In support of Amy Dyess

[AllNaturalWoman]

Title says it all really. Amy has publicly disagreed with the detransitioners representing lesbians at Manchester pride and has been called out for being 'unsupportive' rather than a recognition she has a right to hold the views she does twitter.com/amydyess/status/1166114175367532545?s=21

Whilst I've been glad to see a public retraction from the 2 desisters and I am sure doing that Pride being booed this time will not have been easy I see Amy's point that if they are bi they don't speak for lesbians and in particular they shouldn't go from speaking for the trans movement to speaking for lesbians. I'm bi, my life experience is very different and considerably easier than being lesbian. As a bi woman I don't have the right to speak for lesbians and just as most of us here don't feel LibDems women can give away our rights and identity as women to transwomen neither bi nor lesbian women have the right to give away rights and identify as lesbian to anyone who is not.

Amy is principled and consistent so I do tend to stop and take notice when she's calling behaviours out.

There should be room for Amy's principled stance at the same time as feeling Charlie desisting publicly is encouraging. Why the need to convince Amy she's wrong?

Yes I've read it again and it's extremely vague.

I like Helen Joyve's comments that PN use the names of journalistic concepts like 'interview' 'exclusive' without knowing what they are. It looks like it might have been a few emails.

I'm a bit suspicious here.

It's been no secret that feminists and women in the UK in general have spoken up and pushed back against a lot of TRA ideology over thae last few year particularly when it comes to preserving the safeguarding of children and protecting the privacy of girls and women, hell how many "The UK is so transphobic!" "The UK is overrun with TERFS!" articles have we had from lefty news sources by now?.

Compared to the UK the US has a lot of 'liberal feminists' and handmaiden types are quite happy to throw these very same rights under a bus in favour of trans ideology (although some pushback has started there too.)

So we have Amy Dyess a 'Cajun, butch lesbian' according to her twitter bio, who may or may not have even come to the UK and who is now cosying up to TRA twitter and the likes of prick news to give them, quite frankly a deluded portrayal of the GC movement, portraying it as some secret society with special connections internationally.

My question is, who exactly IS Amy Dyess??? where did she pop up from? Was she actually ever part of the GC movement outside of trying to hook up with a GC lesbian? All her sporadic actions up to now makes it very hard for me to believe most of this has any legitimacy, from her swan-dive into TRA groups all the way down to having her pronouns in her bio.

Something is very off here and yes Im afraid the early posts in this thread have not aged well at all...

She was part of GC Twitter but as all UK feminists know social media is only a small part of what is going on at a grassroots level. So the notion that she knows much of anything beyond Twitter is a bit of a stretch.

She's shown on many occasions she doesn't understand UK politics and culture at all. Which would be fine for an American if she wasn't trying to pretend she has huge insight into the evil British Terven.

She was as legitimate as any one else up until the latter half of last year where she (in my opinion) started to let personal animosities overtake rational thought.

I very much doubt she suddenly thinks female penis is a thing or that people can actually change sex but she has a bordering on xenophobic hatred for British women and flipping to the other side was a way of brandishing a weapon and seeking revenge for real or imagined wrong doings.

I have some sympathy for her still. I think she's probably quite a damaged individual and as others have said the likes of Pink News are just exploiting her.

The bullshit is going to get worse, people. You know why? Because we're winning.

The court cases are starting, the house of cards is falling. Liz Truss is having none of it and people are starting to see the emperor is stark bollock naked.

Unfollowed her a while ago when she started attacking other women and muttering about all the important work she was doing that never seemed to materialise. She seemed unwell then and still does.

I cannot quite get my head around this article. I hope that Amy is getting the support she needs but to categorise not believing that people can actually change sex a ‘cultish’ movement beggars belief.

This article also seems to miss the point that we are fighting, not just for lesbian rights, but for the rights of women and children. The rights of all females. That were once thought to have been secured but now are having to be fought for again. It is not a new concept.

But then they were putting suffragettes in the cross hairs last month.

It is just another tactic that will not work but I have to hand it to them, they have gone full into the gaslight . Because how can it when to refute gender ideology does not require any cognisance gymnastics to understand, there is no deception involved (quite the opposite), and no requirement to believe in unproven theories that are being pushed to explain wishes and harmful practices.

But then sunlight dispels gaslight, and to call women’s rights movement a ‘struggling’ movement is quite the gaslight.

Because how can it work that should read.

mimmymum is on the case. grin Hi Helen!

Helen and Harrop were also all falling over themselves in glee when TRAs were lying about finding razor blades behind adult human female stickers.

There is no tale too tall, no claim too absurd that you won't find those two all over it.

Is Owen stupid or what?

That aside, it strikes me that Amy Dyess, Pink News, Adrian Harrop, MimmyMum and others retweeting and commenting on the allegations against Julie Bindel are committing libel. I hope she sues the whole lot of them for defamation.

I have seen, lately, at least two TRA accounts on Twitter that claim to be 'ex GC'.

I think Julie Bindel is handling it brilliantly. Humour and ridicule are very powerful.

