How social media trans "pile ons" have pushed Glinner and JKR into an echo chamber that reinforces a sense of fear and threat article claims

[IwantToRetire]

The irony of someone who clearly lives in their own echo chamber claiming that people who dont share his views have been radicalised by echo chambers.

The writer who is Deputy Head of Social (whatever that means) does at least recognise that trans pile ons dont work. But rather than acknowledging that the pile ons just confirm that TRAs are hostile to women's sex based rights, he says the reaction "is not normal behaviour, and belies an unhealthy fixation on an issue that we typically see from radicalised individuals."

"Just as importantly, we must recognise the role we all play in perpetuating this cycle. It may feel morally ‘just’ to call out someone’s indiscretions to a wide audience, but even well-meaning posts can be radicalising when passed through the corrupting prism of social media.

"In some cases, this corruption may be too deep-rooted to tackle. It’s hard to see how the likes of Linehan can return to a more balanced – and less vicious – place on trans rights given how far he’s fallen."

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/20/anti-trans-views-are-rewarded-on-twitter-we-can-prevent-radicalisation-18647768/

(It says you can comment but I cant see where. What I dont understand, even though posted as "opinion" someone can label someone else corrupted and worse.)

Well it's only taken years, but finally, someone has realised that violently threatening women to make them let you into their personal space, is probably not the most persuasive argument.

Unfortunately, in an act of head slapping predictability, he cant stop shooting himself in the foot by calling the doxing of children and threats of rape and death, 'criticism'.

From my time working in social media, I’ve seen a clear pattern play out: criticise someone once and they might repent, but criticise someone a hundred times and you’ll only solidify views they might once have held loosely – driving them into the arms of those who validate those beliefs instead.

It may feel morally ‘just’ to call out someone’s indiscretions to a wide audience, but even well-meaning posts can be radicalising when passed through the corrupting prism of social media.

Like sending pipe bomb threats?

Well, he's a twit, but there is some truth in that argument.

In the US, the QAnon movement and the alt-right radicalised a sect of the population who felt isolated and rejected by wider society, creating a network that at first made them felt safe and accepted, and then drove them to the extreme view that society is run by a cabal of paedophiles.

There is a risk of people arriving at the extreme view that trans people are being subject to 'genocide', or believing lurid statistics about child suicides.

From my time working in social media, I’ve seen a clear pattern play out: criticise someone once and they might repent,

He can't hear it, can he?

We can achieve this by educating people, calmly and rationally, that trans people are not a threat – and by giving trans people more space in the media to show the public that treatment for gender dysphoria is essential, not dangerous.

Absolutely. Let's hear from trans people.

Yes, but you may also want to self examine.

Just because something may happen, or indeed does happen in limited cases, you don't hold a whole minority of trans people to account for a few bad eggs.

Tackle the offenders.

There are more cis women convicted of sexual crimes then there are trans people. Do we need to segregate women into subclasses due to one Myra Hindley?

No of course not. That would be totally wrong. But there are many examples of cis women like her that could be used to drum up fear.

Recognising Mums net is an echo chamber as well.

I think what the article is trying to express is that some people get into a weird obsession with trans people. They become the "other" - the radical to be feared. And that is a dangerous and slippery slope.

Linehan seems totally obsessed. KJK - well most definitely, and now moving on to LGB people as a problem as well is an interesting slant. JKR? Seems to post far to much on trans people.

I don't think it is healthy of either side. Even talking about "sides" is divisive. My tribe versus your tribe. Let's fear the "other" and shun them rather than hold properly individuals who wrong to account.

I'd personally prefer the government fix the economy then obsess over what bathroom people use as a distraction technique that their lobbyists have confirmed they are doing.

It's rather all fascinating. I do feel most sorry for queer people including drag people suddenly called groomers and molesters.

It is all very well Gilead mentality - which is what Margaret Atwood was warning against.

Who indeed are the hand maidens?

