Julie Bindel physically attacked after meeting

[MsMcWibble]

Seems to have been carried out by well known TRA who has threatened violence before: twitter.com/bindelj/status/1136402563379716096

*Another reason is that women are better than men at distinguishing sex by face recognition. Presumably, we evolved this as a risk management ability. There's a study somewhere - I'll try and find it and post it8

Also better at recognising fake boobs......many men can't tell the difference. Maybe women just tend to be better, generally, at detail and subtlety?

As I said above I'm GC but.... cuts no mustard with me.

ginger - you seem to be heavily invested in tone policing women here. This also cuts no mustard with me. I'm sure someone who is actually GC could find more productive uses of their time. Opposing male violence without caveat, for instance.

Maybe if your observation that there are more GC coming on here and finding it difficult to accept the tone and content of these conversations is an indication....

I agree to an extent about much of the swearing and name calling. I also don't find that to be my preferred style either. It can come across as unnecessarily aggressive and provocative. I particularly don't like name calling. that is across the board though, not just in this instance.

Being fairly new to this forum too, I did at firts find that kind of talk quite alienating and counter-productive - in terms of extended or making more accessible the debate to many more people - without accusations of extremism or nastiness.

However, I've accepted that is how some people talk - and in the context of what is happening/has happened, is not too surprising. I've certainly never seen threats of violence or similar, though - which is what women are subject to on a regular basis.

That you are new to the forum and have happened upon this thread in particular is probably a bit of a baptism for you. Don't be put off re-visiting, though - just because a few people swear or name-call. This is the best place for informed discussion, and there is much to learn.

Not unless you are situated at one end of a polarised debate and can’t see the wood for the trees

Yes, it is very polarised at times - with personal invective and the referencing and monitoring of prominent TRA twitter feeds etc, by some. I also don't like that.

The best solution, I feel, is for you to post in your own way, and respond to the posts of others in your own way. You are not going to be able to insist on controlling the out-put of others. The board is very well moderated - certainly by the standards of any other message board I've ever seen.

With time, given that you are new, you will gravitate to certain types of threads, and settle upon the posts that most match your need.

*So perhaps it's fence sitters? Fledgeling feminists?8

Yes, I think you may be right. I too have jumped on some of ginger's posts in a forthright way ( even if I have not sworn etc), because that becomes part of the culture of discussion boards; and if you partake in them frequently you too end up being part of 'the pack'.
Many people don't swear or name call in their everyday lives, and can find it alienating - regardless of the topic or issue at hand.

part of the damage limitation exercise

They're about three years too late, that particular dam has holes everywhere now.

This week I've noticed not only that several threads have been interesting in ratio compared to what they would have been six months to a year ago, but in two separate situations this week I've been out in public where the trans word has come up, and there is a noticeable shift in from the virtue signalling Big Respect and Soft Voice Top Priority tone to the no eye contact, muttered response and quick move on that gets given to a subject that is dodgy and something to be careful of getting involved with.

People are taking note of the evidence that's escaped into the public sphere, there's way too much of it too frequently from too many directions to worry about damage control now.

Perhaps you find the strength of feeling uncomfortable? Or, more likely, the unvarnished expression of that strength of feeling.

Very interesting point Datun

This is a womens space and women talk here with the gloves off, putting down female socialisation. Many people are shocked by that since it doesn't happen much. There's been a few threads this week with several MRA posters furious and bewildered by women doing this unvarnished expressing without couching it in nice terms and disclaimers and doing the man pleasing around it. It's so unfamiliar to them it's shocking.

Can't wait to see how ginger approaches this person to tell him off about his behaviour.

She's scolded people on here about the language of our reaction to his behaviour. Next stop must be telling him off, surely.

But wait.

Maybe she doesn't intend to speak to him about his behaviour at all.

If we have another disco, y’all best not be tone policing my dancing 😬

People have been telling MN users and FWR in particular that the posters here are too mean and nasty ever since I've been reading it. And there's been robust swearing too. I am not someone who indulges in threads about whatever some vacuous Twitter AWAs have said to goad the women here, but this is not a thread based on unnecessarily focusing on a misogynist's Twitter account - he attacked Julie Bindel and it took three security personnel to pull him away.

