Arlene Foster suing Dr Christian

[MissyB1]

Apparently he tweeted that she was having an affair (without any proof), and the way he put it was a spiteful little jibe about her being a “sanctity of marriage preaching woman” adding “it always comes back to bite them on the arse”
Now I understand he might have an issue with her as I think she was against same sex marriage. But this man always strikes me as an arrogant twat and a nasty piece of work.

I tried to post the link but I’m such a technophobe! it’s on BBC news website

@Branleuse

Well no, shes allowed justice and good for her, but the only reason you care is because dr CJ is a TRA so its all about laughing that hes in trouble. You would unlikely be supportive of female TRAs particularly, or would you?

I would be supportive of a fair outcome in a legal dispute regardless of which person involved I liked or agreed with the views of.

FWIW my opinion of CJ has nothing to do with trans issues (as I'm not sure what his beliefs specifically are on that front) my opinion of him has been shaped by his well documented comments about the rights, challenges and painful experiences of girls and women.

It's possible to either like or dislike someone and also support them being found either guilty or innocent - any variety of those things. If someone I like has broken the law then I still think it's right they are convicted. If someone I dislike is innocent of something but are accused of it, I still think it's right they are acquitted.

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@Branleuse

Well no, shes allowed justice and good for her, but the only reason you care is because dr CJ is a TRA so its all about laughing that hes in trouble. You would unlikely be supportive of female TRAs particularly, or would you?

I would be supportive of a fair outcome in a legal dispute regardless of which person involved I liked or agreed with the views of.

FWIW my opinion of CJ has nothing to do with trans issues (as I'm not sure what his beliefs specifically are on that front) my opinion of him has been shaped by his well documented comments about the rights, challenges and painful experiences of girls and women.

It's possible to either like or dislike someone and also support them being found either guilty or innocent - any variety of those things. If someone I like has broken the law then I still think it's right they are convicted. If someone I dislike is innocent of something but are accused of it, I still think it's right they are acquitted. [/quote]
Honestly I cant stand the guy. Hes another Harrop. I just was really not expecting to see a thread on the feminist board supportive of Arlene Foster for any reason

Alice Roberts is a biological anthropologist, a biologist who apparently campaigns for rational thinking.

"campaigns for state secularism and for "a tolerant world where rational thinking and kindness prevail""

And yet her devotion to kindness means she appears to think or at least support the concept that humans can change sex. That men can be women. Prioritising kindness over rational thinking it would seem.

No wonder her views are closely examined and often ridiculed here.

Though I don't mean to derail the thread. Sorry.

@Branleuse

Hopefully you accept that people don't necessarily dislike CJ due to his stance on trans things and many of us dislike him due to his stance on the myriad non trans related issues that affect girls and women.

You made a rather sweeping statement to the contrary but it's simply not true.

I never commented on it, but it did amuse me when a trans-activist friend approvingly shared a tweet from Alice Roberts mocking the concept of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation (Latin: transubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered."[1] In this teaching, the notions of "substance" and "transubstantiation" are not linked with any particular theory of metaphysics.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

I just was really not expecting to see a thread on the feminist board supportive of Arlene Foster for any reason

Really? So if she was beaten, raped, burnt alive by a gang of misogynistic men you wouldn't expect an FWR thread appalled at what had happened and expressing horror. Because of her political views? Wow. Just. Wow.

Feminism is about all women (female ones for clarity). Not just the ones you happen to agree with. And yes that includes idiot like Alice Roberts. And you.

It has to include all women doesn't it otherwise who is the arbiter? Who says one woman is deserving and another not?

I thought there was a really good point made on twitter, asking if that exchange between the medics raised safeguarding concerns. If they were providing medical care to a child who was from the global south, would either of them treat him or her as an adult? Would they report child abuse if they came across forced marriage in this country (it happens!), involving a child from the global south?

I think Alice Roberts is an intelligent woman who's choosing to pretend she isn't on one issue, either to 'be kind' or to avoid difficulties for herself.

I don't have much respect for that approach, but I do accept she's every right to make that choice and i absolutely support her right to not be subjected to misogynist abuse.

TL:DR: you can think someone's a dick and still support them getting fair treatment.

@titchy

I just was really not expecting to see a thread on the feminist board supportive of Arlene Foster for any reason

Really? So if she was beaten, raped, burnt alive by a gang of misogynistic men you wouldn't expect an FWR thread appalled at what had happened and expressing horror. Because of her political views? Wow. Just. Wow.

Feminism is about all women (female ones for clarity). Not just the ones you happen to agree with. And yes that includes idiot like Alice Roberts. And you.

Ok you got me. That would be quite different than whether some tosser has wrongly accused her of having an affair

Men who harass and lie about women online aren't going to start with Emma Thompson or Judi Dench, are they? They'll start with the women that are easy pickings, low-hanging fruit, already loathed and therefore they will have fewer defenders.

Unfortunately for the good doctor, he picked a woman with teeth. And yes, I applaud her defense of herself because I don't think men who lie about women in order to smear them stop at the 'bad' women. The swamp that is the internet needs taught that misogyny has consequences. However you feel about the recipient.

TL:DR play the ball not the player.

@titchy

It has to include all women doesn't it otherwise who is the arbiter? Who says one woman is deserving and another not?

The individual gets to decide who they put their energy towards I guess. Feminism doesnt mean I have to camaign for or cheer for arlene foster, maggie thatcher, rose west etc. There will always be women that actively campaign against other womens human rights.

