OJ has a special message for us…

[Cuppasoupmonster]

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1616008459958231040/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1616008459958231040&currentTweetUser=OwenJones84

Gave me a laugh over my coffee anyway 😆 does he remind anyone else of arguments with their little brother? ‘You’re going to lose. Why are you hitting yourself’ etc 😂

Interesting he has never ever once engaged with any of the thousands of points as to why gender ideology is indefensible at best and harmful at worst, it’s always just ‘You’re going to lose… tiny minority… section 28’

Non-sequitur - Gosh seeing Freddie coming into the video - that was definitely a female socialised entrance, even down to the ingratiating little smile. Despite having no gender identity, I'm not as feminine as that.

I've just been sent this by a "fellow traveller." I don't do Twitter myself but my partner in grime appended the following to the grab:

"He appears to have outdone himself with this. It's not gone down well on Twatter."

If anyone who does do Twitter might care to share samples of the opprobrium I am likely to be inestimably grateful!!

The Dan Hodges/ OJ exchange:
twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1624827869317701635 (scroll up)

Response from the Queens Speech chaps:
“Those chem sex parties are really catching up with the ageing twink, aren't they?"
twitter.com/QueensSpeechUK/status/1624852820670267401

I always find the ‘these are your allies’ argument to be so pathetic. It’s like ‘I can’t argue with what you’re actually saying so I’m going to try to undermine it by pointing out some unsavoury people agree with you.’ But by that logic Owen is on the ‘same side’ as a large number of sex offenders and paedophiles. I think he would take issue with that 🤷🏼‍♀️

I think it's safe to say that it didn't go down well (and that's from people OJ hasn't blocked which is about 90% of women who have talked about women's rights on Twitter)

Muchos gracias. He's going to be busy for most of the day blocking even more people, I imagine.

What a sad little man he is.

Barbara Pym's comment

Oh, LOJ has found a news item to detract twitter away from his most recent crazy misogyny, while at the same time cynically blaming women. What a world.

I'm pretty sure that Owen Jones is not mentally well. The slow motion, public collapse of his career must be as painful for him as it is cringeworthily funny for me.

I don't have a huge amount of sympathy though, he went to Oxford and could therefore have had his pick of the market. Deciding to become a professional grifter was a mistake because it puts you at the mercy of prevailing sentiment

Deciding to become a professional grifter was a mistake because it puts you at the mercy of prevailing sentiment

Yep.

I think it's quite possible to ride the waves of popular opinion; if you maintain flexibility of thought and enough insight to not nail your colours to the mast of a sinking ship.

if you maintain flexibility of thought

Not Owen's strong suit.

He's more about yelling people into submission 😆

I actually can't believe OJ is so stupid that he doesn't understand the argument. I mean, I genuinely can't believe it. Even my dog has a better understanding than he does. How hard can it be to grasp that a) humans can't change sex b) men shouldn't be in women's spaces and therefore c) men who call themselves women still shouldn't be in women's spaces? It's not hard, is it? How the fuck does someone this thick even pass their GCSEs let alone get into one of the world's most prestigious universities?

LOJ's problem would appear to be that while people can explain reality to him, they can't understand it for him.

a) humans can't change sex b) men shouldn't be in women's spaces and therefore c) men who call themselves women still shouldn't be in women's spaces?

Its not that he doesn't understand this

It's that he will always see men's desires, no matter how trivial, as more important than women's safety.

It takes a LOT of mental gymnastics to avoid saying this out loud. But he's committed to the task.

He hates women.

That’s about the extent of it. He saw, with the increasing traction of trans rights, a vehicle to oppress us

Unfortunately, he doesn’t have the mental clarity to see how the tide is turning and I imagine will become increasingly angry and vindictive

😃

Ha, that's brilliant. I'm nicking that.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, I want to remind you of what OJ, who has a patreon that had 1,800+ subscribers at its peak, said about Lawrence Fox's attempt to start a patreon. Fox currently has 18 subscribers. I don't know what his peak number was.

Laurence Fox underlines why "cancel culture" is a nonsense.

He's a D-list actor who's turned this "I am being silenced!!" schtick into numerous lucrative media appearances and a Patreon so his comfortable lifestyle can be subsidised by the terminally gullible.

He posted the first picture, showing Fox's subscription levels. Second picture is mine, showing OJ's. I just think "terminally gullible" is an interesting way to describe patreon subscribers, given that he has so many himself. Don't you?

Awwww, only 18 subscribers? Poor old Looza. God, I miss Twitter.

Twitter

OJ says somewhere in his rant to Dan Hodges that trans people (tw? Can't recall) are more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator.

Not as regards murder. There were, according to the last stats available, more trans murderers in jail than trans murder victims over the 10 year period in question.

But I expect OJ is thinking of all the 'hate crimes' and 'non-crime hate incidents' they claim come their way.

Reading my posts back, I want to clarify that OJ didn't have his own patreon when he tweeted that. He launched his later and his has been far more successful.

I'd presume he respects his own subscribers more than he does Fox's, except one week he invited Jedward on to ask their opinions on whether Keir Starmer was suitable to lead the Labour Party.

JanesLittleGirl · Today 19:07

LOJ's problem would appear to be that while people can explain reality to him, they can't understand it for him.

Ha ha hah! 😂

Here's the important thing. Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. It has no bearing at all on the argument. Whether trans people are more likely to commit crime or to be the victims of it has no relevance to the danger to women.

The pertinent question is: are trans people (or more accurately, trans women) more likely than women to commit crime? And the answer is they are vastly more likely to commit crime than women. There are slightly fewer trans women in jail for sexual offences (about 100) than there are women in jail for sexual offences (under 150, according to FPFW). And there are only about 150,000 trans women in the country, if I've remembered correctly, and 30 million women. That's one hell of a differential.