KJK’s insane rant

[Dontblameitonsunshine]

Kjk’s decision to attack everyone who is not her lapdog is increasingly destructive. It looks like Can-sg put on a great conference. Those doctors who have spoken up have risked their careers. Kjk has become famous and has started a business from LWS. She has benefited way more than any of these doctors.

Her work could be powerful if she just stopped attacking everyone else. But these days she is a demagogue and causes more harm than good by capitalising on vulnerable and timid women and telling them that they need her to speak for them.

It is misinformation to say she has links to the far right. You saying it is not misinformation, doesn't make it not misinformation. Particularly since you cannot evidence those links.

You have posted nothing that indicates she has those links to the 'far right' at all. Plus, you have made these claims on a site that she is banned from so she cannot clarify for herself.

And as per last time you accused me of being an 'arbiter', no, I am not an arbiter. I am searching for truth in your posts because they seem to be showing the same inconsistency and disconnectedness that they end up showing on threads where you attempt to back up your posts and can not.

I ask 'endless questions' because your posts lack consistency and I am finding that they seem to be based on opinions formed from falsehoods. If your arguments fall apart under scrutiny, they are weak and they always were.

I've found some more quotes from that interview here:
https://savageminds.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-the-near-murder-of-kellie

Including this, about the grooming gangs. I've bolded the bit which refers to the likes of Tommy Robinson stepping in to make this all a race issue.

The reason why [Tommy Robinson]….is of any note….—and I am assured by women on the ground...where grooming gangs existed….there were women fighting it, right. However, it didn’t make it to the mainstream media until massive, great big ruptures. And so, what that did—and there was a culture of “Let’s not be racist”... and also “These girls are losers” and “they probably want to be prostitutes at 15”—all of those things tied in together left a gaping hole for someone to come in and say, “Well, 90% of all the men that….we’ve arrested for grooming are Pakistani or Muslim or Somali...They’re all Muslims, so let’s talk about Muslim grooming gangs”...If you can’t talk about these things, you leave them open for people with ill motives to talk about them and make it their cause. And that is exactly what happened. So, I’ve just continued to...say... it’s the fault of the left. If the police force had dealt with those grooming gangs..., there would be no room for anyone to capitalise that void.

How can you spin this as support for the racists? All she's done is observe that the failure of the police to take action or the media to report on it left a gap which allowed the far right to claim this as a race issue.

There are boundaries, and there are false accusations. I think maybe you seem confused as to the difference, but hey.... that is just my opinion.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/crypto

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/fashy

It's shockingly bad isn't it.

Very true. I was struggling to think where the line would be but this seems like an excellent definition of the threshold between the two.

I'm perfectly happy to support trans-identified people being free of discrimination under the PC of gender reassignment. But I would like to see a minimum age of 18 for this PC to apply, as it would help significantly in tidying up the EA for both schools and healthcare. Unfortunately it doesn't help the vulnerable cohort between 18 and 25, many of whom are autistic, who still haven't gone through the adolescent changes that mature the brain, but it would be a step in the right direction. The rest would require health professionals to have conversations (like they hopefully did at the CAN-SG conference) to consider Gillick competence when young people are making irrerversible decisions about their bodies. It seems madness that the criminal justice system considers brain maturity when passing sentences for rapists etc but a healthcare blindspot still exists.

You don’t keep bringing up Jean Hatchet’s blog post to illustrate Jean’s personal boundaries, you cited it as proof of KJK’s far right associations. Over and over.

Such a valuable distinction. I'm at the stage of seeing anyone who supports teaching children their growing bodies are flawed but changing sex will cure them, as a dangerous extremist.
The abandonment of children's rights and safety in favour of pandering to those pushing an anti fact / anti science trans ideology is unforgivable.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but haven't you posted previously about being in favour of updating the GRA to make it easier for men to gain "gender" recognition as women and change the sex marker on their birth certificate to state they are the opposite sex? This policy is at the very core of current trans rights activism isn't it?

It is that disconnect and inconsistency.

I mentioned JCJ because she dementedly published an entire magazine, conveniently made free, which couched trashing of one woman as "intellectual" debate. It was no such thing. But most of WPUK are, in my view, similar. That is, indistinguishable from Owen Jones and friends in their mentality save for broad agreement on one issue.

Makes sense (I've not looked at the webpage but everything else you've said makes sense)

I partly disagree with her and also with the PP who suggested we can't change people's minds about this. I think there's scope to shift public perception from 'everyone has a gender identity and anyone who is sex/gender incongruent must change themselves' to 'apparent sex/gender incongruence is an interesting psychological phenomenon in individuals which deserves a thoughtful well-researched response rather than blind acceptance'. Medics are on it.

