Hollyoaks - well this is creepy!

[Imnobody4]

This is an important conversation to have #Hollyoaks

https://twitter.com/Flashmaggie/status/1765511265076613611?t=DMjXSrOUX7zq5tzRgsRGEA&s=19

Bloody hell- so they're promoting whole body cosmetic surgery with permanent life limiting effects which will require lifelong medication to 9/12/15 year olds, acknowledging that some of them change their minds- and they take no responsibility for their promotional effects?
If they have no effect on those decisions they why do they get involved? Can't have it both ways.
Kids are banned by law from having sex, voting, getting married, having a tattoo, leaving school, because they are too young to make these decisions that would affect the rest of their lives.
But trans, so go ahead become infertile, physically weakened, psychologically damaged- trans say yeah "it's the best feeling."
@ForCoralFox you're conveniently ignoring this aren't you.
Won't you be kind about kids who followed your cult and then changed their minds?
Or will you blame them for doing what you advise when they were too young to know better?

They believe the real truth is the world as they want it to be and that matters far more than what the world might currently be, because what the world might currently be is just something that happened to develop in the short term because no one was trying to make it better. So from that perspective, if reality currently contradicts our claims it's best to ignore it because while it might be real in the short-term that's just happenstance, it's not the truth!

Acute. And that's a common phenomenon.

Wishful propaganda.

I believe when asked to provide links to the original source evidence of what convinced fox that those treatments improve children’s lives, the reply was something about fox not being a doctor. I think the implication is that doctors know best.

And when it has been suggested that fox at least start reading the ‘WPATH leaked’ report, and that we would link them up with other papers and studies, we were told nothing was going to convince them to change their minds.

This is not unusual. We see extreme trans rights activists (those prioritising male demands over female people’s needs) do this frequently. It is why we point out the ideological side of it. The refusal to even read original source material and interrogate that material for its robustness is what many of us on FWR do. But I believe that would just make us obsessive in Fox’s eyes and that is definitely something to avoid!

If you hate gender critical women, and are glad you don’t have to interact with them…….Why on earth would you be on here seeking them out? Day after day.

What is this one “type” of woman that holds GC views?

I am sure my nieces believe that their grandmother and I would never be gender critical. We are very left wing, very supportive of the lesbians and gays in our family, very accepting of people’s life choices and very caring, compassionate people.

We don’t discuss this with them because we know that their beliefs come from a place of compassion, rather than logic, and our time on mumsnet shows that people whose entire social groups are convinced twaw find it very difficult to appraise the logic behind that mantra.

We know that their holding different opinions to us does not negate or lessen our love for them in any way, but we are not certain, as shown by you having cut off your one gc relative, that this will be reciprocated.

It’s very sad that families survive being in different sides of Brexit, being mixtures off right and left wing, believing in different religions, but they don’t always survive differences of opinion in this topic. I’ve never seen it be the gc side who cut off relatives over this.

It's part of the TRA narrative though isn't it, if your family don't agree with you, they're hateful and you should go NC.

Dramatic, immature response to a different point of view. And also handily serves to normalise separating youngsters from families.

There's a statistical reason that you can probably name females who've been involved in major sexual and violent crimes like this.

What might it be?

What Fox has said here is highly consistent with this yougov poll. In this case, that particularly women will not let their true feelings be known, particularly to family and friends, about this issue. Because they fear that they will lose contact with the people they love.

Remember how relieved fox was to cut the person they regarded as gender critical out of their life? I doubt they are even aware that people who know that fox did this might have made the connection that they too would be cut if they showed any sign of disagreeing.

The YouGov poll is very clear about it. I would love to see them redo it now though to seen whether people are still as concerned or whether they have just gone ‘fuck it! Who needs to live agreeing with someone who is so ideologically driven’ or whether it is worse.

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/22/cancel-culture-what-views-are-britons-afraid-expre

Here are some interesting highlights:

A majority of Britons (57%) say they have, at least sometimes, found themselves stopping themselves from expressing their political or social views for fear of judgement or negative responses from others.

Women are also more likely to have held their tongue than men (62% vs 52%).

29% of those who disagree with the statement “a transgender woman is a woman” feel they have to frequently keep bottled up.

