Posting upton’s old photos and name on twitter

[Biggadyboom]

Look I’ve been in these discussions since before this forum existed. You don’t need to break it down for me. I peaked in 2018.

But the endless sharing of upton’s name accompanied by photos and horrible comments about him and his wife is not nice. It is totally is transphobia. It’s horrible.

I could kind of understand the point of it, if it was just the name being shared.

But equally the court has ruled that Upton has a right to privacy. I thought it was all about respecting court’s rulings?

but the sharing of private photos (presumably grabbed from social media) and especially their wedding photo with insults to both of them and speculation about their marriage is awful and will not help their be a resolution to this debate. It polarises it even more and is transphobia.

fair enough, don’t let Upton change the rules of the country and workplace based on personal beliefs . But that doesn’t involve posting personal information and photos , insults and horrible speculation.

or are we just going low now?

You yourself have had posts deleted, which means...you are also posting comments contrary to the Talk Guidelines.

True but they weren't hate speech. There are many categories that qualify as contrary to guidelines.

And back to the topic
@Biggadyboom have you been keeping up with the case?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Do you think that it is a safeguarding issue that the senior doctor in the ED wanted PS arrested for failing to believe/see a male doctor (who would expect staff to bring him to a woman who asked for same sex care) as a female?

Given how Sandie's relationship with her daughter was dragged into all this deliberately by Upton's legal team I have zero fucks to give.

Sorry.

FWR is an amazing board where I learn something new every day. Today it’s the Motte and Bailey doctrine (not a fallacy).

Shackel labeled this type of strategic rhetorical conflation of the broad colloquial understanding of a term with a technical, artificially stipulated one as "Humpty Dumptying" in reference to an exchange in Through the Looking-Glass where that character says "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Now, if that doesn’t perfectly describe TRAs and their handmaidens, I don’t know what else will.

Unlike normal examples of equivocation where one exploits already existing, perhaps quite subtle, differences of meaning, Humpty Dumptying is hardly subtle. The differences in meaning are so obvious that equivocating by use of them cannot normally be pursued without first softening up the audience. The softening up is effected by convincing the audience that the dual meaning is somehow an exposition of a profundity. (italics added)

Perfectly describes the likes of Judith Butler’s word salads and some posters trying to explain how men can become women.

A constant theme of drive-by scolders is that GC women are mean and unkind. Motte argument = we should all be kind and inclusive (difficult to argue against kindness). Bailey argument = men can become women and so allowed in women’s spaces (?).

So you’re saying transwomen are men. Again, we agree. You’re really getting the hang of this TERF thing aren’t you.

FWR is an amazing board where I learn something new every day. Today it’s the Motte and Bailey doctrine (not a fallacy).
Shackel labeled this type of strategic rhetorical conflation of the broad colloquial understanding of a term with a technical, artificially stipulated one as "Humpty Dumptying" in reference to an exchange in Through the Looking-Glass where that character says "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Now, if that doesn’t perfectly describe TRAs and their handmaidens, I don’t know what else will.
Unlike normal examples of equivocation where one exploits already existing, perhaps quite subtle, differences of meaning, Humpty Dumptying is hardly subtle. The differences in meaning are so obvious that equivocating by use of them cannot normally be pursued without first softening up the audience. The softening up is effected by convincing the audience that the dual meaning is somehow an exposition of a profundity. (italics added)
Perfectly describes the likes of Judith Butler’s word salads and some posters trying to explain how men can become women.
A constant theme of drive-by scolders is that GC women are mean and unkind. Motte argument = we should all be kind and inclusive (difficult to argue against kindness). Bailey argument = men can become women and so allowed in women’s spaces (?).

The flaw with this understanding is that it assumes that one can't successfully argue a point civilly.

Being 'mean' isn't going to legitimise an argument further if anything it's going to turn people who are on the fence off.

Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender or similar grounds.
So like when the TRA issue death threats, rape threats and violence to women, they’re being hateful. Gotcha. So you do see why women won’t let men into their single sex spaces. I knew we’d get there. Well done. Have a sticker ⭐️
Lol, you inadvertently just expressed a hate speech generalisation against men…😂
So you’re saying transwomen are men. Again, we agree. You’re really getting the hang of this TERF thing aren’t you.

