Page 2 | Trans intolerance is out of control

Nextloorejext · 25/04/2018 08:44

And if Spiked is more simed at men - whether you like the general tone or not - this might make a lot of men who have no resl opinion in it start to tske notice.

LassWiADelicateAir · 25/04/2018 08:46

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

That statement is wrong as to the legal position.

Ereshkigal · 25/04/2018 08:51

It is about the safety and dignity of those bio-females, not about the validity or otherwise of other beliefs.

The problem is that by not allowing discussion on whether those beliefs are reasonable and accepting these (arguably) clearly false beliefs as legitimate and building policy around them, we have no grounds for asking for protection for women separate from trans identified males. So I think that's a bit naive.

SusanBunch · 25/04/2018 08:51

And if Spiked is more simed at men - whether you like the general tone or not - this might make a lot of men who have no resl opinion in it start to tske notice.

Yes, it might. Until Spiked write an article defending the rights of MRAs to litter Twitter with misogynistic slurs and rape threats. Remember that for the most part, Spiked represent MRAs and their interests. I am not sure I would want the kind of men who read Spiked on my side (and of course they won't really be on side anyway). You might feel differently.

Better get on and get some work done now....

Original poster

rocketpocket · 25/04/2018 09:34

Susan, I agree that the system is stacked in the favour of men against women in rape trials but I disagree that the solution is to believe women without question or to hound men who have been found innocent.

We need to fight for something better. What that is, I'm not sure. Victims need to be questioned better. In a way that is delicate but also very effective because, like it or not, some women will lie and some men have been locked up when they were innocent. I know it's an absolutely tiny minority of women that falsely accuse but it does happen and it's still a scandal when an innocent person is imprisoned. As Blackstone said: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

In relation to what you've said about freedom of speech. I am on your side in this. I think the GRA needs to be discussed BUT there are TRAs that disagree. They see any discussion as transphobic and want it shutting down. They think that anybody who doesn't blindly accept that anyone can turn up anywhere and say they are a woman now is transphobic. They don't want polite debate. They want NO debate.

I think where Spiked is concerned we will have to agree to disagree. Often I read articles on there that I find a bit off but I also often read excellent articles with some great points.

The last article I read before this one was one about the situation in Sweden. It was saying that things which people were saying about immigration just a couple of years ago were shut down, seen as racist, beyond the pale etc. but now what those people were saying is becoming government policy. Essentially those people were simply ahead of the curve when it comes to certain things. That's how I feel about this discussion - about GRA and TRAs. The same might be true of some other opinions that we currently disagree with. No debate should be shut down. It's important to see both sides of everything, I think. Even if that's just to disagree and to put your point across so that other people can see it and decide which side they're on with the discussions before them...

OP posts:

Wanderabout · 25/04/2018 09:40

What specific examples are there of Spiked supporting horrific abuse?

SusanBunch · 25/04/2018 10:13

What specific examples are there of Spiked supporting horrific abuse?

I don't think anyone used that specific term. However, there is a definite 'women lie and ruin men's lives' vibe from their articles, as well as a lot of focus on false allegations and suggestions that women are overreacting about sexual assault. I think it's quite hard from a feminist viewpoint to support such a publication, but maybe that's just me.

Rufustheconstantreindeer · 25/04/2018 10:16

Mumsnet is full of comments like that as well...sadly

All right full is an exaggeration...but loads

Freespeecher · 25/04/2018 10:38

Going back a few comments, I think there's a danger in leaving the Free Speech fight to right-wing figures such as Katie Hopkins etc.

Maajid Nawaz (for whom I have a lot of time) often refers to the 'Control Left', of which the #nodebate stance of some TRAs is a good example.

There's quite a wide free speech coalition at the mo - sure, Katie Hopkins features, but there's also Peter Tatchell, Julie Bindel, Shappi Khorsandi (whose experiences growing up in Iran explain her stance) and many more.

I don't always agree with Brendan O'Neill and his Spiked pals but you'll still read articles there on subjects that other publications won't touch with a ten-foot pole. More power to them.

butTIRFlies · 25/04/2018 10:45

Did you read any of those articles Susan?

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

(the only one I read) was by a female barrister who commented on a peer reviewed Dutch study analysing the differences between proven-false rape claims and others.

