Good luck Harry The Owl

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

Liddle raises awareness in a different demographic. I'm happy not to shoot the messenger.

RL is a pretty loathsome specimen in almost all things. Him and Littlejohn .....

Both care strongly about free speech. Possible in part because they write things that many will disagree with, and want to retain the freedom to do so.

I personally find the sort of debate that uses personal insults like loathsome and "specimen" dispiriting.

I am willing to listen to what Liddle has to say if it is a topic I am interested in, if only to work out why I disagree with him, though I normally don't bother. In truth I have been underwhelmed with much he has written on this topic, some of which seems rather sloppy, and consider him overrated. However, like him, I am entitled to my opinion.

If Harry and Spero have a moment to spare from saving the free world from the police, could they advise on the NHS and their insistence that women refusing to provide validation experiences with their breasts and vaginas, or refusing to go along with lies on command, will be threatened upto and including refusing them medical care?

Because I foresee a hole in need of digging quite urgently there.

with people not wanting to expose themselves to someone they fear might be over sensitive.

India Willoughby stated this on tv with Piers Morgan, saying it was already happening. India attributed the same cause you did.

(And I do actually mean in all sincerity about Harry and Spero saving the free world from the police!)

Well, even a stopped cunt is right twice a day.

But we need to get away from the idea that we can agree with a person totally or not at all. People are complex individuals and there's nothing remotely contradictory about someone doing or believing good things in one arena and very bad in another. There are so many examples of this. A person can be a racist and also understand the risks of self-ID, just as a person can be an anti-racist and not. A person can be an actual wife beater and also have a problem with other abuses of women.

Time, thank you for the link, it’s interesting to note which columnists are prepared to speak out on this case. And which columnists are on mute.

Both care strongly about free speech

This is the defining issue of the 21st century. Freedom of speech or calling people names in order to prevent them being heard.

or calling people names in order to prevent them being heard.

Or, viz Maya and Harry, have them fearing the consequences should they speak out.

Speaking of freedom of speech ... here's the next wave of madness awaiting us ....

www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/wisconsin-security-guard-fired-n-word.html

Or, viz Maya and Harry, have them fearing the consequences should they speak out

Quite so. It’s an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation. The idea of I don’t agree with you but respect your right to an alternative opinion is gone. People are frightened about their safety and jobs for saying anything that deviates from the new orthodoxy as imposed by Twitter. It’s intellectually stultifying and it’s suffocating freedom of speech and critical thinking

I so much agree with your post about men's belief that they're entitled to sex, TheProdigalKittensReturn.

All my life I've been aware of the massive distress and hardship men are prepared to put their families through in the pursuit of fresh fannies and bodies new. It's around us in society but also in the wider culture. The Trojan War anybody?

The middle aged man ditching his wife and kids for a far younger woman and a sports car has long been a cliché. Nowadays there's a fresh twist, in that the woman this man runs off with may be himself in lingerie.

Conversation with friends on a dog walk this morning and they wanted to know how this had all happened – how, without public consultation, without consultation with women's groups, with barely a murmur in the press, there had been a decision taken to revise the GRC, erode women's rights etc. How had Labour been so thoroughly infiltrated?

I keep coming back to Stonewall. People like Alex Drummond and other high-profile trans advocates were being introduced to ministers by Stonewall. Groups such as Mermaids, which frankly I think would have seemed very dodgy to a lot of people, were legitimised by Stonewall. We only got to the point where every ruddy police force and every NHS trust and school has been brainwashed because Stonewall provided legitimacy.

One of my friends works in the NHS and she had loads of questions after receiving Mermaids-based training and thought there was something off about it, but then thought that if they were backed by Stonewall they must be okay.

Stonewall needs to be put on trial. That organisation has done so much damage. I know that there were trans people on my region's Stonewall Committee 12 years or more ago and that feminist lesbians were made to feel so uncomfortable that they left. That was during Ben Summerskill's time. The T was only officially adopted in 2015 but the infiltration began long before that. Who initiated it?

the infiltration began long before that. Who initiated it?

This is what I just don’t understand. It’s the wholesale regulatory capture which has been going on in the background whilst the majority still don’t even know this is happening. This is a lobby group without any visible presence, figurehead, headquarters etc that has managed to colonize entire government institutions. They make the Masons look transparent. What is their motive? Who is funding them? I don’t agree that it’s just a patriarchal backlash. It’s something much more niche

Stonewall under the leadership of Ruth Hunt. The buck stops with her.

with people not wanting to expose themselves to someone they fear might be over sensitive.

The mechanism that seemed to happen in the City and private sectors is that organisations were reluctant to hire people from noisy and sensitive minorities for ordinary jobs: accounts clerk, IT help desk etc yet would hire them for 'diversity' roles with quite a lot of seniority attached thereby protecting the organisation from claims of discrimination or 'phobia'.

Two problems. Fewer from these minorities in ordinary jobs where they could be seen as part of the team and pulling their weight. High profile vocal people with the ear of the board pushing policies. In recent years 'diversity' has increasingly seemed centred around LGBT+, rather than, say, disabled, and there seemed to be an equality elite who shuttled between roles in Stonewall, the financial public and charity sectors, and diversity training providers.

