Gender Discussion #96

[klarakluckbag]

Nearly 25,000 posts

View attachment 3695770

And my fave so far today is....

 

[Brian Butterfield]

 

[moldwarp]

When the UK is a tinderbox at the moment who authorised this arrest over tweets? It's like they're doing all they can to cause social unrest with wasting taxpayers money and precious resources

Hard agree, I mean it's not exactly helping the 'Two Tier Kier' perceptions is it.

It's annoying to me because I live in a working class and very diverse neighbourhood. 90% of my neighbours are good decent people from a variety of cultures who just want to get on, earn a crust and go home at night to be with their families and have a quiet life. And then there's the 10% who exist in every working class community and who seem dedicated to making life miserable for the rest of us.

Low level (but still invasive) noise at night, small but still intimidating gangs of kids hanging around the shopping parade, littering and fly tipping, smashing windows, low level burglary, defacing public furniture such as the kid's playground, drug paraphernalia in the park so we now call it 'Needle Park'.

My neighbourhood whatsapp group is full of photos people take of the above and their struggles to get the police to care. I must remember to tell them not to bother anymore as all the rozzers are at Heathrow arresting comedy writers.

 

[Yel]

The erosion of free speech does seem to intensify with each week, but of course only if your opinion is unfashionable or against those in power.

Tattle is the worst website on the internet™ because it's bitchy about influencers. Sure some comments overstep the mark, but the worst here is childs play compared to what twitter and Reddit allow. But no one dares even question if parents should be allowed to pimp their children on the internet.

At least in countries where they don't even pretend to have free speech you can go about your life in safety. There's benefits to the lack of freedom and the rules are clear.

 

[DoraMaar]

 

[VC10]

 

[emmer_moans]

The Glinner arrest is mental. The tweets in question are clearly jokes? I've got stuff on my twitter feed, hell, in my local neighbourhood where expressions of outrage for suffering in Gaza easily, EASILY cross over into antisemitism. I don't understand why that's OK and his tweets aren't. His tweets are clearly, in the context of how they're framed and the person making them, edgy jokes? Surely any accusation of incitement must take account of context...shorn of context, surely loads of social media comments would be arrestable.

Should David Tennant be arrested for saying at an awards ceremony that he hoped Kemi Badenoch would stop existing? Obviously not, in the context of his speech, is was just a bad choice of words and an unpleasant way of making a point. But if GL gets arrested for his tweets, why not Tennant for that?

I'm with the posters saying something about GL makes them uncomfortable. I feel that too sometimes and I've tried to work out what makes me feel that way. I think I'm made uncomfortable by seeing the plight of someone who cares so much about a single issue that he lost everything. Fanatics do tend to make me uncomfortable. But I think that's a fault in me, not him if you see what I mean.

He is a bit self pitying sometimes. The JKR stuff was crap. But then if I'd lost everything over speaking up on a single issue, I'd be bitter and self pitying too.

It blows my mind that - what was it - 5 police were waiting for him over tweets. Tweets! How sinister is that?! Yet knife crime rampages on in the streets - the manpower distribution of the police needs looking into because I bet the amount of people assigned to online 'crime' outweighs bobbies on the beat.

 

[Weebles Wobble]

Brilliant, Maya!

 

[Brian Butterfield]

The internet never forgets, Bristow.

 

[Dinate]

Just a few thoughts on today's tribunal:

Firstly, those people saying that the judge has an eye on an appeal are probably correct. Naomi has already given him notice that the losing side is likely to appeal whish immediately tells him that Sandie will definitely appeal. So he wants to cover everything even though this now looks to everyone that he is giving way too much latitude to Jane Russell. Naomi gave a very forceful oral application for him to make his decision today. She made the point that it's not the court's job to help the respondent's legal team if they have failed to plead something that could assist them. She reminded him that the other side has a fully-qualified team including a KC so there's no excuse for their mistake. She basically said that if he agrees to the application to amend the pleadings then she will immediately appeal to the EAT to have his decision overturned - but as has been said, he refused.

