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?

Yep, Implicit & explicit have two different meanings you don't seem to understand.

As I said in my initial post regarding JK Rowling's transphobic posts, they are implicitly framed. Plausible deniability & all that, a la Trump's 'Mexicans are rapists' & Reform's 'Arabs are Terrorists'.

Some might say all they were doing was just 'safe guarding'….😂

In any case, here they are for you sir, on a silver platter and this is just from the article I linked. As I said there's so much more as in regularly posting trans people who have been arrested for committing sex crimes….''Mexicans are rapists'….

"when she was slammed for "liking" a tweet that referred to trans women as "men in dresses.”

-Dog whistle for ‘deluded’/mentally ill

"Months later, Rowling came under fire again for coming to the defense of Maya Forstater. At the time, the researcher had been waging an employment discrimination battle, as her contract with a think tank wasn't renewed after she made a series of anti-trans statements. These statements included that people should not be "compelled to play along with literal delusions like 'transwomen are women,'" and she referred to a gender-fluid person as a "man who likes to dress in women's clothes.”

-Supporting those who explicitly call trans people ‘delude’/mentally il

"The next month, Rowling landed herself back in the spotlight with a thread defending "liking" a tweet that compared hormone prescriptions and antidepressants. Health professionals are "concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests," Rowling said on X in her defense. She compared it to a "new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people," who are "being set on a lifelong path of medicalization that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function.”_

-Dog whistle for deluded mentally ill

"Rowling revealed she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault and said this led her to sympathize with women who had "concerns around single-sex spaces." She argued against throwing "open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman.”

-Dog whistle for trans people as deluded pedatory sex abusers

"Rowling published a new novel titled "Troubled Blood" under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. The book, which revolved around a male serial killer who dresses like a woman, was accused of being anti-trans.
It was disappointing that Rowling was propagating a "long-standing and hurtful presentation of trans women as a threat," a spokesperson for Mermaids, a charity that supports trans children, said to CNN. Rowling, meanwhile, said the book "was loosely based" on real killers.

-Dog whistle for trans people as mentally ill abusers of women

"When Scotland's new Hate Crime and Public Order Act went into effect in April, Rowling tried to bait them into arresting her with posts online. The law criminalizes "stirring up hatred" against people based on their race, religion, disability, sexuality or gender identity. By passing the law, Scotland "placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls," Rowling said in the thread on X. If anything she wrote qualified as an offense under the new law, "I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment," Rowling said."_

-Dog whistle for trans people as deluded/mentally ill predatory abusers of women

"Rowling posted a photo from the fight, accusing Khelif of being a man who was "enjoying the distress of a woman he's just punched in the head."_

-Dog whistle for mentally ill trans person who enjoys abusing of women

Ooh dog whistles! Thst famous term for, I don’t like you so I’m going to give your words the worst possible meaning to make you look like a horrible person. I thought we were practicing empathy and kindness? That post was not empathetic or kind. maybe we need more practice. Also I hope you’re up to date on the antibaccing of your keyboard and mouse. We don’t want any germs transferred do we?
I have a question for you. Is there any way women can frame their distress and anger at men demanding to access their single sex spaces which would be acceptable to you? Or are they supposed to just put up with it because it’s what the men want and their wants are more important than those pesky little women?

'Transing the gay away' is gay conversion therapy. Even Susie Green, a former CEO of Memaids admitted her husband was homophobic and would not accept a gay son. So she took her 15 year old son to Thailand and had his cock chopped of and him made into a girl so his sex attraction would be 'straight'. Paraphrasing but her own admission. Trans is basically gay conversion therapy.

Motte Bailey…ho hum…

Also lol at all the 'dogwhistles'. This is very much shorthand for "I have no grounds to refute what she actually said so I'll resort to vague accusations of dogwhistles instead'.
This tactic is no longer working. Have the integrity to actually engage in good faith. If you can't find an argument to refute what she actually said, you need to ask yourself why.

Dog whistles 🙄

So, nothing then. Gotcha

A race/Sex baiters famous last words….'you have nothing'….except for a raging moral panic. 😂

You don't have anything though. None of those examples indicate what you're trying to make out they do.

He never does bless him. I think at this point people are just humouring him to be inclusive and kind. Bit like care in the community.