He does have a point about the polarising effect of social media (and in particular Twitter). It’s just ironic that he only applies his argument through the prism of a black and white assumption that all women’s rights activists are inherently wrong.

It's an entertainingly ridiculous article.

unless we recognise – and react – to this threat now, we run the risk of allowing a dangerous force to emerge right under our noses; a force that could be tempted by the allure of violence against marginalised groups

He could get a job writing film trailers.

However, it is true that pile-ons, ridicule, aggressive hectoring and attacks don't ever convince anyone. They only entrench people in their existing views.

There are more cis women convicted of sexual crimes then there are trans people

Are you certain of this? There are only a tiny number of women convicted of sexual offences and people claiming to be trans are not so rare now, in the UK.

There are more cis women convicted of sexual crimes then there are trans people. Do we need to segregate women into subclasses due to one Myra Hindley?

You know your argument is ridiculous when you can only think of one female sex offender in 60 years. Don't tell me - Rose West. Ok two.

I think what the article is trying to express is that some people get into a weird obsession with trans people. They become the "other"

Oh Mishy, you're almost there. Nothing to do with being trans, and yes they are the other, the other sex.

Keep out of women's spaces and we can all pack up and go home.

Last time I looked transwomen marginally outnumbered women. That was years ago, it's going to be far more now.

Given how many women there are, and how many transwomen there are...

Not the most useful comparison that Mishy has ever thought of!

I don't think it is healthy of either side. Even talking about "sides" is divisive. My tribe versus your tribe. Let's fear the "other" and shun them rather than hold properly individuals who wrong to account.

For the first time ever, Mishy, I'm in complete agreement.

Indeed. If we could hold to account every single individual on social media who has threatened women, that would be a start.

If we could prosecute them, including those who attempt to bully and intimidate women, all those who upload photographs of themselves in women's toilets, all the doxing and numerous attempts to stop women talking.

Let's do it Mishiy. Let's 'properly hold individuals who do wrong to account'.

unless we recognise – and react – to this threat now, we run the risk of allowing a dangerous force to emerge right under our noses; a force that could be tempted by the allure of violence against marginalised groups

this is exactly what we are seeing - the trans terrorists in New Zealand, trans shooters in America, threats of violence towards women on Twitter, the assaults on women trying to make their voices heard, the generally very violent language used by trans activists…

It's so perfect a description of what's happened to women, it can't be coincidence. Is this man really as Machiavellian as this?

Women are not a threat to men!

From FairPlay for Women:

“According to official MOJ figures, in 2019 there were 13359 people in prison convicted of sexual offences. 125 of these are recorded as female and another 76 are known to be males who identify as women. This means there are around 200 sex offenders in prison who either is a woman or self-identifies as woman. The ratio of women to transwomen in prison for sexual offences is around 3:2. In other words, there are two transwomen for every three women in prison convicted of sex offending. That’s 38% of the ‘women’ in prison for sex offending actually being transwomen.”

I completely agree - I grew up surrounded by Catholic nuns, and passionate committed women competing for a scrap of attention from the (obviously male) Catholic priest. To describe the dynamic as unbelievably horribly familiar is an understatement.

1. sacred caste of men who are 'lovely' and cannot be criticised
2. surrounded by women keen to show how virtuous they are
3. to whom normal standards of sex segregation and safeguarding do not apply
4. but who can prove that they are innocent of any wrongdoing even when stuff might look a tad dodgy simply by being a member of the sacred caste
5. minor wrongdoing is hushed up and brushed over for fear of making the group look bad
6. once prosecution is well underway (which only tends to happen with strong evidence) he is ejected from the sacred caste (defrocked / actually not a TW because...)

Men who are well dodgy might be prepared to change their manner of dress, their lifestyle and even say things they don't (necessarily) believe in order to get access to their preferred victims - that's not unthinkable, at all. It WAS unthinkable, when I was little, it was unthinkable that any Catholic priest could abuse his position of trust in the community. And then in scandal after scandal, case after case, we saw how it really really really was happening...

