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

The only harm that counts and is acknowledged is the harm to the special group.
All other harm is irrelevant, acceptable, deserved or should be deliberately suppressed in some way so it can not be counted.

If we were to do a tally on actual harms it could be problematic you see.

What happened if this highlights a pattern where there isn't equality achieved from including males into a female cohort. Or that the level of harm to women from it, heavily outweighs the level of harm from continuing to include transwomen in a male cohort?

That's why it's important to damage the integrity of data - doing so makes it impossible to see a true picture and thus make informed decisions from that or it muddies the water sufficiently that others don't trust data anyway.

Unfortunately in this particular case, is what we are seeing is a pattern, which is persistent and regular even though it's not quantified. And that makes it difficult to completely hide or deny the existence of, despite effects to suppress.

That leaves us with the good old smear tactic - being far right is the typical one (despite the level of evidence of those saying this being full on left wing with a history of actions demonstrating commitment to equality). The other is guilt by association.

Or as we see in this case simply its justified to harm 'because they deserved it and brought it on themselves'.

All of which are features of authoritarianism which relies on control of the narrative. Power and control. If your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny with transparency, power and control tactics are all you are left with.

Welcome to 2024. Where women have independence, agency, our own incomes, smart phones and unbelievably are allowed to post on any area of Mumsnet without prior permission.

There are a small number of posters who arrive objecting to women being allowed to speak freely - many of them men despite their claims to be women. Fortunately women on here are made of stronger stuff and continue to post, discuss, share and learn about women's rights, safeguarding children and all manner of other issues. But it can feel a bit "Under His Eye" when the misogynists descend.

Well, I guess some posters might very well like to be aligned with male academic Sophie Grace Chappell told us all that a slight spike in murders of women would be acceptable, and dismissed women’s concerns as fearmongering so you have company if you think that an increase is ok.

“On this particular issue of safety concerns raised when gender recognition acts are introduced, so a lot of this looks much more to me like anecdotes than data. It’s not like there’s a body of hard evidence that lots and lots of stuff is happening which is really bad. There’s the odd anecdote.”

“Suppose people were saying ‘Well you know if you make it easier for gay people to be themselves in society there’s going to be a crime wave or dreadful homosexual murders are going to happen, it’s going to be awful if we do that’, I think we’d rightly dismiss that as scaremongering and we’d say ‘No it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter’. It wouldn’t matter, actually, if there was a slight spike in those statistics because this isn’t about that kind of issue.”

A Week in the War on Women: Monday 20th September - Sunday 26th September (substack.com)

There is a link to the radio interview on this substack. I remember listening to it myself and felt shocked.

I mean Chappell was an advisor to BPAC too!

Just to pull out this:

“It wouldn’t matter, actually, if there was a slight spike in those statistics because this isn’t about that kind of issue.”

This was referring to deaths and harms of women and girls.

This is the type of person, if not one of the people directly, who have been shaping the framing of extreme trans activists for decades I believe. So, no wonder there is such misogyny behind the outcomes that some posters are supporting.

“It wouldn’t matter, actually, if there was a slight spike in those statistics”

The one with the receipts. 🤔

Piggle told me that no, no gay kids received care meant for trans kids at the Tavistock.

How could they possibly know? With all the evidence now, the Cass report, the Tavistock (now closed down) whistle-blowers, the stories from de-transitioners it's very obvious that gay kids and lesbians in particular are definitely getting shoved into the sausage machine.

If I was a genuine advocate for trans people this fact would horrify me. I would be greatly concerned and be campaigning to make sure the system was robust and fit for purpose.

But no, it's crickets - literally. 🦗🦗🦗

Well, I guess some posters might very well like to be aligned with male academic Sophie Grace Chappell

They should maybe look up a photo of said person, to get an idea of what they think being a "woman" means.

Well I suppose it makes a change to being concerned about how we spend our own money.

How did Piggle know that no gay kids had received inappropriate care at the Tavistock?

Why does Piggle think they are better placed to know this than a number of whistleblowers who worked there and had this concern and the author of a review into the system who also came to the conclusion that homophobia amongst parents was a real issue that was being overlooked?

It's always the same - a cover up and denial of harm because it is inconvenient to the aims and objectives of militant trans activists.

When you, or your family, your parents, your spouse, have spent decades getting homosexuality first legalised, then acceptable, then normalised, do you seriously think that a few bloody minutes on a public thread wanting to preserve all that is over the top??

