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

Great post

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

The irony of saying this in the glinner thread 😒

What irony? I'm not defending Glinner.

'We will never win in their eyes'- that seems a bit pessimistic.

We have to try. The longer people remain in this cultlike mindset, the more likely we are to have a ticking time bomb of people suffering long term physical damage from hormones & surgery, as well as mental damage from cultlike thinking.

I don't always like the attitude I see on here sometimes to younger trans people. They're not automatically TRAs (as in activists). I've seen posts linking to trans reddits to laugh at 'reality denying' but a lot of people on there seem like young people who are very vulnerable for various reasons.

It's very hard I know as trans people are often a bit like drug users who also deal. Victims but also harming others via encouraging them to think they're also trans or campaigning for things that will harm single sex spaces etc

Exactly

TRAs also poured piss over themselves if I recall. I think the more extreme actions of those groups speak louder than words ever could. For quite a few people the sheer level of vitriol that was directed at JKR was so extreme that it made some people go "wait is she actually a Nazi?" And go back and read what she had said and think about it. I know there are plenty of people who still think JKR is evil. But its precisely because she had a reputation of basically being a nice, reasonable person that her involvement had the most impact because it helped cut through some of the lies

Part of why KJKs Let women speak events were effective was because all they had to do was show up and the loud, angry protests from the other side basically made her argument for her. Some of the speakers were very good. But even if they were drowned out by men screaming they still made thei point. Tactically, that was clever. But by the same measure it is probably less tactically clever to appear alongside men who themselves have been violent or extreme in their language, or to go along with people who are also talking about how women shouldn't have the right to vote. If I can say one thing was a genius move tactically, I can also say the other was a poor move tactically. In my opinion. As can other posters. That's not telling KJK what to do. She doesn't come on here anyway.

But overall, just because some people on the other side of a debate are dancing in piss doesn't mean it's a good idea to copy them.

I'm not fully in agreement with how far they've gone, but I agree re unhelpful associations.

If someone believes that humans can change sex there is no good way to argue with them. Because they are starting from an irrational position.

It is not KJKs responsibility to sort this. Why should she tailor her message? Has tailoring the message worked well so far? Has #bekind worked well?

(Spoiler - It hasn't.)

Why is it your position that a woman should change the way she tells the truth?

The best thing anyone can do at this point is tell the truth loudly and absolutely ridicule those who continue to spout utter bullshit.

If they're determined to demonise JKR, what chance does anyone have in passing their purity tests?

Keep to the facts. Men can't become women. Women's rights to single sex spaces need to be upheld. That's the argument and it's hard to refute that.

It's not about asking 'a woman to change the way she tells the truth'.

I would criticise a man if he did the same. Glinner's associations seem similarly unhelpful though I know less about that.

Male leaders of movements have been similarly criticised. I think it's fair to say, for instance, that Arthur Scargill's association with communist countries didn't help the cause of the miners' strike. Part of the gay rights movement in the US and UK was showing that supporting gay rights didn't need to ally with radical politics, so those associations were distanced.

Exactly

Bollocks. Totally possible to recognise and fuck over the people with female bodies regardless of whether our status as female is legally recognised or not.

But without legal and social recognition impossible to fight with legislation or even find common ground to understand and communicate to society that what we face is a systemic issue not an individual one.

A similar mechanism played out with the grooming gangs. The men knew exactly who they were abusing and why, but the legal and social framework was not there to connect these individual girls into a coherent group with shared risks so they fell through the crack.

(Also, "gender" means social constructions on top of sex. The social right is not gender critical, it is transgender critical. It's a-ok with gender as long as it's aligned to its traditional sex.)

What movement is KJK the leader of?

I strongly suspect he didn't read the tweet properly before retweeting. He's very impulsive, and doesn't always do enough thinking. I also think his mental state is unsurprisingly not great; not an excuse for some of his actions, but an explanation. He acts out of frustration, and has a conviction as a result, and the fact that he was provoked wasn't sufficient defence.

This thread feels to me like a purity spiral.
Measuring how politically right a person is to judge if they should be listened to or shunned.

Maybe I’d have thought this in the past but he’s posted a lot of extremely questionable stuff recently, he can’t have misread it all.

I would have thought the same until I read his recent tweets.

You can just as legitimately ask whether keeping the crumbling NHS and state school systems is worth giving up women's most basic right to discrimination protection on the basis of sex.

I'm not convinced at all that schools or the NHS are in safe hands with Labour anyway. There's been no attempt to roll back the privatisation of schools known as "converting to academies". PFI, aka the private financing for profit of NHS real estate, was a Labour policy decision.

You seem annoyed yourself, we’re both able to have an opinion here.

Don't try and tell me that someone aggravating armed men is safe because I know for a fact that it's anything but safe.

I haven’t for a moment said anything even approaching that. Jesus.

I've been here nearly 20 years, back in the day when the forum was a feminist space.

It's interesting that more recent posters don't consider it a feminist or gender critical space either.

This is why all of these threads go the same way. Because for some posters, a performative denunciation is required. It’s not enough to say you don’t agree with individual things that prominent controversial people have said. It’s not enough to be critical of those things, you need to complete renounce your support of that person.

You can see from the comments some FWR hostile posters have made that it’s about a purity spiral, not particularly directed at Glinner or KJK (because frankly they wouldn’t give a fuck) but at any poster on FWR who at any time supported or defended them for different things.

I also think that. He’s said some unequivocally awful things, but he didn’t retweet a post saying women shouldn’t vote in plain English, he retweeted a post with one line saying the 19th amendment or whatever should be rescinded. I didn’t know what it was without looking it up and it’s perfectly possible neither did he. Yes he should have checked. But he’s chaotic and impulsive like you and other people have said, so he’s just frenziedly retweeting every tweet he vaguely agrees with without reading them properly. People on all sides of all arguments do this. Twitter is that kind of environment. I completely agree that he needs to take a break from social media but I doubt he will.

I strongly suspect he didn't read the tweet properly before retweeting

Has he said that? As that sounds awfully like trying to explain away and make excuses for him. Maybe it's what he really thinks? Then only backed away from it when he saw the reaction?
Or maybe he didn't read it properly, nobody knows.

Maybe it is what he thinks. I don’t think so though. That’s my opinion, you are free to have a different one, of course.