I am actually really angry that this thread has now become a discussion about the acceptable ways for women to discuss men who attempt to beat them up.

Yes the anger is palpable at both extremes of the debate.

Yes when people feel angry and under attack they usually react with an attack.

It is understandable.

But it isn’t likely to end well.

ginger, do you intend to speak to this person about his behaviour?

Well, lucky for everyone that all I'm doing in my anger is saying that if women want to call a violent man a bastard they can. Extremist that I am. Jesus fucking Christ.

I don’t really see that ginger

I just see a man attacking a woman

Male violence. No excusing it

Yes when people feel angry and under attack they usually react with an attack

Away with your sweeping generalisations! I don't usually attack anyone; I run away.

You are making this assumption about "people" but I think you really mean men. You seem to know what you are talking about tho'...

Are you one?

Pink News is unsurprisingly accusing Julie Bindel of making it up

Yes the anger is palpable at both extremes of the debate.

This isn’t a debate. This thread is specifically about a violent attack on Julie Bindel. That’s the discussion. Holding the opinion humans can’t change sex, is not extreme. Our anger cannot be compared with the violence and threats of the angry males trying to dictate who sees us naked and what a woman is.

I’m finding it very hard to believe ginger is a GC feminist. It really doesn’t remotely seem like a feminist argument that women must speak nicely about violent men.

Justhadathouggt

I’m not new though, just name changed recently. Been posting on mumsnet for over a decade. Relatively new to this debate, maybe a year reading and posting on this particular board.

I still don’t agree with you all. I still think facts are sufficient and insults will not help GC women win this fight. I do think it’s the «fledging feminists « we need in order to win this. And in all aspects of my life I never think it’s appropriate to stoop to insults in order to win arguments.

I think the accusation of tone policing here is as ridiculous as when I’m accused of it when arguing for facts, reasoned debate and empathy with TRans activists.

It’s understandable that people are angry. But i’m Not going to agree that allowing that anger into the discourse is going to improve it. It’ll just continue to alienate those being drawn into the debate and enflamme those in polarised positions.

But as you were. I’ll carry on fighting this in my own way.

I'm guessing that you do not intend to speak to this person about his behaviour, ginger.

Which is unsurprising.

Jeez, so because I disagree with you I must be a man, must not be s gender critical feminist, must not be taking violence against women seriously??????

Really?

Stop with the false equivalences. Saying that I don’t Agree with personal insults is not the same as saying that I’m not a fender critical feminist taking violence against women seriously.

And as for the repeated asks of what i’ve Done to take this person to task, I have done plenty. But I do not want to out myself by talking about that on a public forum.

This is a womens space and women talk here with the gloves off, putting down female socialisation

Without wanting to derail the thread, further. I really don't think it is just about female socialisation to be nice and discreet. Some people are just quite attuned to aesthetics and form, regardless of their sex.

Swearing and name calling etc - can be perceived and experienced as just plain crude & ugly; and without achieving anything. Some people do seem to find swearing to be a transgressive act, though.

It is possible to express strength of feeling without swearing and name calling. Even so, sometimes 'Fuck'/ 'Fuck's sake' is a reasonable, and the best expression of that feeling.

But it isn’t likely to end well

What do you feel is likely to end well? Honest question.

And again with the 'polarised debate' comments. You are actually advocating for women to compromise, aren't you? Which in hard fact means, women's rights being taken away to give to men. So it's just a question of how many rights women should surrender, for now, with that line becoming a permanently movable feast.

Have you really no idea why this would be such a very, very dangerous thing for every female born person in the UK?

But i’m Not going to agree that allowing that anger into the discourse is going to improve it.
I do see where you're coming from with that point. But this thread is not that discourse. This thread is women discussing among ourselves yet another act of male violence. We are absolutely entitled to be angry.

It is unfair to conflate the two. It diminishes his actions and exaggerates the transgression of the other.

Yes exactly