To let you know thought crime is now a thing

[CalliopeMeansMusic]

Apologies for the odious DM link, but this has really chilled me.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6827459/Catholic-journalist-questioned-caution-police-misgendering-someones-daughter.html

A woman is being investigated by police and faces a two year jail sentence for allegedly misgendering Jackie Green during a tweet. What has the world become when we cannot state simple, biological facts without fear of prosecution? And why do the beliefs of the mother and daughter (that they are now living as a member of the opposite sex) trump the beliefs of Caroline Farrow? I am all for protecting vulnerable people from hate crimes, but this is not a hate crime, and makes a mockery of people facing real discrimination and fear.

On the plus side, I may move to Surrey; clearly its ridiculously safe if the police have all that time to investigate this!

That was supposed to be a confused emoticon. Not an eye raise one. Oops. I liked it, it made your point well

Haven’t rtft. Here, hth.

Shoulda read the thread Starla

6-pages in and it has moved on... SG has been consogned to yesterdays self aggrandising news

I'm confused by this whole thread. It's always been illegal to state things on social media that are considered to incite hate - people have been arrested before for stating their sincerely held beliefs on race, for example (such as 'it's a biological truth that black people are less intelligent') or using racial terms that are generally considered to cause offense or upset.

I understand that most of MN disagree that their views on trans people should come under that banner, but acting like it's a new thing that people can be prosecuted for expressing controversial views on twitter is ridiculous.

Curious - flamin' eck. Right, try again in case people still confused.
"I wasn't on about just the tweets"
As in it's not just the tweets, is it? People are making out it's one harmless little like or RT. I said, the Twitter profile looks like one big harass for want of a better word.

Agree, forestafantastica. It's not brand new information

I thought that might be what you meant! But you say 'harrass' and othere, me included, say 'posting his thoughts'

That's the nub of it. He is as entitled to say what he is saying as TRAs are, apparently, allowed to directly threaten him, and many others with specific actions, reporting to employers, physical violence etc. Much of whch is now happening...

He types, they act! Do you really want to stand up for the people who stalk, attack, complain, set the police on individuals who don't believe humans can change sex?

forestafantastica What is controversial about saying human beings cannot change sex?

Why aren't twitter blocking banning posters who post "Die TERF" type tweets?

Why is it all so one sided?

If Twitter were to apply their rules consistently it would be empty.... but we might have less of the madness!

*others me included say posting our thoughts"
To me, that's a dangerous road to go down.
Does Tommy Robinson just believe he's posting his thoughts too?
He's been taken off social media platforms for hate crime, because it became something more than a thought, no?
It's not new.

Dangerous?

Far more dangerous is to stifle people for fear of the Tommy Robinsons. Best to have such as he clearly visible and to attend to them as individuals than to repress an entire populace. That he, as an indivudal, has been recognised and removed is a good thing, no? Also good is that in shutting him up no one elses rights were lost!

That way lies Communism... totalitarianism... Nanny State on steroids!

Misgendering as a crime, is new. You may want to frame it as ‘hate’ so as to describe it as something that’s always been around, but the misuse of the word ‘hate’ to include people stating objective biological reality, is extremely concerning.

If anyone has read the tweets, you’ll see that there is nothing hateful in them. Whatever you think of the person who tweeted them, they were factual in nature and followed an on-air debate about a relevant to the tweets subject. They were tweeted to highlight that a woman who heads a charity that advises schools and receives large amounts of funding, advocates for treatments for trans children that are illegal in this country, and who took her child out of this country to one where it was legal to firstly obtain hormones for a minor, and then to another country to have life changing surgery on the day it became legal in that country to do so- that country, Thailand changed their own laws after learning that a child had the surgery there. These actions are illegal here. Susie Green advocates for changes to allow hormones to be given to young children and for the age limit for reassignment surgery to be lowered. People should know this if she is to appear on TV and in media as a transgender specialist of some kind. Farrow was not aggressive in her tweets, she was not hateful. Read them, she even specified that SG may think it was the right choice for her child but shouldn’t employ it as best practice for all children. Tavistock agrees.

When debating an issue, I prefer to debate the words people use, rather than putting people in left and right boxes, in religious nut boxes etc that kind of thinking leads to divisive politics and really intolerant societies. Whether someone is catholic or Muslim, is irrelevant to their right to free speech. Hate speech is an entirely different thing to what was tweeted and I find it completely wrong to try and frame a widely accepted biological reality as hate. I also find it a misuse of the term to refer to stating facts about a child being taken out of this country for the removal of their penis, an illegal act here, as hate- especially given the mother in question has made a career out of the fact she did this.

If the police have time for this then they have time to be out catching burglars, shoplifters and rapists.

My DH has worked with a male for years and one Friday he left for the weekend after sending a company-wide email saying that on Monday he wanted to be known by the name of Daisy (not the real changed name). The following Monday he came in dressed as a female.

It is very hard to remember to call someone you have known for years by a different name. (How many people continue to be called by their maiden name at work accidentally).
I think it is understandable to accidentally say 'he' from time to time when the person hasn't had any surgery or treatment and to all intents and purposes is a man dressed as a woman. However, it isn't right to do it deliberately.

