Posting upton’s old photos and name on twitter

What about bog standard perverts and enablers? The old fashioned ones, the ones who haven’t declared an inner different gender identity. The men who aren’t trans. Is it ok to call them out still? I say call them out, you say insult.

Or is it just the ‘sacred caste’ you have a problem with that we should ‘rise above and be kind’ about calling a spade a spade?

"but the sharing of private photos (presumably grabbed from social media)"

I don't use Twitter so I'm not certain what you're referring to, but if the photos were originally posted on social media doesn't that mean he's already made the choice to make them public? Social media photos aren't private by their very nature. People are sharing publicly-shared images and commenting on them. That's the point of social media.

That might be true for you but it's been mentioned tons of times in the 50,000+ posts solely about the Sandie P tribunal. That's the only way I know it! People have posted screenshots of the GMC registration etc.

Perhaps that's on me for attempting to keep up with all the threads on the tribunal!

Well, I have to confess that I am now pretty transphobic, which is quite remarkable when you consider that up until around 2017/18 I was really quite supportive of trans people in a 'How awful for anyone to feel that they have been born into the wrong body' sort of way. And then the transactivism really started to mess with womens' lives and I have pivoted the full 360 degrees to be extremely intolerant of anything trans related. In fact, when I see a headline such as 'Time to Transition', which actually refers to editing your Autumn wardrobe, I can feel the tide of red-hot anger starting to surge up my chest!

I think I hit peak transphobia when I heard the term trans lesbian, which I read as being a heterosexual man who wants the extra perving rights that pretending to be any sort of woman would grant him. And whereas I used to think that men who had properly and fully transitioned, perhaps years ago, could perhaps be permitted to use womens' loos, now I can't countenance the thought of any man whatsever in any single sex space. There is nothing about trans that doesn't enrage me, from medicating gender-questioning children, through to single sex spaces and womens' sports. When out and about, I am constantly scanning for men dressed as women, so that I can voice and record my displeasure.

I haven't commented about Upton on X/twitter as I use my account strictly for business-related purposes, but I have no compunction about raging on here or in the comments section of The Times, the one paper that has been consistently good at highlighting trans issues. I feel that as an older woman, no longer dependent on an employer, I have a duty to speak on behalf of all the women who don't feel able to comment because of the constraints of their own circumstances - think of me as an older and much poorer JK Rowling!

I haven't reposted photos of Upton, but quite frankly, I feel he's brought everything he's getting on himself, and the fact that he is married to a woman and is trying to impregnate her, adds yet another layer of creepiness and perversion to the whole thing. Why should he get off scot-free when Sandie Peggie - and many others - have been pilloried and hounded out of their jobs?

I think many of us who were born in the 50s and have fought for womens' rights their whole lives, feel particularly affronted that pervert men have become the most pampered and protected species of all time and have been allowed to ride roughshod over everyone else's rights. I couldn't give a flying fuck if my views upset trans identifying men and their allies and there's nothing that anyone could say or do that would ever shut me up on this issue. I really hope that the Tribunal finds in favour of Sandie Peggie and that Upton's name becomes inextricably entwined with the day that common sense started to return and that he's condemned to appear in the history books forever more!

In every group there is a 0.01% of nutters who are intent on causing maximum offence as a pastime.

The size of the group that object to the excesses of gender ideology is large so even 0.01% equates to many nutters

The only way to stop these nutters would be to institute a police state along the lines of North Korea.

From reading comments on other stories on X (I am not on X but nitter works) it seems like X is a nutter-magnet as there is little, if any regulation

Mumsnet is regulated - if you make nutter posts here people will call you out for them and you will censored and then banned.

The nutters that post on X will not post on mumsnet for these reasons

The reason that the OP feels they can post here is because of that strong regulation.

And the content of that post? 'some of you nutters here on Mumsnet are the same nutters that post on X'

Apologies if this has already been covered

Edit for X read X / twitter / etc.

Someone also asked why I also had 'come' to MN - I'm not 'coming' here, I spend most of my time here!

For me, I think it's an interesting discussion worth having with the reasoned MN posters about what others are doing - just as when we post about TRAs filling bottles with piss not helping trans people - I'm talking generally, not telling people about their own behaviour.

I have made it clear that for me, I'm not posting to 'blame' MNers for what's on Twitter.

(I don't care about Upton or whether he's offended or whatever - his feelings are irrelevant to me.)

We often talk about 'how things are going' and as someone who's not on Twitter I prefer to discuss it here because you can't really discuss things properly there.

We also often discuss what people are saying on Reddit and no-one complains that the discussion should be taken there instead.

I think because I find sneery and insulting behaviour generally unhelpful and unpleasant I have an instinctual reaction to it, regardless of who's doing it - and it's interesting to see how others think it's fine - but I'm fairly sure that's a personality and preference thing. Like I prefer to deal with things with dry humour but obviously we are all different!

That’s not what I asked though, whether or not that they ‘belueve’ they are a woman - I asked if gender dysphoria renders a man suddenly unaware of the concepts of consent, and the societal norms we all generally abide by, and women being a discreet sex class.

If he truly believes he’s a woman, where’s the dysphoria part? He surely wouldn’t be feeling dysphoria if he truly believed he’s a woman was a woman?

This is nonsense.

He knew full well whay he was doing and then he went for the throat when a woman wouldn’t wheesht and agree with his fantasy.

