Why has WPUK gone quiet?

I wouldn’t have bothered curating a website with over 20 other trans widow’s stories, encouraging trans widows to take part in the film about them, or consulting them on what they want to be in Trans Widows Voices responses to government consultations or meetings with MPs etc, if I thought I could just speak for them.

Fortunately authors such as Helen Joyce and Sheila Jeffreys haven’t considered my contributions to be low calibre and have quoted me in their books, so I will not lose too much sleep over unusualdog’s opinion of me.

Where oh where do I say trans widows are stupid? Just because I specifically point out that tinsel gave a low calibre answers, does not mean that i believe tinsel represents all trans widows. She doesn’t. She just thinks she does.

Only people rendered stupid by arrogance could think that Transwidows are stupid.

I suspect that their exes are scared of them, and rightly so, because they better than any AGP can expose the reality of AGP.

Just out of interest, Unusualdog, have you actually bothered to find out what Transwidows have to say on the matter?

This is the site that Tinsel set up for Transwidows to explain what AGP is all about:

https://www.transwidowsvoices.org/

Have you seen this video? Promoting this could also help people to understand what AGP is:

Behind The Looking Glass - FIRST EVER Documentary about the Wives & Children of Trans-Identified Men

(There is a lot of other very good stuff on that Lime Soda Films channel too. Vaishnavi Sundar is a very talented film director.)

There is even more info about AGPs from Children of Transitioners here:
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/

Maybe you could consider whether, strategically, it might be worthwhile promoting the insights that Transwidows and Children of Transitioners have gained from living and suffering up close and personal with the reality of AGP?

Rather than the self-serving, exculpatory narratives woven by abusive men?

But well done to unusualdog for saying the unsayable, but what I have long suspected, that trans widows are rarely platformed because firstly our exes are considered to be of greater strategic importance, and secondly because people think we’re stupid.

The analysis was yours.

If this is the calibre of your analysis, then no, I wouldn’t be rushing to give you a platform

Although as we’re “infantile” and believe in wizards apparently, probably we silly trans widows couldn’t be trusted to be put in a platform to speak about anything.

They don’t expose the reality of AGP though, they lie. And they impose themselves so that we are not listened to. But presumably you’re quite happy with that?

I didn’t say AGPs were good for feminism. I said AGPs who told the truth about their paraphilia were “strategically useful”.

I meant strategically useful to expose the reality of agp - not strategically useful to promote the cause of feminism

Apologies Unusualdog - my post was a direct reply to you, quoting you IIRC. So I naturally assumed that you had reported it.

Someone who is reading this thread has obviously taken you under their wing and decided to silence women who, how should I put it . . . prompt you sharply to undertake some self-reflection.

Obviously, no one has reported you for making outrageous allegations about how women on this thread regard AGPs or for you calling those women "infantile".

I think I’d rather people thought I’d been influenced than that I’d come up with such a risible idea myself.

Not when it’s one as preposterous as male fetishists being good for feminism.

I didn’t see your post @Bosky so I’ve no idea. I’m not sure, are you insinuating that I complained about it? I didn’t.
I think it’s laughable that Tinsel thinks I’ve been taken in by AGPs or that I’m “shilling” for them. Can’t a woman have an opinion that is formed in her own brain, without undue influence?

I didn’t see anything wrong with your post either @Bosky

No idea what nerve my last post struck with, I assume, Unusualdog.

It was polite.

I didn't call anyone infantile (like Unusualdog has done).

I didn't suggest that AGPs were devilish bogeyman with magic powers or warlocks (which Unusualdog has accused women on this thread of doing).

However, I did say that some women might be more vulnerable than others to being fooled by AGPs, to the extent that they would come on to a feminist forum and advocate for AGPs. (Surely that is a self-evident possibility?)

I didn't suggest any particular reasons why some women might be vulnerable to that extent.

Although I did ask Unusualdog what her (I assume "her") particular vulnerability might be . . .was that it? Is that what got my post deleted for breaking Talk Guidelines? 🤷‍♀️

I have emailed Mumsnet asking if they could please clarify what it was about my post that was in breach of Talk Guidelines.

I can't see that it was very different to other posts in this thread, and certainly not as offensive as calling grown women, including Transwidows, "infantile".

“What straw man argument did I use?”
< uses same straw man argument again. >

That Hayton (a fetishist who self ID’d into womanhood) has women like you shilling for him on a feminist forum where other women are arguing against fetishists self ID ing into womanhood, is all the evidence we need of these men’s manipulative abilities and some women’s incredible gullibility.

I had to look up straw man: a false or distorted version of someone’s argument that is easier to attack than the real argument.

i don’t get it? What was false or distorted about what I said. The idea that AGPs have this devilish bogeyman magic power to fool everyone is infantile

Is that Straw Man in the room with you now?

This idea that all AGPs are like Voldemort is very childish. Yes they’re manipulative. Yes they’re perverts. Lots of other people are manipulative and perverted. They are not some sort of all powerful warlocks.

I just brought a bit of my dinner back up.

It tells you that they're not real women, doesn't it, that their word carries more weight than the wives and children of these men? Who usually have pretty horrific tales to tell that - if anyone cared at all about THEIR lives - should put the brakes on the trans gravy train.

Hayton is the same as any other, he'll go wherever hes called she, or at least not called he, and manipulate everyone around him in the process.

He's now saying that its not practical to have women only spaces because of his meaningful transition.

His only focus is being treated like a women, he'll say and do anything to achieve that. He's unreliable at best.

In fact the women of WPUK and their supporters were strategically used by Hayton initially to maintain the status quo of the GRA and latterly to sanitise AGP. He is much, much cleverer than they are.

Only trans widows know how dishonest and manipulative these men are. And many women do not wish to listen to us.

The idea that his “honesty” was needed to tell the “truth” about AGP is ludicrous. There’s thousands of men being very honest indeed about their AGP all over the internet.

So is it being posited that centring Hayton was strategically more valuable than the women who rejected his presence ?