Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

The wider context matters, yes. Certainly with the golf tweets, the meaning of the words used depended on the fact that there had been a prior incident that was being referenced. So the language was coded, and people in the know would understand what it was code for.

But the wider context for E's tweet was not E sending threats or nasty messages to AH, or there having been a homophobic attack E was involved in or supporting. The context was feeling persecuted and the idea that E was being subjected to something analogous to a kind of witch trial. So the wider context there matters too, yes, but it doesn't support the idea that this was a homophobic slur. If there was a code being deployed, it was a 'terf code', referencing witches, witch trials, and those who refuse to burn.

Even if there was a different context, the sentence itself was constructed in such a way as to mitigate against conveying a slur, because it could only really mean one thing. Same as it could only really mean one thing in my sentence "I had faggots and peas for my tea". Unless you're saying that ANY use of the word is homophobic in and of itself.

I wouldn't agree with that, either, but I can at least see that as a logical argument. Is that what people are saying? That it's a case of the word itself should never be used in any context to convey any meaning?

No idea beastly as your post sums it up well.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

And do you so think that AH should have refrained form terms such as bitch, TERF, etc?

She is an individual.

He represented himself as Dr AH.

Which is why he was brought to book and she wasn't.

Yes of course he should! I don't support him for a second.

And yes, FlyingOink.

@beastlyslumber

The wider context matters, yes. Certainly with the golf tweets, the meaning of the words used depended on the fact that there had been a prior incident that was being referenced. So the language was coded, and people in the know would understand what it was code for.

But the wider context for E's tweet was not E sending threats or nasty messages to AH, or there having been a homophobic attack E was involved in or supporting. The context was feeling persecuted and the idea that E was being subjected to something analogous to a kind of witch trial. So the wider context there matters too, yes, but it doesn't support the idea that this was a homophobic slur. If there was a code being deployed, it was a 'terf code', referencing witches, witch trials, and those who refuse to burn.

Even if there was a different context, the sentence itself was constructed in such a way as to mitigate against conveying a slur, because it could only really mean one thing. Same as it could only really mean one thing in my sentence "I had faggots and peas for my tea". Unless you're saying that ANY use of the word is homophobic in and of itself.

I wouldn't agree with that, either, but I can at least see that as a logical argument. Is that what people are saying? That it's a case of the word itself should never be used in any context to convey any meaning?

No, I don't think she should have used it in the context of loads of peole saying 'you're homophobic' and her saying 'this is a witch hunt'. Obviously!

Was there a follow up tweet to clarify?

There was, I just found it.

The farmers are thorough.

The fruit farmers have archived it

It's, to my reading, a rather laboured way to refer to being burnt as a witch.

Can anyone confirm whether the significance of referencing golf was explained at the tribunal?

*I believe that E is a person who has had her attitude to homosexuality challenged and who some believe (for reasons other than trans issues) to be homophobic. I may have that wrong in which case apologies to E.

And my point is - reading comprehension issues aside - that in that case I think E should have avoided use of the word 'faggots', even when referring to burning wood, so that her comments couldn't possibly be misinterpreted.*

---

Words do matter and a significant issue with this debate has been the re-definition and policing of words even when used in utterly appropriate contexts.

Do you think every person with GC views should actively use TRA friendly language/words/terms because to do otherwise might raise allegations of transphobia?

How is your logic different to suggesting "in the context" of myself as a GC Fem being told I must use the term "birthing person" rather than the word "mother" because the latter is an offensive non inclusive slur to trans activists regardless of when/how it's used?

And before you go down the route of saying I'm ludicrous for comparing words like "mother" or "breastfeeding" as slurs in the same breath as "faggot" when used in a context where their non offensive definition in regular U.K. usage should be perfectly clear, then ask why organisations like Stonewall are lobbying so hard to remove them from not just everyday parlance but policy and law.

@GrimDamnFanjo

Can anyone confirm whether the significance of referencing golf was explained at the tribunal?