What's your issue with it or were you playing to the audience on a "feminism site and everything"? Should some opinions not be allowed? Should academics be censored when you don't like their findings?

SusanBunch · 25/04/2018 10:55

TIRF all I can say is google the name of said female barrister and you will get a clearer viewpoint of who she is and what she stands for. She is no longer practising (following police reports and allegations that she made a death threat to a student) and now spends her days trolling victims of child sexual abuse on twitter and calling them liars. Truly a delight.

My point is that this website is very well known for printing misogynistic rubbish and I for one have an issue with that even if it does sometimes print something seemingly in favour of the GC agenda.

SusanBunch · 25/04/2018 10:57

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bar-troll-human-rights-barrister-12003919

butTIRFlies · 25/04/2018 11:02

I don't care to research all involved. I'm not that interested really.

I'm not sure the site's "well known" for anything and "misogynist bullshit" seems hard to qualify.

What's a GC agenda?

So, ban some opinions?

Buckingfrolicks · 25/04/2018 11:10

I'm happy to be called a TERF and I thought that spiked article was clear, and pro discussion about the issues and not at all anti women.

Noqonterfy · 25/04/2018 11:16

Short of actual incitement, people should be allowed to speak as they see fit.

Absolutely. This is the whole point.

xxmarksthespot · 25/04/2018 11:27

rocketpocket "those men went to court and were found NOT GUILTY. Which means that legally they are innocent."

WRONG. It means legally there was not enough evidence given in court to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Legally not guilty is NOT innocent.

MoltenLasagne · 25/04/2018 11:28

I have no issue supporting free speech as long as it doesn't cross into threats or incitement to violence. If you only support free speech for those ideas you agree with it doesn't last for long.

The left used to be the biggest supporter of free speech - now it has decided that's it better to try to police the narrative than to trust that democracy and open discussion will lead to the right choices.

xxmarksthespot · 25/04/2018 11:29

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

Define "offend"

nauticant · 25/04/2018 11:44

I have no issue supporting free speech as long as it doesn't cross into threats or incitement to violence.

I have issues with this but the more I think about this, the more I realise it's the only way to go. Even though it's messy.

It's only been recently that I've become properly concerned about freedom of speech. For years I assumed it was necessary up to a point but couldn't see the point of people banging on about it and assumed they were being obsessive. What's changed for me is that opposition to free speech seems to come with a basketload of authoritarian views that would corrode all kinds of reasonable freedoms and would hand power to those who would revel in abusing it. Whose main world view is "are you one of us or one of them?"

CharlieParley · 25/04/2018 12:27

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

Well, no, they exercised their right to protest. There's no right to free assembly that involves preventing other people from exercising theirs. Physically blocking the stairs with masks on, en masse, in the way these protesters did, fulfils the criteria for common assault.

thebewilderness · 26/04/2018 03:58

That point being that whatever YOU believe, those men went to court and were found NOT GUILTY. Which means that legally they are innocent.

Any lawyer will tell you that failure to prove guilt is not the same thing as innocent. Any 12 year old will tell you that failure to prove guilt is not the same thing as innocent.
Zombie lies never die.

thebewilderness · 26/04/2018 04:04

I disagree that the solution is to believe women without question or to hound men who have been found innocent.

Again, they were not found innocent. If you keep repeating lies you will lose all credibility.

These men admitted to doing things that the public found so repugnant that they rose up against them. This girl was treated so badly by the courts that the people rose up to support her.
The people have that right.

inTIRFace · 26/04/2018 04:48

@thebewilderness

"Again, they were not found innocent. If you keep repeating lies you will lose all credibility."

Where is the lie?

The judge asks if the jury found the accused guilty or not guilty. The jury replies (or replied in this case) "not guilty".

Not guilty is legally assumed innocent.

thebewilderness · 26/04/2018 05:07

You may be found innocent before trial.
At close of trial you may be found not guilty.
Once you go to trial you cannot be found innocent.

This has been explained repeatedly but you can look it up yourself if you choose not to believe me.

inTIRFace · 26/04/2018 05:25

The judge asks if the jury found the accused guilty or not guilty. The jury replies (or replied in this case) "not guilty".

The judge asks if the jury found the accused guilty or not guilty. The jury replies (or replied in this case) "not guilty".

A not guilty verdict means you go back to the presumed innocent status.