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.)

Specifically, women are being taught to acquiesce and stay silent.

ArabellaScott · Today 09:51

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's a deliberate ploy, since the Government has decided to apply some common sense and "No Debate" has been flushed. With recent events, with entirely unprovoked violence against women getting into the public consciousness, despite hugely partisan and entirely dishonest reporting on those events, the trans side have realised that they look exactly like what they are; horrible bullies.

So, they have now chosen a new tactic, Starmer's "Well, both sides have been horrible" one. This is ignoring all (mentioned numerous times here) the many threats of violence, misogynistic abuse, rape threats and the like and simply pretending that women are acting in the same way as the trans side are, when we all know that it's patently untrue.

They pretended that Brian Tamaki's rally, in another area, was linked to KJK and that she was responsible for Marama Davidson being injured; they said, "Lidia Thorpe was attacked by men!" on her behalf, whilst ignoring the fact that they were her security, who prevented her from attacking KJK. It's all the same DARVO bullshit.

Those who oppose trans rights now seek to portray transgender people as an existential threat: suggesting that they seek access to women’s spaces in a bid to commit sexual assault, or that trans people want to medically castrate and sexually groom children.

Well, some trans people do seek access to women’s spaces in a bid to commit sexual assault. People like Isla Bryson, Katie Dolatowski and Karen White for example. So this can't be dismissed as a non-existent threat.

And some people (not necessarily trans themselves) do want to medically castrate children. People like Susie Green and Helen Webberley for example.

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.

I look forward to being educated about how people like Isla Bryson, Katie Dolatowski and Karen White are not a threat.

And is he now saying that medically castrating children is 'essential not dangerous'?

Through better education on what trans rights actually means for women’s rights,

This is only going to go one way though, isn't it? As soon as normal people are aware they peak. Unless 'education' means 'listen to and blindly accept what I say about it even if totally incoherent and damaging to your family members'.

And to be specific, we're talking about men 'identifying' as women who use women's spaces like Dolatowski who attacked the 10 year old girl in the women's toilet. If that child's Dad had been in there, if it had been labelled as the mixed sex it actually is, then maybe Dolatowski wouldn't have done so - it seems like a very deliberate attempt to infiltrate spaces where there won't be other men. Let's note at this point that Dolatowski is 6ft 5. And has served barely any prison time, and when released has sought to infiltrate other women's spaces.

One predator like that can affect a hell of a lot of women and children. Look at Savile.

Through better education on what trans rights actually means for women’s rights,

The problem for TRAs is the public are becoming better educated on this, and are beginning to properly understand the harmful consequences.

There will be no stopping loud dissent on this issue until there's reconciliation with the truth at a bare minimum.

That would mean trans activists and their representative orgs meeting us at a starting point that reflects reality.

That reality is that human beings cannot change their sex.

A man who identifies as a woman will always be just that - he will not be a woman because he is male. Any discussions as to what extent law and society should support this self identity has to start with the recognition men cannot be women because a woman is an adult human female.

Women as a class (the female sex) have rights and needs of our own which must be recognised and not erased.

Children should not be taught gender beliefs as if they are facts in our education system.

Children do not have the capacity to understand the future ramifications of gender identity changes and should not be put on any pathway that has implications for their short or long term health until they reach 18 minimum.

In a society that respects women and has the best interests of children at heart none of the above should be controversial.

But you cannot tackle the offenders if they are men that say they are women AND THE LAW COMPELS YOU TO TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD and must provide for them as if they are female.

Then you cannot tackle the offenders.
Ms Sturgeon refused to call the offender Isla Bryson a man, instead she made up the gender ‘rapist’.
So Bryson was not a woman, but not a man either, but a rapist.

And I AM very busy with genitals, because the man that raped me repeatedly over many years - guess what he used to rape me? Which part of his body do you think he used?
Take a wild guess.

I will await your answer.

Some of us have children with no language. They are VERY vulnerable. Can’t even state their own pronouns. Why do you think I need to know the sex of my daughter’s carers?
Even if there are just a few bad eggs, why do you think it is important?

I will await your answer.

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

I think there are, sadly, significant numbers of men/males who would happily commit sex offences if they could plausibly get away with it. Offering more men more opportunities is a bad plan.

''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.''

No one is doing that. The few bad eggs are a large percentage of the population, and we don't base safeguarding on hurt feelings.

And anyway, you do hold them to account, if they are the ones who have enthusiastically provided all the loopholes.

