To think that releasing crickets at a gay rights conference, specifically to shut them down, should be considered a homophobic hate crime? Somehow these people are crowdfunding to do it AGAIN

[Zahariel]

The optics of having to fumigate a hall after gay people used it to speak about their rights being eroded should not be lost on anyone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13950839/Trans-activists-release-bags-insects-LGB-Alliance-conference.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/suspected-trans-rights-activists-disrupt-lgba-conference-with-live-crickets/ar-AA1s9JHH

This is CLERLY A HATE CRIME - yet it's being reported as trans rights activists, not anti gay hate mongers, I can't really understand why not

Whattheactualf19 · Yesterday 20:04

That’s one incident. Horrible, but one. Right now we have women and men’s toilets.

One incident out of thousands, check the transcrime.co.uk links and see loads of stories, going back years.

Mind you, in threads like this one. once readers see the falsehoods, the fuckwittery, the emotionally manipulative tactics supporting the unreasonable demands of a group, it does have an effect on those reading.

I mean there is only so much someone can try to distract readers from realising that there is no longer a medical condition requirement for any male person to claim to have a transgender identity. There hasn’t been for a long time. After all, there are over 130 gender identities despite the focus on two.

The only commonality is belief. The philosophical belief that a male can be a female.

And that because of this belief, children should receive irreversible treatments that may shorten and / or limit their lives. And the NHS must pay for extreme body modifications. Treatments not available to any other philisophical belief group.

And one by one the very public instances where male people are not considered ‘female’ are growing. Showing the logic that people were told was the new truth, that any transgender person is who they say they are, that all transgender identities are valid, that someone can be born in the wrong body and that a male person can be a female if they say they are was always a false.

Because if a rapist who says they are a female person when they are a male person is not to be treated as female person, then why are any other male people treated as female people?

This inconsistency is shining the light on the falsity that people have been told was backed by science and supported by medical evidence when it was not.

That is what threads like this do. They show just how the falsehoods crumble with analysis.

And the sex category for humans is still a stable and immutable reality that underpins female people’s needs. Whatever their age, whether they have a gender or don’t believe in such things.

Helleofabore · Today 05:58

Mind you, in threads like this one. once readers see the falsehoods, the fuckwittery, the emotionally manipulative tactics supporting the unreasonable demands of a group, it does have an effect on those reading.

One can certainly hope so.

Did we ever get an answer to the "how many is too many?" question?

An even more cynical position brewing in my head isn’t simply that they wanted Jamie silenced but that the adults clearly behind all this didn’t want the children carrying out this act to hear what she had to say. They needed to get them out of there before they might have heard something that might really have them questioning their ideology.

Why no, MissScarlet! Here are is the ultimate question posted again if any person supporting male people in female single sex spaces want to answer.

How many women or girls harmed is acceptable to allow a sub-set of male people to have access to female single sex spaces knowing that those male people have at least the same degree of risk of committing a sex offense as all the other male people in the UK?

Can we start getting those who have the opinion that male people should have access to female single sex spaces to start to put some numbers to their opinions? To quantify just how many female people they consider acceptable collateral to experience harm before they start supporting female single sex spaces.

And for the record, there has already been more than 1.

Many more harmed. Particularly when you consider those who now exclude themselves from services and public life because they do not have single sex spaces available to them.

Would those dismissing the need for single sex spaces like to finally offer a number? or will it just be another n+1 exercise?

In the years of asking this question, I have seen two answers. One poster decreed 31 female people to be acceptable to be harmed. One male poster declared that over 100 each year was acceptable in his eyes to be harmed before he would accept that female people might have a case to argue that female single sex spaces are restored.

Anyone on this thread want to quantify the acceptable damage that their inaction or their active support of male people accessing female single sex spaces needs to have before they change their mind?

That running order is interesting.

So the 'kids' sat through the rest of he conference, a full day? And waited until that specific session.

Jamie Reed, lesbian, whistle-blower, married to a detransitioner.

Hmm.

Surely it isn’t that much of a mystery? I spent loads of time online when I was breastfeeding. And when I was in hospital after major surgery. I read most of this thread amongst others yesterday whilst sick in bed.

Plenty of people are retired, or housebound, or just pop on and off during the odd quiet five minutes here and there. Do you have any thoughts on the content of the thread? You must have read plenty of it to notice the ‘dozens and dozens’ of posts you refer to?

So many people concerned for how other people post! Each to their own, indeed!

and then found myself on this thread

What are your thoughts about releasing crickets into a gathering of gay, lesbian and bisexual people? I imagine that's why you opened the thread while asking a question about protein.

Very curious, isn't it?

I suggest we all ignore the plopper.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 08:45

What are your thoughts about releasing crickets into a gathering of gay, lesbian and bisexual people? I imagine that's why you opened the thread while asking a question about protein.

Yes, it does seem somewhat incongruous.

In a thread full of weird posts you win 😳

you have to press an actual title to get on threads…you don’t just ‘find’ yourself on one

though aren’t crickets a good source of protein 🤔 maybe thats it, looking for stockists maybe (you’d have to eat an awful lot of them)

ArabellaScott · Today 07:29

That running order is interesting.
So the 'kids' sat through the rest of he conference, a full day? And waited until that specific session.
Jamie Reed, lesbian, whistle-blower, married to a detransitioner.

That is a very interesting point. One might argue that, had they let her speak uninterrupted, it would have blown their claims that LGBA is a transphobic hate group clean out of the water.

Or perhaps I'm just a miserable cynic?

So the 'kids' sat through the rest of he conference, a full day?

People had clocked them, tried to speak to them before, so I imagine that yes they did. How terrible for them.

It was about 4pm when the insects were released.

though aren’t crickets a good source of protein 🤔 maybe thats it, looking for stockists maybe (you’d have to eat an awful lot of them)

The OP is clear that it was specifically to shut down a conference, rather than to provide a tasty and nutritious source of protein to the attendees though

You'll never get an answer to this.

Because to answer it means they'd have to admit they see women (including little girls) as acceptable collateral damage.

The true answer is that they don't give a monkeys, because they see women as less important than men.

To be fair, we did once get an answer. 100 per year, if I remember correctly.

Well under the pyramid of victimhood trans rights trumps gay rights and transphobia trumps homophobia.

Two people have answered. One person said 31.

And a male person declared 100 per year.

The fact that when it does happen it is dismissed as ‘just one bad person’ each time it happens, is very much the point. At least one poster used this dismissal tactic on this thread.

And those that do that show they also don’t care about negative impacts of their supporting allowing a sub group of male people to be exempt from safeguarding protocols. The dismissal of the harm, physical, emotional harm and the harm of self exclusion is part of the misogyny that they also try to deny.

Mainly those denying that targeting a gay rights event isn't homophobic! And gay rights don't get more explicit than preserving the actual legal definition of homosexuality.

And homophobia doesn't get more unequivocal than men demanding access to lesbians.

This is the heart of the matter, and these people don't want anyone to be able to acknowledge it.

How does it go?

'It never happens'
'It hardly ever happens'
'Well, that's only a few times'
'Well, OK, but, erm, overall those numbers are too small to count'
'OK, it's loads of times but why are you so obsessed!!!!'
'Bigot!!!!!, transphobe!!!!, etc etc'
Copy and paste forever more