Reports of Macclesfield pub barring woman for wearing’adult human female’ T shirt

[MrsSnippyPants]

twitter.com/blythegetscross/status/1079503093266554880?s=21

put

John is being very silly....but vaguely amusing in a 'good lord you are struggling with this concept aren't you' kind of way

Can't get enough of that Harrop clip. He was totally owned and rightly so. Well done The Posie .

That is an amazing response - ‘we’re here, we’re women, we’re clearly not transphobic monsters, we’re just drinking beer and eating monster munch and smiling while we do it’.

Very effective.

@ManOfKent

The issue is quite extensive. That break it down for me thread should help.

But broadly, the definitions of men and women are being changed by a tiny, but very powerful lobbying minority.

It matters very much to women what constitutes the word woman, as feminism addresses the disadvantage that women face. If you can't, legally, define the word woman you can't address the issues.

Hence transactivists being perfectly sincere when they say a parliament made up of 50% women and 50% transwomen (men identifying as women), fulfils diversity quotas.

Or that Karen White a convicted sex offender and rapist being housed in a female prison is correct, as Karen identifies as a woman. (It was only the fact that Karen sexually assaulted four women there, that made the authorities put them back in the male estate.)

Or Rachel McKinnon, erstwhile mediocre male bodied athlete, winning a world record female cycling championship. And that being absolutely fine, because according to Rachel, there is no difference between transwomen and women, other than women not trying hard enough.

And hence the dictionary definition, and a necessary one for feminism, being that woman is an adult human female, is now considered wrong.

Not just wrong, but bigoted and a transphobic. Because a handful of men don't like it.

Apologies if this has already been posted: write up in The Sun too

www.thesun.co.uk/news/8131093/banned-pub-t-shirt-woman-human-female-trangender/

just watched the posie/Adrian clip again and laughed. He gets gradually more and more annoyed and uncomfortable and embarrassed at his lack of proper defence. As you watch him, you can actually see him pretending to believe what he’s saying and pretending to misunderstand Posie.

That clip never gets tired, does it?

I love the condescending way Posie says 'A dictionary definition on a billboard makes men feel unsafe' which sums up how ludicrous the whole thing was - and still is, actually.

He accuses women of appropriating the word woman.

🤣🤣🤣

I'm always baffled at how quickly he responds to Posie's question of whether he asks everyone's identity before he treats them in A and E with "absolutely not". There's no equivocation or attempts to prevaricate on a statement that I'd imagine he'd be quick to label transphobic if anyone else made.

He does something I've seen a lot of people do, but I don't know the name for the behaviour.

He asserts or agrees with something, and then says the opposite.

So he complains that the dictionary definition of woman is wrong, but then immediately agrees that his definition, (anyone who says so) doesn't work.

He states that Posie is completely entitled to free speech and at exactly the same time demanded she remove the dictionary definition as it makes men unsafe.

I saw it with a tw on here a while ago. They would agree with women but gradually over the course of the paragraph it was clear that they actually think/do the opposite.

They say the words, yes of course, I agree, And then slowly explain why you're wrong. I don't know if it's some kind of sales technique. But it's pretty rubbish.

I don't know why Harrop thinks we don't like him.
The clip of him with Posie is one of my favourite Sky interviews

He does something I've seen a lot of people do, but I don't know the name for the behaviour.
Confused? Illogical? Duplicitous?

Being an arsehole pretty much covers it : agree with your opponent, they’ll be deleriously pleased that someone they hold in such high regard agrees with them. This coupled with their low intelligence means they won’t realise that you then destroy them with your awesome power !!
Not everyone can pull this off, only those who can combine ingenious cunning with being slick operators.

I read this article recently about 'diversion tactics'. Its worth reading

thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

I've just skimmed that R0, but this one lept out.

"Deliberately misrepresenting your thoughts and feelings to the point of absurdity."

Narcissists weave tall tales to reframe what you’re actually saying as a way to make your opinions look absurd or heinous. Let’s say you bring up the fact that you’re unhappy with the way a toxic friend is speaking to you. In response, he or she may put words in your mouth, saying, “Oh, so now you’re perfect?” or “So I am a bad person, huh?”

They chronically jump to conclusions based on their own triggers rather than stepping back to evaluate the situation mindfully. They act accordingly based on their own delusions and fallacies and make no apologies for the harm they cause as a result. Notorious for putting words in your mouth, they depict you as having an intention or outlandish viewpoint you didn’t possess. They accuse you of thinking of them as toxic – even before you’ve gotten the chance to call them out on their behavior – and this also serves as a form of preemptive defense.

I see that with the oh my God you think all trans people are rapists, you're saying trans people are paedophiles, you hate trans people. It's very effective. And a real bloody time waster.

Is that the same as a straw man?

I think it's similar, yes.

Strawman was explained, very clearly to me, by saying you disagree with 24-hour licensing hours. And the answer being oh my God you're trying to stop people drinking.

So sounds similar.

In fact, looking at it, it's the same!

strawman is when people state that you hold an opinion that you don't hold, or that you said something that you didn't say. then they argue against that. i.e. fighting the 'straw man' false information rather that the real facts/opinion.

Strawman

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

(And a good many other of the logical fallacies on this site also apply)

I agree, straw man is subtly different, because you manipulatively disagree with a point your opponent hasn't made to deflect from the argument.

I spent half an hour googling this at the end of the day! I know exactly what you mean, couldn't find the name of this tactic, if it has one.

But those definitions of strawman sound the same as what Datun has said. I also now realise that straw man doesn't mean what I thought it did!

Hardplop is the offspring of Edward and Tubbs.

@Baddaytoquitsmoking you are an awesome woman, and thank you for not giving a DM sadface. :o

Ken - Datun's definition is right of course, I just wanted to supplement in a way that makes sense to me at least.

I still think what Datun described is different to what is normally meant by a straw man. When you say you actually agree with someone, and then proceed to misrepresent their argument to suit yourself, while agreeing or even completely ignore it and move on to your own is more of a head fuck than a typical straw man. And I've seen this a lot too.

A straw man tends to set up the opposing argument falsely as something terrible (either an exaggeration or a completely different argument), that everyone would be opposed to.