  |
 The UK and transphobia |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 27th February 2024, 03:57 PM
Post
#381
|
|
 there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,144 User: 22,895 
         |
Famous transphobe Helen Joyce who claims that any interaction between trans people and children is sexual and wrong has been spotted reading pornographic Harry Potter fanfiction featuring underage characters on a train in plain sight: https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comm..._reading_harry/
https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/c...ead_youll_read/ She has already claimed having been called out that this was 'for research'... |
 |
 
|
|
27th February 2024, 05:34 PM
Post
#382
|
|
 Mansonette
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 35,304 User: 54 
            |
lol that sounds like a parody!!!! 🤣
|
|
|
|
|
2nd April 2024, 06:31 PM
Post
#383
|
|
 Radical Pink Troll
Joined: 11 March 2006
Posts: 26,603 User: 177
 |
All this JK Rowling crap with the new Scottish Hate Crime bill has gotten me so depressed about the state of the UK. Twitter has been horrendous for transphobia.
Honestly it really upsets me so much. I work and have worked with many trans children and I just hope they’re not reading the stuff that I have. |
|
|
|
|
2nd April 2024, 09:24 PM
Post
#384
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 21 February 2021
Posts: 3,556 User: 124,514
 |
And she's been splashed on the front page of the Daily Heil approvingly as a hero. So depressing for trans people.
|
|
|
|
|
2nd April 2024, 09:33 PM
Post
#385
|
|
|
there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,144 User: 22,895
|
Once again I bloody wish the reporting on the story would be honest!
All of the articles are framing it as a hypothetical, "if JK said XYZ would it be a crime" etc. - ignoring the fact that what she actually did was made a ton of transphobic statements, literally called named trans women men including basically doxxing people who weren't public figures and putting them in the same box as criminals, and only THEN cheerily said "arrest me if you don't like it". Frankly she's a horrible piece of work. Who does that? She's just bullying at this stage, this had gone beyond quietly believing certain things. |
|
|
|
|
2nd April 2024, 10:39 PM
Post
#386
|
|
|
The owls are not what they seem
Pronouns: He/him
Joined: 11 July 2009 Posts: 37,126 User: 9,232
    |
Yeah if you read beyond the clickbait, you'll see that what she was saying was never actually going to get her arrested, they even used it as an example, and anyway, the law states that it's down to the police discretion anyway and as if that would even be considering for someone that powerful without clear evidence. The fact this is given breaking news status alongside a school shooting and aid workers being assassinated in Gaza is so bloody depressing, yet more culture wars bullshit to distract from the government's failings which they will of course openly jump on.
Sadly, JK is still held in quite high regard with people I speak to (funny how her recent implict denial of treatment of transgender people in the Holocaust wasn't widely reported at all...) and any discussion of trans people are almost always framed negatively, I hate this world sometimes... 
|
|
|
|
|
2nd April 2024, 11:04 PM
Post
#387
|
|
 Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,082 User: 3,474
   |
Yeah but i was one of probably many who reported that holocaust tweet and now it's banned in Germany under the German hate crime bill that states holocaust denial is a crime. The person who has a tweet reported and withheld under German law actually gets notified. Funny how she never mentioned that, just the SNP law (which is from 2021, and errrr is a light update of the old law, and errrrr is broadly the same as the one in England and Wales, but lets not let facts get in the way of SNPBad)
|
|
|
|
|
3rd April 2024, 10:29 AM
Post
#388
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,829 User: 17,376
  |
sticking with facts here, a "light update" of an existing law that already protected everybody, and instead cherry-picked some oppressed parts of society (I'm twice-covered under the new SNP act, being old and gay) and ignored others, and was so vague and undefined as to what constititutes Hate Speech was always going to need to be tested as a potential attack on freedom of speech and the protected right to have opinions and to offend. Hurt feelings is not a crime (and I've had my feelings hurt on BJ more than once), or else we would all be taking everybody to court claiming "Hate!". It's now been very clearly defined what will be wasting police time and what won't.
