Stella Creasey is on a guest post invoking SEX as a protected characteristic for legislation!

[BarrackerBarmer]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/3355761-Stella-Creasy-guest-post-If-MNers-act-today-you-can-help-make-street-harassment-a-hate-crime

Right now!

The only problem with kinkshaming is being kinkshamed is an actual kink.

I posted earlier about how my dim and distant past as a phone sex chat line operator taught me that there is no end to predilections of pervy men - they really are like monkeys wanking into infinity.

sistersofmercy
No gyny?
No miso-gyny.

But for any lurkers who missed it, that was a handy illustration of how a TRA can, with not a speck of self awareness, accuse a biologically female person of miso-gyny against a biologically male person.

A word that literally means hatred of females used as a weapon against females by men.

Words mean stuff.

Damn right women are going to persevere in demanding proper definitions, lest we find ourselves enacting animal farm more than we already are.

And then there are other monkeys wanking over the idea of the first set wanking, and another group wanking over the idea of "despoiling" infinity, and another group wanking over the idea of women noticing, and...

Well that is exactly it it, Datun. Clearly the MO by the TRAs on the hidden thread was to broaden the definition of 'misogyny' so as to make it entirely meaningless as a description of anything specific. One of the ways they do that is by throwing out jargonized terms like 'kink shaming' et al, to derail any useful focus.

For some TRAs I think the motivation for doing this is to be so wide with the definition of misogyny that people with certain proclivities towards validation can be included, whether they are of the female sex or not.

For other TRAs it's so that the application of misogyny is so unworkable, hatred of women can be completely unchecked.

Sadly, in practice, there doesn't seem to be a hair's breadth between these two motivations.

Yeah, words mean things. The good thing is, rather than appropriate existing ones we can make up new ones...

Autogynephilia + misogyny = automisogyphilia?

I agree that kinkshaming is a bullshit word but it's quite an interesting one because it shows that they know they are pushing the boundaries about what is socially acceptable.
I first heard about the AB/DL thing a few weeks ago when Neville Whatshisface was going to host an activist on his twitter takeover but then cancelled it because he was made to feel like a twat. How can you straight up advocate a nappy fetish?! And Jess Bradley implying that it was OK to get her penis out at work and wank in public, as long as nobody saw it. This is all happening because of porn and we need to push back against it.

Well, what a strange evening. The Stella thread deleted, I was looking for a thread I posted on earlier and it seems to have disappeared, then I click back and another thread has gone.
The TRAs are really panicking aren’t they.

Blanchard says Autogynephiles are not Mysogynistic but their rage against women comes from a place of envy. I don’t quite see, why the expression of this envy would not be misogyny, too. Just throwing it out there that he made that distinction.
If anybody has a scientific paper to share on paraphilia prevalence that would be highly appreciated (apparently it is common that if you have any, you have more than one). That might explain the high prevalence of other kinks in autogynephiles. Some of these paraphilia are certainly a safeguarding issue additionally to the run of the mill male violence that can be expected.

I completely agree. Porn is like the carrier for these things, infecting everywhere it goes.

Time and again, I keep seeing liberal ideas that are praiseworthy, taken out of all rational context and twisted into something quite gross and authoritarian.

So we all agree that people have the right to present to the world as they wish. We agree that people should be free to get up to whatever they wish to in private as long as it doesnt hurt anyone.

And the envelope pushers come along and say "Well, I like doing this, so we need to rework what we mean by harm because I like getting my penis out in public, and I'm not hurting anyone."

So the creepy porn pushers just wheel out all the people who like watching and making it and say "If you don't like it, don't watch it. We're not hurting anyone."

Meanwhile the creepy images beam down unrestricted into every mobile phone screen and tablet, and men begin to think it's perfectly normal to attempt to throttle women during rough sex.

Not hurting anyone.

FloralBunting

Exactly.

And the envelope pushers come along and say "Well, I like doing this, so we need to rework what we mean by harm because I like getting my penis out in public, and I'm not hurting anyone."

And Teen Vogue instructing their 13 year old readers in anal sex. The two male editors flipping the bird (whilst snogging) to pearl clutching parents who object.

Porn driven.

liberal ideas that are praiseworthy, taken out of all rational context and twisted into something quite gross and authoritarian.

Yes and we are accused of being right wing for having BOUNDARIES

This case in Scotland pending pre-sentence reports is relevent. It seems likely from the article that the perpetrator is male but does not identify as a man (note the gender neutral descriptors and the reference to male / man only in reported speech). They are also under 18 and have social care involvement which is pertinent.

"A Fife teenager who filmed a 12-year-old girl on the toilet at a supermarket before sexually assaulting another youngster has been placed on the sex offenders register.

The 17-year-old, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, appeared at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court and admitted voyeurism and sexual assault charges.

The teenager followed a young girl into the toilets at the Halbeath Asda store in Dunfermline on February 8 this year and filmed her on a mobile phone.

Depute fiscal Sarah Lumsden told the court the accused had been to the toilets with a carer and was walking towards the exit when the young child walked past.

Miss Lumsden said: “The accused (said their) mobile phone was still in the toilets and returned to them, alone.

“The young girl was in a cubicle and was sitting with her leggings and pants down when she saw a hand holding a mobile phone over the partition wall.

