Trans intolerance is out of control

[rocketpocket]

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/fraser-myers-trans-intolerance-mumsnet/21328#.WuAchK_TXYU

Well he has a point but I despise Spiked and Fraser Myers. They generally hate women so it's interesting that they are now up in arms about this.

That's a great article. I don't read Spiked so don't know anything about it generally but they look braver than mainstream news for writing that.

"Let’s be honest here: if you have started hounding Mumsnet for hosting ‘hate speech’, you have officially lost the plot."

Good article! Wish i was brave enough to publicly share it.

Ophelia, 'brave' is one word. They have a speciality in women-hating. In particular, they think the Harvey Weinstein thing is overblown hysteria and that women should just get over themselves and stop ruining decent men's careers and moaning about getting groped. I wouldn't recommend reading any articles if you have any blood-pressure issues.

I guess their bugbear here is the free speech issue. But according to them, free speech should also extend to racist abuse amongst other things.

They truly are vile, trust me.

Wish i was brave enough to publicly share it.

Oh my god, please don't. They really scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Here are some gems from them:

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/ched-evans-and-the-fury-of-the-middle-class-mob/18880

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/calling-out-false-abuse-allegations/18349#.WuAnUcgvw2w

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-hysteria-in-the-harvey-weinstein-scandal/20414#.WuAmpMgvw2w

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/metoo-a-moral-panic-about-men/20432#.WuAmu8gvw2w

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/metoo-seeing-sexual-harassment-everywhere/20433#.WuAmycgvw2w

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-men-are-being-wrongly-accused-of-rape/20903#.WuAm_Mgvw2w

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-real-scandal-of-the-ulster-rugby-rape-trial/21312#.WuAnDsgvw2w

No fear of me actually sharing it I don't want my terf status to be public knowledge. But I hadn't heard of that website before, I hereby retract my previous statement!!!

There are plenty of places that have covered the freedom of speech angle - Janice Turner's recent piece of the mumsnet coverage in the Times are good options.

(For sharing).

Susan, for the most part, I would disagree with you.

Several of the articles on Spiked that you've just shared, such as the Ulster rape trial one have an excellent point. That point being that whatever YOU believe, those men went to court and were found NOT GUILTY. Which means that legally they are innocent. I agree that I was shocked at the verdict, I honestly didn't expect them to be found not guilty but they were and as such their clubs have no legal right to fire them from their jobs.

Spiked also defend freedom of speech in ALL cases. Yes, this might include some racism but it also includes the rights of Islamist hate preachers, offensive jokes (see Count Dankula) and the rights of mumsnetters to question and debate the GRA. One persons hate speech is another persons deeply held belief or opinion. Freedom of speech is often speech that you disagree with or find offensive. Short of actual incitement, people should be allowed to speak as they see fit.

SusanBunch

A lot of the articles you just shared made excellent points. Disagreeing with someone doesn't automatically make them wrong.

When you highlighted those particular articles as evidence of bias, you show your own biases pretty clearly.

Have you come here to stand up for women's freedom of speech Patriarchy? That would be great!

Ereshkigal

Amongst other things, yes I have!

Okay, rocketpocket, we do disagree. Deeply. Fair enough.

The tone of their articles is misogynistic in the extreme. I have read articles on there that physically disgust me.

It is NOT as simple as saying they were found not guilty. Of course they were- the entire system is stacked in their favour. Society is full of rape myths about vengeful women inventing rape allegations. Those are perpetuated by Spiked and other 'free speech' outlets. They are also used to publicly humiliate and shame the complainant in that case. That sort of free speech benefits men and silences women and ensures that men can always hide behind the free speech excuse and use lack of criminal convictions (in a system stacked against them) to accuse women of lying.

I do not think people should be allowed to say whatever they like. I do not think Katie Hopkins should be allowed to publicly spread her bile. Spiked are big fans of hers by the way. I do not think MRAs should be allowed to create a culture whereby women are routinely subjected to sexual violence, but are called liars and hysterical if they dare speak out about it.

