Sky News just featured story appearing in tomorrow's Sunday Mail

[TheCatsServant]

Apparently a woman spent 8 hours in a cell/being interviewed by the police for a "transphobic" Tweet along the lines of TWAW. Can't bring myself to buy the Mail tomorrow to check the details, but it may be taken up by other papers.

Could you please let me know, MNHQ how I broke the talk guidelines - honestly it’s like walking on eggshells trying to discuss certain people acting like bullies and throwing their weight around.

This is ridiculous. There’s no hope if certain humans are allowed to act a certain way just becase they say they have certain feelings in their head and everyone has to tiptoes around them and cow-tow - that’s bloody abusive in and of itself!

Ok I really don’t understand the rules. I just mentioned that Stephanie Hayden’s demeanour hasn’t changed from a few years ago, before they transitioned, as evidenced by the video from that time.

Half of that statement is subjective, sure, but it’s not rude and the second half is not outing as Stephanie Hayden is very clear that they are trans. I would also be less inclined to post my subjective view if I could post a link to the video of Stephanie from a few years ago but it keeps being deleted (and I’m not sure why as it doesn’t appear to break any of the talk guidelines) so as I can’t just give people the opportunity to come to their own conclusions, the next best thing is to share my subjective opinion which is that the I don’t think Stephanie being het up is to do with being trans as Stephanie was also very het up in the video from pre-transitioning.

It can’t be a problem to share this - an opinion - even if I’m not allowed to share a link to the video, surely? How does this break the talk guidelines? I’m not being arsey @MNHQ, I’d really like to know as I don’t understand!

If you’re going to delete this post too, I’d really appreciate being told why, if only so that I can stop breaking the guidelines! I’m not trying to be inflammatory but it’s hard to know where I’m going wrong when the posts don’t seem to contravene the guidelines and I’m not told why they’re being deleted.

Q

honestly it’s like walking on eggshells trying to discuss certain people acting like bullies and throwing their weight around.

Yes, i wonder if the MNHQ team have actually watched their own video? Which is simply accessed on the right hand side of the screen.

Irony

I can't remember what I said that was deleted. But I am screen grabbing everything now as an aide memoire.

Why are the TRAs so fixated with Mumsnet when Kiwi Farms exists

James Kirkup The Spectator March 2018
'Fear and loathing grips the gender debate'
(extract)
"Some of these women are political activists and professionals, but some are, to use a clumsy term, ordinary people, women who never gave much thought to politics until they stumbled across this issue through questions about swimming pool changing rooms, Girl Guides safeguarding policies, or Mumsnet. Now aware of – and worried about – politics, they believe they should speak about their worries, but fear what will happen if they do. (continues)

How did we get here? How can it be that in modern, democratic and free Britain in the early 21st Century, women are frightened to meet or talk about law, politics and society? Don’t we have institutions and, more important, social norms that say this shouldn’t happen, can’t happen? Shouldn’t this stuff get the attention and interest of politicians who are supposed to listen to all the different strands of public opinion, and ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard?

Bluntly, why the hell is no one in politics shouting from the rooftops about this stuff? We’re talking about people trying to put the frighteners on Mumsnetters, for goodness sake. In any other area of public life, politicians usually fall over themselves in their rush to speak up for middle-class working mothers. Yet the politicians who were desperate to talk biscuits at Mumsnet Towers are curiously silent about the intimidation that some women now report there.

If this was simply a story of a small number of nasty people online and – sometimes – on the street doing bad things to women who speak up about a political issue, I suspect this problem wouldn’t persist. The relevant legal and political authorities would indeed pay attention to that fear, and maybe even do something, even if that was just listening to those women, meeting them, answering their questions.

But that doesn’t seem to be happening. It’s because those women have been – quite successfully and even skilfully – demonised and stigmatised, put beyond the pale of civilised debate as those who question orthodoxy often are. They’ve been given a name, a name that means they’re bad people, people who should not speak and should not be heard. That name is “Terf,” which once meant “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist” but now appears to stand in its own right as a term of abuse and dismissal alongside the other short, harsh words often used to question the worth and virtue of women." (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/fear-and-loathing-grips-the-gender-debate/

Question: if David Challen or the Hart brothers came here and explained how individuals and organisations allow themselves to be used as agents of coercive control, would MNHQ delete them?

It cannot be MNHQ's position that referring to a video of someone before they transitioned, when they themselves are publicly trans, is verbotten. Surely?

I would understand if it was from concerns about being outted but if someone is very publicly proclaiming they are trans, how is it a problem to acknowledge that there would therefore be photos/videos of them pretransitioning? It is obvious that this would be the case! And it's already out in the public domain!

That would be like every reference to Bruce Jenner being deleted or every video link to Bruce Jenner winning the Olympics being banned (I am not deadnaming - women aren't allowed to enter that particular event so Kaitlyn can't have won it, it has to have been Bruce). It is history, and not done with malicious intent to out as it is already public knowledge!