The judge asked a couple of questions after the submissions (there will be further written ones to both sides). He concentrated on the SC ruling. This worked very much in Naomi's favour because she was able to fully and clearly explain what the ruling said and meant and also the implications for this case. She emphasised why single-sex spaces exist and said that if you let even one man, then it ceases to be single-sex. She said that single-sex spaces exist for all women - ranging from women who don;t mind to those who do for whatever reason inlc previous sex assault or religious. This was good because it covered Jane Russell's 'but most women don't mind' nonsense. She was, as you'd expect, excellent and explained things in plain and clear English. She was able to say that the ruling made certain cases obsolete.

Jane Russell, in comparison, was completely stumped by his questions on the ruling. She said that she doesn't think that the ruling defines biological sex as being what you were 'assigned' at birth, but she was unable to say what is was defined as. She said she'd get back to him. There was a funny and embarrassing moment for her when the judge asked her what Upton's sex was: he paused slightly and asked if she needed to take instruction on that She refused - but didn't answer. The judge then referenced Upton saying that he was a biological woman. She said that he wasn't talking as a lawyer .

After those exchanges, I got the impression that he's going to rule in Sandie's favour in that Upton had no right to be in the CR. If he does allow the pleadings to be amended, I think he would do so only to look at the potential damages that Sandie deserves. That's just my feeling though. This case has been so mad that I wouldn't want to bet on anything.

And during her submission yesterday, Naomi did say that even if Sandie is racist, which she added she isn't, even racist people are entitled to the EA protections. Jane Russell explicitly said otherwise and that is the basis of her application.

All in all, Jane Russell came across very badly because it was clear that she and her team missed this potential defence until Naomi raised it in her submission. But as everyone says, the judge knows that more senior judges will be looking at his ruling and clearly doesn't want to have missed anything.

The timings the judge gave are that he and the panel will deliberate in mid-October and the decision will be not earlier than November. He didn't build in any time for reconvening to recall witnesses to specifically deal with the new pleading if he allows the application. I suspect that's because Naomi said that she will immediately appeal to the EAT if he does and things will be taken out of his hands. I feel desperately sorry for Sandie thinking that the end was in sight. Now there's the potential for this dragging into the New Year. If the judge does allow the application and and she still wins, then I imagine Fife's damages will be even higher.

I feel desperately sorry for Sandie thinking that the end was in sight. Now there's the potential for this dragging into the New Year. If the judge does allow the application and and still win, then I imagine Fife's damages will be even higher.

 

[i'm.just.highly.selective]

Some light relief...

If biological men with lovely, long* locks usually look like this:

Then how come TIMs always have hair like......this?

(Spoilering in case you're about to eat)

Spoiler

*Okay, Timothy Dalton's hair isn't really long, but can you blame me?

 

[Metropolis]

 

[nothanksbabes]

Oh they have now. First mention of it.

View attachment 3689039View attachment 3689038

"Kids died today".

No, kids were murdered. By this man.

They didn't just mysteriously drop dead. I detest this obfuscating language.

 

[CaptainBob]

I’ve noticed we’ve got quite a few new contributors to the thread who only joined Tattle at the weekend. Welcome! It’s always nice to see new people on here

This thread is so important to me, I struggle to eloquently articulate my thoughts around this horror show and this thread really helps me to say exactly what I think and give me the confidence to say it a lot more now.

This is the only thread I read on here and although I doubt I'll have much to contribute, I'm glad I can now read the Wiki, 'like' the posts and feel I am adding to the turning tide.

 

[Funny_bunny]

I expect a lot of people will think this is prudish, but I've reached the point where I'm past caring.

