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

If a male feminist and a female feminist disagree on what is the best thing for women, which one should I listen to?

If a man is comfortable saying that he would happily be a feminist if he were a woman is that OK?

Also, gender critical is a funny term.

Gender is sex based stereotypes, some of which are rooted in biology (women are better at nurturing new-borns), some of which are arbitrary (women have long hair, men have short hair).

I am not critical of sex-based stereotypes, because criticising reality is a bit pointless. I am critical of the idea that people must be forced to abide by sex based stereotypes (and I am critical of the trans ideology idea that people who follow sex based stereotypes are boring and less special than those who are gender non-conforming)

I agree to some extent. A large extent

On the other hand I am uncomfortable that tiny minorities of extremists can cost the state money (or cause destruction or disruption, or simply waste time), year in year out, simply because they don't like what the public voted for.

I am not advocating for restrictions on protest, but IMHO there comes a time - and anti-ICE in the US is one such example - where protests become violent mobs opposing a democratic mandate, and a violent mob opposing a democratic mandate is the veryu oppsite of democracy.

I missed this excellent post. You put it very well. For anyone who doesn’t understand what a purity spiral is, there you go.

No, I beliee that ultimately "democracy" is about the will of the people, and that protesting what has very recently been voted for is arguably undemocratic.

I am not saying I support clamping down on the right to protest, but I am saying I am very concerned about the complete waste of time money and effort policing violent people pushing minority positions which have been rejected at the ballot box. In an ideal world we would have no violent people pushing minority positions which have been rejected at the ballot box, and in this ideal world anti_ICE protests would not exist.

I think that people aren't just protesting ICE, but witnessing their activities.

Trump had already demonstrated that he has no concern about the legality of their activities, and his government's immediate response to what happened in Minneapolis was chilling.

and that protesting what has very recently been voted for is arguably undemocratic.

I think there is an argument that Trump is deliberately trying to use ICE to create division and subvert policies in states where people didn't vote for him.

Part of the reason I would not wish to restrict protest is that we don't know how many people support either what ICE is doing and how. It could be the majority there oppose how they are operating, and it could be the case that the US population has changed it's mind and no longer wants the mass deportations it voted for in late 2024.

But I stand by my basic point.

The US population voted for no-nonsense anti-illegal immigrant policies including mass deportations. Angry masked mobs who are violently opposing ICE are a long way from being a case study on democracy.

There is a massive difference between saying 'you feminists are all right wing these days as some right wing men also agree that there are two sexes so look at the company you keep' and 'Matt Walsh is a colossal grifting fuckwit and has knows nothing about feminism and is not representing women's rights in any way shape or form'.

I do find it fascinating that the argument is that people are allowed to protest anything including violence even if it goes against an elected madate but not allowed to post words on X that support that elected mandate.

Under the guise of 'democracy'.

Is that not a separate argument? As president he has a mandate over the entire USA, including states who did not vote for him.

Presumably the more Dem a state is the more ICE agents are needed in order to fulfill the nartional mandate - in Rep. states presumably the state police are much more engaged in supporting / helping / enforcing border agents, and thus there is less need for ICE agents to turn up en masse to enforce national law?

'no-nonsense' policies perhaps, but not illegal.

Potentially.

But it's also (arguably) the States that didn't vote Trump who are not cooperating with government policies re deportation who therefore have ICE presence.

Bit chicken and egg.

Exactly. I don’t care what anyone says about Matt Walsh etc. I care that people are trying to smear feminist women here on FWR through guilt by association. This has been a consistent concern of mine and I’ve challenged the attempt to do this on many such threads.

I don't know - I suspect a big chunk of Trump voters would quite happily say "I want illegals out, and I don;t care if we break the law getting them out. In fact if it's cheaper to break the law I'd rather we broke the law when we deported them".

And I suspect a load more would dispute the "illegal" allegation

and thus there is less need for ICE agents to turn up en masse to enforce national law?

The question is whether they actually are complying with national law.

Your basic point is wrong. Peaceful protest can and must be allowed and provided-for regardless of when the policy being protested was voted for - recently - in the distant past - or never. Whether it was a part of a plebiscite (like Brexit) or one of a raft of manifesto policies which people can't by ballot choose between - or even a spur of the moment non-manifesto decision of an elected government.