The Tavistock staff referred to their work as 'transing away the gay' and that soon there would be 'no gay kids left'. It's in court transcripts.

Imane Khelif is male. It has been proven.

Troubled Blood's killer wears a woman's coat once, as a disguise.

Given that humans can't change sex and never will, 'trans women' are men performing what they feel femaleness to be. Because they can't ever know or be female.

What she writes is true, or reporting on what others have said that is true, or - here comes the science bit, concentrate - one single sentence in a work of fiction.

Dog whistle does not mean what you seem to think it means. It's not 'very clear and understandable statements that I dislike but can't refute'.

Have a puppy

The funny thing about dog whistles.
A human whistle is just another sound

All dogs have to be trained to respond in a given way to a specific sound.

Eg. The sheep dog has instincts which are very destructive so someone has to train the destructive traits into action. Humans cant bark and as the dog can be far away the whistle allows the trainer to communicate with the dog.

For another person to be able to understand what the trainer intended the sound to mean they need to also be trained to associate a sound with a specific word.

To note, Imane Khelif has nothing to do with being 'trans'. He has never once suggested that he identifies this way.

So how can a pic of him be used to conclude anything about 'trans' people? 🤔

When I read the post justifying the accusation of making an unlikely generalisation due to the dishonest wording of that generalisation, I was reminded on the Deeming court case and the dossier.

I remember the judge being incredulous that the dossier conclusions were considered accurate by John Pesutto, because many of those conclusions simply were not reasonable interpretations of what Kellie Jay Keen said

The posts on this thread pointed out that the generalisation made by a poster was not correct because that poster put two facts together and characterised them as negative generalisations.

Calling trans people 'mentally ill' & are all predatory sex fetishists.

The first being a statement that was not quantified. It did not say ‘all’ trans people are mentally ill. And what is discordant there is that gender dysphoria is diagnosed under DMS 5 from what I remember. DMS as listed in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses.

There is also no doubt that some people who have a transgender identity have poor mental health. Many health professionals who work with this group state this is the case. And reviews and studies have show this to be the case.

Therefore there is nothing controversial in that point. Therefore other posters asked for evidence about the second part of the statement- are all predatory sex fetishists.

It has been pointed out by different poster that this is both highly unlikely that posters here or JK Rowling would say ‘all’. For instance, female people with transgender identities make up a large % of the group of people with those identities. The census data serves as an indicator for this. Most posters (I don’t believe I have ever seen one regular pro woman poster on this board) do not believe that that female group of transgender people are predatory sex fetishists. Nor does JK Rowling.

So, it was never likely. And this post this morning is all about interpretation. Because as everyone pointed out JK Rowling has not said “all predatory sex fetishists”.

However, it is also undeniable that ‘some’ trans people are indeed predatory sex fetishists. We also have public testimony directly from detransitioners how while children still, they were directly predated on by some adult male people in their specialist youth groups.

Of course though, this will be dismissed because anecdotes apparently can only be used by this one poster and anyone else using them to support a point is to be discredited.

This morning’s post pointing out ‘implicit’ meanings of JK Rowling’s content, simply doesn’t stack up to the accusation made. And it has shown just how dishonest this poster is.

I told you. Empty windbag crapflooding, designed to bury the salient points while completely ignoring them and talking like nobody addressed them, deflect onto fictitious misdeeds, exhaust people with total shite and then, when they recognise that it's a time wasting exercise, start crowing about how "you can't argue the points!" Elmer Fudd on fridge poetry. Once you've decided men can be women, the rest is easy. You cannot say anything more absurd after that.

You'd think at least one of them would actually read Troubled Blood, though. They don't realise just how much they're embarrassing themselves to people who have. There's no trans person in it and no mention of transgenderism. Dennis Creed isn't trans, never claims to be a woman (he claims to be gay, and isn't) and never uses female pronouns. He gets off on cross dressing and murdering women, like the two real life cross dressing murderers he's based on, Jerry Brudos and Russell Williams. They're even mentioned in the story, because you know so many pillocks will think cross dressing woman killers don't exist and people will accuse JKR of inventing the concept.

It's so irritating to see an excellent book that explores so many elements of society described in this way by people who haven't read it and think they're clever.

Edited: less is more!

