Ok, so remove Lily’s quote or whatever it is from the article. I haven’t read it. But TRAs are now in hysteria using this one nutty person as proof that all GC/radfem women feel this way which is not true, and masses of women on Twitter are saying Lily does not speak for us. TRAs are far more violent and never speak out against eg the death threats to JK Rowling or others.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It absolutely does. Whatever position you take on this issue, the article is completely tainted by her inclusion.
Unless she was literally the only person who was quoted or interviewed I don’t see how this is the case at all.
Very this. Also, if I'm not mistaken, isn't she like 'ground zero' for the cotton ceiling? Wasn't it her saying No to working with a trans woman porn star that led that same trans women porn star to coin the term 'cotton ceiling' in the first place?
Nah, not buying it @Veronicaaa As I said before, it doesn't matter who says anything or speaks up, they will find a way to discredit them. Look at JK Rowling's thoughtful essay and how that sent them into meltdown.
It's disturbing that some people are not listening to women and discrediting them based on their character (and simultaneously discrediting the many other similar stories). Nothing ever changes and history repeats itself
It's disturbing that some people are not listening to women and discrediting them based on their character (and simultaneously discrediting the many other similar stories). Nothing ever changes and history repeats itself
Because it demonstrates the complete lack of research and now any discerning reader will question the other sources. This was one of the few NAMED sources and she's a sexual predator with her own agenda.
Yes, exactly
There's another trans performer she refused to work with (Chelsea Poe) who is now loudly proclaiming that they were interviewed for the BBC article but didn't make it in there, and tried to warn everyone that Cade is a sex offender but no one listened. All of which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that they were sexually rejected by a lesbian because they are male
Last edited:
That doesn’t mean the other sources are lying or have anything questionable about their character though? I’m sorry but implying you can’t or shouldn’t believe the other women or that their stories are undermined by one dodgy source that shouldn’t be there smacks of misogyny to me
What's disturbing is that people are still sticking up for this article. What about Lily Cade's victims?
Except that wasn't the articles purpose at all. The purpose was to expose a culture of coercion going on in these circles that is applauded and considered to be activism. That's the reason why it was newsworthy.
I'm implying nothing of the sort. This is how journalism works. You quote one dodgy source and the rest of your article may as well be binned, especially as Cade is one of the few who was actually OK with being *named* when a cursory glance at the internet will show you exactly who she is. It's a problem.
Er; what? You do realise it's possible to feel sorry for any and all victims and still believe what lesbians are saying about being coerced into sleeping with TiM's. It's not one or the other
So tribalistic in all honesty
I'm being called misogynistic and tribalistic for saying there's a problem with the inclusion of a sexual predator as a source in a BBC article. OK.
No. Let’s be very clear. I have agreed that there is a problem with including a sexual predator in this article. You’re being called misogynistic for suggesting that the ‘article’ aka all the other women’s experiences and stories can simply be ‘binned’ because they included a sexual predator.
Yes you're basically disregarding the rest of the sources. Do you purity police all assault victims and decide they should only be believed based on character? As I keep saying, this Lily Cade might be an awful person but it doesn't negate what lesbians have been saying for yonks about the cotton ceiling.
I'm saying you can't trust a report which includes a self-confessed sexual predator as one of its sources. I'm saying the article may as well be binned. But whatever, I'm out.
How bleeping dare you.
If it’s a “which side said what” and “if you agree with this then you must agree with 100% of it” then you’re coming across as positioning yourself on the same side (or sympathetic, at least) of convicted rapists, murderers and paedophiles.
What did SV say that was untrue?
Thanks for confirming my point. Youre suggesting that including one bad source undermines the trustworthiness of the other women. Why should it? Its insulting and misogynistic to them to suggest as much.
I’m not a journalist but I do assess evidence for a living and I can tell you someone’s whole case does not collapse if you have one bad witness. I don’t see why it ought to be different when it’s an article.
I'm saying it undermines the article. I don't know how much more simply I can say it.
This is a disgusting thing to say also, but it never fails to amaze me how quickly these discussions descend so quickly into such accusations.
The article is made up of women’s experiences no? So in turn you’re saying it undermines all their experiences. I don’t know how you can’t grasp that.
- Status