Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Good luck Harry The Owl

988 replies

BoreOfWhabylon · 20/11/2019 08:45

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost · 20/11/2019 12:40

Someone on the twitter feed has called the judge a t-word.

Of course they did, it's probably the first time they've be told "no, the law actually applies to you too"

nauticant · 20/11/2019 12:41

Unpleasant but that could be productive. Once they turn their narcissistic bullying onto members of the Establishment that will get them scrutiny they will definitely regret.

MockersFactCheckMN · 20/11/2019 12:43

Witch-Pricking?

We look forward to the introduction of the transphobia ducking stool: Float and you're guilty. Drown, you're innocent.

nauticant · 20/11/2019 12:43

Ahh, but if it's the tweet I think it is then it's most definitely ironic.

popehilarious · 20/11/2019 12:44

twitter.com/MoleJourno/status/1197120781328822279?s=19

Someone called "the secret journalist" has tweeted "i have tested this system personally for journalistic means. I have 4 "hate incidents" recorded against others. Which is ridiculous."
"They were all MPs I should add"

Thenagainmaybenot · 20/11/2019 12:45

Is there a similar derogatory word used by someone who thinks transwomen are women, to describe someone who thinks transwomen are men but who is not a feminist?

Eg someone who thinks women should not work, and simultaneously holds the view that 'woman' is an adult human female?

ForeverFaff · 20/11/2019 12:46

@ScrimshawTheSecond yes, and the dunking-stool.

"Stop looking at my pint or I'll punch you"
"It's a free country, I can look at a......". (Gets punched)
"But officer, if he was scared of being punched he would have stopped looking at my pint"
Police officer "yes, why WERE you looking at his pint??"

BoreOfWhabylon · 20/11/2019 12:50

WeAreFairCop
@WeAreFairCop
·
1h
Famous tweet 'huh?'. This can't engage the police. Judge - 'yup'. #FairCopJR

Grin Grin Grin

OP posts:
MockersFactCheckMN · 20/11/2019 12:55

The "Prevention of Escalation" argument is very much the one where the commuter is ripping strips off his newspaper, rolling them up and throwing them out of the window.

"It's to stop the elephants getting on the track," he explains. Someone objects: "But this is Surrey. There are no elephants."

"I know," he says, "effective, isn't it?"

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost · 20/11/2019 12:56

Surely the massive rise in "Hate crime" would suggest it doesn't actually work?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 20/11/2019 12:59

But is that a rise in hate crime or hate incidents?

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost · 20/11/2019 13:00

But is that a rise in hate crime or hate incidents?

For point of argument in a "rise" it doesn't matter, m'lord.
Grin

MockersFactCheckMN · 20/11/2019 13:00

...or a rise in the reporting of such things?

(which in the case of hate incidents, is the same thing.)

Michelleoftheresistance · 20/11/2019 13:03

Does the rise in reporting such things serve a political purpose as opposed to have a practical benefit to the people the law (and politics) are supposed to be serving?

LangCleg · 20/11/2019 13:04

kathleenstock.com/witness-statement-in-the-fair-cop-judicial-review/

Kathleen Stock's witness statement in full.

If this case goes the right way (and if it does, hopefully the judge will reference it in his decision) - I shall be sending it on to MNHQ in the hopes it will inform their moderating policy going forward.

LangCleg · 20/11/2019 13:05

Does the rise in reporting such things serve a political purpose as opposed to have a practical benefit to the people the law (and politics) are supposed to be serving?

Yes, in the sense TPTB can say they're "doing something" while not investing any actual money.

QuantumEntanglement · 20/11/2019 13:07

Datun I can't help thinking it's awful that we are so surprised and not a little grateful, to find a judge who actually understands the difference between fact and fiction. And, almost more to the point, who isn't frightened of the trans lobby.

Right? I’m irrationally waiting for the ‘but’ though. I’m so used to seeing the rug pulled out from under what appears to be a firmly common sense stance these days. None of this should ever have been in question, adults agree to disagree and yet here we are with court cases about what amounts to ‘someone hurt mah feelings - burn the witch!’.

Sexnotgender · 20/11/2019 13:13

Just catching up, impressed with the eminently sensible judge thus far!

MockersFactCheckMN · 20/11/2019 13:13

Now I hope Humberside Plod haven't resorted to setting off the fire alarm to put a stop to all this?

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost · 20/11/2019 13:14

Now I hope Humberside Plod haven't resorted to setting off the fire alarm to put a stop to all this?

It's likely they did, as they even got the building wrong.Grin

BeardedVulture · 20/11/2019 13:18

Can someone just clarify is the below right?

HATE CRIME= An actual crime where a protected characteristic (except sex!) is an aggravating factor.

HATE INCIDENT = Something which can be reported to the police by anyone, alleging that someone has done something out of hatred for an individual or group with a protected characteristic (except, you've guessed it, sex). Doesn't have to be an actual crime.

Also re hate crime: does the CPS have to prove in court that a crime is a 'hate crime'? e.g can someone plead guilty to a crime like assault but deny that 'hate' was a factor? I'm assuming that there has to be some kind of burden of proof on the prosecution to show the attack was motivated by hatred for a victim's protected characteristic, and there is evidence for it?

popehilarious · 20/11/2019 13:27

I questioned my (previous) local council's equality officer on this as they had a statement about hate crimes and hate incidents on their website. I'll see if I can dig out the response.

GrandmaMazur · 20/11/2019 13:27

Kathleen Stock's witness statement is flipping brilliant.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 20/11/2019 13:30

I was just coming on to say that!

Excerpt:

"Those who regularly experience race incidents normally do not need to rely heavily on a process of “education” or “training” by public bodies in order to be able to perceive these incidents as such. In contrast, through the use of publications, surveys, poster campaigns, newspaper adverts, political lobbying, and other means, well-funded politically powerful charities and lobbying groups such as Stonewall, Mermaids, and Gendered Intelligence have insistently and explicitly encouraged – if not wholly produced - the public impression that the only grounds a person might have for making utterances 1)-3), or their variants, is hostility to trans people. To take just a few core examples pertaining to the charity Stonewall: on their website and in publications, Stonewall explicitly defines “transphobia” as “the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity” (my italics). That is, they explicitly equate a denial that trans women are women with “fear or dislike”. Their well-known T-shirt and poster campaign tells us “Trans women are women. Get over it”, thereby clearly implying that any dissent to the first sentence must be grounded in resistance due to obstinate bigotry, rather than in reasonable disagreement over facts. In a statement on their current website, former leader Baroness Ruth Hunt equates political opposition to proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act as “questioning trans people’s right to exist”, an obviously tendentious reading which ignores the fact that those who disagree that trans women are women don’t deny that they exist, nor that they have a right to. As a requirement of membership of Stonewall schemes such as their Workplace Equality Index Scheme, their Diversity Champion scheme, or their Workplace Trans Allies programme, companies, public institutions, universities, schools, policy-makers and law enforcement agencies arrange “trans training” for their employees, during which employees are explicitly instructed to accept the stated gender identity of trans people, “without exception”, and to observe their preferred pronouns on pain of bigotry. No consideration is given to why this might be an intellectually unacceptable thing to do for some independent-minded rational people. The worst possible motive is assumed and ascribed in advance."

kathleenstock.com/witness-statement-in-the-fair-cop-judicial-review/

YourOpinionIsNoted · 20/11/2019 13:37

Brilliant witness statement. Seems like the judge gets it (ie has a brain and isn't afraid to use it).