John Ozimek (now Jane Fae) on women, feminists and victims of pornographers

[TurfClub]

From the Skin Two Fetish yearbook, 2009 (Skin Two Issue 60), by John Ozimek, edited in 2012 by 'Jane Fae' (sorry I don't have the original John version) www.somethingdark.eu/downloads/Jane-Fae_Tyrannys-genesis-and-its-opposition_SDk-Latest-News_USL.pdf

'One of Labour’s first actions on coming to power was to put in place a group (of women) at the Home Office whose task it would be to steer a review of the law in respect of sexual activity.'

'Government would recoil in horror at a proposal to place men in charge of a review of the law on rape; yet, over and over, those at the heart of developing change in the field of sexual law have been female, feminist or exceedingly Christian. '

'It was David Blunkett, Home Secretary 2001–04 and a very committed Christian, who observed how wonderful it was to be surrounded by so many of like persuasion amongst his coven of Home Office special advisers.'

' SORT was widely considered to be an offshoot of radical feminism, with very little interest in views that clashed with their beliefs. The emphasis shifted very quickly from the rights of the individual to a focus on the perceived (female) “victim”. '

SORT focused 'the “consent” debate on the issue of when an individual might be said to have withdrawn consent.'

'they brought on board an academic team (three feminists, naturally) who carried out a wholly skewed rapid evidence assessment (REA) and concluded that yes, maybe extreme porn did cause harm.'


Sooooo:

• scare quotes around 'victim' (of sexual abuse)
  
• compares putting men (those who rape) in charge of rape law with putting women (those who get raped to make porn) in charge of porn law
  
• alludes to Blunkett's female advisers as witches
  
• sneering contempt for feminists
  
  Note that since this was published in 2009, John Ozimek became Jane Fae, adviser of Girl Guides on safeguarding, and now identifies and is identified as a feminist (www.theguardian.com/profile/jane-fae). Which is strange considering previous contempt for feminism. Anyone would think it was all a strategy to undermine feminism. But no THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

[hackmum]

Government would recoil in horror at a proposal to place men in charge of a review of the law on rape; yet, over and over, those at the heart of developing change in the field of sexual law have been female, feminist or exceedingly Christian.

So putting women in charge of reviewing sexual law is exactly equivalent to putting men in charge of reviewing rape law? What a telling comparison.

[R0wantrees]

It would be rather strange if someone who is so opposed to censorship as Jane Fae had people attempting censorship on her behalf.

[sausagebap]

‘Be careful’.

[FermatsTheorem]

"The GRA makes it illegal in some circumstances to reveal previous names of GRC holders.
Be careful. If Jane has a GRC Mumsnet might be open to being sued."

Again, no, not in this context. Not illegal.

Only illegal if the information about someone's gender transition was obtained as part of one's work in circumstances where one is quite reasonably bound by confidentiality.

The fact that Jane Fae was John Ozimek is a matter of public record, firmly in the public domain, and no-one on this thread has obtained that information in circumstances where they would be bound by legislation concerning confidentiality.

It's all there in black and white in the GRA.

If you really want, I'll quote the relevant passage - back in a mo.

[TurfClub]

"The GRA makes it illegal in some circumstances to reveal previous names of GRC holders.
Be careful. If Jane has a GRC Mumsnet might be open to being sued."

Sorry we talk enough about bollocks on this forum without you spouting more.

[Redkeyboard]

The GRA makes it illegal in some circumstances to reveal previous names of GRC holders.
Be careful. If Jane has a GRC Mumsnet might be open to being sued.

It is already public knowledge.

[Floisme]

I assume this is the same Jane Fae who tweeted about domestic violence gone wrong and eggshell skulls?

[TurfClub]

Rumours that this is the new Jane Fae-approved Guiding bage are hopefully unfounded.

[FeministPumpkin]

I don’t think it’s the censorship Cath is worried about, I think it’s something else. Cath posted this on another thread:

My own opinion is that we’ve all got things in our past we probably don’t want known and bringing them up should not be done gratuitously.