So gender neutral toilets, even if both men and women, and a proportion of TG people wanting to lead an ordinary life, dont really want them. And the gravy train rolls on.

Ruth Hunts big failing was to fail to recognise and constrain the conflict of interest between being a lobbying organisation and an organisation that provides policy advice and training. The two are not compatible.

@BovaryX Im not one for conspiracy theories but I’m coming round to thinking this is an orchestrated plan. The fact that Ruth Hunt has now been given a peerage shows how this movement is part of the establishment.
The important question should always be when imparting change on this scale, who benefits? And who doesn’t? And when I start asking myself these questions, I don’t like the answers.

In recent years 'diversity' has increasingly seemed centred around LGBT+, rather than, say, disabled, and there seemed to be an equality elite who shuttled between roles in Stonewall, the financial public and charity sectors
This explains a lot. So an elite group have been writing training manuals that have been adopted as policies by state sector and corporations. ‘Diversity’ was the aim, any objections would be evidence of bigotry. And this is how we arrive at Maya and Harry.

The fact that Ruth Hunt has now been given a peerage shows how this movement is part of the establishment. The important question should always be when imparting change on this scale, who benefits?

Rachel, That’s a great point. Cui Bono. I don’t know anything about Ruth Hunt, who is she? One thing I know for sure though. There’s an awful lot of misogyny on display with women being silenced or attacked for objecting to this aggressive agenda

Bovary, Ruth Hunt was a long term Stonewall staffer (lesbian) who rose to CE, about 4 years ago, and almost immediately added the 'T'.

Hence the current car crash. She resigned earlier in the year and fairly quickly got elevated to the House of Lords. My private theory is that the peerage was a carrot used to get her out. Since then Stonewall have struggled to recruit a suitable replacement. Reining in the TRAs will be difficult though they seem to have moved some, like Aimee Challenor, on.

It all sounds complicated but it isnt really.

Conflict of interest.

Reputable organisations should not have hired a lobbying organisation (whatever it lobbies for) to write/create policy, whether public sector (College of Policing) or commercial (M&S or Maya's employer).

Good policy should be formed by listening to a range of stakeholders to inform how policy aims are best achieved, with a minimum number or adverse or unintended consequences. Supporting the TG community at the expense of women's rights, and without consultation, was bound to create problems. Stonewall's #no debate approach, given their reach, is completely unacceptable.

I just looked up Ben Summerskill on twitter. His account is very low key - doesn't tweet a lot, doesn't have a profile pic.

He posted an ambiguous tweet about the LGBAlliance (hopes that new Stonewall CEO has the heft to sort this out) and he also retweeted Joanna Cherry getting an apology from Pink News.

There may be more but I only went back so far. Reading between the lines it seems he may not be thrilled about the direction Stonewall has taken.

Needmore,
Thank you for that very clear analysis. That’s a great overview.

Reputable organisations should not have hired a lobbying organisation (whatever it lobbies for) to write/create policy, whether public sector (College of Policing) or commercial (M&S or Maya's employer)

Well said. I think it’s outrageous that Ruth Hunt has been given a peerage, especially as she seems to have been so instrumental in advancing this agenda which is so inimical to women’s rights.

I think it's a perfect storm of the dominance of postmodernism in the liberal academy (graduates from this fill all our policy and third sector jobs), neoliberal individualism being cemented in the political economy over the last thirty years, and capitalism reacting to and supporting new market segments.

Quillette - hi monitors! Know you love a good Quillete link! - has an interesting article about how luxury ideas held by the elite filter down and create havoc among we lessers.

quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/

It's not complicated at base that men will put their needs, and for some reason their orgasms as a very high priority. Fuck knows why. I mean, I like sex as much as anyone, but I can't imagine ripping apart lives to have an orgasm.

Oscar Wilde. Everything is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.

Do women receive the same power from a sexual encounter? I’m not sure we do purely due to biology which makes us smaller, physically weaker and for the majority orgasm more difficult to achieve, particularly with a passive sex partner.

Even if you took physical orgasm out, the mental validation would be balanced with physical penetration which is much imbued with connotations of submission, in both heterosexual and homosexual sex. Alternately mental validation from performing a sexual act on a man as a you are in my power kick would still involve bringing him to orgasm, rather than the power of using another human for solely your own benefit/pleasure.

Biology again. It just won’t stop being relevant.

perfect storm of the dominance of postmodernism in the liberal academy (graduates from this fill all our policy and third sector jobs)

I think the liberal academy is at the epicenter of the ongoing onslaught against critical thinking and freedom of speech. One of the most damaging tautologies to emerge over the last couple of decades is ‘if you don’t accept the new orthodoxy, you’re a bigot. The proof of your bigotry is objection to the new orthodoxy’ These two cases, Maya and Harry, demonstrate that if you aren’t frightened, you haven’t been paying attention. People are getting sacked for expressing perfectly valid opinions. There’s a poster on the Julie Bindel article thread who wanted to post it on social media but can’t because she is worried about her personal safety and university job. This is insane. And unfortunately? This desire to police, no platform, silence, bully and dominate the narrative? it’s coming from the left wing.