KJK

[Notaflippinclue]

Why the fuck has MUMSNET cancelled her

Who appeared to only be here in order to enjoy winding up women.

Like so many other males of all "genders" have.

*someone (genuine typo)

💯

I am just dipping in and out of this thread due to other things on my plate at the moment. But between posters such as Arthur, Gail, Eresh, MrsO and you, you are all articulating the different facets I was recognising but failing to articulate. And lack of time has left me without the head space to get it down.

Thank you all.

I think there is a significant difference in the ‘enabling’ aspect here. I consider that continuing to welcome (not the word I am after but not going to search for the more appropriate one) a voice that has already and quickly proved that they are not here for the debate that they indicated is enabling that male poster to continue to use the women here as a resource.

Any validating of their ‘claim’, even unintentionally, to continue to post by even hinting that this is positive interaction, gave enough encouragement for them to stay. Framing these interactions as debate was all that was needed.

And after they honed their words on the rest of the board, their very first foray into that support thread was using the now refined approach of ‘I am sympathetic and I am here to provide my point of view that won’t change, but at least you will have heard it and you will have learned from it’. All under that false guise of ‘finding an understanding’.

When of course, those women are fucking experts at identifying the tactics that poster used. They most certainly would have no need for any male activist to enter that space.

The issue partly is that moderation of a public board has to be seen as fair, balanced and open. They are not going to prevent a poster posting on an unofficial support thread. Because this particular male poster hadn’t made obvious abusive comments there was nothing they could do.

While I can understand some posters thinking a debate was happening, there was no debate in reality. It was abusive behaviour camoflouged by the word debate. Welcoming ‘debate’, even calling it debate or trying to make it into a debate when it was not, with such a person is part of enabling harm in my view.

I believe that the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) event was an example of this. Wallace was not debating. Wallace used that event as a platform for continuing abuse on Helen and other women who disagree with Wallace. Helen was absolutely right in being wary about that when she heard Wallace was on the panel. (Of course, finding someone who could have been on that panel at this time and not used it to continue to abuse women would be a very hard.)

In that event, there was an expectation that participants would behave with respect. That is respect as society defines it, not special considerations.

There was no real remedy available to keep the participants in that zone of respect such as loss of access as you would receive from say either of the Oxbridge debating clubs, or potential loss of income from parliament when you are not elected again because people see your abusive behaviour over time, even if it is subtle. Hence, Wallace was not really prevented from continuing abuse of Helen. But it was right there for all to see, albeit more direct than we are talking about here.

Sometimes moderate words are considered encouragement by abusers. And that fine line is different for each person. As soon as a male poster shows us their stated motivation is not quite true or blatantly false, we should call it out clearly.

Welcoming ‘debate’, even calling it debate or trying to make it into a debate when it was not, with such a person is part of enabling harm in my view.

I believe that the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) event was an example of this. Wallace was not debating. Wallace used that event as a platform for continuing abuse on Helen and other women who disagree with Wallace. Helen was absolutely right in being wary about that when she heard Wallace was on the panel. (Of course, finding someone who could have been on that panel at this time and not used it to continue to abuse women would be a very hard.)

Spot on, Helle. And 'abuse' is the right word. To go for 'middle ground' it's possible that Wallace wasn't aware of his hatred and desire to abuse Helen and got drunk and accidentally let it show. It is possible, I will concede, that someone who is disordered may not intend to overtly/publically abuse his target, but does so accidentally.

Frood recommended Lundy Bancroft upthread. I think that is also very on point. Women who've experienced dv have the misfortune of insight into how an abusive man can coerce, control, manipulate, gaslight and lie. It's very clear once you see the dynamic.

People have experience way beyond my own and yes, I'm listening to the patterns that are being pointed out.
But the alternative to debate is no debate. In the spirit of preferring the latter, I chose to take Alpha's engagement at face value.

Several people on this board who are "old timers", and who I have a respect for, often point out that debate is not meant to feel comfortable. Otherwise it's just a bunch of people agreeing with each other.