So yes, we will have to agree to disagree. I secretly hope other readers of this section react with disgust at what Spiked write though, regardless of exercise of free speech.

When you highlighted those particular articles as evidence of bias, you show your own biases pretty clearly.

Yeah, how shocking. On a feminism site and everything. Imagine a feminist having issues with numerous articles written to make women out to be hysterical, vindictive liars, intent on ruining the lives of decent men. Gosh, that really is a head-scratcher.

Really have no problem with 'revealing my bias' on this one.

The point I was trying to make, I suppose, is that YOU can't have the right to offend trans people without other people that you disagree with having the right to offend women/BME people/gay people. As right as you are convinced you are about GRA these people believe they are as right about gay marriage or immigration.
The best way to prove them wrong, as Spiked argue, is to openly debate them. They'll hold their opinions regardless so it's always better to know and to disagree and try to persuade of the other side.

I honestly didn't expect them to be found not guilty but they were and as such their clubs have no legal right to fire them from their jobs.

So have the players challenged the decision to fire them? Or do you think they feel that, guilty or not guilty of rape, their disgusting behaviour, both before and after the trail, is enough to warrant their dismissal?

Susanbunch

Fair enough, if that's what you think. (I think you are wrong but surely that's the entire point of these kind of discussions)

As rocket said, you can't expect to be able to disagree with people and offend them, without allowing them to do the same to you.

Yes, I think we should have open debate and I believe it is possible to do so without offending trans people and instead focus on issues of safety, dignity and equality. If the only thing GC people cling to is free speech, that's a bit of a dangerous position. The EDL and Britain First are also all about free speech- so are Milo Y and Katie Hopkins. You risk being lumped in with crazy extremist groups if you maintain that you can say absolutely anything.

Also, it becomes a bit circular- surely the protesters at the Bristol meeting were exercising THEIR right of free speech and assembly? So are the MRAs on twitter calling for TERFs to be beheaded. Spiked would defend them to the hilt as well. I don't think it gets us anywhere.

As rocket said, you can't expect to be able to disagree with people and offend them, without allowing them to do the same to you.

Of course not. I don't mind if people disagree with me about Spiked's position. I would hope some also agree, but if not, I can live with that.

Suburban

Have the players challenged the decision to fire them?

Come on, that's the same argument as asking if the alleged victim has appealed against the verdict.

That’s actually one of the best articles I’ve read on the issue and reflects my views exactly - short and straight to the point with no convoluted insider language that just confuses most folk.

YOU can't have the right to offend trans people without other people that you disagree with having the right to offend women/BME people/gay people.

I agree and I am acutely aware of potentially coming across as transphobic. That is why I don't like the narrative of 'trans is illogical and doesn't exist'. That is denying many people's lived reality. Instead, I prefer to say 'there are certain legal protections that need to be afforded to biological women by making certain spaces bio-female only'. It is about the safety and dignity of those bio-females, not about the validity or otherwise of other beliefs. I don't see the sense of arguing about whether anyone can be born in the wrong body anymore. That is evidently what people do believe and they are unlikely to come round on this point.

It was possible to conduct this balancing exercise e.g. with gay rights versus religious expression, so I cannot see why it can't be done here. In fact it already exists- in the Equality Act.

- surely the protesters at the Bristol meeting were exercising THEIR right of free speech and assembly?

They physically blocked women from getting into the meeting. Only one group was having their right to free speech attacked here.

Have the players challenged the decision to fire them?

Come on, that's the same argument as asking if the alleged victim has appealed against the verdict

No it isn't. You and the writer of that article are mixing 2 completely different concepts.

In terms of employment law and contract an employer has every right to dismiss an employee for reprehensible, but non criminal conduct. That can include conduct away from the work place and which is not connected to the direct carrying out of the employee's duities.

The employee has every right to challenge that at an employment tribunal. Employees do challenge dismissals and often win.