I'm confused what gender critical people want. Could someone clarify?

[Christinapple]

They want any LGBT person or supporter who makes a threat of violence arrested? Correct? For an example there was Sarah Jane Barker who made a "if you see a TERF, punch 'em in the face!" comment. There was a Glasgow protest where someone held up a cardboard sign with a guillotine crudely drawn with a crayon and "decapacitate TERFs" or something scrawled. These happened years ago and to this day the GC community still talk about and refer to them and say they should have been arrested/charged/convicted.

For another example a trans person a while back jokingly posted something like "let's give KJK a NZ welcome" on twitter which then led to a lot of angry GC people from here making police reports and brigading them (someone posted a link on here and lots went over to be abusive directly to her).

And then Graham Linehan threatens to/incites others to punch trans people in their genitalia (not his first time btw, he has a long track record of threatening and inciting abuse and violence towards LGBT people and their supporters), and yet these same GC people flock to twitter to say that it's "free speech" and "people shouldn't be arrested for online communications".

So what is it to be? If you want LGBT people arrested and charged for threats then GL would need charged too.

If you want GL to have a "legal pass" to make threats then that means it should be the same for all including LGBT people and allies.

Whatever the law is it needs to apply to everyone equally. You can't have one rule for GCs and another rule for LGBT people and allies.

AFAIK There has not been a single censure against the GI community for inciting violence. In fact police officers have often been pictured at events where such threats are actively being made been made ignoring the evolving situation. Politicians have also been photographed with protestors holding signs inciting violence too,

Whereas there was a coordinated effort made to intercept GL on arrival back in the UK with FIVE armed police officers after he wrote one thing on Twitter.

Can you not see the double standards at play here?

I don’t think anyone should be arrested for a tweet. And it’s usually the TRA side whinging and crying and setting the police on people. It’s the two tier thing that pisses people off, there are dangerous deranged men in dresses screaming threats at women and the police do fuck all about that.

.

People who are Gender Critical want 'gender stereotypes' to be put in the bin.

If you wish to discuss free speech Vs restricted speech and where the 'incitement of violence' line should be (or if it should be removed), that is a much bigger issue and is not restricted to people who are critical of 'gender stereotypes'. I suspect that you will find that people who are critical of 'gender stereotypes' will have different opinions on free speech/incitement to violence.

Oh it's yourself Chris. You've been on these boards for long enough, so read back through everything you've been told and you'll be able to answer your own questions.

I want anyone who promotes violence to anyone (except in self defence) for their beliefs punished if that helps.

Including real transphobia, misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia... the lot really.

If GL has committed a crime, I'm fine with him being prosecuted.
I'm also fine with so called "TRA"s being prosecuted for murder threats.

I'm not ok with anyone being hounded for their beliefs, like sex and gender being completely different.

"armed police officers"

Police at airports routinely carry guns.

If anyone else happened to be arrested at a big international airport it would be the same. The officers didn't run to the storeroom and pick up a gun because they saw it was GL to be arrested.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/father-ted-co-creator-graham-141003577.html

“The arrest was made by officers from the MPS Aviation Unit,” a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said in a statement to media. “It is routine for officers policing airports to carry firearms. These were not drawn or used at any point during the arrest.”

Lol.
Poor old chris. All those years spent moaning on here yet still has no idea that women want VAWG to be taken seriously, child safeguarding a priority and no men in women's single sex spaces.

Sad times.

I'm confused what gender critical people want.

No you're not

I don't think that Chris really wants to discuss free speech BTW. I have a suspicion that what Chris wants is to tell us off.

Whatever the law is it needs to apply to everyone equally. You can't have one rule for GCs and another rule for LGBT people and allies.

Well look. You’ve answered your own question! Well done.

Theres a very clear asymmetry in the way this is currently being policed showing bias in favour of TRAs.

Yet another “I’m so smart I’ve found the contradiction that will convince the silly wims they’re wrong and I’ll finally get my Reddit medal.” It’s so fucking boring.

The only controversy: is this a drive-by scolding? Or a flood-and-and flounce? Time will tell.

EDIT: sorry- just seen the OP’s name. F&F, most likely.

I'm trying to figure out who "free speech" and laws on malicious/threatening communications should apply to. The entire population or only for certain people?

Which one is it?

lol personally what I'd like is for you to stop endlessly reposting the same disproven shite about eg stats around suicide but that's not going to happen cos you love it here sooooo much but you know free speech. You're allowed to post nonsense and we're allowed to tell you it's nonsense without either one of us calling the police.

and after all the hours/months/years you've spent here reading and scolding and telling us why you think we are wrong and you still don't know whst we want, I can't help you.

(tho if you don't know what it is we want why are you so keen to tell us we're wrong all the time?)

Ooh, is there a GC version of that meme - you know the one with a cutesy anime character pointing a gun with the caption "shut the fuck up TERF" that's a favourite with the TRAs?

The fundamental - and, to me, fairly clear - difference between the Lineham post and those you cite in the OP is that Lineham's reference to "punching" is in reference to an illegal action and consequent potential physical threat, whereas the other threats of aggression are advocated as a response to an individual either expressing their opinions, or simply having certain opinions.

This is a huge difference.

I think being male may make this distinction more difficult to comprehend, though. As females, we're intensely conscious of our physical vulnerability to stronger males, and the statistically proven proportionate risk of violence that they present to us, so the difference in your two sets of examples is painfully plain.

I’d like trans right activists to leave us the fuck alone.

I'll play.

The entire population.

The exact same standards should be applied. Therefore as TRAs can post threats of violence with impunity then everyone else should be able to do the same.

HTH

What GC people want is for facts to trump ideology. I use the word ideology because it's widely used to describe trans thought. If reality isn't used as a basis, then everything else gets called into question. And we live in a world where we need legislation, rules etc and these are decided on, amongst other things, statistics. And statistics are facts.
It isn't acceptable for anyone to insight violence. "Sarah Jane Baker" was incarcerated for kidnap and torture. He didn't "make a comment" he shouted through a megaphone to a crowd that they should "punch them in the fucking face".
Pardon me if that seems slightly different to a tweet saying, as a last resort, to punch a trans woman in a women's changing facility in the balls - obviously based on the assumption that after the SC ruling this would be illegal behaviour and doing so would imply to a woman that they are doing it for questionable reasons, therefore presenting as a direct and possible threat.
Graham Linehan isn't someone I fully support by the way. I totally agree with his aim, but he can be counterproductive at times. Having said that, he hasn't been convicted of serious violent crime, as SJB has, and a lot of his behaviour is a reaction to the behaviour levied at him over the years - gone to his home, threatened his wife and children etc etc

There is a world of difference between, "Kill all TERFs" and "If you come across someone breaking the law be loud and tell them to get out, if they don't then call the police and finally if nothing else works punch them.

Encouraging women to hurt men is very different from encouraging men to hurt women. Not many women would consider getting into a physical fight in an enclosed space with a man - especially a man wearing his mental illness as a costume. Hence it was very obviously not to be taken seriously, and kicking a man in the nuts would be a very definite last resort for most of us who genuinely grew up female.
So, as well as all the other reasons that you're aware of, it's really not the same at all.