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

I don't think this is true. It is definitely true however that there are more rapists than trans people, so the risk to women of letting all men into their safe spaces Vs the benefit to the few trans people with genuine gender dysphoria just does not add up.

There are a few people who go hunting legally - however because of the risk that huge numbers of criminals would take advantage to their nefarious purposes, we don't allow people to carry guns on the streets.

It's already evident that rapists are taking advantage so why is the idea still even being discussed?

Can you back that statement up, Mish?

I have to admit when posting this late last night it was more because I was taken aback (must have been a polyanna moment) that anything so completely ridiculous had been posted.

I dont read the Metro and only saw this by chance, but if this is the type of drivel they publish (and I know other papers do) I depair of any chance of a rational discussion about the issue of women's rights and how trans rights are undermining them.

This dimwit commentator has clearly never even made the connection that this is what the conflict is about. So bad enough that a paper publishes it, but also a horrible illustration of how (based on usual proper mumsnet research) he was apparently "educated" at a good school.

Its not just social media that is in an echo chamber. Papers are just as bad.

PS Did anyone find out how to comment. I couldn't work it out.

Also disgustingly bad journalistic standards was the hopelessly slanted poll.

Did anyone notice the question?
Have you seen anti-trans views being rewarded on Twitter?

only 2 options offered:
Yes, it's horrible to see
No, I'm shocked to hear about it

plus an option to then share the results.

Reading comprehension needs work there dear.

I've always suspected the reason TRA hate these boards so much, it's that you can't block. That's what TRAs do on Facebook and Twitter (usually just after a rude comment).

Anyone can comment in good faith here. You really must hate it.

I've read the article again and he really does sound like he's preaching from a pulpit in Victorian England. Talking about being "driven into the arms of" and "how far they have fallen" and of course "repent".

I stand by my Father Ted references of last night when drink had been taken.

Feck. Arse.

.

@NecessaryScene I think I love you for quoting Red Dwarf 😍😍😂😂

Social media is often anti-social media, because it encourages anger and fear (lots of clicks for advertisers when readers get angry or scared and participate more), tribal us-vs-them thinking, the turning of every single flawed and complicated and nuanced person into a simple caricature of good or evil, and the privileging of emotions over thought.

When activist groups exploit these basic weaknesses we get the cancellation culture, the post-factual world, and the absence of proper dialogues.

I see this most often in trans activism, especially in the way catastrophising is used, but it's not the only place where this is common. The idea that debate should be replaced by one-sided "get educated but only with our arguments" is something I come across a lot in other contexts where someone's questions are seen as crossing a tribal border.

It really is the #nodebate which has been most harmful, ultimately for everyone.

@NecessaryScene If anything, we're closer to Rimmer in that Red Dwarf episode.

Let's get tough. The time for talking is over. Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and hit it fast with a major - and I mean major - leaflet campaign, and while it's reeling from that, we'd follow up with a whist drive, a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK? Now, if that's not enough, I'm sorry, it's time for the T-shirts: "Mutants Out" ... "Chameleonic Life Forms, No Thanks" ... and if that's not enough, well, I don't know what will be.

you win one internet, we have indeed reached the t-shirt stage.

Yes, there is a reason why this place is practically devoid of raging transactivists.

I mean, according to them, this is Terf Central, you'd think they'd be here spouting off left, right and centre.

Of course, one of the main reasons is, they can't stay within guidelines - most of them have been banned for personal attacks. They just can't help it.

'This radicalisation leads us down a dark path: one that only ends in violence unless it’s quickly mitigated.'

Violence from who exactly? Not women, that's for sure. So is the implication 'unless women shut (the fuck) up, then we will be in for it?'

Violence from who exactly? Not women, that's for sure. So is the implication 'unless women shut (the fuck) up, then we will be in for it?'

I think that's it exactly.

Just another arguement to tell women you shouldn't speak up. Because it will be your fault that there is violence.

Similarly womens shouldn't speak up because right wing reactionaries will turn up. And that will be women's fault as well.

"Through better education on what trans rights actually means for women’s rights"

So people have got this wrong somehow, but he can't give any examples?

It seems fairly straightforward that if trans women have the "right" to access women's spaces, then women lose the right to single sex spaces.

You can maybe tell women that they just have to put up with penis in the changing rooms, but that's more of a partisan lecture than "education".

He did get some responses on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/Cameron_W_Clark/status/1649143976161603585