What Rowling did was a master-stroke of timing - it's effectively shown the act up to be a waste of time and resources (with a limp promise that sex-based rights will come "at a later date"). Had Rowling been taken to court it would have given a global stage to the nuttier beliefs and demands of some trans activists which I've commented on before (as in not science-based and illogical and self-contradicting) and been a huge coup against Trans Rights. So you might say that's a huge bullet dodged. Gay people very much depend on sex-based rights BTW, particularly men, think cruising bars and saunas - gay, bi males and same-sex attracted transwomen have always been welcome and similarly gay, bi females and same-sex attracted transmen in equivalent spaces. That has now ended in Australia where biological reality has been superceded by the opposite-sex-attracted demanding that gay people stop being gay (and straight people stop being straight) and which means anyone can now claim to be whatever they want, so the traditional gay rights have effectively been lost there (barring future court cases to get them back). That might not bother most people in stable relationships (lucky you) but Stonewall is not addressing this loss of gay rights in Australia, indeed their silence must be taken as approval and the eventual intent globally. So Stonewall must also be letting out a massive sigh of relief that they can sweep it all under the carpet as usual and keep a low profile rather than make very clear statements that they support existing gay rights. How about clarification Stonewall? Does same-sex-attraction exist? Are our rights to be same-sex-attraction absolute in your current agenda as it is in law (NOT same-gender attracted which means I have to stop being gay)? If so, why aren't you criticising the Australian legislation? I support everyone's rights to be who they want to be, but not if it means losing my rights. |
|
|
|
|
3rd April 2024, 11:55 AM
Post
#389
|
|
|
Radical Pink Troll
Joined: 11 March 2006
Posts: 26,603 User: 177
|
JK didn’t have to be a nasty bully even if what she said wasn’t technically evil. She dog whistled some hateful people to join her in cruelly bullying a minority group. She’s a terrible person and has moved far beyond ‘standing up for women’s rights’ which always was a weak cover for her bigotry.
I see the after effects of this behaviour. I speak to trans children who have had to suffer equally vicious comments from other children at school who parrot what their parents say which is parroted from the likes of JK who knows exactly what she’s doing. It’s hard enough being a child without having to cope with all of that on top of it. Perhaps if she wasn’t so full of hate, she wouldn’t have to to test her own personality out against a hate crime law. |
|
|
|
|
4th April 2024, 10:02 AM
Post
#390
|
|
|
Cœur poids plume
Joined: 3 November 2007
Posts: 18,129 User: 4,718
  |
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 3 2024, 12:29 PM)  sticking with facts here, a "light update" of an existing law that already protected everybody, and instead cherry-picked some oppressed parts of society (I'm twice-covered under the new SNP act, being old and gay) and ignored others, and was so vague and undefined as to what constititutes Hate Speech was always going to need to be tested as a potential attack on freedom of speech and the protected right to have opinions and to offend. Hurt feelings is not a crime (and I've had my feelings hurt on BJ more than once), or else we would all be taking everybody to court claiming "Hate!". It's now been very clearly defined what will be wasting police time and what won't. What Rowling did was a master-stroke of timing - it's effectively shown the act up to be a waste of time and resources (with a limp promise that sex-based rights will come "at a later date"). Had Rowling been taken to court it would have given a global stage to the nuttier beliefs and demands of some trans activists which I've commented on before (as in not science-based and illogical and self-contradicting) and been a huge coup against Trans Rights. So you might say that's a huge bullet dodged. Gay people very much depend on sex-based rights BTW, particularly men, think cruising bars and saunas - gay, bi males and same-sex attracted transwomen have always been welcome and similarly gay, bi females and same-sex attracted transmen in equivalent spaces. That has now ended in Australia where biological reality has been superceded by the opposite-sex-attracted demanding that gay people stop being gay (and straight people stop being straight) and which means anyone can now claim to be whatever they want, so the traditional gay rights have effectively been lost there (barring future court cases to get them back). That might not bother most people in stable relationships (lucky you) but Stonewall is not addressing this loss of gay rights in Australia, indeed their silence must be taken as approval and the eventual intent globally. So Stonewall must also be letting out a massive sigh of relief that they can sweep it all under the carpet as usual and keep a low profile rather than make very clear statements that they support existing gay rights. How about clarification Stonewall? Does same-sex-attraction exist? Are our rights to be same-sex-attraction absolute in your current agenda as it is in law (NOT same-gender attracted which means I have to stop being gay)? If so, why aren't you criticising the Australian legislation? I support everyone's rights to be who they want to be, but not if it means losing my rights. ? |
|
|
|
|
4th April 2024, 04:04 PM
Post
#391
|
|
|
there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,144 User: 22,895
|
I'm exhausted to see people online keeping giving her the benefit of the doubt. Reddit is bad and some other forums too.
People are actually using the defence "well, she isn't transphobic because she said she isn't in her 2020 essay" as if someone's claim for whether or not they believe themself to be prejudiced should hold more weight than THEIR ACTIONS EVERY DAY WHICH COME FROM A PLACE OF PREJUDICE... |
|
|
|
|
4th April 2024, 09:53 PM
Post
#392
|
|
|
nabad
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 13 February 2013 Posts: 28,365 User: 18,316
     |
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 3 2024, 11:29 AM) sticking with facts here, a "light update" of an existing law that already protected everybody, and instead cherry-picked some oppressed parts of society (I'm twice-covered under the new SNP act, being old and gay) and ignored others, and was so vague and undefined as to what constititutes Hate Speech was always going to need to be tested as a potential attack on freedom of speech and the protected right to have opinions and to offend. Hurt feelings is not a crime (and I've had my feelings hurt on BJ more than once), or else we would all be taking everybody to court claiming "Hate!". It's now been very clearly defined what will be wasting police time and what won't. What Rowling did was a master-stroke of timing - it's effectively shown the act up to be a waste of time and resources (with a limp promise that sex-based rights will come "at a later date"). Had Rowling been taken to court it would have given a global stage to the nuttier beliefs and demands of some trans activists which I've commented on before (as in not science-based and illogical and self-contradicting) and been a huge coup against Trans Rights. So you might say that's a huge bullet dodged. Gay people very much depend on sex-based rights BTW, particularly men, think cruising bars and saunas - gay, bi males and same-sex attracted transwomen have always been welcome and similarly gay, bi females and same-sex attracted transmen in equivalent spaces. That has now ended in Australia where biological reality has been superceded by the opposite-sex-attracted demanding that gay people stop being gay (and straight people stop being straight) and which means anyone can now claim to be whatever they want, so the traditional gay rights have effectively been lost there (barring future court cases to get them back). That might not bother most people in stable relationships (lucky you) but Stonewall is not addressing this loss of gay rights in Australia, indeed their silence must be taken as approval and the eventual intent globally. So Stonewall must also be letting out a massive sigh of relief that they can sweep it all under the carpet as usual and keep a low profile rather than make very clear statements that they support existing gay rights. How about clarification Stonewall? Does same-sex-attraction exist? Are our rights to be same-sex-attraction absolute in your current agenda as it is in law (NOT same-gender attracted which means I have to stop being gay)? If so, why aren't you criticising the Australian legislation? I support everyone's rights to be who they want to be, but not if it means losing my rights. This post - the final sentence in particular - is a master-stroke of timing in telling us all what a massive bellend you are. So what you're really saying, in summary, is 1) if anybody had the energy to dig deep enough we'd probably find you on some backward corner of the internet posting on an LGB Alliance forum feeding into the vitriol and hatred akin to that of Rowling & Co, and 2) you're more than happy to see trans people erased and continually denied the right to exist and live authentically and happily because there's more chance of your own rights as a gay man being left gleefully in tact (something trans people, for so many years, have fought with us to have in the first place)? Those who wake up in the morning and their mission is to make life as difficult as possible for trans people and try to strip or deny every single right aren't just going to stop there if or when they get their way. Your/our rights will be their next target. Your paragraph about what's happening in Australia (can you cite some sources to provide more context please?) indicates you have concerns about your own rights now, so what leads you to believe there would be no correlation between trans people losing or never having the rights they deserve and the same happening to you, a gay man, at some point? Personally, I'd be a lot more concerned about my rights as a gay man if the world continues down the path of relentless attempts at erasure and succeeds with an empty void left to fill, as opposed to sitting back and allowing it to happen knowing that at some point we will be sitting ducks saying 'well at least we weren't the first ones hit'. Insanity. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 24th April 2024, 10:15 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
