Times: Girl ‘driven out of school for questioning trans ideology’

[ResisterRex]

This seems to be a clear failure on the part of all adults involved, if what's reported here is accurate:

Girl ‘driven out of school for questioning trans ideology’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/50aac934-d539-11ec-8585-951ab3afb4d2?shareToken=d55c6d8482ff6dde48eb9c33de693f54

I thought PREVENT only applied to Islamic terrorism.

Not at all. It is for identifying children at risk from being groomed in to any kind of extremism. The training I had on it had a case study on far-right extremism.

Robin White, the barrister who often pops in here, has just declared on Twitter that the story is a “fantasy”

You'd think Robin might be busy today?

And Joanna Williams in Spiked knows who the Baroness is:

I wonder how she knows this. She got one important detail wrong - she starts by saying that the incident happened a few weeks ago, but later that the girl left in December.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance/revised-prevent-duty-guidance-for-england-and-wales

‘7. The Government has defined extremism in the Prevent strategy as: “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs…

1. The Prevent strategy was explicitly changed in 2011 to deal with all forms of terrorism and with non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists then exploit. It also made clear that preventing people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism requires challenge to extremist ideas where they are used to legitimise terrorism and are shared by terrorist groups….’

I’d say threatening to bomb and burn down women’s rights meetings, and all the online doxxing and rape threats and threats made to women’s families etc are domestic terrorism.
So PREVENT does seems applicable for schools to think about here, given that there is a small TRA cohort who behave like this. Link is to the England and Wales guidance, but Scotland has something similar in place, I believe.

So, the story is a 'fantasy'.... according to a transitioned male barrister.

Right ... I won't go anywhere near that!

If I were Stonewall or Mermaids (as noted in Spiked), I'd be rightly horrified that my organisation and ideas was - in any fashion - associated with these events. I'd distance myself from them quickly, and be clear that my organisation welcomes a wide range of views and cordial, measured debate and discussion.

I'm not sure that there isn't a link in some countries with this and the changes to marriage laws.

In some places those changes happened as a kind of policy initiative, but in others it was a court decision based on rights claims. And in places like the US and Canada, the courts can almost act as legislators in a way that isn't quite the same in the UK.

The difference being, if you decide to legislate for sex not to be relevent in marriage laws, that's a pretty straigtforward and limited idea, sex doesn't matter in lots of legal institutions. But if your courts determine that it's not legitimate to have biological sex impact on a legal institution, that is rather different, because it potentially suggests that biological sex is not a legitimate category under the law at all.

Now would that ever happen, I don't know, but I think it has certainly shaped the way some people, including people in Parliment and the American Congress, think about it.

*lApparently the evidence for it being made up is the Times has taken the story down (is that even true?)

No. Presumably it was temporarily taken down to add the JK Rowling bit and then put back up.

The story is clearly on the website as I write this and very prominent with over 2.5k comments.
Isn't it fascinating how often there is complete denial about the regular abuse of women and girls from so many self interested individuals determined to sanitise appalling behaviour /incidents? no it's not fascinating, it's predictable and depressing

LOJ edited his facebook post to belatedly add something about safeguarding

Liar.
The edit history shows the 'original shout out' on FB was only amended to include a note about under 18s/parental consent an hour ago

twitter.com/Ayrshirelass13/status/1526904641698635776?t=lKibRaxOxxv-7c1tyNiSSw&s=19

I read his Facebook page earlier and that absolutely wasn't there.

In his rabid hatred for women, he failed to realise how dreadful the optics were.

Would that be like the fantasy that there wasn't a man in the women's and girls section of the Wi Spa with his penis out I wonder.

Same old strategy, claim it didn't happen, let those false claims spread and the seed of doubt is sown. Months later admit that it did happen, but there's no media coverage.

Another strategy appears that the denials force the accusers to come out, lose their anonymity and allows for activists to destroy their lives, their family lives and anyone else associated with them.

A reader's comment in UnHerd under an article 'How to stop children being indoctrinated' by Andrew Doyle:

"It is extraordinary how people will go with the flow. Some years ago a teacher friend of mine, a woman of strong character and a Tory who had stood as a Tory local government candidate, told me, ‘We all teach them this sub-Marxist stuff. I do it myself.’

(I can't read the article as I am over my permitted limit of free reading for the month but I can see the comments, which are often worth a whirl.)

The TRA discredit machine is in full flow:

The article has been deleted
The article has been changed to say that it was JKR who made the claims
The Times never spoke to the victim

It sickens me that this girl has been turned into a tog o' war prize. TRAs try to discredit every story that shows their movement in a bad light of course, but why has Jones specifically chosen this one to amplify?

Seems like he's got a bite, anyway.

twitter.com/GspLuna/status/1526632005370249221?s=19

.

As if the girls in question are going to admit to having spat at her.

This person also claims that the Times article wrongly states that the girl left in September, when it was in fact December. But the Times article says December. So someone's got poor literacy skills.

Looking at that woman's timeline, she is not a very pleasant person

Placemarking

Quite.

There's this little nugget too, which is enlightening.

"Can I just say my daughter is at the school you are talking about. The story from the year 12 girls is very different to the one you have described. The school has the Stonewall society where discussions are held on a weekly basis. At no point would these girls spit either."

twitter.com/GspLuna/status/1526621020718776320?t=Tb2m_Gm5U-p4TKbhF8tAEw&s=19

(People are also saying that her daughter would be the wrong age?)

And crikey, that woman's timeline! Kinda racist 😕

Well, good to see OJ is sympathetic and caring enough to want to hear this woman's point of view, and no doubt all about her thoughts on who should be deported, etc.

But 'Lover of dogs' has retweeted a few tweets which seemingly take the GC position re: trans people and women's sport. I wonder if she's thought much about the issue? As it seems oddly inconsistent to support this bullying of a young woman but (as it were) to have a GC stance on sports.

Some people (especially men) seem to get the sports issue, but hand-wave away the rest of it. It's odd.

Interesting - well this should definitely be covered then.