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.

Chris has been hanging around this board for years scolding us & posing the same old faux naive questions over & over again. He's not required to come here, it's not compulsory. If he doesn't like it he's free to simply not come

however as he's here so much he clearly enjoys it

This thread is trending - excellent.

Chris's opening post highlights the kind of things posted or placarded by some TRAs for any readers who may otherwise not be aware, while the explanations following clarify (and exemplify!) the difference between this and the approaches typically taken by GC feminists.

Why haven’t you dealt with the crux of that post?

VAWG to be taken seriously, child safeguarding a priority and no men in women's single sex spaces

Sounds so reasonable and simple doesn't it?
Yet for some reason it isn't....

Are you sure it's the same people? Because I don't think anyone should ever invite violence, and while I'm a big GL fan I don't agree with the suggestion of violence in his tweet.

So, it may not be the same people. We don't all share one brain.

Oh and @DoinFineIThink Chris is not above posting outright lies. No one likes a liar.

I want annoying pricks to fuck off with their boring hyberbolic bullshit.

the violence in his tweet? being the advice that - should you encounter a man in a woman's toilet - you do 2 other things first and when all else fails you punch them in the balls? that one?

interesting.
Where do you stand on "Kill All TERFs"?

Someone may have done this already, but I'm playing catch up.

And ultimately how many women have done as he wrote, got arrested and then said ‘I did it because GL wrote it in a tweet?’.

I'm in a good mood today, so I'm going to be helpful to OP.

Chris, mate, if you're confused about what women want, I can recommend a very entertaining movie starring Mel Gibson that might even teach you something.

I don't think anyone should be punching anyone and I don't think anyone should be suggesting it even as a last resort.

And I said "suggestion of violence in his tweet" in his tweet, not "violence in his tweet".

Interesting that your defence of his wording seems to be that it's reasonable to punch someone (as long as you have done two other things first). His defence was that it was a joke based on the relative height of women v men. So, despite the fact that he actually wrote it, you seem to think he had a different motivation than he claims.

Obviously, as you would see if you read my post rather than just jumping down my throat, I also abhor the call to violence against "TERFS". As I said, I don't think anyone should incite (autocorrect error in my original) violence.

And what a lot of deletions there are on this thread and I’m only about 30 posts in!

It's a case of read one, oh a deleted one, read one, oh a deleted one.

What have you naughty women been doing? No doubt you've all been dastardly and been telling the truth again

What's that got to do with it?

Do you feel the same about people attempting to incite violence in other circumstances? Racial violence, for example.

Has anyone actually guillotined a "TERF" as a result of those signs being held up? Is that somehow different?

One of the things that comes through strongly in the thread dealing specifically with Glinner's arrest is the conviction that that farcical piece of authoritarian overkill will result in a significant uptick in conversions to a gender critical viewpoint. So I'm glad this latest nonsense from Chris has made it onto Trending - thanks Chris, have you never heard of the Streisand Effect?

Since people who know that humans can't change sex are not a homogeny (any more than people who know that the earth is roughly a sphere or that water is wet) you are likely to find differing opinions among the group re to what extent speech should be policed.

However, what I suspect most people would vehemently agree with is that the law should be applied equally.

Do you think that GL should have been arrested? If so, I assume that you also agree that trans activists calling for decapitation or punching of others should also be arrested and that it is a public scandal that they were not?

lots of comedians use the threat of violence as a comedy tool. We know they don’t mean it literally. We watch slapstick comedies and cartoons knowing full well they aren’t there to encourage us to chase roadrunners or to kill mice. Using it as the punchline of a joke isn’t a crime. There is massive issue in the country about where the line of ‘inciting’ violence is. My bar is exceedingly high. It would have to be very specific and targeted with absolutely no room for anyone to dispute its meaning. The GL tweet doesn’t come close

But isn’t the advice to women when being threatened by a male to fo SING. And the G stands for groin. So are you telling off all those self defence experts who advocate for women to commit violence if words don’t work?

Specific - "punch".

Targeted - "man in women's loo".

It's not Roadrunner setting a trap for the coyote.

But you're basically saying it's OK for G because he's a comedian but not OK for the TRAs bc they are, probably, not?

The tweet didn't actually read like a joke to me, though I know that was his response to the arrest.

I personally think the bar has to be exceedingly high for a crime to be committed. I think threats need to be specific and it can be argued that can be relied upon. I don’t like the ‘kill terfs’ signs but I personally don’t feel comfortable that they meet a bar or criminality unless they are directed to someone specific or a threat is made for people to do a specific act at a time and place. I think they certainly would make you a person of interest though. I am more libertarian though on things like this.

Well this isn't an exhaustive list but to answer the question in the OP, for starters:

Councils, schools and all other institutions to respect the SC ruling
Men to stay out of single sex spaces
TRAs to stop threatening women
(Surprisingly often with a "girl dick" there's no such thing)
The police to do some actual policing instead of being the thought police

Men who say they're women not to give care when same sex has been requested
Men to respect women's boundaries, including those around changing rooms etc
Everyone to acknowledge that men cannot become women, ever
Everyone to acknowledge that sex is immutable and real and matters
The law as it actually is to be applied, rather than Stonewall law
Lesbians not to be told they should be attracted to men dressed as women
Men to stay out of womens sports
End the use of forced speech
Stop expecting us to call men by female pronouns when they're clearly men
Stop manging the English language to accommodate the deranged TRA movement

I haven't told anyone off.

I'm a 57 yo woman and I've never been told to sing, where in the world does that come from?

I've also done self defence classes and never been shown punching. You must have gone to a different class than I did.

Also, defence is used when you are attacked, not just because someone is in your vicinity.

I would like no one to want to hurt anyone else
and that includes “treatment” for gender

i would like everyone to accept who they are, their whole self, and to respect who other people are.

i would no one to make assumptions on what people should do, how they should dress, what they are capable of based on their sex except where it’s material.

i would like all people treated equally. I would like the physical limitations of women to be respected in that. So all people should have decent safety gear not the same safety gear

not all GC people think the same and not all people who express concern at transgenderism are GC either - many of them are gender enforcing

youve never heard of SING

solsr plexus
instep
nose
groin

its a technique used in self defence. I’d I’m cornered by a large man who is where he has no business to be and won’t leave when asked, of course I’ll feel threatened. What innocent reason can a male be in female facilities for if he’s not maintenance or a cleaner?

Can you repeat that? I can't hear what you're saying.