Also it's a safe space on the internet where anonymity affords the opportunity to ask the questions that I can't ask in the "trans parents" group that I'm in at work. I won't lose my job from posting on here (hopefully what I achieved through whistleblowing will also help here, but no guarantees) and I won't be at risk of being beaten up by TRAs like I would feel I was if I try and engage in person. Just because I see things totally differently from someone else, doesn't mean I don't want to listen to what they are saying.

People come to this board for very different reasons. Some to understand more about gender identity belief, some to ask or share ideas on how to help their child navigate it, some to solely defend women's rights. Personally, my approach is to be open to conversations which include different viewpoints because it helps me to further my understanding about the whole subject so that I can help my daughter and others like her.

I'm aware of Debbie Hayton's and Caitlyn Jenner's history with their cross dressing (I'm also that they and Blaire White use women's toilets - which I take issue with, just as I did with Alpha when it was discussed) but if they were here I would also engage with them where there is substance to talk about.

Lots of people (not me - I didn't see the thread until later) engaged with Alpha on the AMA that Alpha set up. They will all have engaged for various different reasons.

Someone mentioned above that I write to Alpha and the women on the board differently. I'm not sure that's true at all - unless we're counting a comment on a previous thread where I was acutely aware that what I wrote about Alpha sounded like I was providing a psychological assessment about someone with unconscious misogyny and issues associated with mental health. At no point did I actively encourage anything.

To bring it back round to the thread... I simply have a very different style of engagement from KJK. And yes, I'm still glad that I engaged. And yes, I will still continue to use preferred pronouns in some circumstances (and yes, I have read the article that was written by the MNer). There's even an audio clip on the James O'Brien thread where KJK does this for a transman that she and James are talking about. I wonder if she would consider herself a part of the problem for doing this.
It totally depends on the circumstances, who I'm talking to and why, and the age of the person in question - never a child and never where a sex crime is involved, for example.

And finally, I HUGELY value the collective wisdom and experience of the women on this board (and that of KJK) and have said so many times.

That was in response to this ☝️
I grabbed the wrong version of the quote after reading the typo correction.

Frood recommended Lundy Bancroft upthread. I think that is also very on point. Women who've experienced dv have the misfortune of insight into how an abusive man can coerce, control, manipulate, gaslight and lie. It's very clear once you see the dynamic.

It is.

A preening twat who admits he gets a 'kick' out of using women's toilets.

The boundary is men.

If you pander to some and not others because of a female in your life, then you are letting that female down.

There is no middle ground. You need to find the words to tell your female relative the nuts and bolts of what this movement is really about.

And it is a men's rights to sex movement. And increasingly, any age of victim it would appear.

Not that it ever went away, it just got hidden until they found a different way to frame it.

I had been following Alpha's posts without interacting or commenting. I was kind of curious to see when and where they would show their hand. In the end I missed the reveal because it never occurred to me that a self declared trans activist would have the brass neck to go wandering into a support thread for trans widows. I clearly have a lot to learn still.

Not only did Alpha go in there, but a random poster who isn't a trans widow scolded Tinsel and others for being harsh when Alpha was told to leave.

Flying monkeys

A useful concept to explore on this thread, I think.

https://www.narcissisticabuserehab.com/types-of-flying-monkeys/?amp=1

The benevolent enabler
A benevolent flying monkey is someone with a sociotropic nature that makes them an easy target for manipulators. Sociotrophic individuals suffer from the so-called “disease to please,” which means that they tend to put the needs of others ahead of theirs.
Often they unwittingly aid and abet a narcissistic person’s campaign of emotional abuse because predatory manipulators are quick to sniff out a sociotropic person’s powerful longing for external validation.
Benevolent flying monkeys are not consciously trying to cause harm. A benevolent flying monkey is likely to have been subjected to the narcissistic person’s love-bombingng and gaslightingng tactics. They are usually acting in good faith based on the narcissist’s persuasive vilification of the person they’ve targeted for abuse.
The narcissistic person will have used the DARVOVO_ tactic to manipulate their perception of events and the people involved so much so that the benevolent flying monkey wrongly views the victim-survivor as the perpetrator of the abuse. Once the narcissistic person has effectively pulled the wool over this person’s eyes, they triangulate them into the conflict and with strong incentives to protect and “rescue” the narcissist.^