I asked this somewhere I think and was told it was going to be covered.

Golf was discussed in private. The charge sheet was amended to remove why the golfing reference was significant, the original one still being up on the tribunal tweets feed.

@BreadInCaptivity

*I believe that E is a person who has had her attitude to homosexuality challenged and who some believe (for reasons other than trans issues) to be homophobic. I may have that wrong in which case apologies to E.

And my point is - reading comprehension issues aside - that in that case I think E should have avoided use of the word 'faggots', even when referring to burning wood, so that her comments couldn't possibly be misinterpreted.*

---

Words do matter and a significant issue with this debate has been the re-definition and policing of words even when used in utterly appropriate contexts.

Do you think every person with GC views should actively use TRA friendly language/words/terms because to do otherwise might raise allegations of transphobia?

How is your logic different to suggesting "in the context" of myself as a GC Fem being told I must use the term "birthing person" rather than the word "mother" because the latter is an offensive non inclusive slur to trans activists regardless of when/how it's used?

And before you go down the route of saying I'm ludicrous for comparing words like "mother" or "breastfeeding" as slurs in the same breath as "faggot" when used in a context where their non offensive definition in regular U.K. usage should be perfectly clear, then ask why organisations like Stonewall are lobbying so hard to remove them from not just everyday parlance but policy and law.

I don't think it was an appropriate context. I think she meant it as a double entendre.

If she didn't - which is entirely possible - then I think she would have been wise to have had a moment's pause to think 'hang on, that might be misinterpreted, I'll say 'the flames are lapping at my feet' instead, because being thought a homophobe is horrible and I don't want anyone to think that about this tweet', but she didn't.

You think that was an innocent mistake, I don't. That's all. Not saying she can't enjoy a nice tin of faggots for tea but she might not want to tweet about it in the middle of an internet row in which she is being accused of being a homophobe.

I am starting to wonder if the people defending this tweet know who E is? Because IIRC she has had a lot of accusations of homophobia outwith the trans stuff hasn't she?

And my point is - reading comprehension issues aside - that in that case I think E should have avoided use of the word 'faggots', even when referring to burning wood, so that her comments couldn't possibly be misinterpreted.

Queer was regularly used as an insult towards homosexuals, in the same way as faggot. I have seen a call my gay/lesbians, who keenly remember the hurt from having 'queer' thrown at them, for this word to stop being used too. I guess you would agree?

I do know who E is and I profoundly disagree with her on a number of issues.

I simply disagree that you can infer from that tweet that she used it as a coded slur.

The word was used in an sentence where it's definition was abundantly clear.

What I object to is the concept that words should be policed on the basis someone might be offended because they choose to associate a word with a slur by deciding a definition that plays to their cause and ignoring the context of the sentence.

That sails far too close to the wind for me wrt how trans activities are redefining many words in common usage as unacceptable and transphobic.

@Lovelyricepudding

And my point is - reading comprehension issues aside - that in that case I think E should have avoided use of the word 'faggots', even when referring to burning wood, so that her comments couldn't possibly be misinterpreted.

Queer was regularly used as an insult towards homosexuals, in the same way as faggot. I have seen a call my gay/lesbians, who keenly remember the hurt from having 'queer' thrown at them, for this word to stop being used too. I guess you would agree?

Yes.

Speaking of lady dogs, here's a golden oldie

twitter.com/forwardnotback/status/1022636760969478145?s=20

Ade eventually caved (screenshot)

@BreadInCaptivity

I do know who E is and I profoundly disagree with her on a number of issues.

I simply disagree that you can infer from that tweet that she used it as a coded slur.

The word was used in an sentence where it's definition was abundantly clear.

What I object to is the concept that words should be policed on the basis someone might be offended because they choose to associate a word with a slur by deciding a definition that plays to their cause and ignoring the context of the sentence.

That sails far too close to the wind for me wrt how trans activities are redefining many words in common usage as unacceptable and transphobic.

I think that's a bit of a stretch with this tweet. For me it works far too well as a double entendre (and possibly not entirely brilliantly as a single entendre as kimiko alluded to earlier?) not to have been meant as such.

We'll never know. And he shouldn't have reacted how he did either way.

I just don't think we need to defend every utterance by every GC person at all costs. This one is a bit shit for me.

@FlyingOink

As B female in a long standing relationship with a male I rarely even think about my sexuality. That's nice for you. Next up, white people don't think about their race and able bodied people don't think about wheelchairs.

I’d rather hoped progress on gay rights would mean that whilst our sexuality is important to us and sexual partners it’s largely irrelevant to everyone else.
That would definitely be nice, but we are a long way off. Maybe consider that not everyone has the same experiences you do?

even if it had been, he is a fucking doctor
This, this, this.

Apologies FlyingOink the point I was trying to make wasn’t clear.

For various reasons some people don’t give their own sexuality much thought, let alone other peoples sexuality. I’m frankly way too busy to give it much thought. And I don't think other people are consciously thinking about other aspects of my identity just because they are important to me.

AH doesn't seem to realise that other people on twitter may not give much/any thought to his sexuality, there’s other aspects of his personality and behaviour that dominate.

I just don't think we need to defend every utterance by every GC person at all costs.

Neither do I and I've already clarified that I disagree profoundly with many views E holds.

GC Fems are not a hive mind and frankly I struggle to think of many with whom I'd agree with on every view they've ever expressed and some who hold opinions I find repugnant.

What I'm struggling to understand is if you think that tweet was inappropriate because of the person who posted it or if you would be objecting to it regardless of who did so?

In terms of the former I refer back to my point about why is that different to an expectation that anyone with GC views should only use trans friendly terminology/wording and in the case of the latter why you think it's appropriate to redefine a word in common usage when its (non slur definition) is clarified by its context?

@BreadInCaptivity

I do know who E is and I profoundly disagree with her on a number of issues.

I simply disagree that you can infer from that tweet that she used it as a coded slur.

The word was used in an sentence where it's definition was abundantly clear.

What I object to is the concept that words should be policed on the basis someone might be offended because they choose to associate a word with a slur by deciding a definition that plays to their cause and ignoring the context of the sentence.

That sails far too close to the wind for me wrt how trans activities are redefining many words in common usage as unacceptable and transphobic.

I don't know who E is, but otherwise I agree with this.

There's no ambiguity in E's statement whatsoever as far as I can see (and I've now considered it more extensively than I ever thought I would!) There's no other meaning that "faggot" can take in that sentence, because no other meaning would make sense there. It's only a double meaning if you can create two meanings from what's said. But you can't pile up gay men to burn witches on; spiced meatballs are not very flammable - neither of these other meanings would make any sense in the sentence. Therefore, there's no "double meaning," no "double entendre" and no ambiguity there. There just isn't! It can only mean one thing in that sentence.

spiced meatballs are not very flammable

Goes in my file of phrases you never expected to read on MN 😂

(I agree with your post btw this just made me smile) 😀

The golf reference, the identity of E, and various other things just aren't going to be discussed on here, GrimDamnFanjo and RepentMotherfucker.

The individuals involved are fairly litigious and will request MN share login details if a poster intentionally or inadvertently breaks an injunction or otherwise threatens a case.

It's all very complicated, I have been visiting a farm to try to refresh my memory but I've given up now.

The fruit farm reminded me of something else. Harrop and the golfer claimed to be holding a public meeting about how they were going to deal with E which would have been very intimidating.

As someone said up thread, it’s a shame none of his other behaviours came under the spotlight and it’s just been focussed on transgender debate on Twitter.

So AH handy with the use of bitch in a derogatory sense directly referring to a woman. Does/did he/she/furry also use queer to refer to gay people?

Well I see Harrop has seen the light.
Someone has just posted a picture of him with Joss taken in Liverpool today. On his hoodie is the badge of terf repellent.