Crispin Blunt: Strident women's rights campaigners provoked trans people to be angry and confrontational.

[yourhairiswinterfire]

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/after-his-furious-public-spat-crispin-blunt-liz-truss-trans-rights

From the article: “You've had strident women's rights campaigners... who have provoked trans people to respond often in an angry and confrontational way, and that is unsurprising because this is a central assault on their identity,” Blunt says.

Yes. "Look what you made me do!". The catchphrase of abusers everywhere. If only we'd done what we were told girlies, we wouldn't have been threatened with rape.

This article has some right gems in it. Apparently women just haven't looked into this deeply enough, not as deeply as Blunt, who has been on it since the summer.

“Unless you get quite deeply into this and think this through and have both the empathy and the time to get yourself into that place of understanding it's quite easy to think that there are real problems here about men pretending to be women in order to assault women. That men will seek to take improper advantage of rights afforded to people to take a particular gender identity for improper reasons,” he explains.

Karen White who, guys?? Blunt reckons women aren't at threat from transwomen, and men aren't going to pretend to be women to harm women. Either Karen White is a transwoman, and therefore women are at risk from some transwomen, or Karen White was pretending to be a woman, and therefore women are at risk from men pretending to be women. Maybe you should have done some more 'studying' before opening your gob, Blunt, that's not the only case of this happening. There's no acceptable number of women harmed before we say enough is enough. One is too many. Maybe try looking 'quite deeply' in to that, and the trauma sexual assault victims are left with in the aftermath.

My personal favourite quote is that some religious zealots are "manipulating" women's rights groups to stop people self identifying, because God wouldn't agree with it I wonder if he did this studying with a tinfoil hat on?

This will be deeply unpopular on here but I wonder how many people Magdalen Berns managed to alienate with her strident, hectoring, patronising "I'm so much more clever than you" videos.

I know she virtually has sainthood on here. The current attacks on her on Twitter are vile, cruel and indefensible but I do seriously wonder if she did more harm than good to your (general your) cause.

Is that what he said, the issue affects up to 500k? It affects around 35 million, Crispin. Has he forgotten women exist? Are we Scotch mist? He really isn't too bright to say the least. How do these fools pass the selection process?

Strident, gosh! That would mean having a voice that could not be ignored and using it to say something important forcefully. Sort of like the Votes for Women campaigns back in the day?

What's his problem with that, exactly, I wonder?

@DidoLamenting

This will be deeply unpopular on here but I wonder how many people Magdalen Berns managed to alienate with her strident, hectoring, patronising "I'm so much more clever than you" videos.

I know she virtually has sainthood on here. The current attacks on her on Twitter are vile, cruel and indefensible but I do seriously wonder if she did more harm than good to your (general your) cause.

Not really sure what that has to do with Crispin Blunt specifically?

@KatVonlabonk

I wonder what skin he has in this? They ALWAYS have skin in it.

I remember when he stood up in the commons and said this effected 200,000 to 500,000 people in the UK, yet only 7,000 trans people filled in the consultation. Such a strange difference eh?

Oh and that's 100,000 suicides attempts (at least).

What a foolish, ignorant, pompous man. So oozing with bs even for a politician

I’ve been wondering this myself. What is he getting out of this? And who is he trying to convince, and why?

For anyone who may have missed it Crispin Blunt praised Mark Field MP for grabbing a female Greenpeace protestor around the neck and pinning her to a pillar during a Mansion House speech:

"I think @MarkFieldUKK_ is to be commended. With in practice minimum use of force he efficiently eliminated a potential threat to people and the event in the absence of any alternative. It’s called taking responsibility and leadership.”

www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/crispin-blunt-mark-field-greenpeace-16465416

@DidoLamenting

This will be deeply unpopular on here but I wonder how many people Magdalen Berns managed to alienate with her strident, hectoring, patronising "I'm so much more clever than you" videos.

I know she virtually has sainthood on here. The current attacks on her on Twitter are vile, cruel and indefensible but I do seriously wonder if she did more harm than good to your (general your) cause.

I have never watched a video by Magdalen Berns, maybe I will check one out. Thank you for the recommendation. Anything you try to pull down is probably going to be fab!

Karen White who, guys?? Blunt reckons women aren't at threat from transwomen, and men aren't going to pretend to be women to harm women. Either Karen White is a transwoman, and therefore women are at risk from some transwomen, or Karen White was pretending to be a woman, and therefore women are at risk from men pretending to be women. Maybe you should have done some more 'studying' before opening your gob, Blunt, that's not the only case of this happening. There's no acceptable number of women harmed before we say enough is enough. One is too many. Maybe try looking 'quite deeply' in to that, and the trauma sexual assault victims are left with in the aftermath.

Quite. Just watched a video talking about the trans prisoner paradox.

Simulataneously men would not abuse self ID or pretend to be trans, never. BUT 1/50 male prisoners claim to be trans. And anyone who says they are trans is indeed trans.

