# The Green Party has some serious questions to answer



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 26, 2018)

Why has Aimee Challenor not been suspended with immediate effect?

Rising Greens star Aimee Challenor will not quit over rapist father


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2018)

Could you outline why you think she should be suspended?


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 26, 2018)

Really?  You need to ask?

She was a Green Party general election candidate who selected a man who had been charged with raping and torturing a child at the address they both lived in to be her election agent and didn't think to inform the Green Party of this.  

Do you think that she is a suitable representative?


----------



## andysays (Aug 26, 2018)

Is it illegal to select a person who has been charged with a serious criminal offence to be your election agent? Is it against the Green Party (or indeed any other party) rules? If so, there's grounds for action against Challenor; if not, there aren't.

I'm also concerned about the emphasis in the story on Challenor's transgender status. I can't see why that's relevant and why the ST choose to stress that...


----------



## Badgers (Aug 26, 2018)

One could argue that he was innocent (facing charges not charged) at the time he was working for the party.

Obviously they are all cunts


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 26, 2018)

andysays said:


> Is it illegal to select a person who has been charged with a serious criminal offence to be your election agent? Is it against the Green Party (or indeed any other party) rules? If so, there's grounds for action against Challenor; if not, there aren't.
> 
> I'm also concerned about the emphasis in the story on Challenor's transgender status. I can't see why that's relevant and why the ST choose to stress that...



Yes, I thought that - doesn't seem relevant at all, particularly given that it states she transitioned around the time of the rape. Unless they're specifically saying she knew about it and the two things were linked which they are not saying, it's not relevant at all. 

You can stand for election while awaiting trial or from prison though so I feel sure it's not illegal?

If she knew he was charged with these crimes and made him her election agent anyway though then I suspect she may not be savvy enough about things that are likely to ruin your career to be a politician though.


----------



## andysays (Aug 26, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, I thought that - doesn't seem relevant at all, particularly given that it states she transitioned around the time of the rape. Unless they're specifically saying she knew about it and the two things were linked which they are not saying, it's not relevant at all.
> 
> You can stand for election while awaiting trial or from prison though so I feel sure it's not illegal?
> 
> If she knew he was charged with these crimes and made him her election agent anyway though then I suspect she may not be savvy enough about things that are likely to ruin your career to be a politician though.


I have no idea if it's illegal or what the GP rules say about it, but if I was starting a thread calling for someone's suspension and/or attacking a party for not suspending, I'd want to check that out first, TBH.

Agree with your last para about lack of savvy.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 26, 2018)

He had already been charged at the time that he stood as an election agent.

It may not be illegal, but *come on*, this isnt speeding or direct action - this is the torture and rape of a 10 year old child.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 26, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, I thought that - doesn't seem relevant at all, particularly given that it states she transitioned around the time of the rape. Unless they're specifically saying she knew about it and the two things were linked which they are not saying, it's not relevant at all.
> 
> You can stand for election while awaiting trial or from prison though so I feel sure it's not illegal?
> 
> If she knew he was charged with these crimes and made him her election agent anyway though then I suspect she may not be savvy enough about things that are likely to ruin your career to be a politician though.



Pretty much agree - the transgender stuff is irrelevant, the substantive stuff is what the GP knew and when, and that the candidate has failed the first rule of politics: don't step in piles of dogshit if you can possibly avoid them.

If the candidate failed to mention to the party that her election agent had been charged with child rape and was on his way to trial, then that says little about her political nouse or her loyalty to her colleagues...


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 26, 2018)

And that torture and rape took place at the official contact address for Coventry Green Party.


----------



## andysays (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> He had already been charged at the time that he stood as an election agent.
> 
> It may not be illegal, but *come on*, this isnt speeding or direct action - this is the torture and rape of a 10 year old child.





q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> And that torture and rape took place at the official contact address for Coventry Green Party.


None of that means she can or should be suspended from the party, though I'd imagine she may find it more difficult to get selected as a candidate in future.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 26, 2018)

andysays said:


> None of that means she can or should be suspended from the party, though I'd imagine she may find it more difficult to get selected as a candidate in future.



I mean, I don't think we know enough - when did she find out, did she believe he was innocent etc. I don't think people should be suspended from political parties purely for a lack of nouse but it is possible that her decision was motivated by a belief that the victim was lying or by a desire to 'rehabilitate' her accused father. In which case perhaps suspension could be justified.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 26, 2018)

andysays said:


> None of that means she can or should be suspended from the party, though I'd imagine she may find it more difficult to get selected as a candidate in future.



You what?!

She was living at a serious crime scene, with the perpetrator of child rape and torture who she selected to be her election agent and didnt think to mention this to her party?

This is how things like Saville happen.  Child abuse trials are notorious for collapsing because the victims/witnesses are so vulnerable.  Had this collapsed, no one would be any the wiser.


----------



## andysays (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> You what?!
> 
> She was living at a serious crime scene, with the perpetrator of child rape and torture who she selected to be her election agent and didnt think to mention this to her party?
> 
> This is how things like Saville happen.  Child abuse trials are notorious for collapsing because the victims/witnesses are so vulnerable.  Had this collapsed, no one would be any the wiser.