It's very possible that I'm one of the PPs who has suggested people's minds can't be changed. If so I'd try and qualify what I mean in a better way. If I've learned anything from this board (and I've learned a lot!) one of the best lessons has been that unintended ambiguity makes difficult conversations even more difficult.

My clarification would be this:

Everyone holds, or does not hold, a particular belief in accordance with their own experiences. I don't think it's possible to change anyone's belief. However, it's definitely possible to influence how someone views their belief. Whether they then change their belief is purely a personal journey for them. To take a simple, non-contentious (I hope!) example:
I believe the world is a globe, not flat. I haven't personally walked/swim all the way round it with a piece of string to check that I eventually get back to the same place. But I'm confident enough in everything that I've seen/read etc to state that my belief is actually a fact. Getting in to more controversial territory, I feel the same about my atheism and my lack of belief that everyone has a gender identity: to me it's a fact that there are no gods and that there is no such thing as gender identity. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind and force my (lack of) belief as fact. But equally, I would hope that people who are at risk from the harms of gender identity belief can be engaged in conversations, through therapeutic interventions, which allow them to explore why they hold the belief that everyone has a gender identity, whilst also unpicking the cause of their distress.

And yet, you are the poster who posted something from hopenothate and declared that journalists always are spot on with their research so why should anyone ever look further than some blog post.

I think that posters who claim that the Policy Exchange is a good starting point for discussion understand quite well how think tanks work. It was you who constantly posted about 'Tufton Street' and used guilt by association and didn't even look at who supported the report that was under discussion, if I remember clearly. What was that about conspiracy theorists again?

@BonfireLady I think we fundamentally agree - this is very much about the lens through which the phenomenon is viewed. Trans people I know speak of it as a psychological, not metaphysical, phenomenon, having many possible causes. But when I suggest that means that the distress it causes could have many possible treatments (with hormones and surgery not necessarily the best option), they give me the Paddington Hard Stare.

You don't like that she has those links. And you are arguing the toss by asking endless questions,

lol. It's almost like no debate. "Don't ask questions!"

It's pretty obvious and pretty tedious now. I don't have to assuage your cognitive dissonance for you.

This is your MO, tho, Adam. Make a load of statements, in such a way, that you fondly imagine you can subsequently disassociate from them entirely, on the basis that although you kept saying them, you didn't actually say they're yours.

Then argue the toss for a couple of pages, practically splitting individual words in half, in order to assign them a different meaning.

Then refuse to answer questions on the basis that they puncture your premise from start to finish. And therefore even asking them is wrong.

And now it's boring, and you sound like you might flounce...but not really.

And, in this case, all because KJK handed you your arse at some distant point in the past.

Why do you think that is? What is it about your solution they disagree with, in your opinion?

Someone's got to save us from ourselves.

It implies a criticism of their own life decisions, and carries a subtext of 'if it can be fixed without medicalisation, then it's not real, so the legal status that goes with it is undeserved'.

Missed a step Datun. The accusations about other posters followed by the derogation and denigration of the current FWR board.

What is really interesting is in listening to that feminist current podcast, Kellie Jay brought up Ditani and how Ditani was 'hard line'. (However, remember we are constantly told that apparently the previous FWR before the split was not so hard line and it was a golden time....) The point is that I wasn't around at that time, but KJK speaks very forthrightly about how Ditani's posts impacted her. I suspect that it was that style of posting that shaped KJK's hard line.

And I do think that having someone lay down a hard line that seems so controversial to some who want to reject it means that ultimately the situation edges closer to that hard line over time. I think we can say we have seen this in action now over the past years. If that 'hard line' forces evaluation, I am all for having that discussed whether I agree with it or not.

Okay, so it's to add weight.

I mean, it should tell us something that of you ask a trans person why they are trans, you'll get as many different answers as people you asked.

I just wondered if you had found out something a bit more plausible

Sorry, Dittany not the Ditani

Because her sites have prominent "donate" buttons all over them and major on protecting womens free speech.

I am not sure why you are so insistent on the "merch" aspect. That's only a part of what she is marketing herself as.

Absolutely. I agree that the relating of what has happened is inaccurate.

But for me, it's the tactics used to attempt to discredit women like KJK.

It's clearly got fuck all to do with what she's saying, and everything to do with her personality.

What person without a grudge would ever try to uncover the contents of a woman's bank account?

It's not as though KJK doesn't do what it says on the tin. You support her, and she does what she says she will. Ipso facto.

If you want to contribute, you get exactly what you pay for. Which to me, demonstrates the entire reason why people want women to stop.