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

People from all over the political spectrum can agree on a given topic without needing words like appropriated.
To be for free speech does not mean your 'side' and people who think like you, left or right owns it.
To be gender critial does not mean your 'side' and people who think like you, left or right owns it.
There are certain topics can srongly agree on whilst just as strongly disagreeing on other topics. Nobody owns ideas.
Trying to paint a topic as belonging to the left or right is stupid in my opinion, it encourages the tribalism approach.

I'm not being tribal, saying you & other GC people agree with KJK on everything

What I'm saying is not a moral protest but a tactical one. Tactically, KJK's actions gave ammunition to people who want vulnerable trans teens to think GC activists are scary far right white nationalists/neo Nazis they should avoid.

Of course this is illogical, but the point is it made it harder to reach out to young people who have been brainwashed by this movement.

But I just said I DONT agree with her on everything.

If people can't comprehend such a basic concept, then God help us all. Debate is not going to be possible.

There's too many men in here nowdays to be able to call this a feminist forum.

Sorry, I'm quite tired. I didn't mean to misunderstand- would you mind clarifying-

I was saying that I'm frustrated with people's reluctance to criticise KJK's tactics.

I thought you had misunderstood my post to mean I was unfairly accusing KJK of actually being white nationalist & you of agreeing with her.

So, to clarify : You're actually saying that you don't agree with KJK's tactics. So you don't oppose criticism/discussion of her tactics?

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ah, I see. I hadn't seen the 19th amendment bit at the bottom when I first read it.

I still don't think he should have retweeted it even if he missed the 19th amendment bit.

Why is he retweeting a post denigrating 'liberal white women', let alone a dead woman, whose death is still unclear, and who is the mother of several including a 7 year old, as well as leaving a grieving wife and ex husband? Why?

I agree with some things KJK says and does. I don't agree with others.

I woukd have though that was perfectly normal. That most adults do not have an expectation of wholly agreeing or wholly disagreeing with anyone.

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

Turns out that not only was he a white nationalist when she went on there, he was also receiving funding from Jeffrey Epstein.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-science-donations-apologies-statements

I think that's healthy. But I have limits.
For example, I would happily agree to disagree with say someone who though trans women are women. Even if they had opinions I found very objectionable (like Isla White belongs in a women's prison) I could be civil and maybe there would be unrelated issues we did agree on. But, for example, the TRAs who were actively celebrating the way KJK was attacked in New Zealand. I wouldn't want to share a platform with them on any unrelated issues. It's not about disagreement. There's a deep rooted meanness and resistance to civilised discussion I would want to keep a distance from.

Likewise, people might have different views on ICE etc to me. But when it gets to laughing a/celebrating the idea of immigrants in distress for example, I don't trust people likes that. That also applies to some of the things said about the shooting victim including by GL... It puts me off on a much deeper level than just disagreement about politics.

Why on earth should I criticise KJKs 'tactics'? She speaks for herself. This is utter tribalism. And so what if she's right wing? Why do you think she shouldn't be? Must every woman be on the left for their views to be acceptable to you?

I believe sex is real and humans can't change sex. That's it. KJK also believes that. So does JKR. So does anyone who has engaged their brain.

I'm not part of a game of 'tactics' about reality. I cannot fathom why believing in reality is a left/right issue.

I'm sorry, but this level of discussion reminds me of the playground.

Oh and to the previous poster who thinks TRAs don't actually believe people change sex - they really do. If they didn't, why would they be changing sex markers in passports?

Sorry that came across as harsh! I'm not usually so arsey! Really not personal @Carla786 .

It was spot on I’d say.

That's valuable information. Epstein's Web goes deep...

This. I could not agree more.

I will take this point by point.

Where have I criticised KJK for being 'right wing'?

The issue I am discussing is KJK's podcast interviews/selfies etc with far right people like Jean François Gariepy. I mean actually far right, Gariepy is a white nationalist. Not right wing.

I'm not saying she agrees with them on race etc I don't think she does.

My point is that I think it was tactically unwise for her to do that, not that she agrees with them.

So 'criticising her for being right wing' is very far from the point I was making.

I will address your other points in a little while.

Thank you. I'm finding this thread utterly exasperating.

I'm not saying she agrees with them on race etc I don't think she does.
My point is that I think it was tactically unwise for her to do that, not that she agrees with them.

If you have managed to figure out that appearing with someone with different views doesn't necessarily mean KJK endorses them, why do think others can't?

Is it that some people are incapable of this level of thinking? Don't you think this might be a problem that is not KJKs to solve?

Because I've been on a lot of forums with young people who are identifying as trans. The movement inculcates wider woolly woke thinking which means yes, a lot of these people do not think beyond 'X did this, X must be bad'. Cultlike movements encourage that kind of binary thinking.

Of course it's not KJK's fault that people are thinking that way, but I think any GC campaigner with such a large platform should tailor their message partly with an eye to getting young people away from this movement.

I'm Gen Z myself so I probably see the issue a bit differently due to that. Of course legal gains are the top priority but trying to get young people away from it is another. I think people like JKR, Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce and many other GC campaigners are more effective at combining both aims imo.

Yes, the insistence from some that any criticism of KJK or Glinner means someone is not GC is unhelpful purity testing.

To be fair, the TRAs have tried to destroy the credibility of every one of these women. If they don't have anything to actually base that on, they'll make up some bullshit. Remember the 'JKR is a holocaust denier' nonsense?

The TRAs fight dirty, they use every trick in the book. We can't stop them doing that. What we can do is not get pulled into these weeds. It's a debate about policies, not about people's 'worthiness'

I think blaming her partner is a bit much.

Good was bereaved 7 years ago but I don't think that automatically means she was too vulnerable to decide for herself what to do.

Why do you assume her political views were mainly influenced by her partner? They might have been long-held for all we know. It feels patronising to assume that she was only protesting because of partner pressure, ad well as unfair to her partner.

I agree it shouldn't be a debate about people's worthiness, but to young trans people, the people we are trying to help, it is often seen in those terms.

I agree that TRAs fight dirty & smeared JKR etc with fake stuff but that's precisely why it's better to campaign more like JKR, so you don't give them more ammunition, rather than platforming Gariepy etc, which was handing them ammunition on a plate.

I agree.

Exactly

I have no interest in engaging with young TRAs purity tests. For no other reason than we will never win
in their eyes. They think JKR is the devil incarnate, regardless of her behaviour.

We can only keep the debate to facts and reason. Luckily TRAs suck at this