Every single point you had on JKR, you just replied with 'dogwhistle'.
Pick one of those items. Any one. Explain why in factual terms where she was wrong. No fake strawmen arguments. No vague accusations of dogwhistles. Just where she was wrong using a logical argument with facts instead of unsubstantiated accusations.
I've said this to trans activists and I'll say it again. You are losing this debate. You can see from every poll that the public is agreeing with gender critical positions more and more.
If you genuinely want to support trans people and advocate for them, you need to start engaging in good faith and making your argument without mudslinging.
These ad hominem attacks damage your cause, not ours. People are no longer taking them on faith.

Funny … Sandie Peggie has the ‘right to privacy’ too, in a FEMALE changing room no less !!!

Amazing

You finally went through one of your links to attempt to justify why you believe it supports your point.

I notice of course, you reverted back to discussing mental health as if that was the rejected part of your initial accusation.

Calling trans people 'mentally ill' & are all predatory sex fetishists.

I think you, personally, have twisted JK Rowling’s words to be stigmatising the mental health diagnosis of gender dysphoria. That is a personal interpretation based on your need to demonise JK Rowling. Her using blunt language and not using euphemisms is causing you to react emotionally and not objectively.

However, the second part of your accusation about ‘all predatory sex fetishists. doesn’t stand up logically even. But it is also not true from what you have posted. She thinks ‘some’ people are predatory sex fetishists.

Is this where i should post ‘comprehension fail’ with an emoji?
Or just ‘false’ in capital letters with an emoji? Your favourite tactics, aren’t they?

No. I think you realised your link didn’t really support your point. But please do continue to post the relevant sections of your links with why you think it is relevant so people can engage properly. Maybe if you start doing that, people will return the favour and engage back.

I think what I like most is the cry of "dog whistle!" on things that are factually entirely accurate and openly and objectively wrong, like Imane Khelif smirking after a woman was forced to concede a fight with him within seconds. "Dog whistle!" Dog whistle for fucking what? No code is needed! He really objectively plainly IS a man who's looking pleased after punching a woman! That's the bad thing she's talking about! You don't think that's bad? You're accusing her of using it as cover for ANOTHER bad thing you don't want us to know about? You mean there's more?

And Khelif always been very firm that he's not trans, he claims to be an actual woman, so well done for tacitly admitting that you know he's a man too.

Well everyone knows he's a man.

Its just that some people are prepared to lie about it. And they present this as somehow a 'virtuous' position.

2025, what a time to be alive. 🙄

Going back to that Stonewall survey in which 50% of respondents said they were disabled and there was a very high rate of self reporting of suicidal intent.

Was that a dog whistle too?

Just so we can establish when it's ok to talk about mental health and the trans community and when it's not.

Cos surely there's a chicken / egg complex here and there's an unequal balance of power in terms of who is allowed to talk about mental health.

Or should we talk about the Tavistock where the organisation itself talked about how the children involved had particularly high levels of pre existing complex emotional needs BEFORE they became gender questioning.

So women expressing concerns that deeply traumatised children were not getting adequate early mental health interventions and instead being given drugs by their fourth appointment at the Tavistock in circumstances that were causing a huge number of staff to voice concerns, are 'dog whistling'.

Okay then.

So How's objection to JKR is she says things that are true but that he's decided are dog whistles?

Khelif is a man; Tavistock staff have talked about transing the gay away and about the mental health comorbidities of gender questioning children; there isn't a transwoman in Troubled Blood; and a bloke like Pip Bunce is a man in a dress.

I guess ones you've gone through the mental gymnastics to say men are women, all other contortions of thought are easy.

I guess ones you've gone through the mental gymnastics to say men are women, all other contortions of thought are easy.

Well this is the issue isn't it?

Once you've convinced yourself of the 'right answer' and can't ever admit you were wrong, all the evidence has to be contorted to fit that answer.

It must be absolutely exhausting. No wonder the TRAs are so angry all the time.

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.

Not the point of the thread, but I've been here since May 2018, and when I was first reading through the forum there were several posters who'd been on for 10+ years, and links to posts from then and maybe even earlier. I don't know when the FWR board was established, but Mumsnet Talk has been around since 2000.

In contrast, you won't find a lot of feminists on Twitter; pesky people chattering about women's rights were routinely mass-reported and banned during the "Jack" era, and chief inseminator Elon Musk is hardly reeling them back in.

Ok well fair enough. it wasn’t you, it was those other kids. Those naughty ones over there. I get it.