This is actually stressing me out. Im not trying to be a dick. I just cant understand why there almost seems to be unanimous support of such a shit person here. Such an anti feminist. The only reason i could see is that people think that CJ is worse, and i figured that its probably due to the trans thing, but then im unsettled in general by the feminist support for religious right wing women lately anyway, and i seem to have very people who see it sinilarly to me, or at least very few people who can be bothered to say anything.
I thought rather than just ignore it, id bring it up.

I just cant understand why there almost seems to be unanimous support of such a shit person here.

Perhaps we're on different threads - I don't see any support for Jessen here.

I kust cant understand why there almost seems to be unanimous support of such a shit person here. Such an anti feminist.
For me it is not about Arlene it is a win for online trolling, she just happens to be a victim who stood against it.
I absolutely can't stand her she is a bigot like her cronies an awful woman who was responsible for the latest rioting in NI inciting violence.
I'd never support her values however I'm happy with the result it might make others think twice.

@EmeraldShamrock

I kust cant understand why there almost seems to be unanimous support of such a shit person here. Such an anti feminist. For me it is not about Arlene it is a win for online trolling, she just happens to be a victim who stood against it. I absolutely can't stand her she is a bigot like her cronies an awful woman who was responsible for the latest rioting in NI inciting violence. I'd never support her values however I'm happy with the result it might make others think twice.

Ok yeah i get that

The individual gets to decide who they put their energy towards I guess. Feminism doesnt mean I have to camaign for or cheer for arlene foster, maggie thatcher, rose west etc. There will always be women that actively campaign against other womens human rights.

Look, YOU, don't have to. Feminism does not demand that you spend your personal energy to do so. But if you agree with the principle that no woman shall be abused, vilified, trolled, libelled, because of her sex, I'm afraid feminism does include AF. And Rose West. And all other women.

The only reason i could see is that people think that CJ is worse, and i figured that its probably due to the trans thing,

It's not due to the trans thing, it's due to his utterly vile views on women, and particularly pre-teen girls.

If that make it more palatable for you.

@Branleuse

This is actually stressing me out. Im not trying to be a dick. I just cant understand why there almost seems to be unanimous support of such a shit person here. Such an anti feminist. The only reason i could see is that people think that CJ is worse, and i figured that its probably due to the trans thing, but then im unsettled in general by the feminist support for religious right wing women lately anyway, and i seem to have very people who see it sinilarly to me, or at least very few people who can be bothered to say anything. I thought rather than just ignore it, id bring it up.

When it comes to AF I do understand your position (though to repeat from my pp she's far more moderate than her successor).

For me it's not so much about celebrating "her" win but rather "a win" by a woman against the old trope of "she's a slag" (and a hypocritical one to boot) by a man whose repeatedly demonstrated his misogyny.

The fact that his "public persona" and Twitter following cut no ice with the judge is a good result for all women.

The fact he's made a total tit of himself with regard to his web of lies defence is a cherry on the ice cream that I'm happy to dine out on.

For me it's not so much about celebrating "her" win but rather "a win" by a woman against the old trope of "she's a slag" (and a hypocritical one to boot) by a man whose repeatedly demonstrated his misogyny.

Absolutely this, perfectly articulated!

It's not the trans thing. I only found out about the trans thing after I read nearly 40 pages of a judge ripping him apart.

It's his dismissal of forced marriage, which contributes to Niger being a country where 1 in 187 pregnant women and girls will die as a result of pregnancy/childbirth complications, and where women have a 1 in 7 chance of dying due to maternity complications during their lifetime.

The only reason i could see is that people think that CJ is worse, and i figured that its probably due to the trans thing, but then im unsettled in general by the feminist support for religious right wing women lately anyway, and i seem to have very people who see it sinilarly to me, or at least very few people who can be bothered to say anything.

OK. I understand what you're saying. I think most of us have a deep dislike of CJ because of his appalling comment minimising the immorality of a grown man marrying a 12-year old girl, on the basis that it happened in another country. In effect, that's saying that the rape of a 12-year old doesn't matter if she's not a white European. It's misogynistic, it's racist and it's a particularly abhorrent attitude when it comes from a doctor. As a PP said, young teenage girls in Niger die in childbirth because they are married too young.

I hold no brief at all for Arlene Foster. I dislike her politics intensely. But Jessen's libel against her was pure misogyny, compounded by an arrogance that showed he thought he didn't have to respect the court. He said things in court that the judge stated, quite baldly, weren't true.

The choice of who to support in those circumstances really isn't difficult.

The only reason i could see is that people think that CJ is worse, and i figured that its probably due to the trans thing

My assessment would be that the 'trans thing' is a symptom of a larger issue with him. That he thinks women are more disposable. Whether that's so transwomen can be in female spaces, or a 12 yo girl can be sacrificed for cultural relativism or Arlene Foster seemingly for a laugh. Even that sleb having an abortion.

I don't follow him on Twitter. Does he do the same to men? Are 12 yo boys being raped just a shrug? Does he libel right wing NI male politicians? Does a male celebrity not looking after a child get pilloried? That's why it's a feminist issue for me, because it's about women as a class.

@Branleuse

This is actually stressing me out. Im not trying to be a dick. I just cant understand why there almost seems to be unanimous support of such a shit person here. Such an anti feminist. The only reason i could see is that people think that CJ is worse, and i figured that its probably due to the trans thing, but then im unsettled in general by the feminist support for religious right wing women lately anyway, and i seem to have very people who see it sinilarly to me, or at least very few people who can be bothered to say anything. I thought rather than just ignore it, id bring it up.

You think that the law should only protect people you agree with? That we can't applaud a sexist, arrogant misogynist getting his legal comeuppance, without that endorsing the victim's politics?