Either 'transwomen' are the most dangerous group in society (which I do NOT believe and surely TRAs do not either?!) or this is clear evidence of people saying they are trans when they aren't? (though of course, when the criteria is 'anyone who says they are, then how can anyone NOT be tras when they say..hmm)

Of course one is enough, but evidence shows its WAY more than one, as it would be. Abusive men look for any lophole. To claim they would not abuse this easily abused loophole is just fucking barmy to me. When will the 'it will never happen people' start being honest, and admitting its happened already, multiple times but they think the amount of times it has happened and will happen is fine, as such 'collateral damage' of females is fine when weighed against hurt feelings of males?

When will the 'it will never happen people' start being honest, and admitting its happened already, multiple times but they think the amount of times it has happened and will happen is fine, as such 'collateral damage' of females is fine when weighed against hurt feelings of males?

This is exactly it. It's happened, it's happening, just not enough for most people (esp men) to notice, or care. For now.

I do seriously wonder if she did more harm than good to your (general your) cause.

I am always amazed by the TRAs who come on here to express concern about people doing harm to ‘our’ cause, when doing so must be helpful to theirs? You would have thought they would welcome the intervention of people who harm the cause that they are opposing? You would think their time would be better spent lecturing the TRAs who are harming their cause instead.

Is that the best you can do? Anyone who doesn't agree 100% is a TRA?

@DidoLamenting

Is that the best you can do? Anyone who doesn't agree 100% is a TRA?

‘My cause’ is that transwomen are men if you do not agree with that then you are a TRA. Whether we agree about Covid shutdowns, the impact of a fly on presidential elections, or marmite is irrelevant.

@DidoLamenting

Is that the best you can do? Anyone who doesn't agree 100% is a TRA?

I'm still not sure what your specify point is with regards to the Crispin Blunt article?

I have never watched a video by Magdalen Berns, maybe I will check one out. Thank you for the recommendation. Anything you try to pull down is probably going to be fab!

Glad to assist- I've no idea who you are as I don't recall reading any of your previous posts.

I'm not a TRA and it's a bit depressing that any criticism of the gender critical case instantly provokes the sort of response on here like that from Aesopfable.

If Aesopfable cares to read my post she will see I wasn't even criticising the GC viewpoint but the way one of its proponents put her message across.

I certainly was not putting forward a trans activist case --despite Aesopfable's reinvention of what I said.

I would say TRA is a very specific thing to be. One who actively campaigns for so called 'trans rights', or agrees with TRA iedology at the very least.

I am not saying it is wrong to call others TRAs if thats your definition. I am simply replying to show that this is not necessarily a 'FWR thing', as no doubt this will be used tomorrow as 'look, FWR think anyone who says transwomen are not men is a TRA!!!!!!' because it was said by a poster. So yeah..kind of pointless post for me here, sorry about that.

Its sad that I even fucking think like that these days, or care about such things though. I think I need to get out of this mindset, as people will attack and misrepresent and generalise either way.

However I do agree that the pont was bizarre in this thread, and just kind of assumed the Magdalen post was posted in the wrong thread and was meant for the Magdalen one? Might be wrong though, probably am

I'm still not sure what your specify point is with regards to the Crispin Blunt article?

I am suggesting Berns might be someone he had in mind. Berns certainly managed to put me off having anything to do with a gender critical stance for a very long time. I'm still not fully behind it but am open to persuasion in part - that is despite of, not thanks to Berns.

@NRatched

However I do agree that the pont was bizarre in this thread, and just kind of assumed the Magdalen post was posted in the wrong thread and was meant for the Magdalen one? Might be wrong though, probably am

I kind of assumed it was posted for a reason 🤷🏼‍♀️

@DidoLamenting

I'm still not sure what your specify point is with regards to the Crispin Blunt article?

I am suggesting Berns might be someone he had in mind. Berns certainly managed to put me off having anything to do with a gender critical stance for a very long time. I'm still not fully behind it but am open to persuasion in part - that is despite of, not thanks to Berns.

Ok, but also Berns might not have been on his mind at all.

My cause’ is that transwomen are men if you do not agree with that then you are a TRA. Whether we agree about Covid shutdowns, the impact of a fly on presidential elections, or marmite is irrelevant

And how exactly did you extrapolate my position from what I posted?

I was criticising the messenger.

I kind of assumed it was posted for a reason

Seems you were indeed right, and I was wrong. Unsurprisingly, lol. Off to bed

Night!

From the article: “You've had strident women's rights campaigners... who have provoked trans people to respond often in an angry and confrontational way …”

I just happened to be reading Lethal White by Robt Galbraith aka JKR.

One of the characters says, in respect of her husband’s questionable behaviour:

“Men’s crimes are always ours in the final analysis, aren’t they, Mr Strike? Ultimate responsibility always lies with the woman, who should have stopped it, who should have acted, who should have known. Your failings are really our failings, aren’t they?”

I don't know if Magdalen was on his mind. He says he was unfamiliar with this up until the summer (in the part where he also wrongly assumed none of us know any trans people).

It's possible he's done research and heard about her, but given his odd stats that KatVon mentioned (100,000 suicide attempts by trans people and it wasn't major news, really?) I'm guessing research isn't his strong suit. Either that or someone's been spoon feeding him bullshit.

So Crispin Blunt says there are real problems here about men pretending to be women in order to assault women.

It is late. Is he saying that there are problems around men pretending to be women in order to assault women? Or is he saying there is simply a problem around the issue of men pretending to be women, as he puts it?^