You are failing badly at reading comprehension.
Boy removed from school in transgender rights row
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
You are failing badly at reading comprehension.
Soldato
Didn't bully? He made multiple complaints about the incumbent women's officer and launched official accusations of transphobia as part of his attempt to supplant her demanding her resignation (cleared of the accusation later, incidentally). He ran a campaign against her and forced the resignation of not only her but the entire executive committee. He's a member of Momentum and there's an ongoing usurpation and purge in the Labour Party by them right now. They drove out the incumbents - actual adult women - and now have a 19yr old boy being the representative of women for the area. Someone who says having life experience as a woman is an advantage but isn't needed. He's not a woman, he's a guy who sued his school for not being able to go in the girl's bathrooms and changing rooms at school. Which if he actually cared about how the girls at his school felt he wouldn't be walking into in the first place.
I haven't see him be the victim of bullying by the Times or Telegraph. I've seen very fair treatment by the Times. Of course a person like him who regards speech as violence and a refusal to think he's a woman as hate speech would probably call it bullying. If bullying is what you want to see, I'd look to the guy who thinks people who disagree should be silenced and begins formal proceedings (cleared later) against the person they are trying to replace.
Soldato
Not sure exactly what is going on with this bullying sub-discussion but I see a lot of comments about fighting back and beating people up. That's a very 'boy' style of bullying. You do get physically bullied as a girl but a lot of it is social exclusion and gossip. It's not easy to stop that sort of bullying with a good punch. In fact, it will probably make it worse.
Permabanned
Soldato
I find myself forced to concede the point. Well played.
Soldato
I'm going to rant a tiny bit more about Lily Madigan. I think you can tell this is a topic I care a lot about. The thing is I'm hugely meritocratic. Even on subjects like mire women in engineering where I'd like to see that happen I focus almost entirely on making sure young girls have positive role-models so they feel it's okay to pursue such a career and never on preferential treatment. I read Damore's Google memo and agree with 80% of it. As a general rule I never think what someone should be allowed to do should depend on anything other than their individual suitability go do it. But then I see Lily Madigan snarkily dismissing a victim of domestic violence who doesn't want to see men running their shelter or being ignorant of actual equality law or calling someone transphobic (go to response) because they don't want a man speaking for women's needs and I'm reminded there's an exception for every rule. He's blocked so many women on Twitter who say they don't want to be spoken for by a man. He mainly seems to use his position as publicity for getting people to donate money for his flat and attacking women online. His goal, from everything I've seen, is not to represent women, but to advance the agenda of men who think they are women at the expense of those who are.
Oh, and he says that Corbyn has promised to bring in new laws to protect trans-rights "when" he comes to power. Given all the essential rights are already in law (don't assault, don't discriminate, etc.) the only remaining stuff is pro-active. Maybe we'll see the NHS tests for transgenderism begin at five, instead of ten!
Oh, and he says that Corbyn has promised to bring in new laws to protect trans-rights "when" he comes to power. Given all the essential rights are already in law (don't assault, don't discriminate, etc.) the only remaining stuff is pro-active. Maybe we'll see the NHS tests for transgenderism begin at five, instead of ten!
When I think of The Times, I think of some of the highest journalistic standards in the UK. I don’t think of a newspaper that mispresents the facts and refuses the right to reply. It’s a sad state of affairs. What’s been reported has been so one-sided.
Caporegime
I think everyone should beat the crap out of each other all the time, bullied or not.
Permabanned
How progressive.
Soldato
Isn't that Twitter?
Permabanned
LOL it is!
Soldato
Yeah, no. That's an article on "Pink News" that seems to think The Time is wrong to even cover an opposing view because it "sows division". How about you actually show me where the Times has "run a hate campaign" against him which is what you claimed. Actual articles or quotes, please. Not someone who regards calling a MtF Transperson a man to be 'hate speech' merely saying they did
Caporegime
Haha very good
The quote you've pulled out there is from the open letter written by the women involved with the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Scheme. It's not the words of Pink News.
That's quite difficult to do as The Times' website is behind a paywall but here's one example:
Female Labour supporters said the decision to open the mentoring scheme to all “self-defining women”, such as Lily Madigan, 19, who was born male but now identifies as female, was a “monstrous insult” to women in the party.
