FWR being trolled by a user called AidaP

[Hedgehogforshort]

Hi MNHQ can you please address the issue of a certain poster called AidaP who is not participating in debate he is just trolling.

to be clear this person is a trans woman who has been convicted of violence and is posting promotion of acts of violence against women elsewhere.

in particular there is one elsewhere about using a roughly hewn rolling pin to rape women.

you realy need to look in to him it is just so not on that he is being allowed to bother us here.

A) I do not “have to learn” anything, thanks.

B) Your arguments dovetail beautifully with the TRA crowd. When something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I’m going to treat it like a duck.

C) You’re welcome to disagree. We all have the right to hold an opinion. Your opinion appears to be in the minority but it remains your right to think whatever you like.

D) I have never seen any woman say “fuck x person with a splintery rolling pin” or similar. I’m sure there may be outliers somewhere but it would be vanishingly rare. Quite fortunate for your argument that you just happen to have a woman like that in your workplace. Unfortunately you’ve not been able to demonstrate that this turn of phrase is common parlance anywhere else. Just your workplace apparently.

E) Quite the bold assumption that I’m fixated with this subject. I have no idea who you are.

F) I am polarised on this subject, yes. I make no apology for advocating for the safety, privacy, and dignity of girls and women. I don’t think this is a subject that should be compromised upon.

G) GC women hold a range of views. We’re not a single hive mind. What we do all have in common is the intent to safeguard women and girls. Interestingly, I can’t think of any instance where someone who is only mildly GC would suggest that it’s perfectly normal and not in the slightly bit offensive to explicitly tell a woman to go fuck herself with a splintered rolling pin.

H) I have AuDHD. I have multiple thoughts in my head constantly. Weirdly though, none of those thoughts ever condone using language about sexual violence against women.

We're pretending their dangerous? Have you heard of Bash Back at all? Have a Google.

"I just think it isnt that harmful if they think they are now ive seen all the reaching and exaggerating you've had to do to pretend they are dangerous."

There is no 'pretending' they are dangerous. There very clearly, and evidenced, ARE some that are dangerous and at least the in same proportion as dangerous male people.

Hence if society has laws and policies that keep all male people out of female single sex provisions, then even those male people with transgender identities stay out.

Or if you really need it explained, if female people cannot tell the difference on sight which male is a lovely person and which isn't, then the very same principle applies to those with a transgender identity so that no female person has to do an instant risk assessment when they see any male person enter the female single sex provision they are using at the time.

It really is not that hard to understand - there is no pretending needed. Just logic and evidence.

What is interesting about that poster is that I read that figure as a male. Head/body proportions, wide shoulders, size of the hands, no breasts at all. Definitely a man.

Really proves our point without us having to do anything else. Do what we say otherwise a sinister male figure in a balaclava will threaten you with a hammer.

A common colloquialism? I must have led a very sheltered life.

There is also generally a difference with the position and slant of human eyes between male and female people. Narrowing in on that with a balaclava makes it more noticeable.

I noticed with pics of a male person on twitter who posts photos of himself that during in covid while wearing a mask and a hat it really was quite noticeable. He declares that no one can tell he is male and that he has taken puberty blockers early enough to stop male features forming. It is clearly not true. Also, I have noticed he is now wearing a hat in photos because I believe he is discovering that nature is taking its course and puberty blockers and no testosterone doesn't stop genetic hair lines changing with age in some male people.

Totally agree.

Since it's now plain that it is the same person then - yes, this is a safeguarding issue.

I'll add that "safeguarding" encompasses much more than an adult's duty to care for children. In the workplace and elsewhere, it includes looking after both employees and clients.

This is an illuminating thread. I'm surprised Aida hasn't dropped in yet.

@Shedmistress I don’t think he dare in the circumstances.

The problem with the internet is that you can never be sure, particularly on a site that allows name changes.

The only certainty is that so-called activists sometimes decide to be blatant in order to cause upset; at other times they're slightly more subtle.

It’s disappointing that @MNHQOr @BeckyAMumsnet haven’t been back to discuss this further.

Have not seen the person in question today maybe keeping a low profile

There have been a LOT of deletions though. Including a whole thread.

Somebody uber-sensitive has been mashing the delete button.

Yes @BunfightBetty but it could be TRA lurkers as well we can never know.

I meant the ‘report’ button. 🤦‍♀️ Tired brain today.

Very true.

It could just be me, but it feels like MN mods have been more inclined to delete in the last few days/since a certain couple of posters have been active, than in recent times.

I doubt they come on their own. I think they are all tramping over here to vent their frustrations at the many positive developments. I have not noticed any significant “ramp up” on our side, other than reporting said positive developments.

Terf bashing is what they have left.

Just FYI - @MNHQ doesn't go anywhere or link to anyone/anything!

Perhaps an alert has gone out. Asking for back up?

That’s useful to know, thank you 😊

Safeguarding isn't about lack of capacity but about mitigating risk.

In the case of children and some disabled adults, a lack of capacity contributes to the risk of harm that those people face. But it's the risk of harm that triggers safeguarding measures.

Most adult women have capacity to make our own decisions. This capacity doesn't and can't protect us from being raped, battered, or murdered by men who are bigger and stronger than we are, nor can it protect us from being left pregnant by our rapists.

Acknowledging this risk that men pose to women doesn't breed misogyny. Denying this risk is misogyny.

That's just how my autism manifests. There's a few of us auties on FWR.

One of these four statements is not like the others.

• Men can force women to become pregnant.
• Men cannot force other men to become pregnant.
• Women cannot force men to become pregnant.
• Women cannot force other women to become pregnant.

It's not about decision-making capacity. It's about physical vulnerability. Women are physically vulnerable in ways that men are not. This has to be acknowledged for our rights to be protected.

If we don't acknowledge that women are physically weaker and smaller and at risk of forced pregnancy, then there's no way to make the argument for:

• women's separate sports
• women's separate dormitories, loos, showers, and changing rooms
• public spaces being designed to make rape and sexual harassment harder
• women's DV and rape survivor services

Vulnerability is not about decision-making capacity. Analogy: Professor Stephen Hawking was one of the cleverest men alive in the late 20th century, perfectly able to make his own decisions. Yet he was vulnerable because he was physically disabled. Dame Evelyn Glennie is a hugely talented percussionist, but she is vulnerable because her deafness reduces her situational awareness.

Vulnerability simply means being at elevated risk compared to others. Women are at infinitely higher risk of forced pregnancy than men.

No one has embraced a role of "fragile feminine". The thing about "embracing" is that it's a choice. The thing about being raped or sexually assaulted is that it isn't a choice. My sexual assailants forced the "fragile feminine" victim role onto me. I never embraced it and it's offensive to talk about fragility as if it's something that women choose.

No its for privacy. Not safeguarding. Women arent inherently vulnerable adults.

Tell me you've never been raped without telling me...

Men have similar same sex provision.

What other provision could men possibly have, given that the women are in the women's provision? Come on, apply some logic here. The only possible options are "men-only" and "no provision for men at all". The latter would usually be unfair.