Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Stephanie Hayden takes Graham Linehan to court for doxxing

999 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 01/10/2018 17:19

Their statement is here:

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1046792462067519489?s=19

OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
DannyGlickWindowTapping · 17/11/2020 10:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MissAHannigan · 17/11/2020 10:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

NotTerfNorCis · 17/11/2020 11:01

This thread. Grin🤣

PronounssheRa · 17/11/2020 11:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SunsetBeetch · 17/11/2020 11:29

Having now read the last 3 pages of SH's thread, I can see why there has been a recent concerted effort to dissuade people from visiting The Farms.

My. God. Shock

SunsetBeetch · 17/11/2020 11:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CharlieParley · 17/11/2020 11:32

Gender criticism is by definition feminist. The Saudi morality police are not feminist. They imprison and brutalise women for going out without a male escort or not wearing a veil. You're getting desperate.

Funny I've had people on here berate me for saying the gender critical movement is a feminist one.

I didn't berate you jj1968. After you condemned the gender critical movement for not campaigning for wider radical feminist aims, I explained that although the gender critical movement contains many feminist groups, it is not a feminist movement in and of itself.

Within the UK legislative context, policies and laws are being proposed and already put into practice that in addition to harming women and girls also affect freedom of speech, association and belief of the wider population as well as the safeguarding of vulnerable people, especially children. It also affects the rights of parents to act in the best interests of their children because various trans rights campaigns also advocate against previously established best practice in demanding a medical treatment approach to children who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria that is considered experimental and causing harmful, life-altering longterm effects.

Those who oppose various aspects of the now prevalent but previously fringe ideology underlying current legislative efforts to enshrine gender identity in law therefore include children's rights campaigners, free speech advocates, religious campaigners, parents and medical professionals, patient interest groups and others as well as feminist groups.

However, as NotTerfNorCis correctly points out in the quote I started this comment with, gender criticism itself is of course and by definition a view mostly held by feminists, moreso in the context of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia.

This thread hasn't half blown up, partly because various issues keep being conflated that shouldn't be, so I just wanted to clarify why I said that in my view the gender critical movement as a whole cannot by definition, automatically, be assumed to be a feminist movement.

We probably should be calling it the opposition-to-enshrining-gender-identity-in-law-movement to accurately reflect what this is about, but that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Cailleach1 · 17/11/2020 12:27

@SunsetBeetch

Having now read the last 3 pages of SH's thread, I can see why there has been a recent concerted effort to dissuade people from visiting The Farms.

My. God. Shock

Why?
PopperUppleton · 17/11/2020 12:37

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Cailleach1 · 17/11/2020 12:41

Ah, thanks.

CatsCantCatchCriminals2 · 17/11/2020 13:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CatsCantCatchCriminals2 · 17/11/2020 13:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PopperUppleton · 17/11/2020 13:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

DrLouiseJMoody · 17/11/2020 13:43

Just noting that I do watch this thread (can't think why I've suddenly received lots of reply notifications over the past few days). The only comment I can be seen to be publicly making is that it really is incredibly idiotic to inadvertently dox oneself as seems to have happened.

There will be a time when I can speak about what I, and others have been out through (which is nothing short of a campaign of abuse designed to browbeat us into submission - it has involved, amongst other things, my phone number and address being posted and public accusations that I domestically abused my late wife), but that is not now.

As for KiwiFarms, the rant about it is just a tedious, hyperbolic deflection given what's emerged recently. I can't be bothered to get into a discussion about it.

SunsetBeetch · 17/11/2020 13:44

Louise Flowers

MichaelMumsnet · 17/11/2020 13:47

Hi all. We've removed some of the recent posts from this thread because they reference content from another site - most of which would pretty comprehensively break Talk guidelines if it was posted here.

PopperUppleton · 17/11/2020 13:52

But the content wasn't posted here so can't possibly break guidelines. It wasn't even described Angry

Scout2016 · 17/11/2020 13:54

I know I'm not the sharpest but is it just me that can't fathom what's gone on? I have looked on alternative sources to try and piece it together but it was fruitless.

Has someone keen on legal action undermined said action by accidentally doxxing themselves, or am I way off?

DannyGlickWindowTapping · 17/11/2020 13:57

As the information pertains to ongoing legal action for doxxing, I don't think it wise to put anything on this site. There are enough veiled / vague comments to possibly search elsewhere, but no-one is going to post a link. Well, not for long!

PronounssheRa · 17/11/2020 13:57

Oh come on MNHQ, my post referenced a popular children's TV programme from the 1970s (I think).
How did that break talk guidelines?

Has someone keen on legal action undermined said action by accidentally doxxing themselves, or am I way off?

Yep

DannyGlickWindowTapping · 17/11/2020 13:59

Hypothetically, you would probably get a fruitful search by entering a name and "from date" of 1st November.

nauticant · 17/11/2020 14:00

I wouldn't exactly say that the search is "fruitless" Scout2016.

Your summary catches the essence of one part of a whole series of startling events.

Scout2016 · 17/11/2020 14:12

Right. Feeling a bit less dim witted now. Otherwise, I guess in view of the deletions

"That would be an ecumenical matter" is the safe answer?

RufustheSniggeringReindeer · 17/11/2020 14:13

@PopperUppleton

But the content wasn't posted here so can't possibly break guidelines. It wasn't even described Angry
There was a post deleted a while back that had a link to an article i think it was

And something in the article broke the very special FWR rules so the post was deleted...

Datun · 17/11/2020 14:14

@MichaelMumsnet

Hi all. We've removed some of the recent posts from this thread because they reference content from another site - most of which would pretty comprehensively break Talk guidelines if it was posted here.
Are you saying we're not allowed to even name a website?! Are we allowed to say that many people would rather we didn't reference a certain website?
Swipe left for the next trending thread