Glinner Bullseye comment on X

[Thatcatsaflippingnightmare]

Always trying to explain Glinner to DH, today he showed me on X JD Vance defending murder of the woman by ICE. Glinner had replied something like 'bullseye', as in agreement. I tried to comprehend with "satire?" but he said no he's on Liz truss show these days. I said well he's always been about protecting women and children, he's not suddenly supporting femicide, but the post convinced DH otherwise. Any insights? I'm not on social media

TRAs don't think people can change sex. They think people can change gender, which is not the same thing. I think you are aware of this

I think you have that wrong - from what I understand trans people believe that gender identity is innate, and your suggestion that it changes is rather offensive.

Gender is a rather vague concept, but if you want to provide services that are segregated according to gender identity go ahead. (Maybe don't tell people that their identity used to be something different though). Gender and gender identity are not protected characteristics so as long as you can find a way to do it without unlawfully discriminating on the basis of sex, nobody will mind.

Some trans people do believe they have changed sex. India Willoughby for instance refers to himself as a biological female. He's not the only transwoman to do so.

I've seen right wingers argue it's different because Good was driving at the officer, but what I've seen so far supports that she was driving away when she was shot three times.

I've seen lots of people online claim that it's possible to change sex. Taking female hormones takes you part way to changing sex, as does growing breasts. And you're psychologically a woman if you feel like a woman, apparently, and probably have a female brain. Add all that kind of thing together and you probably are a biological woman. It's that kind of argument.

Longstanding users of FWR will know more about this than I do, but as far as I am aware, it has never been any kind of curated "space" for a particular kind of person.

It's a board for a particular topic. I gather that sex and gender got its own board because some people didn't want it on the general feminism board - but people can and do wander off topic in threads and that's ok.

It operates under Mumsnet guidelines, and people can get banned for breaking them, but in general they're about behaviour, not ideologically-prescribed standpoints. I would qualify that insofar as I'm aware that in the past, the guidelines had bought into gender ideology to some extent, and posts would be deleted for mentioning certain things - AGP I think was one of them. But that has eased up now. (Older posters may be able to give you the history of how this came about).

So basically anyone can come here and raise or discuss topics relating to sex and gender as it affects women. And they can stay here as long as they don't break Mumsnet guidelines for posting.

That is utter bollocks.

I'm not so sure, I think it's a bit of both. Some of them seem to genuinely believe that people can change sex through manipulation of hormones and surgeries. Others talk about concepts like "female gender identity" which I think indicates they're not talking about sex.

We had one of those on here the other day. When posters told them that no, despite all those things, a man is still a man, they simply wouldn't have it.

What do you think about these issues with Tommy?

He's got a battery of crime accusations, including violent ones, and convictions stretching up to recently, including allegedly harassing a journalist who reported negative information about him, as well as decidedly unpleasant treatment of a Syrian refugee boy. Not to mention the recent vile incident where he spread false & malicious information about a mixed-race family which left them in fear.

www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/20/family-in-fear-after-tommy-robinson-shares-video-of-black-man-with-white-granddaughters

God this thread is making me despair. I'm sick of all the lunatics on both sides. Where have all the normal people gone? 🤦‍♀️

I agree on all those issues, however is Tommy Robinson really the right figurehead for them? (Re my post to JamieCannister upthread detailing things he's done) And Elon Musk?

I'm glad there was no violence where you stepson was but there does seem to have been violence in other parts of the March.

Glinner retweeted someone saying women shouldn't vote?

Do you have a link?

Did he?

I'm no fan of Glinner, but this seems unlikely

It's really interesting to compare these views to the examples given in this article about Republican men creating abortion legislation.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/alabama-abortion-law-republican-ignorance-female-reproduction.html

There's the the one who thinks an ectopic pregnancy can be re implanted and the one who thinks that women can't get pregnant if they are raped. The problem is not that they think sex doesn't exist, but that they think that the consequences of having a female anatomy are so insignificant and uninteresting that they can just be ignored.

"To men in this cohort, the female body is more symbol than fact, more allegory than flesh and blood"

So much mirroring on left and right.

I agree strongly with this.

or many posters just fully parroting right wing conservative views that aren't compatible with feminism and any critique of this is against weaponised as troll or TRA behaviour- can I ask what kind of views- can you give any examples?

Any concerns about right wing or conservative men using the GC cause with I'll intent is treated as completely posted in bad faith as seen earlier in this thread- this definitely.

