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.

I'm another person who thinks Aida is obviously not posting in good faith. It's a joke.

And as for J. K. Rowling should be raped with a splintered rolling pin being a cute colloquialism??

Like all transactivism, it's risible jibber jabber.

Transactivists routinely threaten women: decapitate terfs, when you see a terf punch them, they've punched two old age pensioners in the face, one of the perpetrators of which was done for battery, they've defaced buildings, vandalised offices including that of a cabinet minister, smashed windows, put women in fear of their lives, punched another woman in the face in front of an MP. The list is endless.

Their violence is spaffed across the Internet from one end to the other.

It's ludicrous to assert that saying a woman should be raped with a rolling pin is anything other than a violent, gleeful expression of threat.

What Datun said.

Yes. What datun said.

Yesterday I listened to a male voice yell through a loud hailer that we should stop murdering children, stop killing children and stop killing ‘us’ (obviously meaning trans people) this chant was on repeat and went on and on and on.

It is not the horrendous aggression of a group of male people, but it is the complete lack of inhibitions in making obvious false and serious claims of victimisation. In their mind, it must be true because they believe they are the most marginalised and vulnerable people in the world.

I watched the faces of people walking by, the incredulity was very noticeable. A group of angry male people were shouting aggressively and held back by police while shouting at a group of women and girls who were chatting to each other with the public walking easily through them.

Most people could see the stark differences between the groups.

Most people could see the stark differences between the groups.

As soon as as women pushed back, transactivism was always going to fail.

It's a men's sexual rights movement. And, unfortunately for them, their sense of entitlement lets it show, everywhere they go.

It was all built on sand, and now they're busy kicking over everyone else's sand castles.

... in steel toed boots and balaclavas - you know, just to emphasise their vulnerability 🙄

Still no rebuttal to my substantiative points.

I think points that go over 10 are binned. Obviously never heard of Spinal Tap.

Pretending that race is comparable to youth or sex is invalid and I am not alone in being sick of this racist and lazy false argument.

It's invalid in the context of safeguarding and vulnerability because the biological differences between white people and black people are trivial and almost always unimportant. ("Almost always" because sickle cell anaemia is important.) Having brown skin doesn't make someone inherently vulnerable to abuse from a white person. If a white man and a black man were alone in a forest, they'd be the same risk to each other. The power imbalance between black and white people within society is because of social constructs.

The biological differences between a child and an adult are size, strength, and brain maturity. These make the child inherently vulnerable to abuse by the adult. The adult alone in the forest with a child poses more risk to the child than the child does to the adult.

The biological differences between a woman and a man are size, strength, and reproductive role (i.e. gestator versus impregnator). These make the woman inherently vulnerable to abuse by the man. A man alone in a forest with a woman poses a rape threat to her that she cannot pose to him. He poses a much greater murder threat to her than she does to him. Hence why so many women chose the bear...

As I keep saying, and you have not actually attempted to rebutt, vulnerability is about relative risk, not about mental capacity. Mental capacity might be a risk factor in some cases, but it doesn't have to be a risk factor for the person to be vulnerable.

Your daily reminder that the uptick in nuisance posters on FWR is to distract us from talking about

the Finnish trial

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5513703-finnish-study-on-transition-and-psychiatric-outcomes-in-sex-and-gender-shows-increased-psychiatric-morbidity

It was answering a question.

I'm Black and I see parallels because I have seen the world through my perspective.

Indeed. Only one side is threatening murder if we don’t acquiesce to their demands:

Yesterday, someone said to me that that group would probably get more people taking notice of what they were saying if they had a woman on the loud hailer.

I said to the person ‘but they DO believe they have a woman on the loud hailer’.

All those protests end up doing is reinforcing the perception of male aggression. The aggressive male voices shouting wildly hyperbole chants, the male topless with moobs out for the public to see as some kind of protest.

Some people try to discredit the phrase Operation : Let them speak. But yesterday was a very clear example of that.

And it is also very clear why accusations of ‘both sides are extreme’ simply are unevidenced and really not believable when you look more closely. Starmer really needs to never say that again in relation to women and this group of male people.

So weird how women don’t have to wear balaclavas during their meets or protests.

The TRAs probably have to wear them because they’re so vulnerable. Particularly when hawking around death threats to women. But that’s probably just another colloquialism like the rape with the splintered rolling pin, right?

Aaah, these hilarious men with their side-splitting rape and death threats. Silly po-faced women not laughing along.

I’ve drawn my own conclusions on that as I’m perfectly able to do.

Also, it wasn’t. Read the thread. It was introduced by hazelberry without any “question” being answered.

There you go.

Ffs.

And yes, women have never written signs with 'the only trans is a ---- trans' equivalent.

For all the reasons.

But can you imagine if we did???

They act as if we do, even though we don’t.

And even though they do, they don’t get called out on it. Instead it’s handwringing and ‘both sides’ bullshit.

Cast iron proof that everyone knows full well who the real women are.

Well not noticed Aida

Yeah, it was introduced as some kind of gotcha by someone who seems to have an issue with glinner’s posting history.

indeed.

And could anyone imagine what would be said also if feminists attempted to shut down an event aimed at supporting transpeople. Or doing anything to disrupt it such as causing

-damage to the venue to cause alarm and convince the venue to cancel.
-release any insect or substance intended to cause alarm or stop the event.
-block entry to the event.
-do any action inside the venue to halt the event.
-pressure a venue to cancel the booking.
-threaten speakers to stop them speaking.
-intimidate attendees to disrupt the event or attempt peoole to not come.
-let of smoke bombs with the intention of disrupting the event (which they did in Grenfell after the fire there).
-display messages or shout chants to threaten and intimidate attendees
-and the usual, cause so much noise and intimidation so that no one can hear.

When feminists go anywhere near an event for trans people, if it is open to anyone, they attend and listen.

There is nothing that it symmetrically ‘both sides’ in anything to do with this issue. Even the arguments aren’t symmetrical as far as being evidenced and supported by science and medical facts.

It’s quite stark, isn’t it.

Naomi Cunningham described GC women as CLAW conspicuously law abiding women

One of my favourite quotes:

"The fact that society believes a man who says he's a woman, instead of a woman who says he’s not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman." ---Jen Izaakson