Source.
This is classic tabloid tactics: wrap up your own opinion in a 'news' piece by quoting an unnamed, mystery source.
Man of Honour
Being forced to actively promote a political position you disagree with could reasonably be considered unjust.
Man of Honour
Colours have a huge amount to do with gender in many cultures, which is why they were used as an example. The association of pink and blue with sexes in many countries is extremely well known. What country do you live in?
In many countries, liking blue is gendered quite masculine (but only in children) and liking pink is gendered very feminine (for all ages).
And yes, that has nothing to do with being "confused about being a girl" because sex and gender aren't the same thing.
Man of Honour
And it's nobody's fault, not even the Romans!
Man of Honour
Well, that's an easy one. You can bully anyone who disagrees with goodthink, especially if they are male, heterosexual, "white" or, worst of all, all 3. They are legitimate targets for bullying nowadays. You can publically call for all "white" men to be killed. That's neither illegal nor socially unacceptable - it has been done and mainstream media printed columns in favour of it. You can publically demand that all men and only men be stripped of the presumption of innocence and be presumed guilty instead, but only when accused by a female person. That's succeeding as we speak. If you don't see anything wrong with that, try the generally useful method of considering exactly the same idea applied to a different group, e.g. a demand that any "black" person is presumed guilty when accused by a "white" person. Same idea. Same words. Same thing. Do you see what's wrong with it now?
Man of Honour
Any "organisation dealing with issues particular to men" would be attacked for being "misogynistic" anyway. Any suggestion that any consideration should be paid to men is attacked for being "misogynistic". The idea that presumption of innocence should be applied to men like it is to women is being attacked as being "misogynistic".
What you're referring to is feminists getting a taste of what they've done to others. It's wrong, but I don't have much sympathy for them. It's like a car thief having their car stolen. I'm opposed to political ideologies and positions set up specifically for the purpose of excluding consideration of people of the "wrong" sex, so I don't care much about them being corrupted and I get a little amusement from seeing people who were previously top dog on the SJW hierarchy of oppression being beaten at their own game. They invented the game. They made the rules. They imposed those rules on everyone else. Now they're horrified that some people are outplaying them at their own game, using their own rules, their own irrational prejudices based on the division of humanity into neat groups arranged in a hierarchy.
The only thing that bothers me is that it will of course affect people who don't choose to promote an ideology of biological group identity, simplistic stereotyping and the irrational prejudice and discrimination that comes from belief in biological group identity and simplistic stereotyping. But given how much of that has already occurs and continues to do so, I don't think the transists will make things worse for people who don't choose to promote such ideologies.
EDIT: I've since realised that your comparison is wrong. The hypothetical scenario you mention isn't a parallel to the real scenario. The parallel to the hypothetical scenario you mention would be an angry Men's Rights Activist being appointed as the representative of a feminist group. Which, I think you'll agree, is not a thing that is at all likely to happen.
The accurate comparison would be a woman declaring that she's a man, being appointed a Men's Officer in the Labour party, caring only about trans activism rather than men and abusing her power to silence dissent. So...how many Men's Officers does the Labour party have to advocate only for more everything for men only?
Last edited:
Soldato
Hilarious juxtaposition with your comment four lines later where your example of the Times "running a hate campaign" is them including quotes from people opposed to Lily and explaining how papers use quotes to mask their own agenda.
For anyone who didn't bother reading the Pink News article, the part about the Times is almost wholly concerned with a latter of complaint that was written to it so yes, "sow division" is from that. Meh. These are the sort of people who think "speech is violence" and not accepting he's a woman is "hate speech" and Lily Madigan believes de-platforming is a good thing when he uses it against his opponents. Claiming hate campaigns is just one example of that. You've not backed up your accusations and the best you've come up with is the following:
So you're claiming that the Times is running a hate campaign against him and your evidence is that you believe they are making up critics as a fig leaf for criticising him? You really think there aren't lots of people who say and believe exactly that? I've heard plenty. This is ridiculous. You claimed the Times was "running a hate campaign" when called on that you say an off-the-record quote means the Times is making things up.