Men in the movement.

[UrsulasHerbBag]

Hi everyone. I just want to give you all a reminder that men in our movement are not always what they seem. Just because they say they agree with us doesn’t mean they are in it for the same reasons we are. There a few that see how lucrative being on TERF/GC platforms can be. I think I am mainly saying that if you see one of these men attacking women online, even if you think that woman is awful don’t join in with him, just scroll passed. There has been a lot of it recently on various platforms and it has upset me to see how many women support them in their misogyny whilst calling themselves feminists. I am very proud of the women who fight hard to gain ground and get our voices heard and I am just a bit sick of men who jump in from nowhere, take our words and kick our women and be supported by us. It is a tale as old as time, men taking from women. As you were TERFs.

I couldn't resist looking back at BoswellToday's twitter posts from February some of them were wild, in retrospect.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/^1890092884487290894?s=19^
We have war room! White boards and everything!

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1889720810446737685?t=Ht9YvP6ZXNwYP3f02jvj7w&s=19

It's a two (sometimes three) person job. Literally! Too much time on our hands apparently. Glad it's adding some value.

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1890098942622462160?t=Lv51Qfl8Vp_f-5Mq1c_r1A&s=19

We’re exhausted! Still - food for thought! Glad you find them useful.

It's likely just been 'Boswell' all along, hasn't it? 🙄

Who/what was the original Boswell? Don't think I ever saw it.

I saw his tweet about ‘Ultras’ first which told me volumes about his motives. I’ve been around long enough to recognise that male criticism of women who refuse to concede that any males be referred to as females is invariably the start of forcing a wedge between us. Both to divert our energy and plead special circumstances for the trans ‘pet of the day’. (there’s been many but anyone else remember the rationaltrans? He disappeared when we wouldnt bow down before him)

Early on I still had some female social conditioning and was slightly susceptible to it (I even, shudder, praised Hayton once).

I now have the view that I’m very glad we have outspoken women like Jean and Posy that hold their line (even if they don’t agree with each other).

I was bewildered by the Nurse reference, I didn’t get it as a Carry On reference and I still can’t see it. The ‘something of the night’ reference has different interpretations depending on your cultural references, if I’d used it one way and someone significantly misinterpreted it to the point it was causing a problem I’d apologise and explain even if I was arguing with them.

If you google Boswell Joke Thread Mumsnet, all the threads will come up.

It was around 2018, some weird joke that never made sense and I guess they are making some sort of reference to it but as it makes no sense, who knows what they are trying to achieve. It went on for ages.

Excellent commentary, especially refuting the idea that it is "too good" to be made by a human, what on earth, there are so many good writers out there and many other people who are great in their area of expertise. Humankind survived thousands of years without AI.

Additionally it is a nice rebound to say Boswell just proved Jean and her fellows right by how he reacted.

@NebulousSupportPostcard

The war room-thing is something that I read, too.

I did think the text was tweaked, especially as the style was so consistent, but it provided a quick overview within lots of material. But as as someone on TwiX commented, there is no substitute for putting in the time or work to read the sources (TT) if you want to understand it for yourself, especially as BT was often putting down their subjects in the description. Now we have not exactly reacted well to what the witnesses said, but that was because of their actions and words, and not because of their style or personality.

Additionally, the BT texts were written as semi-journalistic take, which is not directly comparable to a freeer discussion on a board like this.

She's also quite happy to block other women if they say something she doesn't agree with. We were mutual follows before she was banned from Twitter, as it then was, and since she came back I've found myself blocked by her without knowing why.

boswell replied to a tweet with this answer:
"(...) I also had someone in the court feeding me directly via DM. Am I supposed to feel shame? Or is this one of those “What do I need a mobile phone for?” moments? (...)"

https://nitter.poast.org/boswelltoday/status/1954514825305895406#m

the fact that he goes for the usability of the technology in his train of thought could point towards exactly this: usability of his AI models and application cases.

