I'm confused what gender critical people want. Could someone clarify?

No-one just 'happens' to be arrested, airside, at a big international airport.

Glinner was returning to the UK voluntarily to appear in magistrates court. It's not like he's a flight risk or the met wouldn't know where to find him. There was no justification for arresting him in that manner, it was a blatant abuse of power.

Btw, I'm another who finds some of Linehan's posts distasteful and sometimes downright unpleasant. I love his comedy, sympathise with him as an individual. He's done a huge amount to highlight our cause, and I respect his devotion to women's rights. I find him both amazing and problematic! Sometimes, I feel he's bang on in both what he says and how he say it. But equally often, I don't like or condone his approach.

Still, though, there's a difference here.

And it's really stark.

I don’t think anyone should be arrested for a tweet on either side of the argument.

I do think people who attend events with aggressive placards threatening death and shouting abuse/being intimidating/throwing things at people/spitting (see trans activists for all this btw) should be.

I’m yet to see any gender critical people shouting abuse, throwing things and spitting at trans people in the street.

this 👍

Consistency would be nice.

You may remember that the police only arrested the torturer and attempted murderer for telling people to punch women in the fucking face because they were shamed in to it by the public. They weren't going to bother, and initially told complainants it was his free speech.

As far as I'm aware, the police didn't put in much effort with your other MRA examples either.

Yes, the law does need to apply equally. The police turning up in numbers as soon as a MRA makes a report, whilst telling women who make reports to just not look on social media if they don't like threats isn't very equal, is it Chris?

What do I want?

Male people above the age of 8 years old to stay out of female single sex spaces, no male people at all in any other single sex provision.

Indeed. And I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Glinner criticise the LGB. Just the actions of some of the T.

To go into a little more detail (though it really does feel so obvious to me):

TRAs

"if you see a TERF, punch 'em in the face!"
"decapitate TERFs"
"let's give KJK a NZ welcome"

LINEHAN

"if a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."

"If you see" etc. emphasises that any, incidental encounter is a justification for violence, while "decapitate TERFs" is a comprehensive attack on a group based on their views. This is very different indeed to a specific response by an individual in a situation in which they feel unsafe.

Next, note the context to the Lineham tweet - a list of alternative actions preceding the reference to violence, culminating in the emphatic "if all else fails". Very different indeed to the immediate embrace of violence in your list.

Lastly, this context creates a very different tone indeed. There's a practicality to Lineham's bland imperatives that's reminiscent of the self-defence advice we're given. Again, a male may not recognise this, having been fortunate enough not to have heard these very words while growing up from teachers, self-defence instructors and parents. Compare Lineham's structured list of "Try action 1, Try action 2, then 'if all else fails' to try action 3... with the glee implicit in the following":

1. "in the face" ("face" is a vicarious, intimate and unnecessary detail that stands in stark contrast to the practical advice given to vulnerable females to "hit him where it hurts")

2. "decapitate" (bizarrely, indulgently excessive and gruesome, again, standing in stark contrast to practical self-defence)

3. "Let's give" (an exhortation, with associated connotations of large-scale action and enthusiasm, very different to "make", "call", "if... then")

All this feels so obvious to many women that I think your post may be rather misjudged - for me, it only served to highlight how very clear the difference actually is.

I'm very concerned about where the QIA+ have gone. We're back to just LGBT.

#sadtimes

I cant speak for anyone else but what I want is single sex services and for people to stop pretending humans can change their biological sex.

I am gc but I am in the minority in that I cant stand GL. I find his motivations questionable.

I think that anyone making threats or suggesting people assault others should be dealt with according to the law on such behaviours.

We need something like a woman holding a Tunnocks teacake in a raised hand, with the caption "Sex Matters! Get over it men!" or similar? 😁

Where has @Christinapple said they're a man? Have I missed something? Or is this that "you're a man" thing again if it's a poster you don't agree with?

The officers being armed or not isn’t the big fail here (although why couldn’t they have detained him quietly, at passport control, if they really needed to?), it’s the selective use of the laws they arrested him under.

I’m surprised that a supervising officer didn’t engage their brain at any point in this process and say “hold on a sec… WHY are we actually preparing to do this?” There’s only so far that “I was only following orders” will get you.

The Met are now facing the criticism that they absolutely deserve, and the irony is that the TWAW-thinking buffoon who thought this would be a jolly jape has probably done his ‘side’ a massive disservice.

It’s focused attention on the issues at play and will (likely) end up with there being less / looser regulation of t’internet and far fewer opportunities for TRAs to engage in Lawfare.

TBH, apart from the effect on poor old Glinner’s BP, this will end up as a win for sanity and reality.

Read this OP. ⬆️

If after reading it, you still don’t understand, then that’s because you don’t want to understand and we can’t help with that.

I believe that women's spaces should be protected and I have grave concerns about the effect the trans lobby is having in strengthening harmful gender stereotyping. But I think the OP has a point. There are so many sensible, measured, admirable people who could be figureheads for the rights of women, but for some reason, Graham Linehan and KJK are given lots of attention and air time. Both are very problematic in lots of ways, and do active harm to the movement of people who are concerned about what's happening to women's rights.

People talk about the silent majority. There are reasons about that silence, and it's not all about getting cancelled. Lots of us would not want to stand with KJK and GL.

Encouraging women to hurt men is very different from encouraging men to hurt women. Not many women would consider getting into a physical fight in an enclosed space with a man - especially a man wearing his mental illness as a costume. Hence it was very obviously not to be taken seriously, and kicking a man in the nuts would be a very definite last resort for most of us who genuinely grew up female.
So, as well as all the other reasons that you're aware of, it's really not the same at all.

There is a world of difference between, "Kill all TERFs" and "If you come across someone breaking the law be loud and tell them to get out, if they don't then call the police and finally if nothing else works punch them.

What GC people want is for facts to trump ideology. I use the word ideology because it's widely used to describe trans thought. If reality isn't used as a basis, then everything else gets called into question. And we live in a world where we need legislation, rules etc and these are decided on, amongst other things, statistics. And statistics are facts.
It isn't acceptable for anyone to insight violence. "Sarah Jane Baker" was incarcerated for kidnap and torture. He didn't "make a comment" he shouted through a megaphone to a crowd that they should "punch them in the fucking face".
Pardon me if that seems slightly different to a tweet saying, as a last resort, to punch a trans woman in a women's changing facility in the balls - obviously based on the assumption that after the SC ruling this would be illegal behaviour and doing so would imply to a woman that they are doing it for questionable reasons, therefore presenting as a direct and possible threat.
Graham Linehan isn't someone I fully support by the way. I totally agree with his aim, but he can be counterproductive at times. Having said that, he hasn't been convicted of serious violent crime, as SJB has, and a lot of his behaviour is a reaction to the behaviour levied at him over the years - gone to his home, threatened his wife and children etc etc

I'll play.

The entire population.

The exact same standards should be applied. Therefore as TRAs can post threats of violence with impunity then everyone else should be able to do the same.

HTH

I’d like trans right activists to leave us the fuck alone.