OJ has a special message for us…

"Does he believe this shit? All this stuff about "it's like gay rights in the 1980s" - well, no, it isn't"

This sums up the futility of argument by analogy, it is all a matter of opinion and any analogy can be countered with it is not like that.

It is the twitter trap, he has built up his following and cannot back down now..

davidrobson.me/books/the-intelligence-trap/

'We assume that smarter people are less prone to error. But greater education and expertise can often amplify our mistakes while rendering us blind to our biases. This is the ‘intelligence trap’.'

Hmm, I think he is stupid, actually. He is incapable of logical thinking - what Helen Joyce refers to as mathematical thinking. When he says that only a small proportion of trans women are violent sex offenders, he thinks that's a reasonable point, whereas the crucial point is that allowing men to self-identify as women opens up the category of woman to any man who wants to claim it, and the men most likely to want to be in the category woman are, for obvious reasons, sexual predators. That seems like quite a simple, easy-to-understand point, but he doesn't grasp it - or perhaps doesn't want to grasp it. There is such a thing as wilful stupidity.

He is not a stupid man, just so entrenched that he will not listen to any other opinion. His block list of dozens upon dozens of left wing women means he actively decides not to listen. In that regard he has become quite the fanatic himself.

Of course, Owen Jones has no idea what the Gay Rights campaign was like in the 80s because Owen Jones was in nappies at the time.

I think a lot of his nonsense stems from bitter regret that he wasn't old enough to wave his banner and shout with the best of them.
He missed it all: the Miner's strike, CND, Gay Rights, Section 28, Stonewall, the Criminal Justice Act, the Battle of the Beanfield, Swampy... what a time for a protesting activist to be alive!

Instead, he must make do with disparaging the campaigners that were there (who achieved far more than he has ever done) and fantasising about what a dashing young man he'd have been in their place.

extract

Ms Kennedy, who describes herself on Facebook as a “stroppy, bolshie transgirl with attitude who hates the Tories with a passion”, refused to comment. She represented Goldsmiths during trans awareness week in February.

It confirmed that she was an employee but would not explain which department she worked in or why she appeared to be listed twice in the staff directory: once as Mark Hellen, in the department of educational studies, and secondly as Natacha Kennedy, who is named in equality and diversity reports. Both profiles appear to be active.

It also remained unclear why an academic paper on Ms Kennedy’s specialist subject of transgenderism in children, published by the Graduate Journal of Social Sciences in 2010, cited two co-authors: Natacha Kennedy and Mark Hellen.

Neither Ms Kennedy nor Goldsmiths would clarify whether the paper was by two individuals or the same person.

I think we need to talk about ethics in academia.

Notice witch finder general Kennedy is in there agreeing with OJ and calling women Nazis. I pity any woman near Kennedy.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-goldsmiths-lecturer-natacha-kennedy-behind-smear-campaign-against-academics-f2zqbl222

Apols for the poor presentation of my last. I'm still figuring out how the post format works!

Does he believe this shit? All this stuff about "it's like gay rights in the 1980s" - well, no, it isn't. One thing isn't necessarily like another thing however often you say it is. Invading Iraq is not like fighting Nazi Germany, for example, as we found to our cost.

And no one is demonising a minority. We're keeping men out of women's spaces. It would only be demonising a minority if you genuinely believed that trans women were a particular class of women, like lesbian women or Asian women, and surely no one actually believes that. Do they?

I'll just leave this here...

Linky for verisimilitude:

twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1625144057235222528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1625144057235222528%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

...and wrap it around his swede...?!!

With military precision, obviously.

😉

Yeah…where would the fun be in that

😁

For the love of god, someone take the spade off him.

Nooooo, don't.

I'm loving the train wreck that's unfolding 😳

For the love of god, someone take the spade off him.

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1625163377281495040

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.

JanesLittleGirl · Today 19:07

LOJ's problem would appear to be that while people can explain reality to him, they can't understand it for him.

Ha ha hah! 😂

Reading my posts back, I want to clarify that OJ didn't have his own patreon when he tweeted that. He launched his later and his has been far more successful.

I'd presume he respects his own subscribers more than he does Fox's, except one week he invited Jedward on to ask their opinions on whether Keir Starmer was suitable to lead the Labour Party.

OJ says somewhere in his rant to Dan Hodges that trans people (tw? Can't recall) are more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator.

Not as regards murder. There were, according to the last stats available, more trans murderers in jail than trans murder victims over the 10 year period in question.

But I expect OJ is thinking of all the 'hate crimes' and 'non-crime hate incidents' they claim come their way.

Twitter

Awwww, only 18 subscribers? Poor old Looza. God, I miss Twitter.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, I want to remind you of what OJ, who has a patreon that had 1,800+ subscribers at its peak, said about Lawrence Fox's attempt to start a patreon. Fox currently has 18 subscribers. I don't know what his peak number was.

Laurence Fox underlines why "cancel culture" is a nonsense.

He's a D-list actor who's turned this "I am being silenced!!" schtick into numerous lucrative media appearances and a Patreon so his comfortable lifestyle can be subsidised by the terminally gullible.

He posted the first picture, showing Fox's subscription levels. Second picture is mine, showing OJ's. I just think "terminally gullible" is an interesting way to describe patreon subscribers, given that he has so many himself. Don't you?

Ha, that's brilliant. I'm nicking that.