Alessandra Asteriti also subtly hinted at Michael Foran as the possible person who is in the room and feeds back to boswell.

a few days ago at the conclusion of 2nd part of the SP tribunal, Iain Masterton photographed the receiving committee at the end of day.

https://nitter.poast.org/iain_masterton/status/1950220395723846015#m

You see everyone looking at Sandie, except MF looking at his mobile.

She saw it before I noticed:
https://nitter.poast.org/AlessandraAster/status/1950269535178682535#m

If it is not Michael as the lawyer who interacted with BT, who else could it be? The people who saw the live feed or were there, were there other lawyers present every day in the observer part?

However, I am starting to get why Ms Asteriti is often (verbally!) brutal:
In order to navigate in the public/political/legal sphere, and make steps forward, a lot of discussion is necessary and it was a huge step forward that the Forstater judgment and others protected "GC belief". That's finally decided that people are "allowed" to hold these beliefs - but, of course in the greater scheme of things, it's clear that it's ridiculous to treat this as "belief" as if it was a privilege to be able to think and say this.

This is where the "ultra" descriptor comes in,

https://nitter.poast.org/AlessandraAster/status/1953323195370488269#m

"I know I am repeating myself, but the toxic idea of a GC belief is getting ever more entrenched, to our detriment."

That you have to use the term "belief" as if it was some religious undercover operation, where Enlightment never happened.

Her concept seems to be that there can be no compromise, no step-by-step, because the main idea of trans ideology doesn't compute and is in opposition to reality.

I think you need many different kinds of people to achieve something.
You need the diplomatic people, the ones doing the detailed work and all the small steps, the legal brains, the ones who are happy to protest in person against this and are very brave, because they show the movement is real and plentiful, the brave women who go to court, the ones collecting the funds for the lawsuits, the NGOs like SM, FWS and many more, and also the no-compromise hardliners who go back to basics and watch out that the compromises don't disadvantage women too much.
And not many women dare to be as abrasive and daredevil as many men write on social media and elsewhere.

I can understand that people are upset if they were blocked for no reason, though, because it feels like everyone is supposed to be on the same side, even if they have different approaches to the solution.

I'm not convinced that the BoswellToday 'team' is any more than that one person (I followed the hints and am pretty sure i found the person but obvs won't post the name).

Boswell claims to have a data scientist and a lawyer contributing to the summaries, with War room, white boards and live DMs from court. And all three being exhausted by mid February. But the summaries were over-dramatised rubbish. Why would you need any more than one person who knows how to use ChatGPT, which he clearly does? (x.com/boswelltoday/status/1620437353696493574)

BUT @ConstructionTime, having said all that in my last post, there is a strange paragraph in Boswell's final summary (italicised below), that would fit with someone having added more detail than Chat-GPT would usually care to mention!

boswelltoday

@ boswelltoday

Tuesday PM Session | Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton

Sandie Peggie Takes the Stand: The Lonely Truth in a Hostile Room

On Tuesday afternoon, Sandie Peggie returned to the witness box in the tribunal that bears her name. The room was quiet, anticipatory - less because of any bombshells to come, more for the slow inevitability of the final reckoning. After seven days of evidence, NHS Fife’s institutional handling lay in disrepair. But the question on everyone’s mind now was simple: how would Peggie carry herself under fire?

Cross-examination began not with policy, but with humour. The “Pakistan flood jokes” from a private group chat—a dark relic from another era - were read aloud. “Distasteful,” Peggie agreed. But her manner was firm, not apologetic. She had, she said, expected “shock, horror, laughter.” This was the culture she’d grown up in - where “Paki” was once common parlance, and the corner shop bore the slur in its name. The tribunal didn’t hear excuses. It heard history - raw, unpretty, unvarnished.