Only 10% of respondents agree with the mantra. But apparently, according to Fox in 20 years that number will be significantly higher. This is another assertion that isn’t based in reality though. All the studies, experiences and evidence coming through that show that this is simply not true and that once you pull one thread, such as sports or prisons, pronouns for rapists, then the entire philosophy unravels into an emotional mass.

And Myra Hindley was 60 bloody years ago!

Rose West four decades ago.

Not only can they name them, there are decades between them.

I saw a TRA post 6 photos on Twitter as a supposed 'women commit violent crimes too!!!!' riposte and one of the photos was of Lizzie Borden, whose (alleged) crime occurred in 1892.

And yet who would have thought that Mermaids would have a trustee who was a paedophile apologist? Who would have thought that Girlguiding UK would appoint a male with a BDSM fetish and who had a social media profile header of themselves in the bathtub imposed over a picture of a line up of very young girls in white dance outfits as one of their district leaders in charge of over 30 groups?

Who would have thought that Stonewall is still connected with Peter Tatchell who is constantly on media supporting the prioritisation not just gender over sex when sex matters, but as someone who has something to contribute about safeguarding and sex education? tatchell who wrote that not all child sex abuse was abuse and that ‘intergenerational sex acts’ were not always harmful and advocates that porn is a good tool for children to use to learn sex. Oh. And let’s not forget that he complained when the British Government sought to separate a child bride from her adult husband stating it was true love not abuse.

I think we have seen enough recently to realise that there are significant breaches in safeguarding being allowed because of extreme activist action. Because to question organisations who are supposed to be doing due diligence is regarded as transphobic, hateful, or merely ‘unkind’.

Kindness is not just leaving well meaning but clear ‘red flag’ actions to be unquestioned, to be uninvestigated or analysed. That is the very opposite to kind.

I can assure you that whatever impression you may have formed on an anonymous internet forum, no one one who knows me would ever think for a moment that I'd report someone to their employer for holding views different to my own. Besides which, this particular individual does not have an employer. She just sits around on the internet all day pursuing her strange obsessions. I'll just leave it there.

Intelligent ones who can think for themselves.

Precisely.

And all of this just gets hand waved away as 'that never happens' .

It did.

'Oh well it happens really rarely'.

No it doesn't.

'Oh beeee kiiiind'.

Dont the Samaritans etc have guidelines about talking about/stories about suicide due to the risk of social contagion and copy cat incidents? Isn't there a parallel here?

There it is again. You really don’t see your own behaviour, do you?

Or is it that you a significantly lower bar for your own behaviour because you deem it righteous versus those who interact with you who you have derogated, demonised and vilified?

I did not cut off a relative, it was a friend, albeit a very old friend. Her gender critical views were not the only reason, but they were the straw that broke the camel's back. All our mutual friends contacted me privately to say well done as they were appalled by her views but didn't feel able to challenge them. All have also since expressed jealousy that I don't have to deal with her any more. I know there are none who share her views but are just too afraid to tell me.

OMG how awful this woman sounds. Friendless, and universally hated, you say. Gosh. Appalling, eh?

What brings you to this board, Fox?

I am a great admirer of Peter Tatchell. I have also met him a on a couple of occasions. He is hugely courageous and a true hero of our times.

I don't know really. It's strange. I suppose a mixture of curiosity and masochism?

Well there we have it, folks.

Yes. 'Nuff said really.

Don’t forget ‘obsessive’, Arabella! That seems to be something to avoid being seen as at all costs. This woman has been made to sound like a feminist version of an incel!

I suspect that unwritten comparison is just another sign of this poster’s entrenched prejudice. It is remarkable. I suspect that the YouGov poll really does explain the phenomenon of this poster’s friends and family very well. I doubt there is any way that those friends and family would not know this poster’s views and just play along and keep quiet.

And there is another confirmation of Fox’s low boundaries.

For those reading along, you might find this a good place to start. This is all evidenced and not misrepresented despite the weak attempts from Tatchell to dismiss the accusations. There are far too many now for people to ignore. But it seems this poster will simply ignore it all.

https://lilymaynard.com/what-did-peter-tatchell-really-say/

Explains a lot