The prevalence of sex, ever-growing sexualisation in the media and fetishes being increasingly social acceptable is how we got to this point. Men start with getting off to 'Page 3', then internet porn, and because so many need more and more extreme stuff to get a sexual 'fix', they actually choose to get boob jobs and raid our sanitary bins. Why do so many men prize anal sex now - what's wrong with vaginas all of a sudden? Why are there furries' conventions? Why does the AA advertise using a bloke in A&E because he stuck his car keys up his arse? Sex toys even existing is bloody weird to me. And the only things I think about when putting on any 'traditionally male' clothing are comfort and practicality.

Penis-in-vagina sex is of course supposed to be enjoyable - there wouldn't be much life on Earth otherwise. But nothing else has as much non-procreation sexual activity as humans. Is there even another animal that has oral sex? I doubt it would ever have occurred to me to have a man's head between my legs if I hadn't been 'encouraged' to do it by women's magazines. And I bet that started off as some bloke's fetish too.

Keeping this stuff in private doesn't stop it causing problems. It causes problems because it exists.

*rummages in quote stash*

I totally agree with you. I also loathe the term “kink shaming”. Well, some things bloody well should be shamed. Note that’s it’s seen as OK to call people prudes, vanilla, etc but don’t anyone dare comment on fetishes however vile. Again, I’m sure it’s down to misogyny and men putting their pleasure above everything else. Not OK to say no, or to condemn mens sexual fetishes but OK to condemn women who have boundaries. How is it all of a sudden OK to bring fetishes out in public and expose non consenting people to their perversions. Then you get companies like Snag Tights that use fetish images, promote products with vile slogans such as “Choke me” and are all TWAW. This is a company that produces products that are primarily for women, yet at the same time degrades women into walking sex toys. (Don’t want to derail the thread but no one should be promoting strangulation during sex. It’s dangerous and any man who finds it arousing can’t have anything other than absolute contempt for women. I’d go as far as to say they’re sick.

The thing that really bemuses me though is the TRA’s assertion that biological sex isn’t real. Do they HONESTLY believe it? I’m sure even the most rabid TWAW, gender over sex proponent realises if they left a male rabbit in with female rabbits, there will be loads of rabbits a few months down the line. Of course biological sex is real. It’s how all species that procreate with sexual reproduction continue to survive. Gender (how I hate that word and that concept) has absolutely no value in nature, it’s just a social construct trying to enforce stereotypes and I feel is ultimately misogynistic and totally regressive.

 

[DoraMaar]

Men know how to protect young men but cannot afford the same respect to women

 

[Funny_bunny]

I really cannot stand the handmaiden point of view that they’re ok with trans women in female spaces, so all women should be. You not get to consent for me. Maybe you don’t feel uncomfortable with them, but I would. I don’t want men in female spaces and why should the feelings of some AGP override the wishes and feelings of women. I have discussed this with people I know, and not one person would want to have to share a changing room with Theo Upton.
As for Sandie not deserving legal protection as she didn’t object nicely, it’s pure misogyny at its worst. It’s like saying only nice girls deserve justice. I don’t know Sandie, but regardless of what she’s like, she deserves the legal protection ALL women are entitled to.

 

[VC10]

Went to the cafe today, got talking to a woman in her 70s , she had nothing but praise for JKR, and disgusted with NHS in Scotland, etc. She said " I was a great supporter of Women's Lib in the 70s and my daughter has just come off the buses after 35 yrs" , and she said she thinks we've regressed. As do many of her friends. We had a great chat. It was great.

 

[Nelly's mum]

Where is the boundary between a man who cross-dresses occasionally, probably in private and possibly even with a like-minded partner, for sexual reasons, and an official transvestite?

For me the boundary is their front door. No-one cares what people get up to in private with other consenting adults, it doesn't impact anyone else and they can call themselves whatever they want.
It only becomes an issue when they come out into the community and impose their fetish on unconsenting people just going about their business.

 

[MaineCoonMama]

So infuriating that troons bang on about being scared and vulnerable when it's women, real XX women who can't even feel fully safe in a fucking hospital.

I'm already in a feral mood tonight, Valerie's story has made me so angry, sad and outraged.