Reddit banning users for sharing Julie Bindel article

[Cwenthryth]

twitter.com/bindelj/status/1374372934379204608?s=21
Julie Bindel has shared on Twitter that Reddit is banning any mention or sharing of her Spectator article & banning users for discussion Aimee Challenor/Knight as well.

Here’s the spec article
www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-green-party-s-growing-contempt-for-women-s-rights

On twitter people are commenting about how this is big news that somehow has been hidden until now. It was being discussed in FWR in August 2018.

Shining daylight

@Cwenthryth

Exactly

It was being discussed in FWR in August 2018

And on reddit in the Gender Critical sub, before it was banned. I wonder was AC involved in that decision too?

We used to have campaigns for equal rights for LGB people. This got traction because everybody except the most virulent homophobes could see they had common interests and giving them equal rights wasn't going to cause problems for society as a whole.

The most brilliant wheeze of the T activists was persuading the LGB activists to take them in, rapidly followed by the Q and all the other letters. I'm straight so maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see for the life of me what T and Q have in common with LGB. From where I'm standing, Stonewall seems to have decided that all the money and publicity was in the T area, not the boring old LGB area they were founded to work for, so in comes T and like a cuckoo in the nest soon comes to dominate the entire work programme of registered charity Stonewall. Baffling.

So now we have people with assorted unusual and in some cases clearly harmful personality traits claiming to be oppressed, asking Stonewall et al to lobby for them, expecting the police to investigate anyone hostile to their position as perpetrators of hate crime, amending the school curriculum etc etc.

It's a mystery to me how they've got away with it.

Hurrah! I wouldn't have heard about the article if this hadn't happened :)

A few years ago Aimee was invited to debate the proposition 'A University Should Be A Safe Space'.

Up against the likes of Peter Hitchens, Aimee chose to point out that trigger and content warnings enable debate, because that means that people otherwise too afraid to turn up will join the conversation. And to prove this point, err... "I looked at two DVDs on my shelves and they had descriptors on them like mild language, violence and some strong vampire horror."

A question (5 minutes in if you want to skip to it) about disenfranchised minorities not having a voice in so-called safe spaces (as these spaces are basically created by the privileged to discuss only things that they want discussed) completely flummoxes Aimee.

Result? 33 for, 267 against.

Ahh, of course FromEden. And that's a very interesting connection to make.

Xanthangum

Thanks for posting that video, I had never seen it before. It looks as though many people are adding to the comments from 3 years ago, with more relevant ones regaring the Reddit fiasco.
This has really opened people's eyes.

"Are you saying that someone is or someones are using AC to push through their own agenda?"

It doesn't make sense that a not very bright 24 year old with a murky history is responsible for writing terfblocker, infiltrating Stonewall and the Green Party - all before they're 20 - then landing themselves another plum job that enables them to censor and attack anyone they see as a threat.
Aimee certainly isn't doing all this doxxing, covering up and cyber targeting by Aimee's self. Aimee has lots of friends to help, in lots of important places.

I remain concerned that Stonewall (who according to their CEO) are currently targeting primary schools, openly appointed AC to their trans advisory group at the time of the Green party / Verita report. Although AC subsequently left (or was removed) from that group, the fact that an organisation openly touting for business to work with children in schools made the appointment in the first place is unbelievable.
To the best of my knowledge, no Safeguarding body has ever asked Stonewall to account for that decision? Which is what would happen in any other organisation working with children in schools.

Absolutely Aimee is being used like a puppet....Who advised the Girl guiding trans inclusive police-Aimees Father-convicted rapist.

Yet Girl guides refuse to listen to Mothers concerns about the safety of girls unwittingly sharing overnight accommodation with male bodied people.....

I hadn't seen this video before.

Aimee is / was on some kind of LGBTQ+ advisory committee at the Open University, IIRC.

Is there a fairly dry, factual timeline anywhere of all of the AC stuff?

Alfonso You are correct.

www.oustudents.com/introducing-the-new-committee-for-plexus-our-lgbt-group

The "U.K. politician" being banded about seems a stretch.

[quote SunsetBeetch]I hadn't seen this video before.

[/quote]

Aimee framed an answer as "trans men retaining cervixes" there. As if there's a choice? You'd only have part removed if cells were found. Very confusing discussion all round tbh.

I meant, that Aimee seemed to be saying transmen choose to remove their cervix. So I'm not sure they know what one is.

So I'm not sure Aimee knows what one is.

Ffs, the language bending!

Is there a fairly dry, factual timeline anywhere of all of the AC stuff?

Good question. I've been following for years, so hard to know where to start.

Try Glinner's recent post grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/breaking-reddit-goes-on-strike which has links to previous articles, plus a link to today's The Mess We're In stream on the subject. The stream is probably quite good - Arty explains quite well.

The threads are here to be found from years ago. The inquiry results make interesting reading and the wording is important: not that the person involved did not understand safeguarding, but that the inquiry personal found that they were not capable of understanding. It was not lack of information or training, it was a capacity issue. This sort of thing is not lightly stated in a report.

I have never yet seen any statement or investigation generally into those who deliver advice, training and leadership to groups such as the NHS, Guides, local political groups, on behalf of LGBT umbrella organisations, whether those delivering that training hold safeguarding qualifications even to the most basic standard that anyone employed even to the level of a lunchtime supervisor would be required to hold. Never mind to the level of management qualified to guide policy and make recommendations - which requires a thorough understanding of safeguarding practice and the needs and requirements and law surrounding all protected characteristics. Not just one.

There has been a tremendous failure in the most basic due diligence by those commissioning this training. A terrifying failure to think in a rush to be enthusiastically nice.

[quote SunsetBeetch]I hadn't seen this video before.

[/quote] it is rather perfect that poor old Janice can't quite get her head around whether it is transwomen or transmen or cervixes etc.

It illustrates the level of confusion that this whole discussion creates and shows exactly why Cancer Research were totally wrong in removing the word woman (and yet, not removing man).

I thought that at first but I think she's trying to make the point to the masses that a transman was a woman and will know they have a cervix.

Because getting Aimee on may have confused people who really are completely oblivious to this. So she wanted to make the point repeatedly that it wasn't any to do with AC and that AC had a prostrate.

That’s really confusing.
It’s just AC saying, it’s not about me, it’s about trans men.
Oh really? So why the fuck are you the one here talking about it then?
Because no one gives a shiny shit about trans men. That’s why the word woman was banned, and the word man not. Notice that question didn’t get answered