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SORT focused 'the “consent” debate on the issue of when an individual might be said to have withdrawn consent.'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

[TurfClub]

It's literally in the link I linked to Donna, "Copyright © John Ozimek 2009 & Jane Fae 2012"

Now stop talking shite

[FeministPumpkin]

It’s entirely obvious what you're worries about guys.

Jane has good tips on how to remove it from your hard drives.

[DonnaBe]

FloralBunting

Donna, do stop talking shite.

Mood!

[FermatsTheorem]

TurfClub

"Shock-horror, Jane Fae is deadnaming themselves. Quick, fine them 5000 quid and off to the gulag for a mani-pedi with them."

[WhereDoWeBeginToCovetClarice]

From what i've noticed is thay Ozimek/Fae is a very thin-skinned, brittle person with seething jealousy of women and no sense of humour.

Amy Desir doing a topless swim gave Fae the cats bum mouth when everyone else thought is was hilarious. Fae acted like a right uptight old prude - which is weird because Fae supports the freedom of blokes to write stories about raping and dismembering female pop stars.

Fae also did that crap spoof of the SPOFS thread. Something got under Fae's skin.

[deepwatersolo]

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.

Conversely, is it then not also illegal to call a man without a GRC by his adopted woman's name? Is it illegal to call John Ozimek by the name 'Jane Fae'? From a standpoint of logic, it should be. Should John Ozimek be arrested for calling himself Jane Fae? Questions upon questions...

[Redkeyboard]

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

Mmm hmm. Grossly immoral to point out someone pushing a massive loophole in safeguarding advocates extreme porn.

Absolutely fine that they did this of course. Just immoral to point it out.

#mirrorworld

[R0wantrees]

Something got under Fae's skin.

Jane Fae was also very displeased with David Lewis #WomanWednesday

[mirandayardley]

There's never been a successful prosecution under s22. The threat is empty.

[TurfClub]

Fae is strongly in favour no-platforming. Which is nothing like censoring lovely pornography, oh no, not at all. Because nasty witchy feminists want to censor porn, which is the exact opposite of censoring nasty witchy feminists by no-platforming them. Perfectly logical, see?

www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-platforming-free-speech-challenge-jo-johnson-germaine-greer-university-a8130421.html

[FloralBunting]

'Mood!'

Wtf is that supposed to mean? Are you incapable of any coherent thought?

[FermatsTheorem]

I fear so, Floral.

[R0wantrees]

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.

Donna relax a bit. Its lovely that you expressing concern for both Mumsnet and TurfClub, Jane Fae has been very clear that she does not intend to ever have a GRC. Perhps you missed my post and just jumped into the thread?
Jane Fae New Statesman:

"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."

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

Confusingly, quite a few TRAs who have been prominant in discusions about why the GRC should be simplified have also said that they will never have one/ have no need for one etc

[TurfClub]

I think 'Donna' may be suggesting that you are a hysterical woman.

[FermatsTheorem]

Thank you, miranda.

(Partly I suspect because there are hardly any circumstances in which section 22 applies. I mean, when would it? GP made original referral for patient who, post surgery, now passes completely, suddenly decides for some random reason to "out" her to her employer? Hardly a scenario that's likely to crop up, because most GPs are highly professional people who take patient confidentiality seriously in all circumstances, not just as it pertains to trans patients.)

[AngryAttackKittens]

It's all very sinister, isn't it, Jane, groups of women influencing laws? Unless of course all the women have penises, then it's super progressive.

[FeministPumpkin]

Anyway back on track. Can’t fucking believe that article by Jane on how to scrub your computer so that the police can’t find your extreme porn. Also horrified to see the use of the term “child porn” within the article.

There is no such thing as child porn Jane. It’s child abuse.

[FloralBunting]

Ach, I'm done with this today. Unlike Donna, who appears to have decided to fit some goading in today, I have to go to work. I wish the rest of you the best of luck and recommend remembering that however much Donna wants to channel a petulant and goady teenage girl, they never were one, and they have no concern at all about protecting actual women and girls. Keep your focus on that, keep standing against Anti-woman activism.

[AngryAttackKittens]

Indeed, Clarice. Doesn't take much to enrage Fae.

[Amalfimamma]

Was reading Twitter last night and noticed Jane speaking in Italian with another English speaking person who lives here. Apparently Jane is thinking of relocating to bologna to help trans rights here.


I hope they do. It's a disaster waiting to happen and not even t the LGBT groups here would give Jane 5 minutes of their time knowing what Jane advocates.

[Faceicle]

Sorry late to this thread - that's four blokes being asked about feminism?

[deepwatersolo]

But what if we are really breaking the law calling John Ozimek 'Jane Fae', given he has no GRC? Or is this a one-way street?
This is all very confusing.

[ALittleBitofVitriol]

So, if Jane Fae doesn't have a grc, does that mean I won't be deleted for using male pronouns when talking about Jane Fae?

[deepwatersolo]

ALittleBitofVitriol
It is all very confusing, right?

[R0wantrees]

But what if we are really breaking the law calling John Ozimek 'Jane Fae', given he has no GRC? Or is this a one-way street?
This is all very confusing.


what about calling Boy George, George O'Dowd?
Katy Perry, Katy Hudson?
Demi Moore, Demetria Guynes?
Meg Ryan, Margaret Mary Emily Anne Hyra?
Woody Allen, Allen Konigsberg?
Michael Caine, Maurice Micklewhite?
Hulk Hogan, Terry Jean Bollette?
Judy Garland, Frances Gumm?

What about calling Philip Bunce Philip when he has a dress, wig and heels on?
or is dressing down in jeans and a T shirt but wearing a wig?
or not wearing a wig but has eyeliner and lip gloss on?