A Geordie lad verses the Woke Stasi

[KatvonHostileExtremist]

I was stumbling around twitter when I came across this little incident, and I was intrigued because it's the first time I've seen working class lads in a twitter spat with the armies of the woke.

This young lad does a (pretty unkind) tweet about rejecting a transwoman on tinder, because they have a penis.

mobile.twitter.com/DommyEnglish/status/1145323492591714304

There is a massive pile on, and of cause they try to get him sacked. Hilariously given he plays for a local 7 aside amateur team. The "club" issue statements, which are pounced on. The guy says he's lost his job and home, which is met with glee. He's totally trolling them. Other teams in the league join in, leading the Woke on a merry dance. How can they not tell? HOW??

mobile.twitter.com/official43fc

He then issues an "apology" where he tackles the double standards of hundreds of people attacking him for his looks, telling him to die (!!) Etc. Including, Blair White, an American transwomen and TRA.(watch White be destroyed by Magdaline Burns here:

)

The guy defends his sexual preferences too, and his right to hold those preferences. And I was put in mind of the James Kirkup blog today. Dommy was called a transphobe for rejecting a person based on the fact they have a penis.

The lad did apologise for initial tweet, which I'm glad. Personally I think he crossed the line, in a dick laddy fashion. But it's the moronic, rabid way he's attacked and how he deals with it that i think it's interesting. He's literally laughing at them and they can't tell. They are so young? So naive? But really mob like too.

I don't think the transwoman was too gutted, given the amount of attention now coming their way:mobile.twitter.com/kairahkelly_

Twitter is so insane.

I hope Dommy gets his eyes opened further......

Quite aside from anything else, I would have thought that a biological male who put themselves on tinder looking to hook up with heterosexual men was completely wasting their time, surely?

This whole conversation came up for me many years ago as I had a friend who thought he was trans. He called me transphobic for not even considering relationships with trans women.

What followed was a very long and difficult conversation that I think went on until 3am, he saw the light in the end though.

Too many of these woke ideologies don’t really stand up to scrutiny, and usually require shifting the definitions of words, so say you start with the definition you want, but you define it differently during the discussion in such a way as you can frame a valid cogent argument. Then once you have “won” you quietly go back to using the commonly accepted definition. However what’s actually occurred is a complete bait & switch.

Not wishing to be rude but tran-activists are just taking the playbook that’s been used in gender politics, race relations etc. And running with it extremely effectively.

Can someone clarify for me ... man makes vile, nasty comments toward a biological female based on her looks/sexual preference/sexual activity >adapt as appropriate < = it's labelled body shaming or misogynistic at worst. Things most reasonable people would agree were unpleasant behaviour however not deemed by society to be worthy of a "hate crime".

Man does similar to a transwoman = it's labelled transphobic which to some people merits it as a "hate crime " and death threats could follow .

What is the difference in these scenarios? I'm sure it isn't because one of these women has a penis? ...

Don't think anyone's saying death threats are OK, I know I'm certainly not.
Anyone doing that's disgusting.
Man shaming women for their looks by sharing their picture to mock is disgusting too.
Just like it is in this case where the lad has shamed someone.
Shaming for the reaction on social media is disgusting whoever it's coming from.

Agree Roses and my comment re death threats wasn't necessarily aimed at this thread per se rather at the type of thing you often see on Twitter. It's disgusting behaviour to shame anyone, especially so publicly, based on their appearance.

All you need to do is look at any front cover of magazines like Ok, Reveal etc and it's literally a cover story.

I'm tired of how women have had to put up with this kind of crap for so long but the tide turns more noticeably towards a transwoman.

If posters don't like getting notifications they can switch them off.

Come now, Lass, I'm sure it is not beyond your ken - nor your memory since this conversation has been had with your participation several times - that many of us like to be notified by the @ system that threads we're not participating in have content we might be interested in, but prefer not to have multiple unnecessary notifications clogging up our inboxes when we are on threads already.

Besides, perfectly polite requests to not @ someone should not be met by repeatedly using the @ to them. That's just goady and rude. I know you set great store by courtesy.

For clarity, here is the full @ gate interaction (spaces inserted for italic purity). Je ne regrette rien!

(And will shut the fuck up about it now. Even if you @ me!)

Me: mabelmylove - can you not @ me, please? I'm on the thread.

Mable: Sorry @ LangCleg, just thought it was an easier option than copy and pasting everything I wanted to respond to.

Me: Again, can you not @ me please. I'm on the thread. I don't need a notification. My name is sufficient.

Mabel: @ LangCleg I’m not entirely sure what you mean sorry. How would you know I’m speaking to you without using your username?

Mabel: @ LangCleg I’m unaware of your actual name. Maybe we can go with Linda, for convenience?

Me: Third time of asking. Don't @ me. I. Am. On. The. Thread.

I'm with Lass - why can't people just turn the at function off in settings if they hate it that much?

Aaaaaargh...

I had no idea what @ did

Aargh yourself, it just seems like drama causing and a reason to tell posters off.
Yes, rude if you keep atting someone who doesn't want you to, but not everyone knows the unwritten rule of OMG don't at me.
Just turn it off so no one can

As Lang has already explained, it is best used to notify people of a thread they are not on hence the reason for leaving it switched on.

Does that make sense?

Wouldn't pming a link to a thread that you think someone might be interested in make more sense?

@SnuggyBuggy

Maybe - but the facility is there and can be used appropriately

Actually @SnuggyBuggy it doesn't bother me one way or the other as I use an email account I rarely look at.

So people CAN at them, they want atting really, but only by those in the know as a secret bat signal or something to threads they aren't even on?
OK, but you can't really complain that you don't want atting if you do really but only by a select few as not everyone will have got that memo and will be understandably like WTF lol

It's perfectly simple: if somebody politely asks you not to @ them, don't @ them. Why do you need a reason? Why do they?

I'm off for a lie down.

Did I say it was acceptable to keep atting someone who didn't want it?
I agreed it was rude to.
It is bizarre to want to be atted but you don't want to be atted, you can't expect people not to get confused by that logic!

OK, but you can't really complain that you don't want atting if you do really but only by a select few as not everyone will have got that memo and will be understandably like WTF lol

You can after you've asked them multiple times and they reply with snarky retorts about calling you Linda

The issue isn't about hating the @ functionality, it's about the deliberately continuation after being politely asked to stop, surely?

Theres clearly a difference between @ing someone that posted a day or two ago or that isn't yet on the thread (and therefore might appreciate a notification) and continually spamming someone that is already actively engaging. There's just no need.

(I did actually come for the thread itself but got distracted by @gate )

A brief explanation of the email thing when asking people not to @ would probably help though

LangCleg I think in Mabel's defense she wasn't being rude and goady she just didn't grasp that you were asking her not to @ you, she thought you were asking her not to use your name at all (with or without an @) and wasn't getting what you were saying. Obviously, you have your own reasons for wanting to keep the batsignal notifications enabled but given the sheer numbers of mumsnet users it's not going to be easy to keep track of everyone's personal preferences (almost wrote pronouns there - go figure) re notifications and maybe a little slack can be cut for clueless offenders.

Of course ALL of this shit could be avoided when we want to quote another poster on a thread if MNHQ would only allow a bloody quote reply function on the forum like every other bloody forum on the internet has.

I had no idea you could notify a poster not yet present if a thread which could be of interest to them by @ing them! Every days a school day >misses point of discussion

It is only clear if you already know about it iykwim - I see it now but I was as bewildered as Mabel appeared (to me) to be while it was actually happening.