Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets

[Justme56]

Link to https://x.com/wearefaircop/status/1723241217536758023?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

Attached the transcript from the interview- not sure if posted in order.

Oh sorry, didn’t realise I was quoting @Ereshkigalangcleg who is something of a legend to me. 🙏🏼

Thank you 😊

I identify as being 18. I have a deep inner sense of being young. Why can’t I have a certificate stating my birth year is actually 2005 and I must be treated as an 18-year-old in all aspects of my life, including qualifying for a Young Person’s Railcard, youth apprenticeships, university halls of residence (and to not be called a “mature” student), young people’s holidays. competitions, dating nights and youth discounts etc …?

Well, I might feel like everyone sees me as 18 but the harsh reality is they’ll all see a woman in early middle age trying to LARP as a teenager. Fortunately they’ll be too scared to say anything because I’ll call them all bigots and get them cancelled from polite society.

This is chilling - reality matters and you can’t change sex any more than you can reverse your age. It is what it is. You make the best of it. Want to go out dancing and clubbing all night but you’re no spring chicken? Do it. Want to wear feminine clothing but you’re not a woman? Fill your boots. Just don’t deny reality and don’t ask me to tell lies. 2+2=4 and always will.

Nailed it

I thought Helen took a transwoman to court for being transphobic

She did, that's what pp said.

@LoobiJee, I know what you mean re: your "But" - it was personal as opposed to general etc.

But already, so many other posters have referenced the personal, the threatening, the violent etc. from "the other side" remaining unchallenged. The inconsistency still stands.

This isn't to say I condone the original tweet/s or engaging in personal attacks of this kind; even Posie's smug "You're a man!" still makes me very uncomfortable - optics, & that individuals on the receiving end could be anyone in any circumstances (incl. very vulnerable, even though they've elected to come out to counter LWS).

But it is to say - the inconsistency is so very there, nonetheless...

This period of time where people are mutilating children will be looked back in history with disgust. I’ll be able to say I never agreed with it.

I look forward to being contacted by Northumbria police.

Thanks Eresh my brain hasn't woken up yet

Have you seen this? Emile Ratelband (who identifies as 20 years younger than his actual age) tells Jane Fae (extreme porn advocate, formerly known as John Ozimek) that trans age is just like transgender.

The Home Secretary said the police were partisan (I paraphrase) in the context of the Israeli/Palestine conflict. Some people, especially the Met, didn't like that but I see it as true. And they are clearly highly partisan in the gender identity bollox too.

I like to think they can't see what they're doing, they're being naive about it all. But I fear that isn't so.

When did it become accepted that it's a beyond cruel thing to do to state to a man that he is a man?

Not following a man around on the street and shouting it at him, but in circumstances when that man is loudly, publicly, on social media or in the public eye, stating a requirement that everyone pretend to believe he is a woman with every right to invade women's spaces, privacy, dominate their language, control them in every way . When this is being flaunted at women with that oh so familiar ha ha, you can't stop me or say anything vibe.

It's called forced to the discourtesy. What other circumstances can someone trample on others to this extent and still require that everyone pretend?

And have legal recourse ffs to enforce the pretense?

Many of us do not believe that men are ever anything other than men. We will never believe this. The absolute most that the police can require is that we pretend to believe for the benefit of a man. Who gets to control our words and actions and enforce our enablement of whatever he wishes. I mean, pretend what you like, I can float about being Galadriel or a Vulcan in my own head and in costume, but the line is interfering with other people who have their own lives and are getting on with them and have no interest in what I might want to use them for to prop up my inner self.

This is nothing progressive or even basically ethical, and it's absolutely nothing that a police force should be involved in.

Hopefully this is getting a wider and wider audience. It’s beyond nonsense now. People need to start getting fired over such overreach and bullying.

Not following a man around on the street and shouting it at him, but in circumstances when that man is loudly, publicly, on social media or in the public eye, stating a requirement that everyone pretend to believe he is a woman with every right to invade women's spaces, privacy, dominate their language, control them in every way . When this is being flaunted at women with that oh so familiar ha ha, you can't stop me or say anything vibe.

