Moira Deeming in Australia - thread 3

[TheSandgroper]

Following on from busy threads 1 and 2

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5167282-in-australia-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-now-on

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5172553-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-thread-2-from-australia

Keep on discussing, ladies. Change never happens in silence.

All the gay men I know find Paedophiles abhorrent and are more than ready to expose and condemn them. After all some gay men have been their victims.

Really can't get my head around 'mustn't mention Paedophiles' it'll upset the gays.

No, not my point.
My point is there is a longstanding trope that gay men are perverts and threats to children.

It is even on Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_grooming_conspiracy_theory#:~:text=This%20trope%20became%20more%20widespread,%22groomer%20slur%22%20in%20particular.

Thus, when people talk about trans issues in terms of "groomer", "paedophile", "paedophile apologist", a lot of people will switch off straight away assuming they are homophobic.

Pesutto et al. were raising this issue and I agree, it is a well known homophobic trope.

Women can "dare to be honest" as much as they like but they can't undo culture and a lot of people would perceive Angie Jones' rhetoric as a homophobic dogwhistle. And in my opinion it's not defamatory to point that out. Intent is different to perception; saying the public could perceive it as homophobic is not the same as saying Angie Jones intended it as homophobic.

Being gender critical doesn't equate to being able to use whatever emotive language you want and if people misinterpret, that's their problem.

Agree, same goes for the gay men I know and they are very concerned about bad actors using them as cover to hide a nefarious agenda behind, the PIE scandal still burns.

Thus, when people talk about trans issues in terms of "groomer", "paedophile", "paedophile apologist", a lot of people will switch off straight away assuming they are homophobic.

of course, bigots will be bigots.

I didn't think we called people bigots here

I must admit it is not the first group of people that I associate with being paedophiles. Paedophiles are paedophiles. But it does seem that the Liberal group (and even your many allusions) have LGB and the TI as a first thought when paedophilia is referred to. The most public issues Ireland experienced with paedophiles were priests in the Church. Even then I don’t think ‘priest’ when I see that banner. It is about paedophiles. I would be a very dishonest person if I tried to pretend that nobody could condemn paedophiles and say that they were only doing it because they were anti Christian. I wouldn’t try and smear anyone for the act of condemning paedophilia.

Do you think Angie Jones was wrong to condemn paedophilia? Or that paedophilia cannot be condemned now. Maybe stop associating paedophiles with LGB or TI people straight away. All types of people can be paedophiles.

Interesting we are now (as a board) moving to claim that the "gay is high risk of paedophilia" trope isn't a thing.

For me, I think its important for women to have biological differences recognised. I also recognise homophobia and attitudes that gay men are perverts/children abusers etc as a very common homophobic attitude.

If "sex based rights activists" can't see that them implying trans people are higher risk of being paedophiles could be perceived as homophobic then in my opinion 1) they are either thick or faux naive and 2) I'm not going to hold them up as a role model.

Gay men have had enough to deal with and I don't think it is necessary to throw them under the bus for "sex based rights". This is the downside of tunnel vision onto "woman = adult human female" though.

I have a family member who is gay. He/ or we would certainly not see ‘paedo filth’ and think it referred to him. Wow.

Go talk to some gay male friends about their experiences and then come back to me.
A bit of empathy goes a long way in society. Lesbians shouldn't be pressured to accept "girldick" and gay men shouldn't have to navigate the "gender non conforming = paedo" stereotype. It's homophobia and women wanting sex based rights doesn't make it OK.

Good.
I have gay friends who worry a lot about it, to the point they won't put themselves forwards to foster children in case people assume nefarious intent.
Do we need to argue about whose friends feelings are most valid?

I think it was an error to mention nazis and paedos in her tweet. Over emotive and not rational on several levels which left her open to criticism.

I am not surprised the Libs interpreted the tweet the way they did. I would too, having talked to gay friends.

Yes so do I. And I agree with you.

So what WAS the point here? Most people, whatever their sexuality, would agree that the protection of children from paedophiles is the job for everyone.

Most (decent) people would not be offended by pointing out paedophile apologists or suggest that it is homophobic to point them out!

Most (decent) people would agree that it is absoutely the job of politicians to highlight concerns for the welfare of children.

So what was the point of the paedo apologist / homophobia derail?

?? What?
Please don't imply I'm OK with paedophiles. I'm a survivor of CSA. That is not OK.

You condemn Angie Jones for condemning paedophilia. Is that incorrect?

Talk to some gay men.

I always advise men to talk to women about sexism. This is the same. Women cannot understand the constant narrative gay men face about their motives for engaging with children. Writing it off is an error, the same as men claiming " I haven't seen any sexism". We don't know, because we aren't gay men.

Oh please, I live with a gay man.

I know fully well that he disagrees with you about this.

First protect the children.

No. I condemn her for saying "Nazis and women want to get rid of paedo filth. Why don't you?"

1. reference to nazis is totally irrelevant
2. implications that someone is a paedophile/paedophile apologist is not OK if its not proven - its defamatory
3. completely unnecessary emotive language.

There are much better ways to make her point. I'm not clear exactly who the "paedo filth" are, for example.

All paedos are filth?

Don't you see that?

Agreed. The gay men I know (social workers and teachers mainly) are far more bothered abut paedophiles targeting children. For the social workers it was a wake up call when the NSPCC defended the gay man with the rubber fetish who photographed himself masturbating in the workplace toilets and the NSPCC called those criticising him bigots. We had some angst ridden conversations about how a respected child safeguarding organisation like the NSPCC could have got that so wrong. The conclusion was it was mainly (but not solely) back office staff - young and out of uni all pushing identity politics while the professional front line social workers were horrified and after in house pressure management came to their senses and he was sacked.
But for them it was awake up call that showed how for some people, the opportunity to silence by alleging homophobic bigotry was more exciting than the grim reality of his behaviour.
But then they were trained social workers, fully aware of how determined paedophiles are to groom children and use any excuse they can to avoid scrutiny. Hence their demands for sacred castes - those who we must never criticise.

Your housemate may well do, but he is only one gay man. It is not wholly relevant. A bit like MRAs saying "my girlfriend loves porn, so you are a prude".

The conspiracy that gay men are perverts and paedophiles is well known and well recognised. I doubt you'd have this reaction to someone pointing out well known anti-semitic tropes, for example.

You could say exactly the same about straight men not wanting to work with young children for fear of being accused.
Surely as a society we should come together to block the current attempts to legitimise paedophilia.
Most victims are girls. Are you really suggesting the sensitivities of some gay men should be prioritised over the suffering of children and their protection.
Child sexual abuse is not a trope.

I think I have a higher opinion of gay men than you do.

There was no need to mention Nazis. I don't know why Jones did that. Seriously I am baffled by it. Very odd turn of phrase from her.

Not one person has said that all gay men are paedophiles.

Not one person has said that all gay men are perverts.

MD didn't say that and nor did AJ.

The protection of children from paedophiles should be the most important thing here.

Decent people know that.

Well the judge seemed to understand her point.