Why are the TRAs so fixated with Mumsnet when Kiwi Farms exists

Spectator article November 208

'Mumsnet and the British media aren’t ‘transphobic’
by Robert Jackman
(extract)
(extract)
"Is the British media transphobic? Yes, according to a writer in the Outline, a US publication, who accuses the Times and the Guardian of rampant bigotry in the row about gender. Several prominent British feminists are also singled out for alleged ‘hate-peddling’. The logic here is muddled but is worth unpicking. The author appears to claim that the views of British feminists like Helen Lewis (who has urged caution over the Government’s proposal to reform the Gender Recognition Act) are somehow comparable to the Trump administration, which is – according to the New York Times – seeking to remove legal protections for transgender individuals. This is a complete misunderstanding of both debates. (continues)

concludes:
Oddly, the Outline lays the blame for this supposed media bigotry at an unlikely door: Mumsnet. The article claims that some of Mumsnet’s 14 million users have developed an “obsession” with transgender issues. It’s true that transgender issues are frequently discussed on Mumsnet – but why assume this is down to bigotry, rather than the fact that many of these concerns (the housing of male sex offenders in women’s prisons, for example) resonate deeply with the women of Middle England?

The writer isn’t wrong that Mumsnet holds deep influence – just not necessarily with the media. When I spoke to someone who knows the consultation well, they mentioned the “Mumsnet effect” – the fact that the Government had received cautious responses from women all over the UK, representing all ages and backgrounds. The responses calling for the more ideological system, however, tended to be concentrated in smaller clusters, usually from London and university cities – places which typically vote Labour.

Ultimately it will be this kind of political pragmatism which will probably persuade ministers against uprooting the GRA system. Blaming it on the Times and the Guardian might seem tempting – but it’s ultimately untrue."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mumsnet-and-the-british-media-arent-transphobic/

That’s anexcelkenf question, @LangCleg.

Having been a victim of abuse and coercive control for many years this feels very similar except it’s not the family court system and associated organisations being used for the bully’s gain, it’s Mumsnet.

Bruce Jenner's magnificent Olympic win

Or Kaitlyn Jenner's magnificent Olympic win, if that's more acceptable? (although as I said above, this event is not open to women so a woman can't have won it and Kaitlyn was not Kaitlyn when the medal was won)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qsrkaZVOI4

Having been a victim of abuse and coercive control for many years this feels very similar except it’s not the family court system and associated organisations being used for the bully’s gain, it’s Mumsnet.

People who have been on the receiving end of coercive/abuse pattern attempted control are especially alert to the dynamics.

From the promoted YouTube video, 'Walking on Eggshells'
"Coercive control is domestic abuse. Controlling or coercive behaviour was criminalised in 2015 - but it still affects hundreds of thousands of women in the UK.

Mumsnet, Women's Aid and Surrey Police have joined together to help raise awareness of the dangers of coercive control.

A new survey found 38% of Mumsnet users have suffered some form domestic abuse. "

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

Which begs the question: if as is claimed Jenner was always female why hasn’t Jenner given their medal to whomever cake second since Jenner would then have not been eligible to compete. Oh the topsy-turvy, backwards, poking-holes-in-safeguarding and fairness, mind-boggling world of transgenderism.

Question: if David Challen or the Hart brothers came here and explained how individuals and organisations allow themselves to be used as agents of coercive control, would MNHQ delete them?

'Flying Monkeys (The Narcissist’s Tool for the Smear Campaign)'
(extract)
So the role of these flying monkeys is first of all abuse by proxy.

Abuse by proxy is when the narcissist gets other people to abuse you. That way the narcissist gets to abuse you but through these people. They’ll reject you, they’ll make you feel not good enough, they’ll shame you, maybe they’ll put you in a bad situation, they’ll tell you that you’re crazy, things like that. This way the narcissist looks like the one that’s clean. They’re not involved." (continues)

So who can become flying monkeys?

There are two different categories of people.

The first category is the naive.

The naive are people who are just clueless. They can’t see it, they can’t fathom it, they’ve never been through anything like that, so they can’t even imagine that somebody would do such a thing to just make up all these lies about you and spread them across town. They just can’t even fathom that a human would do that or maybe the naive is also the fawning type.

This is the type of people who when faced with a fight or flight dilemma, they choose fawning instead where they just melt into into a strong, dominant personality to feel safe and they don’t realize what’s happening. You might have noticed that even you became one of these flying monkeys when you were in your naive state before you woke up, before you figured out what was going on.

The second category of people who can become flying monkeys are the toxic.

These are the people with no boundaries. They love gossip and drama, they’re addicted to that stuff. They have an integrity problem and usually they want something from the narcissist. They want status, they want flattery, they want favours. They’re getting something out of the narcissist, which is why they’re willing to do their bidding." (continues)
medium.com/@OwnYourReality/flying-monkeys-the-narcissists-tool-for-the-smear-campaign-798daf7a59c0

Nailed it, @R0wantrees

'50 Shades Of Gaslighting: Disturbing Signs An Abuser Is Twisting Your Reality'
by Shahida Arabi
Updated September 29, 2018
(extract)
Gaslighting, explained.
How do you convince someone that something they know to be true isn’t? In psychology, what is known as the “illusory truth effect” is a phenomenon in which a listener comes to believe something primarily because it has been repeated so often. When an abuser continually tells you that you are oversensitive or that what you are experiencing is in no way abuse, you begin believing it, even if you know deep down it isn’t true.