And none of that in any way takes away from the fact that despite those facts many Catholic priests were absolutely lovely. Or means that if I say Catholic teachings are misogynistic, and often quite openly so, I have a huge problem with individual Catholics.

Typical MishyJDI post: a lot of words to say nothing of any significance.

I was taking Mishy’s statement literally:

There are more cis women convicted of sexual crimes then there are trans people
**
Not that there are more women convicted of sex crimes than there are men who claim they are women convicted of sex crimes. I think it’s obvious that men who claim they are women and are convicted of sex crimes massively outnumber women convicted of sex crimes. That’s because cross dressing and transvestism tend to go hand in hand with other fetishistic behaviour patterns, such as exhibitionism.

I thought Mishy was saying there are more sex-crime convicted women than there were actual trans people. I assumed Mishy was merely entirely ignorant of how rare women’s sex crime convictions are. There might be as many men convicted of sex crimes as there are trans people, but women’s criminal offending patterns are entirely different.

It is becoming more and more obvious to everyone just how violent the transideology movement is so they are trying to shift blame.

The problem with those statistics is that no one knows how many of the 125 'women' were amab. The prison service themselves acknowledged that they didn't keep records.

There is also the risk of others getting involved in this argument who are not in fact arguing about the issues at stake but have different motivations. Antifa, rightwing groups, etc. I think the Wi Spa riots were a very good example of the chaose that ensued when a woman tried to protest at a sex offender voyeur in the spa.

That ended up with a motley collection of religious preachers, antifa, trans rights activists, random passersby, people just looking for a fight, etc. all brawling in the street.

What the article does is confuse and conflate all of these disparate - and in many cases totally unrelated - groups together. So he is accusing, for example, women lobbying parliament with street-fighting thugs. It's a bit daft. It does also fail to understand the situation and can indeed end up exacerbating the risk of violence.

By responding to rational, polite requests for discussion with threats, aggression and attack, and impugning and smearing women trying to discuss their rights, trans rights activists (and allied politicians, NGOs and media, to be fair) have stymied efforts to amicably resolve issues with conflicts of rights. This has ramped up tensions.

Again, Wi Spa is the perfect illustration of that. A child is approached by a sex offender, women object, the women are attacked, people fight back on behalf of the women, various others pile in. Chaos ensues.

Because the relevant authorities fail to intervene and respond appropriately, everything escalates.

So in fact I think what is needed is for authorities to do the jobs they are tasked with in order to ensure issues are discussed rationally, rather than allowing them to escalate and spill into civil disobedience.

EHRC I'm looking at you right now.

KPSS have more up-to-date figures.

• There are 197 transgender prisoners in England and Wales, excluding GRC holders. This is an increase of 20% on the 2019 figure (there was no data collection in 2020 due to covid).

The numbers of female sex offenders is tiny, and always has been. The number of male sex offenders is significant And men who want to be in a female prison is huge, and rising.

From a pool of approx 48m adult women vs 48k transwomen.

If the numbers are even vaguely comparable, it tells you everything you need to know about male sex offending and being trans.

Indeed.

Things have really come to a pretty pass when an obvious pervert approaching a child is defended against that child's parent.

I really think people have lost their collective ability to identify perverted behaviour.

I'm assuming that is the desired outcome.

There are more cis women convicted of sexual crimes then there are trans people

Women make up 50% of the population, trans people 0.5%. The rate of sexual offending by trans women is vastly higher than amongst women, and it's even several times higher than that amongst men.

As you well know, this isn't about trans people. It's about men identifying as women (the rate of sexual offending amongst biological women identifying as men is negligible to non-existent). And you know that, don't you, Mishy? You're just being disingenuous. As usual.

I really think people have lost their collective ability to identify perverted behaviour.

Yes, or at least, we are being trained not to identify it, not to respond, not to complain.