Could I ask then that we could discuss it without the childish « wasn’t us » comments?

You misspelled "sorry; I was wrong".

'As I said in my initial post regarding JK Rowling's transphobic posts, they are implicitly framed. Plausible deniability & all that'

For an accusation of 'implicitly' saying that 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists' to be considered valid, she would have to have shown that she was not just talking about male people who are sex fetishists.

For example, the poster picked out this quote :

"Rowling revealed she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault and said this led her to sympathize with women who had "concerns around single-sex spaces." She argued against throwing "open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman.”

And made this interpretation:

'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded pedatory sex abusers'

Notice how dishonest this interpretation is considering they accused her of saying 'ALL' trans people. This quote they have chosen refers only to men. Explicitly she is saying that some male people with transgender identities may cause female people harm, in other words this includes distress, by being in that space.

She may believe that any male person who would enter a female single sex space is there to cause the female people in the space harm intentionally, but she could also believe something else.

The interpretation of 'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded pedatory sex abusers' is taking an absolutist, catastrophised view and assuming the worst in words that don't explicitly say what has been claimed.

In any case, this doesn't support the accusation of 'all'.

Here is another example in this quote:

Rowling published a new novel titled "Troubled Blood" under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. The book, which revolved around a male serial killer who dresses like a woman, was accused of being anti-trans.

It was disappointing that Rowling was propagating a "long-standing and hurtful presentation of trans women as a threat," a spokesperson for Mermaids, a charity that supports trans children, said to CNN. Rowling, meanwhile, said the book "was loosely based" on real killers.

The interpretation was:

'Dog whistle for trans people as mentally ill abusers of women'

Did the poster even read this book? I did . And many others did. Perhaps the poster would like to know that there have been male people in the past, who did not have a transgender identity, who used dressing to look like a female person to gain access to victims or to get close to victims. It does happen. The Cambridge Murderer (there is a thread on this active on FWR at the moment) did this.

So, which is more likely in this supposedly 'implicit' statement that 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists'? That she referenced real life examples for her book (the perpetrator was didn't have a transgender identity by the way!) or that she thinks 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists'?

Oh... and... the character was male. So again, this does not support the flawed accusation at all.

In fact, the implication from her character would be that 'some male people will present in a way that will gain the trust of their intended victim' which is true. And if someone wanted to make a negative implicit meaning, it would be that 'all men are predators' which is also not true.

Then there is this example:

"When Scotland's new Hate Crime and Public Order Act went into effect in April, Rowling tried to bait them into arresting her with posts online. The law criminalizes "stirring up hatred" against people based on their race, religion, disability, sexuality or gender identity. By passing the law, Scotland "placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls," Rowling said in the thread on X. If anything she wrote qualified as an offense under the new law, "I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment," Rowling said."_

The interpretation of this quote was:

'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded/mentally ill predatory abusers of women'

Nope. The tweet that I bolded in that quote refers to 'male' people with transgender identities. Any 'implicit' interpretation that tweet would also be reasonable to be said to be only limiting that tweet to male people who demanded to access female single sex provisions. By provisions, I refer to anything designated as being just for female people.

Again, it is not about female people with transgender identities at all. Because those female people are included in the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls. She has generally made that clear so it would be a deliberate bad faith interpretation to assume she included female people in that quoted tweet.

Then finally the quote:

"Rowling posted t, accusing Khelif of being a man who was "enjoying the distress of a woman he's just punched in the head."_

The interpretation

'Dog whistle for mentally ill trans person who enjoys abusing of women'

Again, as others have already said, Khelif is not transgender at all. Nothing to do with trans people. Khelif is a male boxer with a DSD that led to him being erroneously listed at 'female' in his passport.

Plus there is nothing in that tweet that says that Khelif is mentally ill either. So that is another falsity there too. No one has to be mentally ill to enjoy a woman's distress. They may be. But they also have a just as much likelihood of not being mentally ill.

TL/DR: There was nothing in that linked article that stated or even implied that 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists'. It is not even logical to make this point when considering there are female people with transgender identities as well who JK Rowling, nor any pro-woman poster on this board that I know of, would categorise as being a predatory sex fetishist.

However, it does show how very biased and unreasonable some people's interpretations of JK Rowling's tweets can be.