Why has WPUK gone quiet?

[CatsCatsCatsCatsCatsCat]

WPUK used to be leading the gender critical cause in the UK, but they’ve been very quiet the past few years?

https://womansplaceuk.org/

On their website, their last blog post is from 2024?

Yeah exactly he's still knocking about. I read it (and I could be wrong here ) is that Posie's beef with DH is that he is a teacher admitting to a sexual fetish that is dressing as a woman. That's my beef with him tbh. Safeguarding.

At the end of the world, when civilisations are burning and the sun swallows us all, there will still be a thread on MN where women try to justify feminists platforming Dr Hayton.

Ain't that the truth.

Ludicrous but true.

👏👏👏

He was a pervert who was telling the truth when no other AGP was, and I wanted him to keep telling the truth so a wider circle would hear this. That doesn’t mean I’m defending Hayton or whatever, it means I think this would be strategically useful

There it is- Hayton was more “strategically useful” to a feminist group than we trans widows would be, even though we’d tell the real truth about AGP and not Hayton’s self serving lies. Shame on anyone who thinks this whilst professing to be a feminist.

DH being 'strategically used' would fill him with glee no doubt.

So is it being posited that centring Hayton was strategically more valuable than the women who rejected his presence ?

In fact the women of WPUK and their supporters were strategically used by Hayton initially to maintain the status quo of the GRA and latterly to sanitise AGP. He is much, much cleverer than they are.

Only trans widows know how dishonest and manipulative these men are. And many women do not wish to listen to us.

The idea that his “honesty” was needed to tell the “truth” about AGP is ludicrous. There’s thousands of men being very honest indeed about their AGP all over the internet.

Hayton is the same as any other, he'll go wherever hes called she, or at least not called he, and manipulate everyone around him in the process.

He's now saying that its not practical to have women only spaces because of his meaningful transition.

His only focus is being treated like a women, he'll say and do anything to achieve that. He's unreliable at best.

It tells you that they're not real women, doesn't it, that their word carries more weight than the wives and children of these men? Who usually have pretty horrific tales to tell that - if anyone cared at all about THEIR lives - should put the brakes on the trans gravy train.

I just brought a bit of my dinner back up.

This idea that all AGPs are like Voldemort is very childish. Yes they’re manipulative. Yes they’re perverts. Lots of other people are manipulative and perverted. They are not some sort of all powerful warlocks.

Is that Straw Man in the room with you now?

I had to look up straw man: a false or distorted version of someone’s argument that is easier to attack than the real argument.

i don’t get it? What was false or distorted about what I said. The idea that AGPs have this devilish bogeyman magic power to fool everyone is infantile

“What straw man argument did I use?”
< uses same straw man argument again. >

That Hayton (a fetishist who self ID’d into womanhood) has women like you shilling for him on a feminist forum where other women are arguing against fetishists self ID ing into womanhood, is all the evidence we need of these men’s manipulative abilities and some women’s incredible gullibility.

No idea what nerve my last post struck with, I assume, Unusualdog.

It was polite.

I didn't call anyone infantile (like Unusualdog has done).

I didn't suggest that AGPs were devilish bogeyman with magic powers or warlocks (which Unusualdog has accused women on this thread of doing).

However, I did say that some women might be more vulnerable than others to being fooled by AGPs, to the extent that they would come on to a feminist forum and advocate for AGPs. (Surely that is a self-evident possibility?)

I didn't suggest any particular reasons why some women might be vulnerable to that extent.

Although I did ask Unusualdog what her (I assume "her") particular vulnerability might be . . .was that it? Is that what got my post deleted for breaking Talk Guidelines? 🤷‍♀️

I have emailed Mumsnet asking if they could please clarify what it was about my post that was in breach of Talk Guidelines.

I can't see that it was very different to other posts in this thread, and certainly not as offensive as calling grown women, including Transwidows, "infantile".

I didn’t see anything wrong with your post either @Bosky

I didn’t see your post @Bosky so I’ve no idea. I’m not sure, are you insinuating that I complained about it? I didn’t.
I think it’s laughable that Tinsel thinks I’ve been taken in by AGPs or that I’m “shilling” for them. Can’t a woman have an opinion that is formed in her own brain, without undue influence?

Not when it’s one as preposterous as male fetishists being good for feminism.

I think I’d rather people thought I’d been influenced than that I’d come up with such a risible idea myself.

Apologies Unusualdog - my post was a direct reply to you, quoting you IIRC. So I naturally assumed that you had reported it.

Someone who is reading this thread has obviously taken you under their wing and decided to silence women who, how should I put it . . . prompt you sharply to undertake some self-reflection.

Obviously, no one has reported you for making outrageous allegations about how women on this thread regard AGPs or for you calling those women "infantile".

I didn’t say AGPs were good for feminism. I said AGPs who told the truth about their paraphilia were “strategically useful”.

I meant strategically useful to expose the reality of agp - not strategically useful to promote the cause of feminism