It's called forced to the discourtesy. What other circumstances can someone trample on others to this extent and still require that everyone pretend?

And have legal recourse ffs to enforce the pretense?

We know that many of these people deliberately goad until they get something they can report. It's a complete waste of resources.

It's worrying that someone would even be arrested for this, but I assume they aren't getting charged.

“They interviewed her despite a warning from Fair Cop to leave her alone.”

😆😆😆

The duty sol statement at the end is very strange. Unless the client waived privilege, which seems unlikely given the no comment interview, the duty solicitor appears to have breached legal professional privilege by informing the police as to the advice s/he has given her and the client's likely course of action going forwards

Mine too. They can no longer create a non crime hate incident against a person without due process. So the police have decided the correct approach is to arrest people for non crimes instead

There is nothing 'unkind' in telling a man who is publically claiming to be a woman that he is actually a man.

Its the pussyfooting around the truth, out of misplaced concern for the vulnerable, that has got us to the mess that we're in. Why we now have organisations refusing to protect women's boundaries from fetishistic men, and young lesbians who believe they need medications that will sterilse them and shorten their lives in order to be 'their true selves'.

'Gender identity' is not real. Nobody is born in the wrong body, or has the 'wrong' brain. People only believe this because society (schools, doctors, the legal system) are telling them this is a real phenomenon, that we have to be 'kind' and 'respectful' about. Young people are increasingly believing that their sex is optional. That 'being trans' is a reasonable life path, that will be facilitated by doctors and accommodated by society. Young women uncomfortable with aspects of being female believe they can opt out of womanhood, and become the men they would prefer to be, and that it's totally reasonable to take hormones that will sterilize them and shorten their lives in order to grow facial hair and bigger muscles.

We need to get all teaching that 'gender identity is a real phenomenon' out of schools. If necessary teach that 'some people believe that', but make plain that belief doesn't change biological reality, and that other people don't have to play along. When children and/or their parents ask schools to pretend their child is the opposite sex, the answer should be 'No'.

We need doctors to treat transgender people the same way they treat other people with non-scientific health beliefs. NHS gender clinics should all be closed. They are a service run by believers in nonsense, to treat other believers who have been harmed by the nonsense. They have no more place in the NHS than Homeopathy or Christian Science clinics. People in genuine distress need proper psychotherapy, which can be provided by the general psychiatric service. Men with fetishes and confused teenagers and young adults need someone to say 'No'. 'No you're not a man/woman, and there is no medical treatment that will change your sex'.

All mention of 'gender reassignment' needs to be removed from the Equality Act. The GRA should be repealed. All the protection trans people need could be covered by the current protected categories of sex/belief/ diability. The law should not uphold, or appear to uphold, a right to be treated as if you have changed sex.

Every single time a man claims publically to be a woman, he should be told 'No. You are not'.

We shouldn't tolerate the smallest lie, or we contribute to the whole edifice of lies that is causing harm to the vulnerable.

They can no longer create a non crime hate incident against a person without due process. So the police have decided the correct approach is to arrest people for non crimes instead.

That is really alarming. Either they are very stupid, or very vindictive. Or possibly both.

I still hope we can find a way through that distinguishes between 1) gender dysphoria & gender identity, & 2) firmly refusing to accept men are women & yelling at a stranger.

I recognise the current context has made 1) almost impossible & 2) complex. I honestly can see the argument for yelling, especially at someone who’s put themselves in a position that appears to invite that! But I can also see the argument for, instead, making a calm, impersonal statement that isn’t directed at an individual: “Men can’t be women.” It’s same message (don’t appropriate our identity) but a different medium (calm reason). Calm reason is what distinguishes & empowers us at a crazy, emotional time. Calm reason is more convincing, & less likely to provoke furious, unthinking resistance (unhelpful to the cause) or deep distress to the odd individual who’s genuinely deeply troubled (unhelpful to the cause).

Being resistant to shouting isn’t the same as disagreeing with what’s being shouted.

Never attribute to malice… etc. but they are stupid. And vindictive. I could not have less respect for the police.

