you know you’d never agree with in a million years on feminism, immigration, abortion etc… and the bollocks about ‘protecting women and children’ is the oldest trick in the Patriarchal handbook in the vein of ‘she’s my woman, only I am allowed to lay hands on her’. They come along and there’s nothing we can do to stop them coming along (although I personally went over to the guy with the ‘gaystapo’ placard in Glasgow and told him to get to fuck with his disgusting homophobia and I was one of many doing the same)

OJ’s problem is that he thinks that that precludes anyone standing up for anyones rights to ensure that good laws are put in place that look past ‘individual cases’ and just provide ‘robust’ frameworks that prevent harms from happening. I’ve examined my conscience and I’m clear OJ. I don’t think the Isla Bryson incident is bad because it’s an instance of a trans woman being a rapist and therefore all trans women are rapists. I look at it and think - policy and law has been proved to be woefully inadequate because it has allowed for that rapist to end up in a womens jail. Something has gone wrong. Badly wrong. The nuance of this seems to be totally lost on you OJ. And I wonder if you’re actually deliberately taking this angle to discredit all the women who are simply fighting for our rights for single sex exemptions and single sex spaces. And I wonder why that is.

There are lots of people trying to make political points out of real-life tragedies at the moment and it’s ugly but entirely predictable. That’s how our sound bite, gesture politics world works these days. But don’t you dare try and dismiss the concerns of gender critical women by intimating that our concerns are simply based on a petty distaste of a certain minority. It’s demeaning and misogynistic.

Absolutely 💯 agree with you.

Anyone who finds it acceptable for women let alone girls and young children to be exposed to naked Males whilst in changing rooms for example is seriously seriously disturbed.

Datun · 14/02/2023 12:30

There's no way that men like Owen Jones don't understand the issue.

They've picked a side, and now they're fucked.

Either double down and look like a misogynistic bellend forever, or recant, and look like a lily livered hypocrite with no conviction, who should never be employed to opine about anything.

Fortunately for him misogynistic bellends are two a penny in media. It's not like he's having to stretch that far.

PoliticalFootball · 14/02/2023 12:20

The fault in OJ’s argument is not that the misdemeanours and crimes of particular individuals are being used to demonise certain minorities - that bit is true. You can look around a crowd at a pro-women meet and see some men and women who you know you’d never agree with in a million years on feminism, immigration, abortion etc… and the bollocks about ‘protecting women and children’ is the oldest trick in the Patriarchal handbook in the vein of ‘she’s my woman, only I am allowed to lay hands on her’. They come along and there’s nothing we can do to stop them coming along (although I personally went over to the guy with the ‘gaystapo’ placard in Glasgow and told him to get to fuck with his disgusting homophobia and I was one of many doing the same)

OJ’s problem is that he thinks that that precludes anyone standing up for anyones rights to ensure that good laws are put in place that look past ‘individual cases’ and just provide ‘robust’ frameworks that prevent harms from happening. I’ve examined my conscience and I’m clear OJ. I don’t think the Isla Bryson incident is bad because it’s an instance of a trans woman being a rapist and therefore all trans women are rapists. I look at it and think - policy and law has been proved to be woefully inadequate because it has allowed for that rapist to end up in a womens jail. Something has gone wrong. Badly wrong. The nuance of this seems to be totally lost on you OJ. And I wonder if you’re actually deliberately taking this angle to discredit all the women who are simply fighting for our rights for single sex exemptions and single sex spaces. And I wonder why that is.

There are lots of people trying to make political points out of real-life tragedies at the moment and it’s ugly but entirely predictable. That’s how our sound bite, gesture politics world works these days. But don’t you dare try and dismiss the concerns of gender critical women by intimating that our concerns are simply based on a petty distaste of a certain minority. It’s demeaning and misogynistic.

MassiveWordSalad · 14/02/2023 12:10

So now people who are gender critical are the same as rascists who think that all migrants are criminals? Alrighty then Confused Sterling work Hmm

potniatheron · 14/02/2023 11:39

RoyalCorgi · 13/02/2023 20:05

Here's the important thing. Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. It has no bearing at all on the argument. Whether trans people are more likely to commit crime or to be the victims of it has no relevance to the danger to women.

The pertinent question is: are trans people (or more accurately, trans women) more likely than women to commit crime? And the answer is they are vastly more likely to commit crime than women. There are slightly fewer trans women in jail for sexual offences (about 100) than there are women in jail for sexual offences (under 150, according to FPFW). And there are only about 150,000 trans women in the country, if I've remembered correctly, and 30 million women. That's one hell of a differential.

Show quote history

Stats from Canada showed that nearly 50% of the 'transwomen' in prison were there for sex crimes

AutumnCrow · 14/02/2023 09:18

That seems like quite a simple, easy-to-understand point, but he doesn't grasp it - or perhaps doesn't want to grasp it.

OJ reminds me of a young child who doesn't want it to be bed time, so he decides to believe that it isn't bed time. There you go, mum - fixed that bit of reality for you, to my own advantage.

Maybe this sort of behaviour literally happened in his childhood.

I imagine his mother frequently sometimes gave into his nonsense, hence his adult ingrained behaviour. I suspect he learned at a young age that dishonest beliefs bring visceral pleasure, and hey, you get to despise your mum (and women) for being weak at the same time too. Win win.

TheKeatingFive · 13/02/2023 22:37

I think that's definitely part of it.

A lots of the most vociferous TRAs are looking for a cause to champion. But they didn't clock the complexities of this one until they were in too deep.