Bunbury's guide to community disruptors part 4

[BarbaraStrozzi]

Thought it was time for another of these. I'll just cut-and-paste the opening of the last thread:

The useful Bunbury Guide to Spotting Community Disruptors is constantly evolving.

The best research and advice is not to engage with community disruptors and trolls. As ever, if you suspect troll activity, report it to MNHQ.

This is a continuation of the first Public Service Announcement thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3438714-Bunbury-s-Public-Service-Announcement-2

Thread 3 was deleted with this note from MNHQ; We're sure there will be a Bunbury 4 around soon, but we'd be grateful if we could draw a line under the issues raised in this thread if there's to be a new one.

If and when you see threads plopped into FWR, especially a curious repeat of well worn topics, maybe check for poster history before engaging.

There are a number of posts/posters/threads that are reproduced on Twitter or Facebook to foment controversy using screen shots & flagging to either MNHQ to have threads or posters deleted. Sometimes, it’s used to approach commissioning editors with ideas for articles. It’s a tiresome tactic that we’ve had several community disruptor posters who themselves post the comments that they then highlight elsewhere as purported evidence of racism, religious intolerance, anti-men sentiments, or transphobia.

Some helpful links can be found in the first posts on thread 2 (linked above) but in essence FermatsTheorem recommended “that in the absence of a block/hide poster button, I suggest the following strategy (given that you're talking to the lurkers).

Do not name check the sealion. Instead, respond to a depersonalised paraphrase:

"It is sometimes erroneously suggested that blah. Blah is wrong for the following reasons (short and pithy). If you need more information re. debunking blah, here's a link."

Then (this next step is important to combat derailment) go back up thread to the last useful contribution to the discussion, make sure you do name check that contributor, and pick up the discussion from that point.”

And yes - the borrowing lippy comment was yet another glorious delusion

Yes, well done Lisa Nandy!

And obvs, well done Julia Long who carefully designed the trap for Nandy to blindly walk into.
The irony of ‘woke’ people who cannot see the bigger picture.

Telegraph article today was all about going into the ladies toilets, and what the author gets up to in there.

Groo.
Is he still writing under his male identity or is he a lady now?

I twigged today's PBP when they described their transphobic colleague. The usual caricature of an evil earthy type.

The irony is, I'm by no means an expert, I'm not that interested. My interest is in supporting women, but I seem to have developed a radar as a by product!

I hear borrow their lipstick and immediately think cold sore.

DuLang article is here:
www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/transgender-diary-trans-women-really-get-ladies-loos/
you can't read the whole thing without subscription. But you get the idea from what is there.

Yeah, still David,

And you’re right, no need to read any more!

I have never heard a woman talk about trannies.

I have never heard a woman talk about trannies.

The only one I've heard of was Caitlin Moran - and it occasioned a Twitter pile-on and an abject apology in which she explained that she'd used the term because it was one that her trans friends used about themselves etc.

Arf arf, David has 'done it' in all those places, nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean, say no more...

Nothing to see here, people. No untoward underlying motivation there at all. Perish the thought. Would never suggest it.

Enlarged prostate. Terrible affliction from which so many women suffer.

I hear borrow their lipstick and immediately think cold sore.

In my youth I did share eyeliner, because the young do not fear conjunctivitis. Didn't harp on about how dowdy and jealous tee hee other women were though, which I assume would have been the case here.

Re David, some journalists go to war zones, others go to the bogs at Gatwick. Brave!

14 year old goth me would totally share lipstick. 37 year old office me (if such a person had existed) would be thinking about lip skin flakes and flu germs.

Bork.

Especially telling - and I was about to comment on the thread before it was deleted - was you are all wrong, according to the internet x percent of women share make up, hence warnings about herpes

Obviously one shouldn’t believe everything they read on the internet.

And by 37, women are aware of herpes and know what shade of lipstick suits them.

Hadn't even thought of it initially but a potential pandemic and the related panic associated makes an odd moment to be boasting about sharing lippy. Everyone else - face masks, panic buying hand gel. David - let's share?

Oh, the Lippy comment wasn’t Dave in the Telegraph, it was yesterday’s thread by a previously banned poster!

They did sound awfully similar though.

Ah, I wonder how I could possibly have confused the two when clearly they have nothing in common.

I've read a screenshot of Dave's diary. Dave talks about sitting down, even though Dave needs to stand because of the enlarged prostate Dave has, but Dave makes a weird comment about someone looking under the cubicle to see feet facing the wrong way, and the sides of cubicles meaning Dave can be seen or some weirdness. Dave also gives an example of a woman clearly clocking Dave and being especially nice while they were the only two people in the main bit of the toilet room.

Dave really hasn't got a clue, has Dave?

*no sexed pronouns were used in this post for extra precautionary measures.

I think we’re ok with Dave’s pronouns, seeing as his column begins with ‘is still living as a man’.

Why he’s prowling around the ladies looking at feet and intimidating women may be a matter best discerned by security guards.

It's almost as though Dave doesn't realise a woman might turn around in the toilet cubicle, maybe to flush, or put something in the bin etc, and why would anyone be looking under doors or walls?

Does he think he passes so well that women would be surprised to learn he has a penis?

And wtf was the "womanly thought" about.

Every line of his stuff is laughable.

And don't get me started on Jan Morris's early life achievements which "she" did, "she" was definitely "he" at that time. I can't stand rewriting history. [guardian or observer today]

I know none of this is relevant to Bunbury, so will stop derailing now.

OTOH, the more often the public is forced to read sentences like "Dave sits to urinate even though she has an enlarged prostate" the better from a sunlight perspective.

Womanly thought = when a man thinks that men design things badly and gets a 'thrill' from it.

These are not the womanly thoughts you were expecting to have, were they, women?

The words "It must have been designed by a man!" have been a catchphrase in any household I have been in, after a wonderful comment I heard some time in the 1960s about someone wanting to be untrammelled: "I can hear you now: God damn and blast these bloody trammles, they won't come off! They must have been designed by a man!"