I have seen, lately, at least two TRA accounts on Twitter that claim to be 'ex GC'.

I wonder how that happened? It's easy to not believe in something that has no evidence to confirm it exists. I don't have to extend any effort at all in not believing in the feminine gendered lady soul/identity/essence. It's as effortless as my lack of belief in reincarnation or the existence of ghosts. But to believe in something when there's no evidence, and indeed evidence to the contrary, requires constant effort. You have to work at it. You have to actively resist the pull of sense, reason and logic.

I find it quite fascinating that somebody could go from the easy path of not believing an unbelivable thing, to the much much more difficult project of believing an ubelievable thing and becoming an activist for it.

amy dyess is actually unwell, like many of the women in the gender critical movement, as it turns out. i don't know amy dyess at all, but she has been desperate for attention for a while now.

JFC that article.

The GC movement has seen a few supposedly high profile people ‘quit’ and it’s always when they aren’t getting the attention/adoration/money they feel they should be getting.

Each time they describe GC feminism as a cult.

It’s not enough to say ‘opps I thought the wrong thing for a bit, soz’. They have to pretend it’s a cult they’ve been saved from, to protect their own ego and to get accepted.
TRAs wouldn’t let them into the fold otherwise.

DENOUNCE.

Yes, it's funny that people seem to see it as some kind of club, or religious movement, as if apostasy is a thing.

"I have seen, lately, at least two TRA accounts on Twitter that claim to be 'ex GC'. ... I find it quite fascinating that somebody could go from the easy path of not believing an unbelivable thing, to the much much more difficult project of believing an ubelievable thing and becoming an activist for it."

I think the active word there is "claim".

They claim to be ex-GC. Somehow I doubt it. I've seen plenty of people move from "I'll say TWAW because I want to be nice" to "fuck me I've been excommunicated because I mentioned my miscarriage". I expect the TRAs paying attention noticed it too, so set up some claiming-to-be-ex-GC sockpuppets.

There is no ex-GC. Once you gave seen it you cant unsee.

And to go on about GC lesbians promising to find you a wife is about as nuts as it gets.

Probably more to be pitied than scorned.

Althiugh I am enjoying the Julie Bindel response.

One of their more obvious tactics is copying us. So if we call them a cult - which we do a lot - they call us a cult. Even though it makes no sense. If a lot of of trans activists de-transition and come out as GC, then they have to have people who are pretending to be former GC people who are now TRAs. It's the usual DARVO tactics taken to an extreme where they are entirely and self-evidently nonsensical.

There is no ex-GC. Once you gave seen it you cant unsee.

This.

It's exactly the same tactic that a lot of religious apologetics use RoyalCorgi. If you look you'll find lots and lots of groups trying to push the idea that atheism is a religions, and waving in your face any one they can find who has converted after being an atheist. And, like the the ex GCs, the ex atheists never have any actual science or logic explaining how they became convinced. Its always just "I missed having a community", "not believing made me feel sad", "I always believed really, I was just mad at god" etc. But the thing which religious apologists never seem to understand, which is the same thing TRAs never seem to understand, is that something doesn't become true just because people believe it's true. That's why it's such a waste of time trying to scrape together converts as if they prove anything. It doesn't matter if every atheist in the world becomes religious, and it doesn't matter if every GC person in the world goes full TWAW, all that matter is whether these claims are, and can be demonstrated to be, true. So far none of these claims have met their burden of proof. Whether its gods, souls, reincarnation, witchcraft, gender identity, TWAW, or whatever else, the question of whether they're true isnt answered by counting up all the people who believe vs all the people who don't. It's answered by producing evidence. Not endless sophistry and deflection on Twitter, but actual evidence. So, with respect to Amy, I don't give a shit if she's changed her mind. I don't even care if Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, and Jane Claire Jones all change their minds! Until someone can explain to me exactly how TWAW, what gender identity is, and what the word woman means in the context of any of this, I can't believe it. Just like it makes no difference if Richard Dawkins came out tomorrow as a fundamentalist Christian. If he doesn't have any proof to back it up, it means fuck all.

I'm very interested in religious apologetics and I've spent quite a lot of time studying it. I have yet to see a single TRA argument or tactic which didn't almost exactly mirror that framework.

Yes, I certainly got the impression that these people had carefully constructed a narrative of 'converting' from gc to TRA. Bit flimsy and not very convincing.

Who else has there been tobeortobe?

• it's also, as far as I can see, always a case of falling out with people. As you say there, ByGrabthar, people who are reasoning this out and sticking by their logic don't care about internecine rivalries or bickering.

I care about what I know to be true. C'est tout. I don't need to be pals with people who agree with me, I just need the law and legislation to be on the side of reality.

Yes there was the falling out of some women with other women, like WPUK and Posie, or the cyclist woman (who appears to fall out with everyone) - meh, people fall out.

But accusing women of bring part of cults for not delivering on lesbian wives is a new kind of batshit. 'Batshit' is also apparently is now racist.

Hahaha wtf, why is "batshit" racist? I saw someone on twitter earlier saying that borderline personality disorder was homophobic. Do words even have meanings anymore?