Covent Garden - why don't I trust the reporting ?

Yes, I’m not going there with Lucy Letby, and here isn’t the place for discussion about her case.

I think you referred to "our opponents" being stupid. Can't say more than that or I'll be deleted too. Perhaps I will be anyway once I note that that's really not worse than people saying that GC women are just hateful transphobes.

Requote the post and explain why the poster was incorrect to think an insult was an ad hominem, and noting that GC women are subject
to ad hominems all the time which are generally untrue and even if they were true, still don't actually make the argument incorrect.

And Lucy Letby.

But I agree with your post!

I should add to this that the police haven’t specifically mentioned drugs, but did say that it was an isolated incident and mental-health related. The mental-health related part is highly relevant.

Let’s face it, the headline “Woman arrested after four men stabbed in London’s Covent Garden” does give pause, because it sounds like the kind of violent rampage that is overwhelmingly committed by a man. When you discover the woman is likely to be a homeless drug addict and it seems the victims were attacked with scissors and not seriously wounded (thank God, may they recover well) then a different picture emerges. If the headline had been “Female drug addict attacks four men with scissors” I would certainly not have any reason to think her sex is male. Similarly to “woman arrested for shoplifting” “woman arrested for fraud”, no need to think twice. Although a violent crime, the drug element makes it more likely. But we know statistically that it’s overwhelmingly men who commit violent crimes, and we know that certain elements of the media (including the BBC) obfuscate the biological sex of trans-identifying male offenders, so the OP had every reason to raise concerns. That headline looked like there was the potential for four men to have been murdered or seriously injured in the street, and that, sadly, is not unknown in recent times.

There was the case of Joanne Dennehy who carried out a ten day stabbing spree in 2013, killing three men, but not all at the same time. This is extremely rare and reflected in the fact that she is one of only three women to have been handed a whole-life prison order. The other two were Myra Hindley and Rosemary West. Saying that we assume any crime must committed by a transwoman is disingenuous bullshit, frankly. We’re sick of being gaslit by outfits like the BBC and want to get back to a situation where we can trust that woman means woman.

What's wrong with being right wing? People are allowed to have differing political views. It's important for a healthy democratic society. And why would that translate to there being a thread here?

Just because someone has differing political views to you, doesn't mean that their point that the BBC's coverage is inaccurate is false. And if BBC are demonstrably not reporting accurately, why shouldn't both the left and the right call it out?

They were from quite well-known right-wing people.

To reiterate, I have not called anyone here far right, bigoted or stupid. In response, I’ve been called thick, sworn at, given repeated implications I’m someone else?

Annoying that my comment has been deleted! I thought it was a very straightforward explanation of the meaning of "ad hominem". Hard to repost as I don't know which bit of it was considered objectionable.

I replied to your question. The ‘you’ was general. Please stop badgering me with rhetorical questions. Of course many, if not most, posters here likely use plenty of media sources. Who knows? Do you? Of course you don’t know.

I have asked MNHQ to reinstate my post above. It has a link to transcrime UK, with pictures and details to accompany that list I gave earlier of men who committed serious crimes, but the media reported as being women.

MNHQ has kindly allowed me to link this website, with the evidence of all the crimes committed by men, which were reported as having been committed by women.

As you can see, the lies were across different newspapers and websites (mainstream media), and the crimes these men committed were very serious.

So we could all do what has been suggested and survey a range of sources, only to find it extremely difficult to find the truth.

To reiterate, this has been going on for years, women like me have been campaigning for journalists to remember their journalistic ethics to tell the truth, for their own sakes and the sake of their victims (many of them children).

Because this has happened, women like me - free-thinking, intelligent, not 'far right', bigoted of large Supporters, or any other name that can be thrown at us have lost trust in the media.

transcrimeuk.com/tag/reported-as-woman/

I assume someone took exception to the suggestion that anti-female posters objecting to Gender Critical Feminism resort to ad hominem attacks because they are not very clever so can't engage with the content.

It was a great post, I hope @RoyalCorgi can repost it with less blunt language.

After all, even the cleverest person would be unable to refute the Feminist criticisms of Genderism because it is simply and undeniably a sexist belief system. The "you're all Right Wing/old/bigotted/unable to understand diversity so I don't have to answer you" reply is literally all they can do.

The ad homs aren't proof of lack of smarts, they can also be proof of lack of good faith or simply lack of giving a shit about what's fair on the female half of humanity.

Yes I understand what a general "you" means.

So again, what do you know about every other poster on this board and their approach to news consumption?

Why so paranoid?

There have always been plenty of 👀on these threads

Before you accuse me, I didn’t report anything.

It was a general ‘you’, so everyone else on the board? It’s a fairly common thing.

Oh for fuck's sake!

@RoyalCorgi 's factual post explaining the difference between an insult and an ad hominem has been deleted.

Why?

So what do you know about any of the other posters on this thread? I'm guessing also nothing. So who was it aimed at? Surely at people that are reading your words?
Bit strange otherwise.

The “you” in that reply wasn’t ‘you’ personally. Nothing was aimed at you, as I know nothing about you.

Wow I think I just lost 50iq points reading some of the replies on this thread. So I mustn't question the source of any 'news' but instead give 'sympathy' to any victims (as determined by said news source) and wait for said news source to update me on anything I am not clear about. In other words, I am to cease using my critical facilities and rely solely on other people to tell me what's true or not even if at times that would mean disbelieving the evidence of my own eyes. And I am never to speculate. Wow, it's the oppressive black and white thought police out in full force on here. Luckily I can still at least say to myself 'oh fuck off you twats, I will keep my autonomy and mind intact for now'.

Correction - you actually stated that noone should give the benefit of the doubt to anyone.
Even better!

But then you added a load of unnecessary patronising assumptions, that I read only one news source, and don't read publications that challenge me.

Funny how we're lambasted for making assumptions (off the back of consistent lies) but you're more than happy to make assumptions about posters here with absolutely no facts to back that up.

Hypocritical and patronising.

I suppose you did answer my question...in the end.
You said you don't expect anyone to give the benefit of the doubt to sources that have repeatedly lied.
Great! So we agree then. We won't give them the benefit of the doubt, and will continue to be suspicious, critical and of course, widely read.

Sorted!