If you can find something specific and relevant in the Green Party rules relating to choice of election agents, then feel free to enlighten us.

I'm not saying this is a good situation, or that she should have chosen this person who was facing these charges, but you can't just suspend someone from a political party for doing something stupid, you need to have specific grounds.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 26, 2018)

Doing something stupid?

Selecting a child rapist, who you live with, that tortured a child, in the home that you share with them, as your election agent is way beyond "stupid".  Not informing the party that you are standing for that there is a serious issue with that election agent is unquestionably a suspension offence.

Aimee Challenor is a general election candidate, was (possibly is) a spokesperson for the party, and a candidate for deputy leader.  This is one of their most high profile members.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 26, 2018)

andysays said:


> If you can find something specific and relevant in the Green Party rules relating to choice of election agents, then feel free to enlighten us.
> 
> I'm not saying this is a good situation, or that she should have chosen this person who was facing these charges, but you can't just suspend someone from a political party for doing something stupid, you need to have specific grounds.


Bringing the party into disrepute would be the relevant grounds.

As to why the party hasn't suspended Aimee, I'd think the word 'yet' would need adding to that sentence, given that it's the bank holiday weekend and it will take some time for the appropriate wheels to be set in motion.


----------



## xenon (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Doing something stupid?
> 
> Selecting a child rapist, who you live with, that tortured a child, in the home that you share with them, as your election agent is way beyond "stupid".  Not informing the party that you are standing for that there is a serious issue with that election agent is unquestionably a suspension offence.
> 
> Aimee Challenor is a general election candidate, was (possibly is) a spokesperson for the party, and a candidate for deputy leader.  This is one of their most high profile members.



^ This.

 ’But what about the rules.‘ Fucksake.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 26, 2018)

Aimee has issued a statement and stepped back from her public roles with the party. 

She's also admitted to knowing about her dad's arrest when appointing him as election agent, which showed extremely poor political judgement for someone in the public eye, compounded by then standing for deputy leader despite knowing that this trial was going to be happening at the same time with the inevitable public fall out. 

In fairness it's a bit much to expect a 20 year old to have the political judgement of a seasoned operator, and I'd hope that those who supported her bid to stand despite her age and lack of experience will reflect on this.



> Yes, he was my election agent. This was one of a number of ways I was seeking to reconcile my relationship with my father after coming out of care. On reflection, I can understand that it was unacceptable for me to appoint my dad as my election agent when he had been arrested. I can now understand the potential risks of that decision. For that I am sorry.



Aimee Challenor | Statement


----------



## weepiper (Aug 26, 2018)

Pretty tragic story all round. I feel sorry for Aimee Challenor and this is absolutely the right decision. You do wonder what 20 year old really has the life experience to make such decisions


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 26, 2018)

I also feel sorry for Aimee Challenor, and I hope this is the start of a long period of reflection.  

But I have absolutely no sympathy at all for the Green Party - this is a spectacular failure of duty of care and could have had even worse outcomes.  

And all while an inquiry into high profile child abuse is going on.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> But I have absolutely no sympathy at all for the Green Party - this is a spectacular failure of duty of care and could have had even worse outcomes.



Duty of care to who ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Really?  You need to ask?
> 
> She was a Green Party general election candidate who selected a man who had been charged with raping and torturing a child at the address they both lived in to be her election agent and didn't think to inform the Green Party of this.
> 
> Do you think that she is a suitable representative?


I shouldn't need to ask, you're right, you should have put your reasons in the OP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> He had already been charged at the time that he stood as an election agent.
> 
> It may not be illegal, but *come on*, this isnt speeding or direct action - this is the torture and rape of a 10 year old child.


So considered innocent till proven guilty only counts for offences you're not too fussed about


----------



## free spirit (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I also feel sorry for Aimee Challenor, and I hope this is the start of a long period of reflection.
> 
> But I have absolutely no sympathy at all for the Green Party - this is a spectacular failure of duty of care and could have had even worse outcomes.
> 
> And all while an inquiry into high profile child abuse is going on.


As far as I know the only person in the party who knew about these charges prior to the verdict other than the person charged was Aimee.

The party doesn't routely carry out DBS checks on all candidates, agents or officers of the party, nor do any of the other parties to my knowledge. Even if it did then this would probably have been done in 2015 and come back clear at that point.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what practical steps the party could have realistically taken to ensure they were made aware of the charges being faced by this member ahead of the conviction / what could be done better in future.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I also feel sorry for Aimee Challenor, and I hope this is the start of a long period of reflection.
> 
> But I have absolutely no sympathy at all for the Green Party - this is a spectacular failure of duty of care and could have had even worse outcomes.
> 
> And all while an inquiry into high profile child abuse is going on.



I completely agree with the second and third sentences - with no checks on the election agents - but, despite the fact that Aimee is 20, I find it hard to agree that they must 'reflect' either. 20 is young. 20 in a household like that is potentially something we can't even imagine.
What ARE the checks? There must be some?