If anyone knows the victim of their stupidity here, I would be very happy to talk her through some of the vagaries of the criminal justice system as I have experienced it over a similar matter.

No one is talking about randomly shouting at a stranger.

They're talking about a reply to strong provocation on social media relying on being able to treat women horrifically while insisting that woman 1) continues to pretend regardless of cost to herself (the purity/submission test), and 2) protects their 'vulnerability' regardless of cost to self.

I absolutely would give hell to a child of mine shouting 'you're fat' at someone in the street. But if you want to for example be a model or a dancer and present yourself for evaluation identifying as being slim, sooner or later someone is going to be forced to point out to you that you are not in fact what you claim to be, and that other people are not obliged to indulge and enable you. If you go for private surgery and identify as being eight stone, the insurers will have to point out to you that you are in fact sixteen stone, and there are ramifications of that which cannot be identified out of if they make you distressed.

If you want to jump up and down on someone else's feet you are going to have to deal with the owner of the feet telling you to get the fuck off, right now. And whining that they're hurting your feelings and should protect your vulnerability before their feet?

It's abusive behaviour. It's sociopathic behaviour. It should not be enabled and indulged. It is not the identifying business, it's the treatment of others that is the issue. Vulnerability is not an excuse, it is not a blank cheque to demand other people continue to cash for you.

No woman is obliged to set themselves on fire to keep a man warm.

@Froodwithatowel, I was talking about shouting at a stranger IRL, although not randomly.

This was just as a brief throwaway comment about personally finding Posie's tendency to yell "You're a man!" at interlopers difficult on occasions (I've attended LWS despite this, & sometimes watch it online).

This led to a response that I thought may be misinterpreting my comment as an indication I don't believe we should ever tell men they're not women (I may have misunderstood, & apologies if so). If this was the reading, it's incorrect.

As such, I attempted to explain that I completely agree it's necessary to do this (for the reasons you outline above), and that I can understand the feeling that it's justified to shout IRL (for the reasons you outline above). However, I added, I think context & tone are important - YES, because of potential vulnerability, & MORE, as a tactical step to maximise support.

Some of what we're seeing is abusive & sociopathic, yes. Some of it is confused & misguided. And some is about exceptionally vulnerable individuals being swept up in a movement that we suspect cares little if at all for them. But WE care for them, don't we? And not just about unnecessary medicalisation, but about unnecessary distress? Late teens who identify as trans & are on the autism spectrum / depressed / anxious? The kind of teen or young adult we all want to protect? They're right there among those being drawn to protests events like Posie's, drawn there by people who should know better. They're among those who may be shouted at.

I didn't think it was a massively controversial point to suggest that I'd prefer that such people hear a calm, rational observation that, "It's important to recognise that transwomen are men, because..." as opposed to a personalised, potentially distressing "YOU'RE A MAN!!!"

It feels as if, increasingly on these boards, the slightest agreement that YES, we need to say exactly what we all agree is necessary BUT we should just consider HOW we do that (because 1. sometimes a vulnerable person caught up in all this may be hurt by it & 2. sometimes a fence-sitter may be put off by it) is rapidly condemned as some kind of naive policy of appeasement driven by greater concern for transpeople than women.

It's not.

I stand by what I say above. Our weapons are reason &, yes, empathy. The main weapon levelled at us is the accusation of bigotry. This creates an argument for a calm, rational approach.

There are also arguments for biblical wrath, quite frankly - I feel sick with rage sometimes at what's happening. I recognise that. And I think what Posie's doing is bloody amazing, & the benefits outweigh any concerns I may have.

I simply want to be able to discuss - or even just make a brief reference to, as above! - the tactics of waging this war without it being assumed that I'm wearing a white feather or being accused of waving a damp white flag.

(Among other things, it can totally derail a thread, so heading off now - Mumsnet work avoidance strikes again!) 😀

Edited for clarity. Hopefully.

I'm not sure why this disagreement about tone is relevant to whether the police should be able to harass women for non crimes. That's kind of the point, we don't have to agree with people to want their freedom of speech protected.