Comprehension fail.
All I'm pointing out is that you made a generalisation about men NOT that it was correct.

Exactly. That’s why the death, rape and violence threats from the TRA helped to wake a lot of people up to this issue and realise transpeople weren’t the vulnerable minority they claimed to be. I think Isla Bryson and Karen White helped too.
maybe that could be a new career path for you! PR. You seem so good at pointing out where people are going wrong in winning hearts and minds.

Nope. You just admitted transwomen were men. Otherwise you wouldnt have been grouping them in with men

Exactly. That’s why the death, rape and violence threats from the TRA helped to wake a lot of people up to this issue and realise transpeople weren’t the vulnerable minority they claimed to be. I think Isla Bryson and Karen White helped too.
maybe that could be a new career path for you! PR. You seem so good at pointing out where people are going wrong in winning hearts and minds.

Ditto for those against transpeople from transphobes. Works both ways.

"Nope. You just admitted transwomen were men. Otherwise you working have been grouping them in with men"

Sure I did….

Oh go on. Show me all the death threats and rape threats from women to transpeople. I know you must have loads of evidence. Also have you said Thankyou to @AnSolas for sharing the kittens yet? Remember, gratitude and showing respect is a great help when trying to make friends and interact socially.

Well, the issue is that most FWR posters prefer vile posts to stand so it really, really must have been bad to have been reported. Like, so bad it eclipses 'Hate Speech' [which doesn't even exist as it is a made up term] and probably ventured into something much worse.

Irony klaxon.

Accusing every third poster of comprehension fail whilst simultaneously being unable to compute

woman; adult human female

Oh dear never mind. I guess that's what you get for swallowing the contents of vox magazine as your reference point rather than biology, the English dictionary and English law.

Perhaps we should be asking some big questions over the Australian education system.

I don't think any of us really feel like our critical thinking and analysis are really that flawed despite your scattergun 'comprehension fail' screams every time someone says something logical or considered that you simply just don't like.

Newsflash: just because you don't like something doesn't mean the rest of the planet has an issue with comprehension.

Oh well never mind.

What's the saying about arguing with stupid?

You did. If you believed TW were not men you would have said “ but that would still include TW in female spaces as they are not men”. But you didn’t. You automatically assumed i was also talking about TW when I was talking about men. Maybe think before you react and it may help in communicating your ideas and thoughts successfully.

Literally this 'transphobia' consists of saying that men cannot be women.

Look how this thread was started. Calling out posters on a completely different site, just posting a man's old name and photos. Yet women get legions of rape and death threats and not one eyebrow raised.

But to be fair @Howseitgoin did state this was hateful behaviour towards women and should be unilaterally condemned.

I think the whole trans row, despite being won, has become toxic and nasty, and it’s surprising to me that it’s the gc so called feminists who are behaving badly.

Some generalisations are in common use and serve certain purposes.

Single sex spaces exist for this reason, as do many health, education and other services. One cannot know everything little thing about each individual when planning a service or a provision.

Generalisations are not essentailly negative. They take a known and understood pattern and apply it more widely for positive purposes in all sorts of situations.

uh. Sure buddy. cos it was all those nasty women issuing the death threats and rape threats, threatening violence and harassing groups meeting up. Or are you saying that behaviour was ok?

So we're nasty and being badly, yet this happened (and continues to).

terfisaslur.com

I mean seriously, listen to yourself

How many trans people have been threatened with violence by gender critical feminists, out of interest?

Won?
Who of the hospitals staff who claimed under oath that they (as professionals employed by a medical hospital to manage medical matters) could not distinguish if a human was female or male has been let go from their role for not having a key (medical) skill?

The frontline staff who lost their shit over a woman saying no how safe are they with members of the public who say "no" and are totally dependant on the staff?

Being 'mean' isn't going to legitimise an argument further if anything it's going to turn people who are on the fence off.

To clarify, my tone was ironic as GC are not being mean or unkind when they ask all men (including the TW kind) to respect women’s (the biological kind) spaces/sports/short list’s etc.

Doesn’t motte and bailey require retreat to make it applicable? Or some kind of twist of logic that renders the two sentences / paragraphs inconsistent?

Are we seeing the word ‘retreat’ now being destabilised to mean the opposite of the originally intended meaning as well?