----------



## comrade spurski (Aug 26, 2018)

The thing she seems guilty of is not thinking her father wss guilty of those horrific crimes.

I am guessing that most people who have a good relationship with their parents would not believe them guilty.

You could argue she has shown poor judgement I guess, but tbh that seems beyond harsh.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Why has Aimee Challenor not been suspended with immediate effect?
> 
> Rising Greens star Aimee Challenor will not quit over rapist father


Not £-walled, then?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 26, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> The thing she seems guilty of is not thinking her father wss guilty of those horrific crimes.
> 
> I am guessing that most people who have a good relationship with their parents would not believe them guilty.
> 
> You could argue she has shown poor judgement I guess, but tbh that seems beyond harsh.



If you've read much about the case then you'd find it extremely hard to believe she didn't believe he was guilty:



> He even took photographs of the abuse carried out on the child which included attaching clips to give her electric shocks and putting pegs on her body.
> 
> Challenor, who is married, accused the girl of lying but officers found the attic just as she had described.



Man held 10-year-old girl captive in ‘torture den’ attic as he played out sadomasochistic fantasies

This is not just a he-said, she-said story. 

It's probably why Aimee, illegally, didn't put her Dad's real name on the election leaflets and instead put Baloo, a nickname he had used when working with kids. That's something that really should have been spotted by other people at the Green Party. And obviously it's very good grounds for suspending her so she's lucky that hasn't happened.

I do feel sorry for her, but she's made _massive_ misjudgements here, not little ones. And I wonder at the people encouraging such a young person to stand for deputy leader - why not give her a chance to learn a bit about life first?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2018)

scifisam said:


> If you've read much about the case then you'd find it extremely hard to believe she didn't believe he was guilty:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's fair to say seeing your dad sent down for depraved sex and violence crimes will learn her a bit about life


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I think it's fair to say seeing your dad sent down for depraved sex and violence crimes will learn her a bit about life


Ah, it still takes a while with bad dads. Stages of grief on a loop for life!  
if you are labouring under the misapprehension that either a) bad dad must be like for that reason and/or b) you share bad dads genes, which makes you the same as him or at least similar, which in turn means you need to invent a reality you can live with in your head about why he is the way he is then who knows what stage her head is at such a young age. 

Fucking horrible story, I hope she works it all out in the end.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Aug 26, 2018)

scifisam said:


> If you've read much about the case then you'd find it extremely hard to believe she didn't believe he was guilty:


I think there are many possible reasons why she wouldn't believe he was guilty - ordinary denial for one, and all the psychological effects that come with having a dad who is a manipulative lying abuser. Obviously, even if she thought he was innocent or didn't know everything that he was up for, it was more than stupid to use him as an election agent, and its dodgy about using his nicknames.

Its totally shit that her trans status is being bought into this by the papers.

I agree with HoratioCuthburt that I hope she works it out in the end.

I think the green party need to examine if there is any way they could of known about the arrest and trial before hand, and if there were any signs they should have spotted about his behaviour.

I hope he rots.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 26, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> I think there are many possible reasons why she wouldn't believe he was guilty - ordinary denial for one, and all the psychological effects that come with having a dad who is a manipulative lying abuser. Obviously, even if she thought he was innocent or didn't know everything that he was up for, it was more than stupid to use him as an election agent, and its dodgy about using his nicknames.
> 
> Its totally shit that her trans status is being bought into this by the papers.
> 
> ...


They could have known about it if Aimee had told them, seeing as she was questioned by the police about it in 2015. I would imagine she was very conflicted about all of it but thinking it would all just go away if she ignored it is desperately naive.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 26, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> I think there are many possible reasons why she wouldn't believe he was guilty - ordinary denial for one, and all the psychological effects that come with having a dad who is a manipulative lying abuser. Obviously, even if she thought he was innocent or didn't know everything that he was up for, it was more than stupid to use him as an election agent, and its dodgy about using his nicknames.



I'm sure he has fucked her up in many ways, poor kid. But the thing is there were _photographs_. Denial after being confronted with that amount of evidence is not ordinary at all. Hope she's getting some proper support now.


----------



## Smoking kills (Aug 26, 2018)

Poor kid. 
I'm glad they were believed, and someone listened and did something. 
Poor Aimee too.
Fuck the G.P. tho. Their office was a crime scene, their local election boss is banged up.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Aug 26, 2018)

scifisam said:


> I'm sure he has fucked her up in many ways, poor kid. But the thing is there were _photographs_. Denial after being confronted with that amount of evidence is not ordinary at all. Hope she's getting some proper support now.


Possibly she was never confronted with the evidence. If she was interviewed by police it would be about them getting evidence form her, not about her being told about the details of offences - and her dad could have kept a huge amount of the details of the case (including additional charges) from her until the trial fairly easily.  Only if she had attended trial (or if there had been media reports) would she have definitely known what the evidence was - and I've no idea about the length of the trial or gap between trial and sentencing.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 27, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Possibly she was never confronted with the evidence. If she was interviewed by police it would be about them getting evidence form her, not about her being told about the details of offences - and her dad could have kept a huge amount of the details of the case (including additional charges) from her until the trial fairly easily.  Only if she had attended trial (or if there had been media reports) would she have definitely known what the evidence was - and I've no idea about the length of the trial or gap between trial and sentencing.



Early on I expect that was true, though the attic where they found all the torture equipment was _in the house she was living in_, so she can hardly have been kept out of the loop on that one (by the police, I mean - I'm not saying she knew about the abuse beforehand). 

I'm sympathetic to her but I'm not going to make up implausible excuses for her as well.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Possibly she was never confronted with the evidence. If she was interviewed by police it would be about them getting evidence form her, not about her being told about the details of offences - and her dad could have kept a huge amount of the details of the case (including additional charges) from her until the trial fairly easily.  Only if she had attended trial (or if there had been media reports) would she have definitely known what the evidence was - and I've no idea about the length of the trial or gap between trial and sentencing.


Yep, this. I went to school with someone whose granddad was in prison for murdering some women I think but she’d been told he was in a fight in a pub. Then one day we went to the library with the school in the reference section - something like that the details are hazy- and she went and looked her granddad up. Then started showing everyone what she had found. I remember reading the first paragraph and putting it aside while she and others in the class read the whole thing. But it didn’t seem to register to her what she was reading  or the others so much, they were all kind of acting like it was something in a newspaper about someone they didn’t know. Which is what denial is really, not a conscious choice, not going around telling everyone it’s not true, just a huge buffer between yourself and the information in front of you, cause it’s a little too much for you to process all at once- which means you are very likely to behave as if you hadn’t just seen it. And potentially carry on doing so for years.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

PS: I’m not just speaking anecdotally, done some mental health training too though I don’t sound academic right now


----------



## scifisam (Aug 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yep, this. I went to school with someone whose granddad was in prison for murdering some women I think but she’d been told he was in a fight in a pub. Then one day we went to the library with the school in the reference section - something like that the details are hazy- and she went and looked her granddad up. Then started showing everyone what she had found. I remember reading the first paragraph and putting it aside while she and others in the class read the whole thing. But it didn’t seem to register to her what she was reading  or the others so much, they were all kind of acting like it was something in a newspaper about someone they didn’t know. Which is what denial is really, not a conscious choice, not going around telling everyone it’s not true, just a huge buffer between yourself and the information in front of you, cause it’s a little too much for you to process all at once- which means you are very likely to behave as if you hadn’t just seen it. And potentially carry on doing so for years.



The phrase I disagreed with was "ordinary denial." I doubt you think that this level of denial after this amount of evidence would be "ordinary." I don't really think a young adult living in the same house where the offences were committed, the house where evidence was found by police while she was living there, is the same as a child decades ago (when there was less easy access to information) not knowing about something her grandfather had done.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

scifisam said:


> The phrase I disagreed with was "ordinary denial." I doubt you think that this level of denial after this amount of evidence would be "ordinary." I don't really think a young adult living in the same house where the offences were committed, the house where evidence was found by police while she was living there, is the same as a child decades ago (when there was less easy access to information) not knowing about something her grandfather had done.


I would say the level of denial when encountering something even more traumatic regarding your own father would potentially be more severe? Given even people with just generalised anxiety issues can go into a state similar to being stoned aka “depersonalisation” on a bad day. Of course the denial isn’t ordinary, it’s a situation most of us would never expect to encounter.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2018)

I'd obviously agree that the press are twats bringing her trans status in.

I'd add that I don't actually give a shit about whether the GP suspend her, though  I would say they _probably_ knew the police were at least investigating (from the timeline and the links scifisam has posted).

As to Aimee herself, I take the point about her being conflicted, the different stages of denial and the rest. So, fair enough in a sense _at the time_, though the 'Baloo' thing suggests she was actually savvy enough to disguise his identity on the form. What I would say though is after the trial she would have been 100% clear, the scales would have fallen away, no excuses - she knew her father was a sadistic nonce. Call me judgemental, but I'd have thought public apologies would have been her priority rather than 'no commenting' and clinging on to some shitty political career.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I'd obviously agree that the press are twats bringing her trans status in.
> 
> I'd add that I don't actually give a shit about whether the GP suspend her, though  I would say they _probably_ knew the police were at least investigating (from the timeline and the links scifisam has posted).
> 
> As to Aimee herself, I take the point about her being conflicted, the different stages of denial and the rest. So, fair enough in a sense _at the time_, though the 'Baloo' thing suggests she was actually savvy enough to disguise his identity on the form. What I would say though is after the trial she would have been 100% clear, the scales would have fallen away, no excuses - she knew her father was a sadistic nonce. Call me judgemental, but I'd have thought public apologies would have been her priority rather than 'no commenting' and clinging on to some shitty political career.


The thing about being somewhat mentally compromised though is it doesn’t mean you no longer have the ability to be savvy. I have this argument with people where I work all the time, where people suffer profound memory problems, anxiety issues, maybe ever physical issues such as being partially sighted- but one instance of savvyness means all of it must be a lie. It’s really complicated that sort of thing and difficult to put down in black and white cause it’s like how do you ever know how compromised and able a person is really. 
I know that’s not what you mean, but I hope you see what I mean. She’s a 20 year old girl that’s found out her dad is a monster FFS. So for that reason I simply choose to not issue a judgement either way, because I have no idea what that does. Why is that never an option? Oh yeah it’s urban


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

In other words, the fact that knows putting her dad down would be problematic doesn’t mean she’s processed anything properly. And what’s happening at home, was she told to do it?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> The thing about being somewhat mentally compromised though is it doesn’t mean you no longer have the ability to be savvy. I have this argument with people where I work all the time, where people suffer profound memory problems, anxiety issues, maybe ever physical issues such as being partially sighted- but one instance of savvyness means all of it must be a lie. It’s really complicated that sort of thing and difficult to put down in black and white cause it’s like how do you ever know how compromised and able a person is really.
> I know that’s not what you mean, but I hope you see what I mean. She’s a 20 year old girl that’s found out her dad is a monster FFS. So for that reason I simply choose to not issue a judgement either way, because I have no idea what that does. Why is that never an option? Oh yeah it’s urban



Well, it certainly doesn't sound like she'd be mentally stable enough for political leadership (at least not now). Not sure you can say you're not making a judgment either way, when you say she's mentally compromised. That is a judgment, isn't it?

Course, we're mostly in agreement here, all mostly feeling sympathy for her. But we have to disagree anyway cos, like you say, it's urban


----------



## xenon (Aug 27, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I'd obviously agree that the press are twats bringing her trans status in.
> 
> I'd add that I don't actually give a shit about whether the GP suspend her, though  I would say they _probably_ knew the police were at least investigating (from the timeline and the links scifisam has posted).
> 
> As to Aimee herself, I take the point about her being conflicted, the different stages of denial and the rest. So, fair enough in a sense _at the time_, though the 'Baloo' thing suggests she was actually savvy enough to disguise his identity on the form. What I would say though is after the trial she would have been 100% clear, the scales would have fallen away, no excuses - she knew her father was a sadistic nonce. Call me judgemental, but I'd have thought public apologies would have been her priority rather than 'no commenting' and clinging on to some shitty political career.



 Standard career politician then.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Well, it certainly doesn't sound like she'd be mentally stable enough for political leadership (at least not now). Not sure you can say you're not making a judgment either way, when you say she's mentally compromised. That is a judgment, isn't it?
> 
> Course, we're mostly in agreement here, all mostly feeling sympathy for her. But we have to disagree anyway cos, like you say, it's urban


I can’t remember the last time someone entering the world of politics was stable enough for leadership  

You know what I mean though, this stuff is out of her hands and you can bet he wasn’t so good to her either. 
It would be a shame for her to be fucked over rest of her life over it. It’s just a mess, I hope he meets a swift end and soon.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> In other words, the fact that knows putting her dad down would be problematic doesn’t mean she’s processed anything properly. And what’s happening at home, was she told to do it?


I'm sure there's a long and complex back story, not much of it good, as alluded to in the press stories. The Baloo thing is ambiguous, it could be her distancing from him, it could be him making her keep him as agent so as not show disloyalty, a lot of things. That's all speculation, but I'd go with a further bit to suggest she's been fucked up by the whole thing herself. My annoyance is more at this week and 'no commenting', in the case of a child who has been raped and tortured. Well, not even that, more an apparent no commenting _to save her career_.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Aug 27, 2018)

M


Wilf said:


> I'm sure there's a long and complex back story, not much of it good, as alluded to in the press stories. The Baloo thing is ambiguous, it could be her distancing from him, it could be him making her keep him as agent so as not show disloyalty, a lot of things. That's all speculation, but I'd go with a further bit to suggest she's been fucked up by the whole thing herself. My annoyance is more at this week and 'no commenting', in the case of a child who has been raped and tortured. Well, not even that, more an apparent no commenting _to save her career_.


I’ve written a few responses to this but I’m no longer sure how much is lucid and how much is projection. I would think her silence is way more complicated than career saving. Fucking hell i’ve known some pampered brats in my time,  but they aren’t actually lizards. She’s a bairn really. 

Night night URBAN!


----------



## maomao (Aug 27, 2018)

She's a kid and her dad is a violently abusive paedophile. What are the chances that she hasn't experienced some manifestation of his behaviour herself?


----------



## baldrick (Aug 27, 2018)

Just what I was thinking maomao. She was taken into care as a child, I think it's fairly clear her childhood was quite shit.

I feel very sorry for her. Yes she has fucked up, but she's a young person with spectacularly awful, abusive parents. I hope she manages to move on from all this.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2018)

maomao said:


> She's a kid and her dad is a violently abusive paedophile. What are the chances that she hasn't experienced some manifestation of his behaviour herself?


Despite my annoyance at her over the deputy leadership thing, that was my take on it too. It's speculation too far to actually state he abused her (which I know you are not doing) but certainly she will have been (deeply) affected by it. My annoyance is purely at trying to keep deputy leadership bid going in the circumstances of the horror revealed about the victim of his crimes. And I'm not saying that family members of monsters should have to withdraw from public roles, it's just that her father is actually tied up in the green party thing over the election role.

I think it's interesting that the press seem to be pushing the 'she must have known' line, for example the grauniad:
Greens rising star quits deputy leader race after father jailed for rape
… with the 'she lived in the same small house' stuff - followed immediately by her statement that she didn't live there all the time. By the by, I'm not agreeing with them. In fact they seem to be pushing their luck with that line.


----------



## comrade spurski (Aug 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> If you've read much about the case then you'd find it extremely hard to believe she didn't believe he was guilty:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't read about the father's abuse court case ... find reading ghat stuff a bit much cos I work with vulnerable kids so it's a bit like a busmans holiday kind of thing.
The point of my post was simply giving an opinion as to why she may have behaved as she did rather than to correct others but I guess I xame across differently to that.

In my experience loved ones of abusers sometimes simply can not believe they are capable of such cruelty.

You may be right though as, like I said, I was just kind of giving an opinion.


----------



## comrade spurski (Aug 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> If you've read much about the case then you'd find it extremely hard to believe she didn't believe he was guilty:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't read about the father's abuse court case ... find reading ghat stuff a bit much cos I work with vulnerable kids so it's a bit like a busmans holiday kind of thing.
The point of my post was simply giving an opinion as to why she may have behaved as she did rather than to correct others but I guess I xame across differently to that.

In my experience loved ones of abusers sometimes simply can not believe they are capable of such cruelty.

You may be right though as, like I said, I was just kind of giving an opinion.


----------



## co-op (Aug 28, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I'd obviously agree that the press are twats bringing her trans status in.
> .



Why? Both AC and DC have campaigned for the removal of sex-based protections that provide some safeguards for women and children from predatory male paedophiles. They've done that using the umbrella of "trans rights". Technically DC actually *is* trans - at least according to the Stonewall definition (he's an "erotic transvestite"). He put on a dress while raping children and called himself Lucy. 

What's the betting that he's going to shortly publicly announce that he's TG too? There's nothing like 22 years on the nonce wing vs 22 years in a women's prison with a chance to act out some more rapey fun with other inmates to concentrate the mind.

The fact that AC has also been the Chair of LGBTetc Greens and the Party's national equalities officer and in that role was busy organising campaigns to silence anyone questioning the lunatic end of TRA ideology is clearly directly relevant to AC's claim to be trans. What's amazing is how little publicity the case has received; barely mentioned in the liberal end of the press.

Anyone who doesn't feel some sympathy with AC would not be human. That's one fucked up family. But AC has pretty fucked-up ideas and is trying to normalise them through the GP and useful fools who are desperately running around now trying to prove what great "allies" they are. The whole thing disgusts me.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 28, 2018)

co-op said:


> Why? Both AC and DC have campaigned for the removal of sex-based protections that provide some safeguards for women and children from predatory male paedophiles. They've done that using the umbrella of "trans rights". Technically DC actually *is* trans - at least according to the Stonewall definition (he's an "erotic transvestite"). He put on a dress while raping children and called himself Lucy.
> 
> What's the betting that he's going to shortly publicly announce that he's TG too? There's nothing like 22 years on the nonce wing vs 22 years in a women's prison with a chance to act out some more rapey fun with other inmates to concentrate the mind.
> 
> ...


But I very much doubt that any of that was foremost in the minds of the media when they raised her trans status.


----------



## co-op (Aug 28, 2018)

Wilf said:


> But I very much doubt that any of that was foremost in the minds of the media when they raised her trans status.



Trans father of trans/equality officer for national party who has campaigned for more freedom for men to self-id as women and gain access to women's spaces is found guilty of paedophile rape? Seems like a bit of a no-brainer to join that all up. That's what newspapers do. They may not be interested beyond prurience or how they can use it to clobber the left but the story writes itself. The idea that AC's being trans is 'irrelevant' is absurd.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 28, 2018)

co-op said:


> Trans father of trans/equality officer for national party who has campaigned for more freedom for men to self-id as women and gain access to women's spaces is found guilty of paedophile rape? Seems like a bit of a no-brainer to join that all up. That's what newspapers do. They may not be interested beyond prurience or how they can use it to clobber the left but the story writes itself. The idea that AC's being trans is 'irrelevant' is absurd.


 My take is the underlined bit is what is in play.  I'm just wondering how much you are 'joining it all up' i.e. putting trans into the story of the assault, _as an active component_? I'm making no accusation, just asking if that's what you mean.


----------



## co-op (Aug 28, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I'm just wondering how much you are 'joining it all up' i.e. putting trans into the story of the assault, _as an active component_?



Whether "trans is an active component" (you mean relevant I guess?) depends on what you mean by "trans". If you mean people suffering from severe gender dysphoria who want/need to alter their bodies and their gender expression as much as possible to be like the opposite sex (ie what used to be called trans-sexuals), then it would be irrelevant I think. But once you widen the definition of "trans" to "transgender" to mean just about anything, and then make the criteria simple self-id then yes I think it's really relevant. Because one of the arguments against that is that it disregards the safeguarding issue of letting men (ie people with male bodies, male genitalia etc) into women's/girl's spaces so long as those men claim they are female. So to find wide definition trans people like DC and ??AC too? arguing for self-id and getting into positions of power and influence in a national political party to [push that narrative is worrying. Actually what worries and depresses me more are the legions of trendy wannabe progressives who will do their level best to make any querying of this "bigotry".It's not, it's basic fucking safeguarding and anyone who tried to shout down a safeguarding debate in this way should automatically have a warning light go up. 

David Challenor is trans - at least by the wide definition. He's also a predatory paedophile who was in tight with the Green Party using his position to push for the right of erotic transvestites and other fetishists to access women's spaces. AC was helping him do that. I feel sorry for transpeople who's reputation is tarnished by these people but paedophiles, molestors, fetishists etc will be like bees round a honeypot on self-id and sure enough - just like the NUS trans rep Jess Bradley (caught with "her" dick out last month) - here they are. Utterly predictable.


----------



## campanula (Aug 28, 2018)

Oh...and this vile pair also created Terfblocker - silencing 50,000 women. Peaktrans please because fucking perverts like this really do expose the myths of self ID - no repercussions. AC is a lying POS.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> Oh...and this vile pair also created Terfblocker - silencing 50,000 women. Peaktrans please because fucking perverts like this really do expose the myths of self ID - no repercussions. AC is a lying POS.



I don't think we know whether AC is lying do we? 

The point isn't that for me, it's just that AC was (a) pushing self-id and (b) simultaneously using accusations of transphobia and bigotry to stop anyone questioning (a) and that's dangerous - and DC is a perfect illustration of why.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> Whether "trans is an active component" (you mean relevant I guess?) depends on what you mean by "trans". If you mean people suffering from severe gender dysphoria who want/need to alter their bodies and their gender expression as much as possible to be like the opposite sex (ie what used to be called trans-sexuals), then it would be irrelevant I think. But once you widen the definition of "trans" to "transgender" to mean just about anything, and then make the criteria simple self-id then yes I think it's really relevant. Because one of the arguments against that is that it disregards the safeguarding issue of letting men (ie people with male bodies, male genitalia etc) into women's/girl's spaces so long as those men claim they are female. So to find wide definition trans people like DC and ??AC too? arguing for self-id and getting into positions of power and influence in a national political party to [push that narrative is worrying. Actually what worries and depresses me more are the legions of trendy wannabe progressives who will do their level best to make any querying of this "bigotry".It's not, it's basic fucking safeguarding and anyone who tried to shout down a safeguarding debate in this way should automatically have a warning light go up.
> 
> David Challenor is trans - at least by the wide definition. He's also a predatory paedophile who was in tight with the Green Party using his position to push for the right of erotic transvestites and other fetishists to access women's spaces. AC was helping him do that. I feel sorry for transpeople who's reputation is tarnished by these people but paedophiles, molestors, fetishists etc will be like bees round a honeypot on self-id and sure enough - just like the NUS trans rep Jess Bradley (caught with "her" dick out last month) - here they are. Utterly predictable.


"Safeguarding issues"?

Self ID doesn't demand an end to safeguarding or risk assessment. He's not going to be allowed to declare himself trans and get moved straight to a women's prison with no questions asked or precautions taken. The process would take years without any guarantee it would ever be allowed, self ID or no self ID.

He was involved in scouts and children's gymnastics at the time his children were taken into care. They were returned after a social media campaign. That he might try to take advantage of self ID in a situation where he would be regarded as a very serious threat to other inmates is a strange thing to focus on. What did social services and the family court do? What did the scouts and the gym club do? Why do we keep leaving predators free to operate?

Trans people don't deserve to be demonised or collectively punished for a failure to deal with predators, or on the basis of hypotheticals which are extremely unlikely to happen.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

xarmian said:


> Trans people don't deserve to be demonised or collectively punished for a failure to deal with predators,



Of course they don't. But anyone, trans or otherwise who tries to stop debates about safeguarding by throwing the accusation of "transphobia" around needs to be called out. Any attempt to shut down a safeguarding debate without discussion should itself be a warning that we are in dangerous territory. 

As for "hypotheticals that are extremely unlikely to happen" - that is just complacent bollocks - this thread is about a predatory paedophile & rapist who is also an erotic transvestite; under Stonewall definitions he is transgender - under self-id he has the right to enter women's spaces as a right. How can you so smugly dismiss concerns about that?

You say that "Self ID doesn't demand an end to safeguarding or risk assessment" of course that's true. 

But when we are getting mainstream organisations like the Girl Guides saying they are happy for teenage boys to change and shower with teenage girls and then sleep in the same tents as them if the relevant people are cool with the risk assessment BUT when we also know that coercive accusations of "bigotry" and "transphobe" are deeply frightening for many people - then risk assessments go out of the window. And yet this is clearly a massive safeguarding issue - not to mention a huge infringement of young women's space and privacy.

