That decapitate terfs sign

As a Scottish woman, I do not consider seeing my elected representatives standing smirking in front of a sign calling for violence against women a joke. At all.

Anyone saying 'it's a joke' - can you please explain the joke?

The victims (which he directly named) may not see it as a "joke", also other LGBT people who see his posts may also feel threatened by him and afraid for their safety.

Yet you want the police to spend their resources tracking down a sign with a cartoon drawing of a guillotine on it that didn't directly name anyone.

It's obvious the context doesn't matter to some posters here, a threat is a "joke" if the target is gay or trans people, but it's "credible" if the target is gender critical people.

The sign is a joke yes signs advising killing women are always hilarious 😡

Wow. JFC.

Sorry, those are the only words I have. What a cesspit of male violence. “Jokes” my fucking arse.

I won't defend Glinner just because he's GC. I'm wary of male allies, in this and in other areas - they can be lovely, but a subset will have an ulterior motive and many will have innate misogyny that they don't admit to/see or understand. I have never followed or cheered on Glinner - I may agree with his general viewpoint, but that doesn't make me Team Glinner.

It's true that threats of violence and actual violence are overwhelmingly from the gender ideology side of this argument. I don't think that's coincidental and I don't even think it's just because those responsible are mainly male, though that is part of it. It's because their argument cannot be made in logical, rational terms, and is circular and self-defeating, so violence, threats and smearing become the only option for them. The GC argument is not illogical, and can and should (and will IMO) be won by clear, factual debate and explication that makes sense.

No one here is responsible for what Graham Linehan, a male gender-critical ally, does or says. It's that first rule of misogyny again: Women are responsible for what men do.

I don't see any women making violent threats against male trans activists: the threats of violence - not to mention the actual violence - are all one way.

As usual on this board, we see attempts by trans activists to minimise violence against women. Nothing could make the misogyny of this movement clearer than the pretence that threats by trans activists to decapitate women, as well as fracturing an elderly woman's skull, are trivial and inconsequential.

And these are the people we're supposed to welcome into our single-sex spaces.

Hmm, Glinner's threat about dragging a male out of a women's space by their boots.... I mean, using the logic presented of 'well it's not likely is it so don't take it seriously' - what if the male isn't wearing boots? Is Glinner really going to go and buy boots to put on the male person in order to be able to drag them? What does 'drag' mean in this context exactly? I think we can dismiss that and notice that the difference between the two threats was one removing a male from a space where women were uncomfortable/excluded by the male's presence and the other involved killing women who would not enable males.

Bit different really.

It's that whole morality thing again where 'benefits TQ+ politics good/ doesn't benefit TQ+ politics bad'. So threatening to kill non servile women who dare to have needs of their own? Good, threatening to prevent a male doing exactly what he pleases to the cost of women? Bad. Women talking about it and pointing out how bloody awful that sign was? Bad. Women caring more about death threats to themselves than someone threatening to inconvenience a male person? Bad. Oooh bad.

Nah, your morality's completely messed up mate. You need a re think there.

I look forward to this. thanks Minton. Much appreciated!

Just wow :(

Oh, brilliant, we have someone who can categorically tell us which of these is a joke and which is credible. There are quite a lot, but it's fine, we can wait.

https://terfisaslur.com/

It's interesting that we have an offence of "inciting racial hatred" but not inciting hatred, or even violence, towards other protected groups. Even more general offences to do with inciting violence or public order type things are biased in terms of who they're used against.

If someone walked around with a sign saying "decapitate gays" or "decapitate Muslims" they'd surely be arrested for something?

I wonder if Mintons would think it was just "a joke" in these cases? I also genuinely wonder how it would be treated if someone had a sign saying "decapitate Tories". Would they be arrested or would it be seen as a joke, part of a protest? Obvs Tories aren't a protected group, just as gender criticals aren't (yet both sets of beliefs protected in law I guess?) This is where it starts to become obvious who has the power (and thus laws are used in favour of them) ...

It was ‘just water’.

It was ‘only a cream pie’, ‘look at all the comedy sketches using cream pies’.

It is just a joke sign.

Was the assault on the LWS steward by several transactivists a joke?
Was repeatedly punching a 70 year old woman at a LWS event in NZ a joke?
Was throwing a substance over KJK a joke?
Was spitting at someone trying to attend a screening of adult human female a joke?
Was the attempted physical assault of Julie Bindel in Edinburgh a joke?
Was the shooting at a gay club in America a joke?
Was the murder of children, only nine years old, and teachers in an American primary school a joke?

Is Eddy Izzard holding his penis in that link?

Her penis, you bigot.😉

Yes, he's fiddling with his penis in the public part of the female loos.

And archiving pages, links, articles is often very useful as things get deleted.

Absolutely bemused at the weak attempts.to derail the thread,.BTW. I suggest ignoring.

I agree all threats are wrong and should be condemned, but I would question if the "decapacitation" threat is credible?

Yes, the threat is credible.

He's a man. No stupid labels required. Respect his identity.

Is Eddy Izzard holding his penis in that link?

@IwantToRetire the reason for using the webarchive links is to show how the page looked at the time it was archived, which can be handy if someone does some surreptitious editing or takes the page down entirely later. With twitter it's also a way of seeing tweets that got deleted later because they were reported, or where the twitter user has blocked all and sundry.

Am I reading this correctly?

You support violent anarchists, but they have gone too far this time?

I think actual decapitation is unlikely, but that doesn't mean people will not be inspired to real violence because of a sign like that.

You can't say the sign doesn't have real connotations of violence, when we have seen the activists using real violence.

So if you were in the women's public toilets and a transwoman was also in there minding her own business, you would be happy if a man barged in to violently assault the transwoman?

Another stupid mis-response in an attempt to cover up that you originally posted something totally untrue.

I am not supporting male violence.

I was pointing out you made a totally inaccurate statement.

Two men having a punch up is not to be encouraged, but Glinner making a jokey remark IN SUPPORT OF THE WOMEN COMPLAINING ABOUT A MAN IN A DRESS INVADING THEIR SPACE, ie he is just saying how he would react, is not as you ridiculously tried to make out is anyone encouraging anyone else to attack LGBTQI+ people.

I am pointing out that what you say is just plain silly and adolescent whatabouterry and you cant even post a link properly.

One man talking about him having a male response to another man IS NOT THE SAME AS A PLACARD DISPLAYED IN PUBLIC ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DECAP TERFS.

The more you go on, the more it shows that you dont have the decency to condemn this encouragement of others to attack women who stand up for women's sex based rights.

Everytime you post this whatabouterry you show your willingness to allow that public encouragement to attack women in okay.

You should be supporting women's rights and instead of focusing on one man instead provide the link to let us all complain that those running St Pancras toilets are not protecting women uses their facilities as well as publicly condeming EI as an arrogant man who got away with intimidating women.

Your failure to do this illustrates what your real agenda is.

He's not trans. But he's not cis either. He's just a man.