Rachel McKinnon suspended from Twitter

[Nephilim1964]

Apparently telling women to 'die in a grease fire' is hate speech. Who knew?

Have a great weekend everyone!!

Not misgendering. But not having my speech actively compelled either.

Calling McKinnon "it" gives them the chance to assume the mantel of victimhood. "They" or "McKinnon" is more likely to get a useful rage response.

me too, re. calling male persons by female pronouns. It always felt wrong. It always felt silly. I did it out of politeness and fear.

I've never called a person "it" in my life. I wouldn't call someone's pet animal "it".

I'm not sure if you missed it but look upthread Ereshkigal.

I won't call a male person 'she' anymore than I'd call a human person 'it'. If I'm demanding respect I acknowledge that I need to give respect. In this person's case I'm happy to refer to them as McK. Maybe MCK if
I'm tired.
I'd never knowingly mis-sex a person though....

I've looked but I can't see anything with "it". Anyway I thought you were referring to my comment about avoiding pronouns.

I think nauticant was referring to:

poster lady69 Fri 29-Mar-19 23:25:18
The cyclepath. We know it’s game.

Oh ok, didn't see that.

McKinnon happy to abuse Glinner. Retweeted this:

mobile.twitter.com/ClosetGirlFTW/status/1111787098263179264

Rose-Coloured Sophie
@ClosetGirlFTW
Replying to
@x44203
and
@rachelvmckinnon
Seriously tho, “die in a grease fire” is far less graphic and detailed than what I’ve said I want to do to Glinner

And happy to directly abuse @Glinner

mobile.twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1111734062304108544

And posting a tweet with a Gif of someone laughing in front of a fire:

mobile.twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1111791882760261632

And happy to make further threats, having “poked the wrong person”:

mobile.twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1111754436995698688

What a seriously vile person.

Happy days...what took them so long.

Little linguistics exploration here:

The usage of "they" is not misgendering. It cannot be as singular "they" is a generic pronoun referring to both male and female people.

Singular "they" has been in use since the 14th century. And actually predates the use of "he" as the ostensibly gender-neutral, generic standard to refer to male and female people (despite that accepted meaning, we know from contemporary writings "he" was consciously promoted to portray men as the default, the primary sex).

In the 18th century grammarians started proscribing singular "they" and demanding the use of "he", this intensified over the next 150 years. By the middle of the 19th century there was even act act in the UK parliament about the use of generic "he".

What would be quite fun, I think, just to drive home the absurdity of not being allowed to name males as male on a feminist board (where we all know how important it is to name males as male because that is the sex that oppresses us all), so what would be equally absurd as that rule, would be to use the wrong verb forms with singular "they".

By convention, it isn't used with third person singular -s verb forms. But maybe we should.

Example:

McK is cleary as ignorant about grammar and etymology as they is when about sports science. Could have some fun with this, what do you think?

Correction:

McK is cleary as ignorant about grammar and etymology as they is about sports science.

Correction:

McK is cleary as ignorant about grammar and etymology as they is about sports science.

Oops, that's a keen correction. Sorry!

Just thank you everyone. It's felt good to read this thread. (Twitter suspended for saying transwomen had male bodies)

Having studied Nazi Germany, people coming out as loopy nutjobs is not necessarily helpful to us. Everyone sits around laughing at them until it is too late.

I reported h* yesterday and when RM put the fire tweet up, thinking it was a waste of time. But I guess enough of us complained. Still disgusted though that Harrop openly called Caroline Farrow a c** on there and got away with it (sorry Caro).

I won't call a male 'her' though - there are ways round it. RM is referred to as 'her' a couple of times upthread.

What connections does Linda Riley have? If so, that is worrying. I just don't understad why she's hellbent on pushing this ideology through at all costs and seems to take actual delight in seeing women suffer.

But when I heard her on the radio with Julie Bindel it was like an 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' moment. She spoke calmly (but without any critical thought) about men colonising women as if it was the most natural/progressive advancement ever. Brainwashed.

McKinnon is back on Twitter.
Same old handle in every sense.

Somebody 'greased' somebody's palm at Twitter then.

Handsoff

Yep, Linda Riley. They even tweeted they'd do it.

..

The raging continues

Like many have said previously, here and on twitter, lots of women who RMK would class as 'transphobes' (aka women seeking to ensure women's rights aren't rolled back) are actually women who've had loads of experience in dealing with toddler tantrums and know the importance of holding lines and boundaries.

Love it! Yes, these are toddler tantrums and the only way to deal with those, as every experienced mother knows, is to stay calm but firm.

They is the pronoun approved by transgender ideology. That's why the really cool parents call their babies theybies, and only refer to them as they. They is cool. (And I bet very annoying to those who insist on "she!"!) Let's do it.

I do wonder whose side Rachel is on.
I mean, that list does articulate the problem quite nicely (though I misread it as including ‘Tiny Tim’ as an insult at first).

RM is back. It's like a pantomime. You know, the ones where men dress up as Widow Twanky.