Complaints against Baroness Nicholson being organised

[Imnobody4]

An official compliant has been lodged with the @Conservatives Party in regard to @Baroness_Nichol’s online behaviour.

It comes after dozens of complaints were lodged with social media companies regarding her views on #trans.

The Conservative Party has been contacted for comment

twitter.com/ChamberVoice/status/1559229955543912450?t=wOEs_8EZI3NztrVZDlCUUA&s=19

Chamber voice is an on line 'news' outlet.

Apparently Twitter banned the Baroness, but immediately corrected after appeal.
twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1559139062623133697?t=oHnlHAEtE0UgzTDNj4DsPQ&s=19

They really are idiots, what do they think they achieve.

No doubt it's some regressive fetishistic nonsense.

If those quotes were from either a male politician from the opposite side of a poster's party, or from someone on the other side of the teams debate, three posts on here would be very different. Those people don't get the benefit of the doubt.

I was around when she made those comments, and remember being appalled by her. I'm sorry, I find it very unlikely that she's suddenly become a beacon of tolerance regarding homosexuality in her old age. And people scratching around for reasons to dismiss those past attitudes of hers, just appear desperate.

@saraclara

Don't pay heed to what helleofabore says, she'd be the first to admit she's not an expert on LGBT matters.

Then tell us your opinion of Nancy Kelley’s recent homophobic comments, saraclara and soulmagic?

Oh look, a squirrel.

No answer then?

So, when we are told to educate ourselves and then change our opinions accordingly, as I would imagine BN has done, are we ever pure enough for you? Or is it once we're stained that there's no way back?

Oh... hello?

Any answer to my question about whether posters determined to monster the Baroness are also 100% comfortable with 100% of the comments from Peter Tatchell, Nancy Kelley and other spokespeople who are representing Stonewall?

Anyone prepared to answer?

I am happy to post some up if you need reminding that Peter Tatchell wrote about intergenerational sex and has some other interesting tweets around that issue. And well, there is that Nancy Kelley statement about lesbians and prejudices. I don't need to be any kind of 'expert' to find these statements, in fact, it has long been discussed on MN and you know, often by people who would say they were either L, G or B.

So, how about Peter Tatchell? 100% supportive of 100% of what he has said in all his years as a very vocal activist.

And Nancy? 100% on board with 100% of what Nancy says?

The Baroness herself spoke about how many complaints there have been to the HoL about her (I forget how many & will try to find it), compared to zero for a male in the HoL.

This is just what happens to any woman who sticks her head above the parapet & supports women's rights these days.

She is a women voting according to her personal credo.

Her anti gay voting was far more nuanced than that. And was voted down.

Her anti abortion voting was also more nuanced. And was voted down.

And, whilst I disagree with her nuances, I don't think it makes her a hate filled or vile woman. It makes her a woman with her own ideas, a woman who uses the political system properly.

That I do agree with her stance in women's rights is, at this moment in time, the only thing I deem important.

I don't require anyone to achieve a level of perfection or 100% accord with my own credo. That way lies insufferable arrogance, utter inflexibility and a hard line stance that only harms all who come into contact with it.

Hardly a squirrel.

It is actually directly relevant in whether there is a balanced application of the lens being focused on the Baroness.

But, crack on trying to make out that it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

I haven't RTFT but I hope anyone criticising the Baroness for opposing same sex marriage years ago is openly acknowledging that Stonewall also opposed it at that time.

Especially when it is nigh on impossible to get breast reduction on the NHS.

At 18 I was told no, they were 'an asset I should be proud of,'

In my 20s - what about breast feeding

30s - well you've cooed so far

40s - menopause might cause issues

50s - well, age, heath etc may cause issues.

Had I known at 14 that I just had to say "I am a boy" I'd have been shouting it all day long.

Back and neck issues mean I have been in pain all my life. A breast reduction would have alleviated that. But it is, as I was told back in the 90s, something women have.

So, no. SRSs should not be available on the NHS. There is no parity. Why should I think that is appropriate?

At 18 I was told no, they were 'an asset I should be proud of,'

In my 20s - what about breast feeding

30s - well you've cooed so far

40s - menopause might cause issues

50s - well, age, heath etc may cause issues.

You'd think if that was your experience you'd be for people being able to have surgery on their own body if they want to, not the opposite where you think they shouldn't.

I don't like what Emma Nicholson said when she was an MP about lesbian parents and how she voted. Not at all. I am looking at the published rationales behind it and I'm still unclear if it was part of her religious belief system or part of a political belief system. I myself had a religious upbringing, which I have eschewed, as beliefs like 'lesbian marriage is wrong' were expected of me. But it's a belief that people are legally entitled to hold. I don't like that belief and it offends me - but I understand that it's legal to think and say it.

