Lucy Bannerman in the Times "Trans movement has been hijacked by bullies and trolls"

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-movement-has-been-hijacked-by-bullies-and-trolls-lwl3s73vj?shareToken=fb77f832e38958413ff393fd4832a87f

I think this is a natural point on the slopes of peak trans. Lucy is trying to be nice to the “true-trans” concept and is still applying the poor gender dysphorics idea. Whether that’s an editorial position or her stance, I don’t know, but this is a one way street. We all go through the stages and end up in a position where if we wrote what we think MN would ban us (though if we said the same on any other subject it would be fine).

Yes.

I wish people would stop saying that a tiny few extremists are ruining it for the decent vast majority. Old school transsexuals - who by and large do not represent any increased risk to women - are tiny in number.

For every one of them there are a hundred non-dysphoric, non-surgically transitioned [insert noun here because I can't think of one I would be allowed to use] who hate women and who are getting back up from another hundred equally woman-hating wokebros.

rat if you had directed your question about whether there is a problem with all transpeople to the individual poster who said what you quoted then that would have started a discussion

Oh sorry, I didn't mean it to read that way, I just wanted to invite responses from anyone who could clarify how they interpreted those posts, not just the posters themselves.

I know this notion of a "hive mind" irritates everyone on MN, so I definitely wasn't angling at that. It's just often when you ask a question on here people will respond seemingly on behalf of some group; i.e. "what people mean when they say that is...", as often that's illuminating.

That's all I was asking for.

But seeing as a couple of posters had already stated that the position they were cloaking would get them banned if clarified, I probably shouldn't have sought clarification. I don't want anyone to be banned. I just like to know what views posters round here are sympathetic to and where they draw the line; each individual poster, that is. I like the article on the grounds that the author at least sets down their own lines in the sand, although it seems that same line was a cause for disagreement with the article from early posters.

Yesterday you told us repeatedly that we must not respond to a sports consultation.

No I didn't

This is why I don't talk to you Vicky, you can literally lie about things I have written in black and white and it's impossible to have any sort of constructive conversation with someone whose entire aim is to misrepresent your position, rather than debate it. Sorry, I know it frustrated you that I didn't respond to you yesterday, but I have to look after my mental health.

Saville is dead. Maybe those who were covering his back aren't?

I think the people men who went to his coffee mornings would be a good place to start.

what CottonTailRabbit said

I seriously admire your persistence and sophistry Rat. It's great to see a range of views here and seeing issues thrashed out has really helped me reach firm view points.

So don't feel unwelcome for heaven's sake

but treat people as individuals here. It's not a committee

I understand why some of you are so angry, but personally I think it's counterproductive to the cause to voice overt hostility to individual posters here.

It's clear that more and more women are coming here to find out about the Self Id issue, and calm reason is much more likely to convince them than seeing snappiness and hostility voiced to another poster, especially when they won't know the background history or issues.

And I see that some men are noticing that there's a bit of an issue with the police deferring to TRAs too.

It would be helpful if The Times approached the police and asked why they’re so willing to harass women at the request of transcult activists. If you get burgled it’s difficult to get the police to attend, but they’re seemingly happy to respond whenever an angry man objects to the views of women. It’s very odd.

Yesterday you told us repeatedly that we must not respond to a sports consultation.

No I didn't

Er, you did. You said it wasn't for us and we shouldn't respond to it - even when people demonstrated that wasn't right.

This is why I don't talk to you Vicky, you can literally lie about things I have written in black and white and it's impossible to have any sort of constructive conversation with someone whose entire aim is to misrepresent your position, rather than debate it.

How was what I said a "lie"?

You know perfectly well you refused to respond to my questions because to do so would demonstrate that your position on girls and women's sports means the destruction of such sports for women.

As I'm sure Posie would say if she were here, women are allowed to be angry.
If we overstep the mark sometimes, we can apologise. That's what grown ups do.

RatRolyPoly
I just like to know what views posters round here are sympathetic to and where they draw the line; each individual poster, that is.

Maybe you could go first. Where do you draw the line?

But seeing as a couple of posters had already stated that the position they were cloaking would get them banned if clarified, I probably shouldn't have sought clarification.

Nah, keep seeking clarification. 😅

'cloaking' 😅 Great word.

But seeing as a couple of posters had already stated that the position they were cloaking would get them banned if clarified, I probably shouldn't have sought clarification.

Those same posters had also said why and some, like myself, had said more, explained some of their thinking.