It's anti-social behaviour and should be treated by the police in the same way as any other anti-social behaviour.

That he has been removed is a good thing, no?

Well yes, that's my point. Stifle hate speech platforms. You're agreeing with me, so what exactly are you arguing about?

Well yes, that's my point. Stifle hate speech platforms I am not agreeing with you!

I wouldn't say stifle the platforms, as I said, I would happily stifle the individual once they have been identified through their behaviour!

I have said why.... [your] way lies Communism... totalitarianism... Nanny State on steroids!

I find the majority of Caroline Farrow's conservative RC views morally repugnant. That isn't the issue here. The difficulty is the wholly disproportionate response to her behaviour and the fact that, yet again, it's the woman who is facing the butt of public wrath and abuse, not to mention the arm of the law.

Farrow has been rude, to be sure, and misgendering/deadnaming isn't a thing I'd ever knowingly do. It can be damaging to out a transgendered person in this way. On this occasion, however, Jackie and her dear old ma have been so vocal about her situation that everyone knows 'she' was born a 'he' who went by the name of Jack. So it boils down to a perceived insult.

Farrow has sustained far worse, and brought into the spotlight the issue that once again it's women who are expected to stand aside and allow their rights to be trampled upon by dominant, male-centred ideologies, which hold that male entitlement to safety and wellbeing is ALWAYS deemed to trump women's.

This should never have become a police matter. As for me, I'll address people any way they want to be addressed, but stop far short of wanting to share private, protected female space with anyone in possession of male genitalia. With good reason, too, as I've been a victim of rape. It's a very rare women who makes it through life without sustaining some form of inappropriate sexual misconduct and harrassment from men. For stating that stance outright, I would quickly find myself out of a job.

Plus sa change, plus de la meme chose.

Women should be very concerned.

I would happily stifle the individual

Yes. That's what we're talking about!! Omigod lol. Report it, if it's deemed hateful, it gets pulled.
In that case, it got reported, nothing became of it, so fair enough.
A lot of the time things DO get pulled though, as an individual. Which you'd be OK with then as it's classed hateful?
Top of my head, an example before someone says example? some of the stuff Posie Parker posts.
If it's deemed hateful, it gets pulled. We're in agreement there.
Which is kind of what the entire thread is about.

Farrow was not aggressive in her tweets, she was not hateful

Bullshit! She's accused Susie of child abuse. That is hateful.

If the police have time for this then they have time to be out catching burglars, shoplifters and rapists.

In view of the latter category, the problem here is that they don't want to. And this isn't just a police/CPS issue. This attitude is socially endemic and is plastered all over Twitter under #MeToo. Women should put up and shut up. Women should stop being so po-faced and 'learn to take a joke'. Women are 'jumping on the bandwagon' when they come forward after many years claiming to have been the victims of abuse; a belated response entirely consistent with the patterns of behaviour exhibited by victims of trauma.

Society doesn't like the truism that many people out there are seasoned abusers, and that the vast majority of sexually predatory and abusive behaviour happens to have been foisted upon women by men. No: far more comfortable to believe that it must be the women who are lying. Or, when they're not lying, it must have somehow been their fault, or else they want in on a piece of the attention and are making a big fuss about a triviality.

Fuck that noise.

In the meantime, a criminal investigation is brought against a woman for misgendering a transgender woman and Humberside Police are phoning members of the public beyond their jurisdiction in order to 'check their thinking'.

I believe that old Mumsnet phrase 'it boils my piss' is in order here.

SG took her child at age 12 to the US for cross sex hormones (illegal in the UK, and resulting in JG being chemically castrated and sterilised) and then at age 16 to Thailand to have SRS, which includes castration at 16 (also illegal in the UK).

I don't think it's unreasonable to call that pretty abusive. But hey! Then JG could compete in a beauty pageant!

Top of my head, an example before someone says example? some of the stuff Posie Parker posts.

Like a poster of the definition of woman? Lol.

I don't think it's unreasonable to call that pretty abusive
You can think what you like. We don't have thought crime. You can't just post abuse and name call though on social media or send them harassing tweets/messages or dedicate abusive tweet after tweet about people though, which does happen.
Two different things! How are people not getting this?!

Bullshit! She's accused Susie of child abuse. That is hateful.

People are accused of child abuse for using 'cry it out!' The McCanns were accused of child abuse - or neglect at best - and people don't seem shy of coming forward with that particular view.

This is far removed from one woman being at the receiving end of a social media shitstorm, with direct threats made against her and the possibility of a criminal record hanging over her. This is lynchmob mentality. Which does kind of beg the question that if said 'hatefulness' happens to accord with our own particular bias, does that make it OK?

the possibility of a criminal record hanging over her

Don't commit a crime, avoid a criminal record maybe?

Like a poster of the definition of woman? Lol.
I give up. It's pointless.
Disclaimer - I may be back later before someone says "thought you'd gone already?" lol

Lime if you are going to parade your behaviour in public for all to see, make a living from it, you can't then act all surprised when people comment on it, and not always favourably.

It is in SG's interest that the unfavourable comments are crushed underfoot because otherwise her house of cards comes crumbling down. Doesn't change what she did to her child, though.