As a separate issue, angry mobs who violently oppose anything aren't peaceful protest, by definition. Angry violent mobs are not tolerable whether in favour of or against any particular policy..

Peaceful protest also does not include protest that impedes law enforcement from carrying out their duties. That's not protest any more, that's action. Democracy doesn't include citizen action.

Good point making the clear distinction between peaceful protest and action and violent action.

I do stand by my basic point, however.

I fully support the right to peaceful protest, and I AM NOT ADVOCATING CHANGING THE LAW TO RESTRICT IT. I am, however, minded to note how disruptive peaceful protest can be, and how much it can cost to police and how much it can cost in terms of disruption (or even lives of people in ambulances stuck in crowds).

I am minded to say that - in theory at least - I can see that there is a strong argument that it is better for society if the government says "we cannot afford £2m a day to police this, or the deaths in ambulances. Our manifesto clearly said X. The polling clearly shows massive public support for X. We are doing X and there is no good whatsoever to come from protesting for Y."

We are doing X and there is no good whatsoever to come from protesting for Y."

The good come from letting people see that regardless, protesting anything, in an appropriate manner, is their right.

It's not about the subject of the protests - it has. nothing to do with X or Y, or Z. In an open society the protest itself is the good.

Is protest a good if the government has to quadruple prescription costs to facilitate the policing of pointless protests that will never get anywhere due to the public and the government both opposing the protestors entirely?

I am not saying you're wrong, but I do think there is nuance

I'm not here to entertain mens pedantry, I've already said men should centre women's voices and expertise above their own which you seemed to take as me telling me to shut up. I'm not here to convince you to be a feminist either, I've already said I'm dubious of men such as yourself who claim to centre women's rights and women's voices but insert yourself so much in conversations without declaring your sex as well as often arguing against left wing feminist concerns about right wing violence against women while also claiming it's impossible for you to be a feminist. For someone who thinks they need to contribute quite so much to conversations on women's issues you might find you'll answer your own questions by reading some feminist literature and just listening in general instead of always chiming in when people (me especially who did say I wasn't interested in engaging directly with you) what you specifically think about sex stereotypes etc. as I said, it's becoming very hard to listen to left wing feminist voices here while it's so dominated by men.

I've RTFT and I disagree there's actually been many posts by left wing GC feminists talking about the lack of nuance on here and that they feel the space has shifted away from feminism or leans to the right. Their points just haven't been engaged with as much when they can't be twisted as easily as being a TRA.

The protest is a good. Society needs to find a way to make it affordable, but that's a secondary issue. Holding parliamentary and local elections every few years is expensive and disruptive. Building prisons in which to keep criminals is expensive. Having a parliamentary infrastructure and paying legislators to sit and debate about laws - very very expensive. It would be cheaper and more convenient to do away with all of them. The right to peaceful protest is no less fundamental to our society.

That's a problem with organizations like Just Stop Oil (and others, I'm sure you can think of some). By making protest so expensive society has to consider whether it's affordable they attack the basis of the society in which we all live. But our cause is so important it's worth it, they say. No it isn't.

Part of the way I try to centre women is by admitting that feminism is by and for women and not seeking to claim I am a feminist.

But also, I am here because of gender ideology specifically. I am interested in feminism, but I would almost certainly not be on mumsnet were it not for the TQ+.

Gender ideology is a war on truth, reality, child safeguarding and evidence-based healthcare. It is perfectly coherent to oppose gender ideology entirely whilst not caring about women at all. Just because women are a major part of the victims of gender ideology does not give women the right to sideline men. I have EXACTLY as much right to oppose TQ+ ideology as you do.

To a large extent I got into this fight because I know I could never date a trans'woman', and if as a straight man I would never date a transwomen then by definition -

(1) it is because TWAM (and therefore gender ideology is 100% nonsense)
or
(2) it is because I am a transphobic bigot who refuses to accept that TWAW.

I could (I won't) wake up tomorrow, decide I despise women and decide I wish to fight against women's rights. I would still oppose TQ+ ideology because I think truth matters and that my hetrosexuality is not bigtory.

Well said. You leave me no room to come back!

They’re entitled to their feelings. Others disagree. More than one of the posters I would definitely class as TRAs though.