It boils down to not wanting to call a man a woman! You know that, you know why. You disagree with it, but you know the point posters are making!

If anyone wants to mock up an actual scale of where individuals fall, I'd love to see it

Maybe you could go first. Where do you draw the line?

Oh, okay, sure. I think there is a line to be drawn between TRAs and the trans community, and that any dislike with the aims and means of the former shouldn't really be visited on the latter. Particularly I don't think your average trans woman is complicit in the actions of some TRA (doxxing etc.) for having not herself actively frustrated the actions of those individuals.

I think the ethical place for "the line" when debating something like this is to focus on the actions and outcomes one disagrees with, and not transfer that to any individual or community. That way dark periods of history lie.

So yes, I know there is no hive mind here. I know that full well. I know there are some posters who, whilst I don't agree with them, draw the line somewhere I can agree with; between the policies and outcomes they disagree with and the community those are proposed on behalf of. Between the behaviour and opinions of the self-appointed "voice" of that community and the individuals who may not feel represented by it. And I also assume, on the basis of the early comments on threads like this, that there are those who do not draw similar lines.

I think the ethical place for "the line" when debating something like this is to focus on the actions and outcomes one disagrees with, and not transfer that to any individual or community. So when a specific trans individual physically attacks specific women we don't discuss it as a real life happening, just as a potentially awful thing that would never happen?

We're trying to change the real world, to prevent harm. Not have an interesting discussion over tea and biscuits!

I wish people would stop saying that a tiny few extremists are ruining it for the decent vast majority. Old school transsexuals - who by and large do not represent any increased risk to women - are tiny in number.

Indeed. Whatever your opinions are on transsexuals and whether or not they should be able to access women's spaces, they are a tiny drop in what has now become an ocean of people calling themselves trans. The passing of the original GRA only happened because lawmakers were told that it would only apply to that tiny number of people. If it had stayed that way maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Do you know what? I can't stick Momentum. I don't like the ideology and the woke bros make me want to chew my own arm off. I'm not a fan of UKIP either. Whole lot of dodgy ideology and some very poor, damaging decisions and actions from them.

Anyone going to line up to jump on me that while it's ok for me to have a problem with some small, very specific parts of Momentum or UKIP if I can justify those to the last decimal place, but I need to be very careful about implying (horror!) that I might be rejecting and tarring all members of those societies with the same brush and showing blatant discriminatory, blanket thinking which is just appalling?

Thought not.

cloaking' 😅 Great word.

GC women are Romulan ships? This comments section really does throw up the oddest things.

GC Romulans? Oh, yes please

Did this appear in the print edition as well?

Also, some police forces are treating misogyny as a hate crime, could some of these attacks on women come under that category? I'm thinking of the twitter abuse of Posie? Anybody know which police forces are doing this?

The passing of the original GRA only happened because lawmakers were told that it would only apply to that tiny number of people

It really annoys me that the fact that there are only 4k odd people with GRC is being used as a justification to introduce self-id.

It was only ever intended to apply to a small number of people with a specific medical condition.

It does seem there is a huge inconsistency in how police forces deal with thing. The Met will prosecute (or try to prosecute) you for hate crime if you make a mild mannered comment online that 95% of the public would agree with. West Yorks police seem quite happy to let gangs of men kidnap and rape women and children - no problem.

Remind me, which is 'Actual Violence' again? Maybe we need a billboard with the dictionary definition of that word as well...

Since Romulans are disenfranchised Vulcans, it works quite well

So when a specific trans individual physically attacks specific women we don't discuss it as a real life happening, just as a potentially awful thing that would never happen?

Surely you can see that's not what I'm saying? Of course you can visit that on the individual who perpetrated it! Of course you can!

It's just clearly quite dangerous territory you're wandering into if you visit that on an individual who had nothing to do with it, simply because they are also trans.

Or indeed if you visit it on the whole trans community because of the actions of one individual who may or may not have said they acted in the name of that community. There's an obvious parallel here between terrorists and certain religious groups. I'm not saying anything ground-breaking here, just basic stuff.

Hold those responsible responsible, but when you start to attribute responsibility to unconnected individuals purely for being a part of the same community that's obviously quite a bad thing. Worse still to blame them two-fold for their "failing to prevent it".

It was only ever intended to apply to a small number of people with a specific medical condition.

Indeed. If politicians had been told that the law they were signing off on would eventually apply to someone like Pip Bunce back then it would never have been passed.