I do think a related issue has been the severe reluctance to criticise KJK for going on podcasts & posing for selfies with white nationalists like Jean François Gariepy. Call it respectability politics if you want, but her actions there are the basis for every TRA article telling impressionable young trans identified teens & early 20s that GC people are influenced by the far right. People say things like, 'KJK has risked her life!' Soldiers risk their lives - does that mean soldiers or firefighters etc can't call someone out when they're pursuing a bad strategy? Even if she doesn't agree morally with these people (I'm sure she doesn't) it was highly damaging tactically.

You mean they don't want to discuss criticism of GC campaigners etc as this is the only space GC can really be discussed freely?

I get that issue but there needs to be critical discussion too, it shouldn't just be shut down or that will harm the movement.

It’s so hard when you agree so strongly with someone on one issue but not necessarily other issues. Or if you find them unlikeable.

I’m just about as GC as it’s possible to be. I’m probably verging on actually anti-trans.

But Glinner often says things that make me cringe with an inward “ooooh…”

And I find Posie Parker very unpleasant at the same time as vehemently agreeing with her 🤷‍♀️

I do think an issue has been the severe reluctance to criticise KJK for going on podcasts & posing for self-esteem with white nationalists like Jean François Gariepy. Call it respectability politics if you want, but her actions there are the basis for every TRA article telling impressionable young trans identified teens & early 20s that GC people are influenced by the far right. People say things like, 'KJK has risked her life!' Soldiers risk their lives - does that mean soldiers or firefighters etc can't call someone out when they're pursuing a bad strategy? Even if she doesn't agree morally with these people (I'm sure she doesn't) it was highly damaging tactically.

I can't be dealing with all this guilt by association stuff.

I simply think sex based rights are important and need to be protected. KJK thinks that too and we have that much in common.

But I do not vouch for any of her other opinions nor am I responsible for them. She's coming from a very different position than me and she's always been clear about how she sees herself.

This has to be the most brain dead period I've lived though. All this tribal nonsense is anathema to actual discussion and engagement

Yep, and how inconceivable it is for some to grasp that you can agree with individuals and be appreciative of their stance (right or left leaning) on certain issues such as sex based rights, and disagree with them on others, as is life.

Edited to add - me liking Big Macs, and Donald Trump also stating he likes Big Macs and will defend the existence of Big Macs, doesn’t automatically make me a big Trump loving supporter and defender of everything he stands for.

I don’t find it hard at all. It’s life! I don’t know one person that I agree with 100% entirely on every single issue in life.

Being gender critical was originally tied to feminism and radical feminism, literally why they call us "TERFS", radical feminist is literally in the term.

Right wing people just conveniently appropriated it. If you can't even define the word "woman" you can't protect them as a class.

Basic biology about sex differences is not right-wing, neither is gender critical feminism.

Pretending that being GC is inherently right-wing does way more harm than good, and we'll never solve the issues if people actually believe this.

Right wing people just conveniently appropriated it. If you can't even define the word "woman" you can't protect them as a class.

True. And if you can't define women, you can't kick them as a class either - voila the right wing gender critic.

I'm not going to link threads or names but it happens a lot on any thread involving Trump or any republican figures usually. I've seen long-standing posters critique support for cuts to women's services on threads that descend into accusations that GC posters must therefore support PBs and harming children or being a TRA simply because they won't support policy that will harm also women and therefore want changes brought in through other means.

It's all "we don't have to agree with right wingers on everything to agree that sex is immutable" but when someone shares a perfectly reasonable left wing feminist opinion they can still get jumped on by several posters. Even posters claiming not to support the right wing but still joining the mob to apply bad faith to them raising their feminist concern.

This is disturbing but I'm not clear what actually was reweeted..Did he reweet an actual tweet saying women shouldn't vote? Or just a tweet saying other things by a person who separately called for the 19th to be repealed in another tweet?

Gender critical views are not right-wing - that's phoney baloney.

Gender critical views only recently become partisan in the USA because Trump realized that the Democrats had tied themselves in knots supporting trans ideology (a predominantly white middle-class phenomenon) while ignoring the more pertinent cost-of-living concerns of their traditional voting base:
blue-collar workers.

According to exit polls in 2024, Trump won:

• 13% of the black vote compared to John McCain’s 4% against Obama
• 46% of the Latino vote this time, while McCain got 31% in 2008
• 43% of voters under 30 against the 32% for McCain
• 56% of those without a college degree - back in 2008, it was Obama who won a majority