The malevolent enabler
A malevolent flying monkey is misanthropic in nature. They are bad faith actors who knowingly participate in narcissistic abuse because inflicting harm on others gives them a sense of power. Malevolent flying monkeys tend to identify with highly narcissistic people and NPDs because they are equally narcissistic in their own right. They usually share the same attitudes and beliefs and feel a sense of belonging in the narcissistic person or NPDs in-group.
Because a malevolent flying monkey is morally bankrupt, it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. In fact, they are usually fully aware that an injustice is taking place. However, these types relish an opportunity to deny dignity and justice to someone who they feel is “not like them.”
Malevolent flying monkeys function as gatekeepers. Often they are foot soldiers of a larger system of oppressionon_, i.e. sexism, racism, etc. and they engage in the conflict for the sole purpose of protecting a hierarchy that serves them.^

How do narcissists recruit flying monkeys?
Narcissists successfully seduce flying monkeys into their ranks by appealing to their narcissism. Narcissism is an expression of self-idealization. It’s a trait that all human beings have to a greater or lesser extent.
Benevolent flying monkeys are generally prone to vulnerable or covert narcissism, while malevolent flying monkey’s narcissism is more like to show up as grandiose or overt narcissism.

Well now... sociotropic would have described me up until my 40s. I learn something everyday on the internet. And that is my new word. Thank you Eresh.

And it is a very timely reminder.

The trans rights activist movement is fuelled by both types of enabling. I would agree that many in group two are personality disordered in their own right. I would say many many women fall into group 1.

Someone mentioned above…At no point did I actively encourage anything.

There are posters who crave attention and don't need positive encouragement beyond engagement for permission to continue transgression, such as the intrusion onto the support thread.

Research indicates that community disruptors gain their power when people engage with them and they are awarded victim status by others who tone police others posters or raise the issue of virtual freedoms. They centre everything upon themselves rather than engaging in the ostensible topic.

There's a point at which women are supporting the ongoing abuse and trespass upon other women by men: Mary Daly termed this horizontal violence by patriarchal women.

PS: Just seen the flying monkey post that explains this in useful detail.

Very well put.

Yes. This.

Hopefully I do some good by modelling boundaries but I could do without having to.

And I am still flabbergasted that somebody's "CAB training" apparently means they have to go on a victims support thread and shill for perpetrators. I wonder if they go into their local refuge and tell women to let other men slap them lightly for the greater good?

That was jaw droppingly awful. You handled both posters exceptionally well Tinsel but you are correct you shouldn't have to, common decency from both of them would prevented you having to do so but they clearly don't possess that trait.

Such a clear example of "A little learning is a dangerous thing".

I'm curious as to what this "CAB training" consists of and the level of certification involved.

Presumably it doesn't involve being made to understand that there's a time and a place for all things, including challenging suspected prejudice.

One of the issues is men deciding to make any womans space a platform for debate, or any womans spaces a place where women have to justify having the space in the first place.

A feminist discussions board, and a trans widows thread don't exist to justify feminism or the feeling and experiences of women. But men dont want to accept this.

If men want to find a middle ground, i suggest that they open up their forums and chat rooms to us. Or create new spaced, but TRA already shut down a reddit sub dedicated to debate.

As they dont allow debate in their spaces, and dont allow neutral spaces to exist, i doubt that their wish to debate here is a genuine desire to learn or even find compromise. Its just a way to distribute womens talking and sharing experiences.

One of the issues is men deciding to make any womans space a platform for debate, or any womans spaces a place where women have to justify having the space in the first place.

A feminist discussions board, and a trans widows thread don't exist to justify feminism or the feeling and experiences of women. But men dont want to accept this.

This.