[R0wantrees]

The GRA makes it illegal in some circumstances to reveal previous names of GRC holders.
Be careful. If Jane has a GRC Mumsnet might be open to being sued.

ah well I can set your mind a rest RantyCath Jane does not have and says she will never have a GRC,

Jane Fae New Statesman article:
(extract)
"Why Hudson would not have a GRC is unclear: we do not know precisely what surgeries she has had, nor why she has not got a GRC. I don’t have one. I will not, because I absolutely refuse the right of the state to demand money from me for the simple purpose of acknowledging who I am. In that sense, the GRC is NOT like a passport or driving license. Because it says that my gender is dependent on the ratiocination of some state apparatchik, who obviously knows who I am better than I do.

A growing number of trans men and women agree with me, objecting to this imposition for a variety of reasons. It’s a gender tax. State intrusion." (continues)

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/why-has-trans-woman-tara-hudson-been-sent-all-male-prison

and before you query the date, Jane Fae confirmed on a Sunday discussion program recently that she didn't have a GRC, didn't need one and had been using single-sex spaces with no problem (for her).

[FloralBunting]

Ah, couldne give a crap about this type of Anti-woman activist (Jane Fae, Paris Less et al) sneering at me for being old fashioned, Feminist and Christian. I'm absolutely content that putting women's rights front and centre is the right thing to do, so I don't really care if you think I'm a stuck-in-the-mud boring old lady.

[FermatsTheorem]

For those who wish to read the relevant legislation, here it is:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Prohibition on disclosure of information

(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

(2)“Protected information” means information which relates to a person who has made an application under section 1(1) and which—

(a)concerns that application or any application by the person under section [F14A,] [F24C, 4F,] 5(2) [F3, 5A(2)] or 6(1), or

(b)if the application under section 1(1) is granted, otherwise concerns the person’s gender before it becomes the acquired gender.

(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or

(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.

[Redkeyboard]

Interesting though that someone is trying to use the privacy protections in the GRA to try and silence women talking about information highly pertinent to safeguarding.

Wouldn't it be handy if someone male could have a past advocating extreme porn including paedophiliac cartoons. Then say they were a woman, change their name, and censor all mention of that history when advising youth groups, government etc on safeguarding policy relating to women and girls.

[FermatsTheorem]

In short, stop telling lies about the supposed illegality of deadnaming in a vain effort to silence women, Ranty.

IT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. IT'S A BIG FAT LIE. A BIG FAT LIE BEING TOLD TO SHUT WOMEN UP. AND WE'RE NOT BUYING IT.

[WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice]

John/Jane believes "'It's OK being a fat middle-aged bloke, but not a fat middle-aged woman.'"

Nice. Not sexist at all.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1252462/Andrea-Fletcher-devoted-fiancee-whos-sticking-man-John-Ozimek-despite-fact-wants-woman-named-Jane-Fae.html

[FeministPumpkin]

Very clever badge TurfClub 👏👏👏

[FloralBunting]

I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to say John Ozimek is a big old sexist man. And as Jane Fae, they are a big old sexist transperson.

[Floisme]

Interesting though that someone is trying to use the privacy protections in the GRA to try and silence women talking about information highly pertinent to safeguarding.
Yes indeed. Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

[DonnaBe]

The OP and/ or Mumsnet may be fined up to £5000 for posting the information in the first post on this thread.

I have no idea if the person referred to has a GRC or not, and it’s really none of my business.

Does the OP want to take the chance though?

It’s certainly grossly immoral to post stuff like that.

[Potplant2]

Never has the phrase “we see you” felt so apposite.

[FermatsTheorem]

No they won't be Donna. Stop repeating lies. Lies which have been shown to be lies because I went to the trouble of looking up and quoting the relevant part of the GRA.

[Barracker]

rantyCath
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1252462/Andrea-Fletcher-devoted-fiancee-whos-sticking-man-John-Ozimek-despite-fact-wants-woman-named-Jane-Fae.html

What does the law have to say on the above, do you think?

[FloralBunting]

Donna, do stop talking shite. Your points have already been answered.

[WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice]

Stop scaremongering Donna

[FloralBunting]

'grossly immoral' is such an elastic term to an AWA.