MPs have difficult decisions to make while trying to balance their personal beliefs with the public good and their party position - e.g. Tim Farron felt he had to step down as leader of the Lib Dems over the same issue. Shame he didn't step down over his party's direction of travel regarding gender ideology, but hey there we go. At least Nicholson has that one right.

Personally I think that Emma Nicholson is very clear-sighted on the safeguarding of women and girls in a way that is gobsmackingly refreshing, after women like me have been banging our heads against a brick stone wall for years while Local Authorities, schools and government departments lose their fucking minds.

Personally I think that Emma Nicholson is very clear-sighted on the safeguarding of women and girls in a way that is gobsmackingly refreshing, after women like me have been banging our heads against a brick stone wall for years while Local Authorities, schools and government departments lose their fucking minds.

Which is why she needs shutting down with cries homophobia from people who think lesbianism should include men.

ToGanymedeAndTitan · Today 18:09

“At 18 I was told no, they were 'an asset I should be proud of,'

In my 20s - what about breast feeding

30s - well you've cooed so far

40s - menopause might cause issues

50s - well, age, heath etc may cause issues.”

You'd think if that was your experience you'd be for people being able to have surgery on their own body if they want to, not the opposite where you think they shouldn't.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood that if she had very large breasts for her body frame that may have meant she would have had a constantly aching back and neck. So it wouldn’t have been a case of wanting a reduction for either cosmetic or psychological reasons.

I did not suffer this way but a friend did. She had enormous breasts at a very young age and it caused constant discomfort. Luckily she was able to have a reduction when she was a bit older, though I can’t remember if she was lucky and the NHS agreed, or she managed to pay herself.

I am a lesbian and a mother and I am not pro marriage for anyone from a feminist viewpoint.so on some issues I am in agreement and on some not. However ENs support for women and girls and her investigations about the harms of gender ideology have been outstanding, so I definitely support her in that.

So no answers as to whether Peter Tatchell and Nancy Kelley are being held up to the same 100% pure standard.

And no acknowledgement that this position of not allowing a person to change their position as more information comes to hand is actually a sign that only 100% purity is acceptable and a sure sign that this movement is 100% intolerant while fully believing they are the most tolerant and morally superior group.

I await the attempts at reverse ferreting that I expect will start happening after the Cass report is released. Because apparently there are no golden bridges allowed.

Oh for goodness sake. We have lives you know. I can't sit on mumsnet all day ready to answer demands from other posters. I've been out and busy sorting out real life people's problems. I've just walked in the door and will come back when I have time. But short version to be going on with :
I answered an OP about Baroness Nicholson, not Stonewall (who I also don't support).

But I need food, and it's 9:30, so you're going to have to wait...

The usual response to being asked for evidence

And which happens to be true. Seriously, this is ridiculous. Do you want some kind of proof of where I've been and that it's more worthwhile than sitting waiting for bolshie people to demand I answer their questions?

But yes, it absolutely was both vital and much more worthwhile.

Also I'm not being "asked for evidence" I'm being asked what I think about something other than the issue I posted about.

But bed now. Again, you'll have to wait.

What a surprise, a true procrastinator.

I was against same sex “marriage” because I believed marriage literally meant a bond between a male and a female in the same sense that a key bonds with a lock, or yin bonds with yang - so simply not possible with the same sex; and that this bond created a potential for procreation from the union. There was a religious background to marriage too for people with a religious faith.

Given that Civil Partnerships and a Blessing were possible for gay people, and they were also able to adopt children, I didn’t see anything wrong in separating the two sorts of union. It was nothing to do with being against gay people being together in a legally bound commitment. I had been brought up around gay couples most of my life and had never thought them being together as wrong.

As it seemed to mean so much for gay people to be married in another sense, the more romantic and perhaps religious one, I gave up caring about what I had previously thought it meant, as not mattering as much as gay people’s feelings.

I think there were various reasons unrelated to “hate” for some people having been or being against gay marriage. So bringing this up in relation to Baroness Nicholson does not make me think this stains her indelibly.

The link between having children and marriage has been steadily diminishing. So marriage has lost more and more of its former meaning now anyway.

Today, the latest available data show that 46.3% of children were born outside marriage, more than ten times the rate seen in the early parts of the 20th century.
www.parliament.uk › research
Kid and Kin

Unless disagreeing with a few posts on MN

A few posts