“The girl shouted and the person rushed out of the adjacent cubicle.”

The young girl then left the toilets and was described as looking “shocked”. The matter was reported to the police who retrieved in-store CCTV footage from the time of the incident.

Investigators were able to identify the teenager, whose accommodation in Kirkcaldy was searched.

A 12-second video clip of the girl on the toilet, followed by footage of the teenager running away, were recovered when an iPad and a mobile phone were seized.

A second incident took place at the Morrison’s store in Kirkcaldy on March 4.

The court was told a 10-year-old girl had been inside the toilets while her father waited outside.

Miss Lumsden said: “The complainer’s dad then heard his daughter screaming and came running out of the bathroom, looking as if she was running away from someone.

“She explained that a crazy man with long hair was in the bathroom and had grabbed her face and pushed her into a cubicle, before demanding she take her trousers off.

“She said the person had said they would stab her mum. She was upset and inconsolable.”

Police officers attended and found the cubicle locked inside the female toilets.

A male voice was heard coming from inside, saying: “I’ve been silly. I bumped into her. I’ve been silly.”

The teenager was taken to Kirkcaldy police station and charged.

Defence solicitor Andrew Grieve said his client had been in the social care system from the age of three and had been actively engaging with mental health services.

Sheriff James Williamson placed the teenager on the sex offenders register and deferred sentencing for background reports."
www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/702003/fife-teen-on-sex-offenders-register-after-supermarket-child-attacks/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3329936-teen-films-girl-in-toilet

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1079063214525645

I’ve only skimmed this deepwatersolo but it references a LOT of other studies, so presuming there is something of interest in at least one of them!

Thank you, will read!

Speaking of male kinks going mainstream:
www.thenav.ca/2017/12/11/a-deeper-look-viu-sexual-harassment-case/

In what sane world would this person not be treated as having a mental illness.

@ BarrackerBarmer , well we've not got to hear from Stella yet, but if the law works like every other hate crime then you are entirely wrong. Misogyny can be directed at anyone the person perceives to be a woman. Men do not have this magic "biology detector" you think they have, so in practice misogyny is directed at people who fit the social category of "woman" which includes trans women. It can also be misdirected at people perceived by mistake to be in that category, such as gender non conforming men. The law will take account of this fact because "misogyny" doesn't become some special thing when it is directed at people who meet your narrow definition of "woman". All that is required is that the crime is motivated through a hatred of women.

Stella Creasy is a career politician. I think this is a good sign. To me this development suggests that misogyny may well be included as per the Nottingham trial and she wants to have her face associated with it. It means she gets to ride on the #MeToo/pussy hat feminist wave and look like she has her finger on the pulse.

Having said that, consulting with Stonewall does seem weird. Perhaps that was regarding homophobia since they are re-thinking hate crime as a whole.

Then we definitely need a definition of woman, as it is precisely meant to be a special thing to protect women, hence the name. If woman is not defined, it becomes meaningless.

Has anyone got the wording of the proposal? I'm sure there is reference to those who have sex characteristics or are perceived to have sex characteristics - this is clearly aimed at those who attempt to replicate sex characteristics & is a massive issue that Stella Creasy needs to explain. I'd especially like to know who was involved in the drafting of the wording, and why it's been dumped on us with so little time to discuss and scrutinise exactly what's going on & why Stonewall are somehow involved in what superficially appears to be a women's issue when they don't give a toss about women (pushing to have sex based exemptions removed as they do).

It's appalling that she buggered off yesterday & didn't answer questions, then claiming she wanted to but couldn't as the thread was pulled.

Misogyny isn’t ‘directed at women’, Sisters, it’s directed at female people, and female babies can be subjected to it whilst they are still gestating.

This doesn’t mean that non female people cannot be mistakenly subjected to it, but you don’t have to be an adult (‘woman’) to be a victim of it.

Girls are subjected to misogyny before they even have the language to describe it.

The concerning bit was based on the victim having (or being presumed to have) a particular sex characteristic

@stellacreasy did post the full wording but sadly the thread was deleted.

The exact wording of the amendment was posted on the thread, and the thread & should^ be back (looking like a colander) when the Mumsnet day shift starts work

"Misogyny can be directed at anyone the person perceives to be a woman. Men do not have this magic "biology detector" you think they have, so in practice misogyny is directed at people who fit the social category of "woman" which includes trans women."

Except that the vast majority of transwomen don't pass even after years of hormones and extensive surgery, so nobody mistakes them for women and they don't suffer misogyny.

"Biology detector" is actually very efficient in humans, as with other animals. We recognize men (and they recognize us women) from subtle clues in our face, the way we walk etc.

"It can also be misdirected at people perceived by mistake to be in that category, such as gender non conforming men."

They get homophobia, not misogyny. Given that even most transwomen don't pass as women after all the effort they put into trying, you must know that you claim re gender non-confirming men passing as women is ridiculous.

Or do you believe that women = non-men, so anyone who doesn't fit 100% into what a man 'should' look like immediately gets perceived as a woman?

"we definitely need a definition of woman"

We already have a perfectly good one:

Adult human female.

in practice misogyny is directed at people who fit the social category of "woman" which includes trans women.

No it includes (in this case) a tiny number of MTFs who pass as female and might be mistaken for women. There is no "social category" of women apart from the female sex class.