The justice system isn't SM, and the tribunal is not being conducted by SM. Whatever decision the panel comes to, it will be based on the submissions they've heard in that room, not on the contents of social media.

There is not a GC 'side' in the court. There is the question of whether a woman was or was not fairly treated by her employer in accordance with the Equality Act. That is all.

I'm sure this has been asked previously, probably many times, but why have you come to Mumsnet to complain about this? If you have an issue with people posting on X then you need to address it there. It has nothing to do with people here.

I don’t think you’re right here.

what would you call a man who makes complaints about a woman self-excluding from a changing room because she doesn’t want to get undressed in front of him, and insisting that he will stay while she gets undressed. I would say that fairly perverted behaviour.

I can fully imagine that some people on there have scented blood wrt Upton, and are gunning for them.

You see, I view the situation differently.

I've followed this tribunal through every step. I'm aware of the arguments used in court. And what I saw was an institutionally ideologised NHS and 'Dr' Upton scenting the blood of a female colleague who dared stick her head above the parapet.

Every step of their behaviour along the way has further cemented this impression. Peggie wasn't meant to have fought them. She was working-class. She was the less powerful employee. She shouldn't have been able to afford the civil courts which were her only recourse for justice, but which are cost-prohibitive and generally only available to the very wealthy.

If anyone's scented blood it's Upton, who it appears is very good at adopting a victim status from the stance of a bully. He thought he had her gagged, silenced and stitched up like a kipper.

He was wrong.

Also, I forgot about the allegation that he cooked up a scenario where the woman (who stood up for herself against his transgressions) might lose her employment. I don’t know what the ET will rule about exactly, but if true, it will be good to know who is would do this. It would be interesting how his professional body reacts to that, if it does.

At this point. OP, I don’t believe you’re posting here in good faith.

You’re claiming of a man has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria he has no understanding that he’s not a woman? Really? And he has no understanding of women being a discreet sex class that he does not belong to? And he has no understanding of the normal morals and values of the society he lives in? And that he has no concept of ‘consent’? Really?

@Biggadyboom

Can we use "abuser" rather than "pervert"? I think you choose your words very carefully. "Pervert" is highly subjective. "Abuser," which is what he is, much more objective and clear. He has abused women by turning them into an object for his voyeurism (I am absolutely discounting your claim that he was in a female space "because he thought he was a woman". Had this been the case he would have taken no interest in what the other users of the space were doing), abused trust, abused the legal framework. One who abuses is an abuser. Their motivation for doing so is irrelevant. Surely you must know that? You can't truly believe that defining an abuser's motive in any way ameliorates the impact on their victims? Because if you do believe that, if you support that view, that is unforgivable.

Surely, it is in the public and common interests of women as a sex class to know the names of males who are happy to enter places where their presence, and undressing could amount to flashing and voyeurism against women. We know that ignoring the actions of men who do that can potentially lead to even more serious consequences for women.

Also, it is most certainly in the public and common interests of women to know which male medics will continue to impose themselves on women who have specifically stated they only wish to have female only care. A man who will impose himself when he knows there is no consent, and not because there is an emergency. A man who for his own revenge, may then be able to get the woman described as hateful, and maybe lead to her not being treated.

So, I think it could be argued that the rights of women (majority of the population) to know about such men, and indeed ones who have such power in transgressing the rights of women, trumps his right to hide his behaviour from the very sex he is encroaching upon.

I think it’s very unwise to ‘assume’ a crossover. Making that assumption comes across as a disingenuous lead into assigning blame. And I don’t think that’s a useful way to start a conversation.

I don’t think it’s right for people to post photos of Upton with derogatory captions underneath. But that’s the internet for you. I’m not concerned about the repercussions because there is no point in being concerned. The internet is like a runaway train when it comes to personal attacks/revelations etc. And there will always be people who go to extremes. Also, even if Upton had been successful in retaining anonymity during the trial, SOMEONE would have outed him. So even if it means that future requests for anonymity are more likely to be successful, we’re all going to find out the person’s identity in the end. There are no secrets anymore.

Also, I don’t give a shiny shit that (not very) old photos of Upton have been uploaded to the internet. I don’t agree. But I still don’t care.

Precisely this. If what the PP is complaining about is that all trans identified males are perverts, including young, autistic people with dysphoria, then yes, there might be some mileage in that accusation. This particualar individual has thrown a strop because a woman refused to undress in front of him, has used every institutional and legal mechanism in the book to force her to capitulate, and is saying he will override female patients' consent when they request female-only care.

Not sure what else this looks like to the PP, but if it waddles, swims and quacks like a duck then it might be a duck.

I doubt you are going to find much sympathy with your little scolding here, OP. This noise is getting hold and women have had it dinged in our ears for over a decade. Go and take issue with the forum where this material is actually being posted, rather than deciding the nearest available women must be to blame. Women (and Mumsnet) are not responsible for what others do, say, and write on the internet. And we are sick and tired of being made scapegoats for others' behaviour.

Fair points, and well made - women are not responsible for every nasty thing said about men like Dr Upton.

But I can understand why @Biggadyboom posted here. She's been a regular poster for over 20 years - it'll feel like 'home' where she can discuss difficult topics with other thoughtful women.

Which you can't do on X at the moment!

And it's really OK for women to disagree with each other, without it being seen as "scolding" or "scapegoating." We need to be better at disagreeing with each other and it not being personal (I'm working on this myself - it's hard sometimes).