Scottish Hate Crime Bill: Andrew Doyle asks all the right questions of Barrister Sam Fowles

[ILikeDungs]

Scroll to 19:07. I love a bit of straightforward Andrew Doyle.

Silly, women don't count! We shoudl of course respect the individual choice of every man. But we can ignore the opinions of women if they are inconvenient to any men.

I really hope that Fowles looks back on that interview and sees the total disregard that he has for female people in bright lights.

I suspect though, that he will double down and make all the excuses under the sun.

Is this sufficiently covered in the Rules of Misogyny or do we need an additional one to cover ignoring women's opinions if inconvenient to men?

Rules of misogyny.

1. Women are responsible for what men do.
2. Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
4. Women’s opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.
5. Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
6. Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breastfeeding babies deserve punishment.
7. Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
8. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
9. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.
10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
11. Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.
12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.
13. Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves.
14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.
15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.

He's obviously swallowed the cool aid.

Totally. It's not something you expect from a barrister.

Or someone who's gone to the trouble of writing an article, and then gone on GB news.

He had no idea about the MoJ statistics. Thought that the actual number of transwomen sex offenders was a number that Andrew was trying to 'extrapolate' for other reasons.

Even TRA barristers like RMW, haven't actually swallowed the Kool-Aid, in my opinion. It's perfectly obvious when they talk.

I don't think Sam is going to do many more appearances, somehow. No one likes to sweat like that 😄

I think it's probably covered in:

14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.
15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.

I don't think Sam is going to do many more appearances, somehow. No one likes to sweat like that

SF certainly doesn't perspire like that on Scots TV (or not the items I've seen). Does Scots TV have better MUA than GB News? Or was it under pressure from AD who was being polite, firm, appropriately challenging and not letting SF off the hook?

Maybe it was the studio lights. Like with Nixon.

I wonder why he hasn't posted this interview on his X account along with all the other media interviews he has given on the new hate crime law. The rest are all there so ....🤔 why ????

What Sam has done is illustrate what happens when you commit yourself to a cause before you've thought it through. Supporting trans rights sounds great, and if you don't bother to understand the arguments, or look at the evidence, then you are going to come a cropper when faced with questioning by someone who has done those things.

The trouble is, it's hard to row back from once you've committed yourself. Julie Bindel put out a tweet the other day saying how hard it was for Charlotte Proudman and Finn Mackay, who started out supporting trans ideology, probably for career reasons, and now "end up having no choice but to go the whole hog and support it to the bitter and illogical conclusion."

That's probably true for a lot of people.

Dear Sam,

If someone is trans and believes that being housed in a prison alongside other members of their own biological sex would be tantamount to "torture", perhaps they should think twice before committing violent crimes.

Sincerely,

Women everywhere.

There is another - very relevant to modern life - that goes something like:

It is useless to attempt to reason someone out of a thing they were never reasoned into. The best argument will be thrown away upon a fool.

Yes, but the problem everyone has is there is nobody who is able to present a reasoned argument for genderism.

It's a problem for everyone because we can't come to any kind of accommodation or place of mutual understanding because it's like trying to play chess with a pigeon, as the saying goes.

The 'arguments' are all based on meaningless emotive platitudes, at best.

We've had this waffle embedded into law and policy.

'[Sam Fowles] ....collaborated with Felicity Gerry QC and the Bar Human Rights Council to develop new laws and policies on female genital mutilation (FGM). These form the basis of current government policy on FGM.'

Bloody hell, Sam. How did you manage that if you can't even see 'female' as a category that excludes males?

https://samfowlescouk.wordpress.com/about/

Sam has a very illustrious history and lots of accolades, despite being quite young and to all appearances, not very bright.

Does he realise how transphobic the term "FGM" is considered by many TRAs?

Andrew Doyle was very good.

SF is so successful, and presumably clever. Yet I found his - well-reviewed - book 'Overruled' unreadable because it is so inarticulate and lacking in clear reasoning. Odd.

Its always the weak point in TRA - men with gender are women, and men would not identify as men with gender.

Therefore any discrepancy between men with gender and women as classes becomes 'problematic'.

As AD says only two possibilities can explain this - men with gender arent the same class as women, or men can and do falsely claim gender. This was highlighted here years ago, its not a new gotcha.

Whats odd is that TRA didnt think to properly argue the case. Its left them exposed to legislation being made to exclude them from womens spaces and opportunities.

He can say on a tv appearance that the numbers are misleading, but the politicians cant when determining policy, even if it takes them years to get there.

I find it odd that someone is so keen to argue a case that he knows isnt robust, that will not benefit the people he claims to represent?

What a painful watch. He was completely unaware that female prisoners may not enjoy having male prisoners in with them. No concept at all that women have rights of their own.

Sam said that his personal experiences of preditors demonstrated to him that a sign on the toilet door won't stop them going in and committing offences. I find this so frustrating.

We don't know how much criminal activity has been stopped by the social contract of signs on toilet doors because they never happened!! So how can you record the impact!!

And signs on toilet doors made the very act of entering a female space a crime of voyeurism - this is no longer the case, so these are no longer crimes that can be recorded!!

'if a man wants to attack you he will attack you anyway' - no benefit from hiding in the women's loos then, is there!?

And the total garbage about a man having to go through the process of self ID and get all the paperwork in place before he can go into the women's loos - we all know, noone requires paperwork. A man just says 'I am a lady' and noone will challenge him.

Why do TRAs stick with these weak ass points? Why does noone call them out?

I know two or three women who were all for full inclusion into their spaces, defended it and trotted out all the tropes 'most vulnerable, be kind, a sign won't stop them, don't label a whole vulnerable community just because of a few rotten apples.' I watched in real time as they changed their minds when confronted with creepy blokes in the pub loos. Once, my all inclusive pal actually called me from the ladies loo saying there was a bloke in there, peeing with the door open -' what shall I do!? What can I do!?'

Haha. I took more satisfaction than I should have in replying 'just be kind. She just wants to pee.'

He's not a deep thinker on this issue. He unquestioningly offers up such ludicrous sources as Pink News in his awful New European debacle for which I believe he apologised.

The problem is that TRA as intellectual concept is like a public school debate - the truth doesnt matter, only who has the most appealing argument.

That clashes with TRA as reality for vulnerable people. Children are self id-ing rather than professionals exporing their real problems if they have them, people with bad motivations are abusing the system and 'woman' has lost all meaning.

All he's demonstrating in this interview is an inability to see everyone as equals in a situation. Hes being an advocate for TRA, but this isnt a courtroom.

It's also blurring the social contract with the legalities.

The social contract keeps out most men, particularly men who respect women's privacy and dignity. It also enables us to challenge a man in the women's spaces.

The legal position also has explicit provision for excluding males from single sex spaces.

There is no doubt interplay between the social contract and the legal position, but they're not the same thing.

What Sam has done is illustrate what happens when you commit yourself to a cause before you've thought it through. Supporting trans rights sounds great, and if you don't bother to understand the arguments, or look at the evidence, then you are going to come a cropper when faced with questioning by someone who has done those things.

I agree, but he's a barrister.

Surely 'thinking things through' is baked in.

Honestly, the other thing that this bloody ideology does is ruin your faith. In every single institution, all our politicians, education, the police, the NHS, and the law.

I now use it as a benchmark.

For both rank sexism and lack of critical thinking. It's a real eye-opener.

Oh. He’s put it on Twitter. The delusion is so strong he has no idea what he sounds like.
I would suggest he looks at this thread to see why he has some training needs, before the misogyny bill he talks about is passed.

Oh and 127 is an acceptable sample size. Training needs: statistical analysis as well as critical analysis.