Dr. Upton’s counsel, Jane Russell KC, pressed hard. Was it true that Peggie had made a remark about putting a bacon sandwich through the letterbox of a mosque? Peggie couldn’t recall, but she did remember a paramedic joking about it. She denied saying it herself. Was it funny? “Wouldn’t be nice,” she conceded, but again insisted it had been “dark humour.” Not public, not proud. Just the kind of “bad jokes” people made in a tired room. It’s a detail with bite: if humour was the offence, it was one others were allowed to indulge - just not Peggie.

More crucially, the questioning returned to the core of the dispute: the changing room. Peggie confirmed she had asked colleagues for a photograph circulating in the department - a rumour about Dr. Upton attending a night out in a dress. The image had prompted whispers, laughter, and discomfort. Peggie didn't initiate that, she said - but she didn’t deny her interest in it either. Then came the catalogue of names. How many staff had expressed discomfort with Dr. Upton using the female changing room? Peggie named nearly a dozen - receptionists, nurses, even consultants. And why had she not disclosed this in February? “Sadness,” she said. Protecting colleagues still working in the department. Even now, saying their names left her visibly shaken. “Some are very close colleagues,” she said. “It’s deeply upsetting.”

Her messages were read. “I’m raging,” one said after her suspension. “The trans have all the rights,” said another. These weren’t polished public statements - they were venting. Russell suggested resentment. Peggie admitted frustration but denied any hatred. And the now-infamous message referring to Dr. Upton as a “weirdo”? Yes, she said. It was “weird” seeing a man in a dress, but she didn’t think “weirdo” was derogatory. It was just her language. The tribunal will have to decide whether that difference matters.

When asked about whether trans people deserve love, Peggie’s answer was simple: “Yes.” If her child came out as trans, she would love them. But she held firm: even if someone “felt” they were born in the wrong body, they remained biologically male. “Still a man,” she said, “and shouldn’t be in the female changing room.”

She closed her evidence with the same composure with which she’d begun. A woman alone in her views, perhaps. But no longer silent.

The tribunal adjourned shortly after. The judge thanked the witnesses and counsel, confirmed the Claimant’s case was now closed, and issued directions. Skeleton arguments are due by noon the next day, with final written submissions by 25 August. Oral arguments - along with any final questions from the panel - are scheduled for 1 and 2 September, in person, in Dundee.

So it will all return here: same courtroom, same bench, same questions. This time, no witnesses - just closing words. Then, a judgment. And then, finally, an answer. Over and out!

3:54 PM · Jul 29, 2025
·
85.7K
Views

😁

from human-generated text edited by AI, to AI-generated text edited by humans

Here are news about the use of AI tools in assessing medical care for elder people or those with a disability.
The study found that the same case information is presented differently when a male or female name (or sex) was given - from the same basic information!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/11/ai-tools-used-by-english-councils-downplay-womens-health-issues-study-finds

This could be very relevant also for court cases and the topic of gender bias. Then the old tropes of "it's all her fault, she made me do it" and "man just reacted strongly to his wife's wish to leave him, poor soul" could resurface here, due to the material with which models are trained.

So this aspect of biased AI and court cases is a thing to watch VERY closely.

That's very disconcerting. It seems almost baked in that women aren't as in much need of...anything, especially if there's a man who wants whatever it is.

In one example, the Gemma model summarised a set of case notes as: “Mr Smith is an 84-year-old man who lives alone and has a complex medical history, no care package and poor mobility.”

The same case notes inputted into the same model, with the gender swapped, summarised the case as: “Mrs Smith is an 84-year-old living alone. Despite her limitations, she is independent and able to maintain her personal care.”

The attractive thing about Boswell's posts at the time was that they were fluent and authoritative-sounding. They offered, or appeared to offer, much more than you could get just from reading Tribunal Tweets.

I find it interesting and, if I'm honest, slightly alarming that that kind of authoritative-sounding summary could be generated by AI from the rather messy tweets posted by TT (that isn't a criticism of TT, by the way). The only time it significantly slipped up was in summarising the testimony of Charlotte Myles, which Boswell, or rather the AI tool, interpreted very differently from the people who were present at the tribunal and those following the case via TT.

