So disgusted tonight

[Mollyollydolly]

Owen Jones and Pink News tweeted about the two Helens, Joyce and Staniland and their YouTube chat .. Jones taking what they said completely out of context it's resulted in some of the most vile abuse aimed at Helen Joyce in particular on twitter tonight. So many death threats.

I wish there was something we could do, it's so utterly vile, it's time they were held to account for their lies. It's really upsetting.

Owen Jones isn't fit to lace Helen's shoes, I cant believe The Guardian still employ him. I've seen threats to murder, throw napalm in their faces from Joss Prior and many many more. It's disgusting and all down to Owen.

How can this stand up to any level of journalistic ethics or integrity.

It's time we did something, some kind of collective action.

Perhaps his lawyers pointed out to him that agreeing with calling Helens' discussion 'genocide', on record, is not smart?

From that same page:

'The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.'

Owen is probably sticking too closely to the actual definition. It's almost like he has some journalistic standard of integrity to remember.

Thoroughly enjoying watching OJ get set upon by the TRAs!

Looking at 'd' in this list though, I'm not sure they want to be making too much of 'The definition of genocide'.....

Wow he really does hate women doesn't he?

It's feminists fault that TRAs have turned on him...

Own your shit OJ, like you asked everyone you disagree with to do.

He's spouted vitriol for years in a way that implied nuance doesn't matter and every word should be scrutinised.

I wonder how that medicine tastes.

Of misogyny I would imagine.

Also from that page:

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..........Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example).

'Transgender' doesn't come under national, ethnical, racial or religious group does it?

And B. Serious bodily harm? Like turning healthy bodies into lifelong medical patients?

Plus, don't suicides go up after medical transition?

'Transgender' doesn't come under national, ethnical, racial or religious group does it?

I'd say you can accept it as a religious group.

In which case you've then got one set of campaigners saying children deemed to be of that group should be sterilised and medically harmed.

And another set of campaigners saying children deemed to be of that group should not be sterilised or medically harmed.

Hmm.

Here's a new church of LGTQBQ

prismaticlightchurch.org/

I'm not sure all transgender people are on board with this, though.

I believe that OJ has just opened up an whole big can of worms here.

It's certainly provoking #MuchDebate. He can try to shut the stable door after the white knight's horse has bolted, but tbh I think the door's come off its hinges during the charge.

He keeps saying the debate's over, though, Spinstile. End of!

'Transgender' doesn't come under national, ethnical, racial or religious group does it?

It could be considered a religion, and one definition of genocide is Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

With their recruitment of pre-pubescent children to embark on a pathway in which they would be sterilised, is this the first example of a group's genocide of its own members?^^

Yes, it's not gender critical feminists who are advocating for unevidenced treatment that sterilises people while they are still children.

The Cass report cannot come fast enough.

And I don't think Jones understands the nature of transactivism if he thinks he can stop the pile on by saying other people are gleeful about it.

It's him whose done the wrong thing, by saying he's supportive, but not quite supportive enough.

He put a foot wrong, and now it's curtains. Us? Our feet are all over the place, it's too late for us.

One tweet from a TRA says this: 'please listen to us when we tell you something as a group.'

It's interesting to view language in this way. That certain groups have the right to define a word. More of a right to define a word than other people. And of course, this isn't 'just' a word, it's a legal term, with legal definitions and implications.

With friends like these who needs enemies eh Owen? Would be nice if this made him reflect on whether he really has picked the right side, but I suspect he's in too deep.

Has cheered me up no end seeing him trying to use dictionary definitions to defend his position then being surprised when it doesn't wash with his TRA pals 🤣

He's now determinedly and repeatedly slurring women. So, just another Tuesday, then.

And E. Transferring children to a different group.

He's such a little monkey*.

(*my new phrase for duplicitous, sanctimonious, hubristic men. If LOJ can change the meanings of words and phrases then so can I)

Gosh, he's still going.

Owen! Give it a rest!

Oh dear.

Wow, just looking in OJs Tweets and Replies, I think this is the first time I have ever seen him actually try engage in any meaningful way on this issue and it is.....eye opening.

He doesn't have a single credible argument.

The screenshot above about the definition of woman is a prime example.

'Look what you made us do'

Owen's pinned tweet makes me feel ill every time I read it.

TRAs wouldn't class themselves as a religious group though, and I don't think even they could shoehorn themselves into one of the other groups so......sorry lads, you will have to scrub out 'genocide', it's a non starter.

Also, I know there is nothing these people won't appropriate, but it's so offensive to try and call 'genocide' on this isn't it?

It's all identities now. Article 2 of the convention could be rewritten:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identity".

Maybe it soon will be.

There was a thread a while back about what really frightens people about gender ideology. For me, it is this. The forced homogenisation of all groups into a blancmange of identical identities.

the current rhetoric is that the very concept of biological sex is muddy and unclear, and that medical transition is not necessary to be trans. You also don’t need to feel anguish or dissatisfaction with your body. It’s very common to meet transwomen who say that they are very happy with their penises and don’t feel the need to change their bodies (I’ve certainly met enough in female only dating scenes).

there seems to be many conflicting concepts of what trans even means.

@WeeBisom I am sorely tempted to apply for a GRC because I think I could meet the requirements of living as a man if I don't have to do anything to my body.

Have already got a decent goatee from the menopause.