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.

one might question their agenda really!

Aida or any "TRA" have ever interacted with me and I dont interact with them. I haven't made a comment and come back to 30+ notifications of Aida and co accusing me of being a man, a predator, various other slights on my character, etc etc.

They just dont seem that obsessed with me and I keep away from them.

"fuck that with a"

This phrase is again referring to inanimate objects or concepts.

It is not a relevant comparator to “fuck x with a splintery rolling pin”.

I think we’re just being gaslit at this point by an Aida cheerleader. I’m torn between not wanting to give them fuel, whilst at the same time knowing that sunlight is disinfectant.

No its for privacy. Not safeguarding. Women arent inherently vulnerable adults. Men have similar same sex provision.

I get that you see yourself as extremely vulnerable and in need of safeguarding by authoritative figures. I do not see women like that. I think that might be an individual thing.

Its the same concept. Yhe other is just harder to search for..I will though so you can report them all as rape threats.

No it's not. Nobody who posts on here has a right to be replied to. MNHQ specifically told those of us who were posting on a political thread once that if somebody came along and was clearly posting to be antagonistic, then we didn't have to reply to them and start an argument / keep it going. This would be the same type of scenario.

And yet you're more than happy to interact and argue with people on the FWR board that you've never interacted with before and haven't made any comments about ypu previously - vociferously so.

And again, your insistence that safeguarding doesn’t shape the policy for segregation doesn’t mean that aspect has not been shaping policy all along.

I have read Hansard and committee reports about the formation of different laws and safeguarding for physical attack has been as important as privacy.

in fact, that privacy you refer to is part of overall safeguarding. As previously mentioned, safeguarding is not opening the door to misogyny. That is a very simplistic view. Safeguarding acknowledges that for equal opportunity, female people require equitable solutions. One of those solutions is to provide female people safety mechanisms from male people physically harming them.

You can deny safeguarding principles as much as you want, that is fine. Those creating policy and influencing policy will simply continue to do this without your agreement.

No. They are not the same concept at all. Numerous posters have explained why, including me so I will leave you to your search.

exactly that. Males aren’t kept out of female prisons for privacy @GlovedhandsCecilia they’re kept out for very basic, understandable safeguarding reasons. As you well know and must surely understand.

Fuck is used in all sorts of different ways and does not always mean to have sex. If I told you to fuck off, I obviously don't mean you should have sex as you leave. The splintery rolling pin is much more explicit and violent. There is no alternative meaning to 'fucking someone with a splintery rolling pin'. It isn't used as a stand in for other phrases and it isn't a commonly used phrase. I don't think people saying it are actually going to rape someone but I do think they have a casual attitude towards sexual violence and wouldn't see it as a problem when committed against people they disapprove of. I would view someone using this phrase as a low grade and unthinking person. I wouldn't ban them. I think it is far better for people to be allowed to show their true selves, warts and all.

exactly, @Stnam

Gosh someone appears to have main character syndrome.

I made a complaint, got a response that could have been better, but never mind.

Got lots of support for my position.

yet some one just had to keep on arguing, for what possible reason?

While I agree with you, I think sometimes we underestimate the current narrative of some streams of feminism. There really is a stream of thought that believes that if female people find the right training for them, they will be just as strong, just as quick and will beat male people. They believe that it is opening women and girls up to the misogynist attack that we are different and therefore not deserving of equality.

It has been interesting to see this uninformed and misguided stream of feminism form because it seems to misunderstand what the feminists who have been fighting for equal opportunity have been saying. I believe it has come about due to a narrow and flattened evaluation of the efforts of the past where maybe they latched on to the phrases that stated women are equal to men and took that as meaning we are fully equal in physical attributes except for we have different reproductive capabilities.

Of course, that is bollocks. Although, significantly due to the difference in having those bollocks or not, female bodies on average do not develop anywhere near the strength that male bodies do. We know this. Yet that stream of feminism believes it is misogynistic to believe the scientifically established facts. Hence we have seen academics tell us that it just takes different training but women really can have the same strength and lung capacity etc.

It seems that to them understanding the physical differences in sex categories is an act of misogyny. That admitting female people are vulnerable to male physical strength at all times is saying female people are lesser. We are not lesser at all, of course.

Course you do. Course you have a colleague that says an almost exactly parallel disgusting phrase that just so happen to refer to a more male 'pursuit'.

There is no way language like that would be allowed in any reasonable work place. It certainly wouldn't be acceptable in mine, that would be straight to HR. But perhaps you just work with some seriously wrong sorts of people and they've brainwashed you into thinking this sort of disgusting speech is acceptable or normal?

I doubt it because it's obvious you've just made it up in a sad attempt to legitimise rape threats as 'nothing to see here'.

While I agree with most of what you say, I disagree that women who he has referred to as bigots should have to continue to be abused when it can be seen that his continued posting is an act of intimidation. It might not even register to him that he is doing that, but how else can you describe the behaviour pattern ?

I think there is an argument that could be made that if that behaviour has continued in the workplace in relation to saying it about people, it has become normalised.

And there will be people around that person saying it has become desensitised to it or had very low personal boundaries to start with, and will perhaps seek to view it as normal behaviour.

Likewise.

Anybody who can't draw a distinction between 'having full mental capacity and not needing safeguarding in situations were mental capacity is what counts' and 'being physically weaker by reason of chromosomes and needing safeguarding in certain situations' is either deluded or not arguing in good faith.

I'm perfectly capable of managing the household's finances, booking a holiday, making my own medical decisions and holding down a job. But I'm very aware that I never want to be cornered by a man, no matter what he's wearing or how much makeup he has on, because he is almost certain to be stronger than me, and he might have malign intent.

Hence, I dislike shared changing rooms and blokes coming into women's toilets.

I cannot believe that anyone needs this to be spelled out to them.

Yeah I understand your point. With more context I can see why the insult appears more violent

Women are, factually, on average, physically smaller, lighter and weaker than men. That means that in some circumstances they are potentially vulnerable to male violence, which is also a fact.

Pretending facts aren’t facts is not a winning strategy in an argument. Saying “I don’t like the facts because they are inconvenient for my personal philosophy”, is not particularly compelling.

It is a very basic conceptual error.

There's a tone and context to statements too.

If I say to my DS "I'm going to kill you" (if that room isn't tidy when I get upstairs) we both understand this not to be a literal threat of violence. It is still a threat though.

If my ex said to me "I'm going to kill you" (if you even try and leave this house) we both understand that to be a very literal threat of violence.

Fuck you / fuck this / fuck that can be used both aggressively and jokingly. The context of the posts about people being "fucked with" something in this case is a background of genuine anger and aggression towards women and the choice to use sexual assault imagery isn't accidental.

The way you see things seems to be an outlier from how many other people do. 🤷‍♀️

Ironically, you just did make something up to prove your point, because your example is nothing like the type of example I was suggesting.

Your example is of general (well, generally misogynist, but we've already established you don't care about that) violence to a person who is Black. Not necessarily racist.

However I am suggesting you would not be as sanguine at someone suggesting, purely for emphasis not an actual crediclble threat, that a specific Black person should face a historically race-coded violence.

An example - which I will not aim at any individual simply to prove a point - would be "Is [insert name here] banging on about racism again? Someone should lynch that boy!"

(You will probably pick holes in this specific example as nothing to do with the UK and nothing like the worst racist language Black people face, and claim it wouldn't bother you. Frankly, if you do then that is great. I'm glad I don't have those worse examples in my head. Still, based on other posts you have made about racism I know you understand my point even if you pretend not to get it).