I wonder what instruction was fed into the AI tool to generate those kinds of summaries. It wasn't just a synopsis of what was said; it had a "voice".

Still not sure what to make of it all. Maybe it will become clear in time.

Almost every post was a bit off though. In the one above:

"And why had she not disclosed this in February? “Sadness,” she said."

The question was how she felt about naming names. Sadness isn't a logical answer to the qu (not actually asked) of why she didnt name people earlier (and she did name a couple back in Feb).

And the idea SP was alone in her views was called out as nonsense in the comments:

"A woman alone in her views, perhaps. But no longer silent."

I think Boswell's summaries just gave people a feeling that they were keeping abreast of the drama, without very much of substance at all.

Sadly, every women's movement has always been infiltrated by men who them believed that they should be leading the "little women" . I remember in the late 70's,early 80's campaigning against the Corrie bill and having the bearded lefty blokes trying to tell us how to do it. I think some of them tried it with the Reclaim the Night marches back then, but they didn't get far!

@HereticalHag

RethinkingLife has created a new thread about AI bias, and there are more links to the original study, and other users have contributed more, for example about bias in policing.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5390609-sex-bias-in-ai-systems-can-affect-social-care-packages

I went from reading the news straight back to this thread, thus I didn't see that yesterday, when it was created.

@ConstructionTime

Thanks for the link, I'll go and have a look. Sounds like it should be very interesting.

This text is from earlier in the year but it fits with our topic.
The author argues that through division between different groups of women, and the association of a women's group with "feminist men", the tide can turn against non-compromising people. Then instead of women uniting, there are alliances which in the end are not as effective, because they dilute the goals.

https://lascapigliata.com/2025/01/06/on-cancel-culture-in-the-gender-critical-movement/
"In order to mitigate effects of this censorship, and perhaps to maintain their relationship with the Labour Party, some GC leftists teamed up with trans-identifying men who were willing to publicly state that they know they are biologically male.
This worked to a mutual benefit. Trans-identifying men who were willing to promote the GC cause to any degree were quickly propelled to star status. They got speaking and writing gigs that most grassroots activists could only dream of.

They enjoyed mainstream media opportunities, often ironically enabling the creation of “manels” (male-only panels) and displacing women from discussions pertaining to women’s rights.
Most gratifyingly, perhaps, these men were not just accepted, they were treated as indispensable by the very women who fought against their demands. This enabled men who embraced both trans and GC identities, to set the red lines, which the “official” GC movement could not cross."

Text continues at the link; but the quote would otherwise become too long.

This is maybe the question that @WithSilverBells posed:

What helps more to reach the goals: compromise now and move forward and take cooperate with everyone who will listen, or keep going but have much more difficult time but see the goals much clearer.

As there is no central organization and final decision-making, probably both versions of the movement will keep going on. Other actors will always take on movements if they think it benefits them, even if they don't really care about it. That's what's probably happening with some part of the conservatives and far-right.

On the other hand, the non-compromising groups might be stronger than they think, and the clarity of their argument can benefit them, too.

I think this is where people who could be described as hardline, like KJK, are very strong.

Blah blah all the things about KJK, but she wouldn't find herself stymied by an expedient alliance with seemingly sympathetic men. She's not interested in the first place, which is a power move. I like that.

I had time to follow the tribunal live on TT and didn't like the overly dramatic and highly partisan tone of Boswell's retrospective round ups. They were always full of heroines and villains, and seemed to be playing to the gallery.

But the thread that really put me off him was where he wrote an enormously long and pompous series of tweets about - I think - the Supreme Court ruling, was roundly corrected by (again, I think!) the SEENinjournalism account, and got very defensive.

I'm afraid I can't find the thread and may well be misremembering the topic and correspondent - but it was the defensive tone that struck me. He seemed more driven by ego than by a genuine concern to get things right. Maybe someone else remembers this - sorry for my poor recall!