In other words, a lie that is repeated long enough eventually can be seen as the truth. Researchers Hasher, Goldstein and Toppino (1997) discovered that when a statement (even when it is false and readers know it to be false) is repeated multiple times, it was more likely to be rated as true simply due to the effects of repetition. This is because when we’re assessing a claim, we rely on either the credibility of the source from which the claim is derived or familiarity with that claim. Surprisingly, familiarity often trumps credibility or rationality when assessing the perceived validity of a statement (Begg, Anas, and Farinacci, 1992; Geraci, L., & Rajaram, 2016).

The illusory truth effect can cause us to become susceptible to the effects of another dangerous form of reality erosion known as gaslighting. Deliberate manipulators who gaslight with the intention of eroding your reality and rewriting history tend to use the “illusory truth effect” to their advantage. They will repeat falsehoods so often that they become ingrained in the victim’s mind as unshakeable truths.

When this is done repeatedly to override what was truly experienced, it can leave an immense dent in the fabric of someone’s perceptions and ability to trust themselves. When used chronically to control a victim, it becomes a damaging aspect of psychological abuse, placing the survivor at risk for depression, anxiety, PTSD, suicidal ideation and even what is called by some therapists as “Narcissistic Abuse Syndrome” (Van der Kolk, 2016; Walker, 2013; WolfFord-Clevinger, 2017; Staik, 2017). (continues)

In the context of an abusive relationship, gaslighting is used to deliberately undercut the victim’s reality and make him or her more malleable to mistreatment. As Dr. Sarkis writes in her article, “Are Gaslighters Aware of What They Do?” not all gaslighters engage in it intentionally, but those who are cult leaders, dictators and malignant narcissists most certainly do so with an agenda in mind.

As she writes, “The goal is to make the victim or victims question their own reality and depend on the gaslighter…In the case of a person who has a personality disorder such as antisocial personality disorder, they are born with an insatiable need to control others.”

Gaslighting allows perpetrators to evade accountability for their actions, to deflect responsibility and exercise their control over their partners with alarming ease." (continues)
thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/11/50-shades-of-gaslighting-the-disturbing-signs-an-abuser-is-twisting-your-reality/

When people are complaining about being censored and no platformed, and the police being called on them, watching a thread highlighting that fact being censored and the women's comments deleted is just the biggest, brightest load of sunlight you could ever hope for.

Interestingly, a girlfriend of mine who is looking at this thread said she wouldn't even have bothered looking at that video had it not been for all the comments deleted afterwards. She's now desperate to know what it's all about. Streisand effect in action.

And the thing I find most reassuring? They never, ever learn.

There is an issue with a transactivism, but there is an equal issue with the censorship.

And all they keep doing is drawing attention to both!

It's extraordinary. I've never seen foot shooting like it.

Dr Jane Monckton Smith
(Forensic Criminologist specialising in homicide, Coercive Control and stalking. )

"In coercive control, the controlling person will keep diverting the actual argument to push the victim to keep defending themselves against spurious accusations. That way the victim cannot put their side, and seems to onlookers to be guilty of something. It’s a strategy."

The wheels are well and truly coming off, what with the GIDS scandal, backers and core members pulling out of Stonewall, and citing trans ideology as the reason, and Martina Navratilova speaking out on behalf of women.

The censorship is being identified everywhere. And I'm not sure I blame HQ. People like Hayden make no secret of their relentless determination to control the narrative. And it must be massively time-consuming, and tricky, to keep moderating due to the persistent reporting.

Fortunately, to me at least, the persistent reporting signifies that we are doing everything right.

As I said, foot shooting extraordinaire.

And all they keep doing is drawing attention to both!

It is truly fantastic to watch.

All those people wondering what was so bad it needed deleting, all have google at their fingertips ready to go and watch whatever it was and possibly stumbling on other, much more enlightening you tube clips.

Glorious.

All those people wondering what was so bad it needed deleting, all have google at their fingertips ready to go and watch whatever it was

I know, right!

The censorship is being identified everywhere. And I'm not sure I blame HQ. People like Hayden make no secret of their relentless determination to control the narrative. And it must be massively time-consuming, and tricky, to keep moderating due to the persistent reporting.

cf recent thread where some determindly attempted to prevent discussion about serious Safeguarding and child exploitation concerns:

OP HappyDappy wrote,
"Julia Long was asked to leave the venue, after asking MB if it was normal that an 11yr old child dancing in front of adults, has money thrown at them by grown men. This was at Transmission & was deemed an offensive question....video footage on twitter of the incident.....worth a watch, sorry I can’t link to it but hope someone else can."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd4UCemsC6s&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

LangCleg's comment:
"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how.

It's just tangential to me that the current group above criticism is extremist transactivism. I couldn't give a shit which group is ignoring the safeguarding of children - TV entertainers, Catholic priests, transactivists - it's all the same to me.

I will not be told I cannot point out safeguarding failures when I see them. "

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation