Charlotte Proudman on Stephen Nolan show last night

[FortySeven]

I was listening to Charlotte Proudman ('the feminist barrister') on R5 last night (Jonny I'Anson was standing in for Stephen Nolan, and Edwina Currie was on too). I've admired CP's work for a while as she's done a lot on DV, FGM etc, most recently, of course, representing MP Kate Griffiths against her piece-of-shit MP ex-husband. Anyway, she was talking very sensibly about various matters affecting women, but when the presenter asked her and Currie about cancel culture, specifically the trans rights debate, she went full woke, repeating that she wouldn't have a problem sharing the toilets with self-identified transwomen, without any acknowledgement of the implications of self-ID etc on women's rights and safe spaces. I was actually quite shocked; can someone whose very job is standing up for women's rights actually be this blinkered, or is it more likely that even someone like CP is afraid to voice any views that might be construed as GC? I have a lot of admiration for the things she's done but I'm a bit baffled by the level of cognitive dissonance in her apparent stance on this.

My sense is that CP is a bit of a careerist opportunist who knows a lot about the legal aspects of DV and FSM but not much about feminism tbh.

A feminist perspective isn't whether something matters, impacts or disadvantages you, it's about liberating women from oppression and promoting women's rights as a sex class.

Also agree about CP being an opportunist. The way she got her platform was when a tweet or something of hers went viral after she complained about a man complimenting her in a LinkedIn message. I'm not saying she was wrong but she does seem to love the attention it brought her.

What was the problem with the deleted posts? I guess on a thread about lawyers MNHQ have to err on the side of caution, but still...

The deleted post wasn't about lawyers, although it wasn't flattering about some women who identify as feminists.

How come they don’t email you when you get a deletion? Is someone clipping or are they just scared of lawyers?

Secret Barrister and others have spent the last week being really trenchantly critical of Proudman, saying that her interviews on DV and charging processes are dangerously inaccurate and will discourage victims thinking of coming forward.

I felt rather sorry for her, but it's not great that someone without expertise in criminal law is happy to take up media space that could be better used elsewhere. And there does seem to be a pattern of interview-happy behaviour.

@JennyForeigner that's interesting, thanks - I'll have a read of Secret Barrister. And yes, I can see what you and others mean about the interview-happy stuff. It sounds as though her stance on gender is perhaps based on a lack of understanding then, rather than fear of being labelled GC.

I guess I'm just still confused at how so many capable, educated people still buy into gender ideology - it constantly makes me feel like I'm missing something, but I've yet to hear/read one argument on that 'side' that's based on anything other than flimsy imaginings.

My deleted post said that these days in my experience women who describe themselves as feminists and make it part of their brand tend to be very much the opposite, so CP is no surprise. I gave some examples of well known ‘feminists’ who are anything but, which obviously wasn’t allowed.

I find the same Glass, I don't take it for granted that the self-labelled feminists are anything but. There are some key words to look out for like intersectional and when they write ALL women.

Tweets that say things like 'women and girls' are disillusioned an indicator that they know what a woman, and what a girl, is.

Disappointed to hear this about CP. I have never been able to understand it, it certainly can't be, in her case, about not knowing what the issues are. Surely that can't be? She must know.

Yes, the word ‘intersectional’ and pronouns in bio are generally an indication to me that self proclaimed feminist is a modern day men’s rights activist who is mostly interested in fighting for men’s rights to access women’s refuges and prisons, buy women’s bodies and rent their wombs.

I agree @Glassisalwaysgreener - that stuff always makes me think OK, here’s someone who’s willing to sell women’s rights down the river for the sake of their own popularity. It’s rank cowardice, and especially disappointing when it comes not from some brainwashed teen but from a grown woman who should absolutely know better.

Yes - it’s unforgivable in grown, intelligent women.

Unfortunately for them, the internet is forever. Which will come back to bite them all when the tide has finally turned, and they’re all hoping that women will forget their cowardice and betrayal of their own sex. And that includes the ‘do it to Julia’ feminists who have chosen to say nothing, even though this is one of the biggest feminist issues of the past decades.

Towards the end of last year Proudman put out a tweet criticising the media for not covering the murder of a young girl. (Can't remember who: it might have been Ava White). In the tweet, she linked to a newspaper story (the Mirror, if I remember correctly) about the murder.

That suggests to me someone who doesn't think things through very well. How can you link to media coverage of a story and then claim the media isn't covering it? Apart from which the person charged with the murder was under 18 so reporting restrictions would have been in place. She's a lawyer so she should know that.

She's on it again on Twitter tonight. And getting a grilling from feminists too. It certainly brings attention which presumably does your profile and therfore job prospects no harm.

@Summerhillsquare

She's on it again on Twitter tonight. And getting a grilling from feminists too. It certainly brings attention which presumably does your profile and therfore job prospects no harm.

For example: twitter.com/luluchops1/status/1478425117915025412

Luluchops is fab IMO and gave a great speech at the LGB conference.

twitter.com/FaiselSadiq/status/1477203416912965640?s=20

This is interesting.

Oh dear, the more I read about her, the faster the scales are falling from my eyes...

She's currently blocking women and hiding replies on twitter because they objected to being called cis.

She’s awful in my opinion. Her tweets are all about gaining publicity and always have been. Her latest cis post is case in point. How can she say that when she represents victims of serious violence? Does she actually think that they have some sort of advantage over men who claim to have a feminine identity?