"Don’t you feel like you miss out on a lot in real life?"

In the words of Judy Bindel, you don't know you're born.

This one?

Piggle told us last thread that they had evidence that supported the continuation of medical treatments that Cass and Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, Danish, German and I think Dutch researchers had dismissed as being poorly evidenced. I did advise Piggle that they should share it with us (they declined). But most importantly they should send this research to those other research teams so that they can amend their findings in light of this evidence. They declined that too.

If I had research that would be supporting a treatment plan, I would be directly in discussion with these research teams. It is vital to get this medical treatment for children to a high standard and to make sure no children’s lives are not harmed irreversibly just because of a philosophical belief.

Maybe I like posting on Mumsnet. Why wouldn't I?

Helleofabore · Today 09:34

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.

Yes, that was to me, which is why I decided to add a few links to show that it's a theme and most definitely not a one off.

RedToothBrush · Today 10:06

How did Piggle know that no gay kids had received inappropriate care at the Tavistock?

They don't, it's made up, as everybody who's seen the videos of the Tavistock staff laughing and joking that most of their patients were gay, that they were transing away the gay can confirm. It's almost as if they want to bog us down with denials, demands for evidence and pooh-pooing what we produce, so as do distract and misinform the less knowledgeable, or something.

It's always the same - a cover up and denial of harm because it is inconvenient to the aims and objectives of militant trans activists.

Yes, and what exactly are those aims and objectives??

It's definitely not appropriate and safe health care for kids (or indeed adults) with gender dysmorphia.

It's definitely not concern for their brothers and sisters who once stood under the LGBT umbrella.

It's definitely not understanding and support for those of us lesbians who no longer want to stand under that rainbow umbrella and who are desperate to have our voices heard and to have safe spaces to date, meet and socialise.

Anyone still supporting this movement in good faith should really do some research. Do you really want to support a homophobic ideology seeking to stop LGB people meeting and speaking?

This one?

Yes, thank you!

There's a word for telling women that if something is really important to them, they should just ignore it because they would be far better off doing something else, less their poor little eyes get tired and itchy with all that concentration.

Indeed.

One poor clinician was worried that, 'at this rate, there will be no gay kids left'.

Anyone still supporting this movement in good faith should really do some research. Do you really want to support a homophobic ideology seeking to stop LGB people meeting and speaking?

I agree. But I don't think there are all that many people who do support this in good faith. Most people that support releasing crickets into conferences for gay, lesbian and bisexual people are gender identity zealots who want to make it impossible to acknowledge that biological sex matters sometimes.

It’s is legitimate to protest the LGBA ; they are not a support group for LGB people , they are an organisation specifically set up to rally against rights , healthcare and inclusion for trans people.
Trans people are not predators, they are not a threat to your rights, they are just people who happen to be a bit different to you and there’s nothing wrong with that. <3

Meant to add this

Well let's test that theory. What is a lesbian?

This was a homophobic attack.

We've had a few threads about this and not one shred of proof has been offered up to support what you're saying.

Literally nothing....crickets.....🦗🦗🦗

Don’t know what it’s not pasting:
it says “equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you- it’s not a pie.”

So yes, attacking a group of gay, lesbian and bisexual people for their beliefs that exclusive same sex attraction exists, and is as valid as any other sexual orientation and worthy of advocacy and protection, is homophobia in action.

Just as if it had been done by religious fundamentalists who believe any same sex attraction is a mortal sin.

It is remarkable how many people still wish to dismiss this attack.

This attack was designed to stop LGB people discussing what they feel is their current concerns. This attack was designed to disrupt the conference just as Jamie Reed, a lesbian who exposed the very poor standard of care same sex attracted children were receiving at the clinic she worked at. Where she assessed their care.

Jamie Reed is married to Tiger. At the time of Jamie’s public raising the alarm, Tiger was identifying as a transman. Tiger was a transgender person. Jamie Reed is not transphobic and doesn’t hate transgender people.

People supporting this attack or merely dismissing it, should be able to support their point of view. No one has been able to do with without using false evidence, or just asserting their own flawed logic based on their personal meanings of words, those that are unreasonable and not supported by those applying the laws in the UK.

Or just plain old emotional manipulation.

And if you cannot provide evidence after doing your own research to original source information, maybe you need to ask why?

And ask yourself why would a group want to stop a discussion that is designed to help improve the quality of healthcare for same sex and both sex attracted children? Who exactly benefits from preventing this discussion?