Tatchell is a patronising arse

[Macareaux]

Tweet

Vegilante
So it's a way of minimising predatory behaviour, a sort of look, stalk, fantasize but don't touch thing?

Rant? Rant?! RANT?!

Careful, Peter, your sexism needs a better disguise.

Oh, and fuck the fuck off to the far side of fuck, you paedo apologist, and, when you get there, fuck off some more.

These are my season's greetings to you.

400 replies to that Tweet. Vast majority saying Martina was right.

I don't think Tatchell is really in tune with the TRAs though. When he Tweeted that, he should have known that they would all be busy accusing Robert Webb of causing child suicides and therefore would be unavailable to support him.

It's an example of a man tweeting what he wants to happen, not what actually is happening.

The idea that MN has to educate herself about womens sport is PT being delusional.

400 replies to that Tweet. Vast majority saying Martina was right.

He only seems to get replies to his tweets when he's critical of women. I wonder if that why he does it, he needs the attention.

Captain I'm not sure of the rationale behind no-MAPism in all its detail. But from what I've read & heard, it's a way of separating the desire to have sex with children from the behaviour of actually doing so for the purpose of making the desire seem harmless & thus (more) socially acceptable. The goal seems to be 1) broaden the concept of what kinds of adult sexual desires & fantasies are OK under the banner of "no kink shaming", then when sexually desiring kids is "normalized" & no longer widely criticized the next step is to move on to 2) widening the window of acceptability further to allow men to act out those desires in the name of "acceptance without exception." But that's my cynical take on what that slogan is about & why it keeps getting loudly repeated.

Some MAPs are also trying to widen the window of acceptability for paedo sex by saying children are naturally inclined to want to have sex with adults & it doesn't harm them. In fact, they say children really enjoy & can benefit from sex with adults, & as a result denying children the opportunity to have sex with adults is a violation of children's inherent "human rights".

I've tried to look into the subject in greater detail, but I've found it just too disturbing. Someone posted this link on another thread; it's a starting place if you're interested:

www.aroomofourown.org/gaga-feminism/

This reply made me laugh-snort

Retired - yes, that's the perfect reply. Brilliant.

I've tried to look into the subject in greater detail, but I've found it just too disturbing

I felt the same why while trying to look into it.

You are not relevant, Tatchell. Fuck off.

That tweet from Not Offa's Dyke made me laugh.

Not Offa's Dyke - brilliant point.

Fuck off Tatchell you patronising prick. Suggesting MARTINA educate herself about women's sport. MARTINA. Thanks for the Christmas present to gender critical feminists though.

He has changed his mind before (Ashers bakery being a case in point) so I hope he eventually comes to his senses over this too.

Why ? Zero fucks given for the approval of this man who supports sex with children.

I assume those thinking they’re ‘good’ will still be using imagery to get off? Imagery that is made by abusing kids - so they drive abuse even if they do t do it directly. Grim.

The creeping move towards acceptability needs to be called out. This is why I find the calls from certain pressure groups that children be able to consent to blockers and drugs so alarming. It’s taking any wedge they can find - gillick competence was NEVER supposed to be used this way - and using it to drive the agenda that children can consent to medical treatment earlier.

And OF COURSE people with serious ill intent will jump on that because of you can consent to a pathway that will have such severe consequences then you can consent to anything. These groups are pushing an ideology that has serious consequences however good their intentions are.

At an age you can’t buy red bull ffs.

So many people are pushing this idea of childten as able to consent to stuff. There’s a guy at Bristol uni pushing for gender identity to be legally recognised in children. He’s advised the UN on it. I cannot believe that nobody listens to such stuff and doesn’t raise the very obvious objections. That what they propose will be used in other ways by people who wish all kinds of harm

Surely he thinks he's making an ever so subtle call for people to stop bringing up the paedophilia stuff (and that it doesn't cancel out all the work he builds his self image on...).

Can't look at his face or hear his name now without thinking about him describing 9 year olds having 'joyful sex' with adults. His legacy will be as a washed up paedo apologist, why not add raging misogyny to that too.

"Zero fucks given for the approval of this man who supports sex with children."
Exactly.

Thatchell isn’t the only washed up paedo apologist in the TRA movement. He is in very good company there.

Indeed, GCSocScientist. A lot of people aren't aware of Tatchell's record. I think every single time his name comes up, we should remind people of that 1997 letter. Every single time. Until it sinks in.

I think every single time his name comes up, we should remind people of that 1997 letter. Every single time. Until it sinks in.

There's some things for which there's no 'time to forgive and move on'.

I agree. The more it gets shared the sooner people generally will realise who he really is

Finding it tricky to believe that even Tatchell thinks this (he's tweeting a Gay Star News story):

Four out of five men don't think mutual masturbation is a 'gay' act according to an new online survey. They say only kissing men or having a crush on a man makes you gay

twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/1076934230872068096

I can't even bear clicking the Gay Star link to assess just how poorly designed the survey might have been. Do we run a sweepstake on whether the survey was by an authorised organisation signing up to industry standards?

I knew Tatchell didn't really give a fuck about lesbians or women in general but I didn't know he was a paedo apologist. You learn something every day. That stuff can never be unsaid. Why does he still have any credibility?
Also, Martina is brilliant.

Bit off topic but a point raised above,

Sorry but I thought a no-MAP
(no touch minor attracted person)
Would be a person who watches child abuse videos to wank off to but doesn't indulge in child abuse themselves, someone who trolls on YouTube videos of school children and wanks off...
That sort of person... basically a supporter of the child abuse 'porn industry' who falsifies a clean conscience by saying they don't do it themselves, so they aren't a bad person.... while they are maintaining the child abuse industry...

Anyway. Sorry