The policy of self ID is a disaster for trans people and a magnet for every fucked up nasty sexual predator.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 29, 2018)

David Challenor committed all his offences as a man. He does not claim to be trans. He did not gain access to any of his victims by presenting as a woman.

Is the Girl Guides policy really that alarming? Would many cis boys pretend to be a trans girl to improve his sexual opportunities? Do predatory teenage boys need to pretend they are teenage girls to get an opportunity to assault them? Are they more or less likely to commit assault when they are the only boy around? Should lesbians be excluded too, just in case?

Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. But is the hypothetical risk so credible that _all_ trans girls need to be thrown under the bus? Should they attend scouts instead? As themselves or as someone they are not?

How are these fears any different from the homophobic myths thrown around last century?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 29, 2018)

I don't understand the world anymore. I can't decide who's right in the whole trans/terf shitstorm. I sort of think they both are but that can't be right.

And this whole depressing drama is as bizarre as it is disturbing.


----------



## andysays (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> ..David Challenor is trans - at least by the wide definition. He's also a predatory paedophile who was in tight with the Green Party using his position to push for the right of erotic transvestites and other fetishists to access women's spaces. AC was helping him do that.



If true, this is certainly concerning, but given the polarised nature of the whole debate currently, I think you need to provide evidence for these assertions rather than just expect the rest of us to accept them on trust.

How, specifically and with sources, was David Challenor using his position within the Green Party to push for the right of erotic transvestites and other fetishists to access women's spaces?

And how, specifically and with sources, was Aimee Challenor helping him do that?


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

andysays said:


> If true, this is certainly concerning, but given the polarised nature of the whole debate currently, I think you need to provide evidence for these assertions rather than just expect the rest of us to accept them on trust.
> 
> How, specifically and with sources, was David Challenor using his position within the Green Party to push for the right of erotic transvestites and other fetishists to access women's spaces?
> 
> And how, specifically and with sources, was Aimee Challenor helping him do that?



DC is trans by the new wide definition which is promoted by groups like Stonewall - he's what they call an erotic transvestite and is therefore - according to them - transgendered. The court evidence makes it clear that he was cross dressing while he was raping and torturing a 10 year old. He demanded that she call him "Lucy". 

I don't need to show with sources etc that they were promoting the right of erotic TVs into women's spaces; its open public info. Stonewall, the Green Party, just-about-everyone also promote self-id which would allow DC & AC (100%, by definition, but also any man who self-ids) into women-only spaces. What could possibly go wrong with that?


More specifically both AC and DC were computer whizzes who helped create terf-blocker which helped to isolate non-TRAs from any arguments or discussion that wasn't 100% supportive of their personal agenda. It's also been pointed out that it also allowed them (if they wanted) to hide the case against DC becoming publicly known within the circle of useful twitter-idiots who pop up and parrot the usual mantras that "transidentities are not up for debate" etc

AC was the LGBTQIA spokesperson for the Green Party and was pretty handy with writs and injunctions against anyone who spoke out against the TRA free-for-all. Source; twitter, from some of the people who had legal actions taken against them, and I can't cite those because I am now blocked from twitter, because of speaking out on this issue - although the worst that I can recall saying was an outburst where I said "the reactions of some people to this case is a fucking disgrace" or similar. But TRAs do love to shut people up by any means at their disposal. Almost like they have something to hide.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

xarmian said:


> David Challenor committed all his offences as a man. He does not claim to be trans. He did not gain access to any of his victims by presenting as a woman.



Correct. Safeguarding is notoriously difficult. So we use some broad-brush methods to reduce risks, even though that imposes obligations and burdens on the innocent. Like DBS checks etc. One of those broad brushes is single sex spaces - and we know that this is not to protect men from women and children but the other way round, right? To protect women and children from men. Doesn't stop female abusers (one reason - eg - why male abusers often seek out female allies, or single parents) but stops male abusers and they are the clear biggest issue,

When you argue for self-id you are arguing for people like David Challenor to have access to women's showers, changing rooms, toilets, refuges. That's an obvious safeguarding risk - bloody obvious. And it's also one that it has been almost literally taboo to raise or talk about; it has been shut down with this bogus allegation of "transphobia". As I said on an earlier post, that in itself should raise eyebrows.





xarmian said:


> Is the Girl Guides policy really that alarming? Would many cis boys pretend to be a trans girl to improve his sexual opportunities? Do predatory teenage boys need to pretend they are teenage girls to get an opportunity to assault them? Are they more or less likely to commit assault when they are the only boy around? Should lesbians be excluded too, just in case?
> 
> Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. But is the hypothetical risk so credible that _all_ trans girls need to be thrown under the bus? Should they attend scouts instead? As themselves or as someone they are not?



Would cis boys pretend to be a "transgirl" to improve his sexual opportunities? My guess is no, not in any planned meaningful way. 

But would a teenage boy, confused about his sexuality and his sexual identity, full of raging lust hormones, not totally in mature control of himself or his urges, and repelled by the absurd shouty bullshit gender role that he is expected to play out take advantage of his situation spontaneously? Well there's only one answer; inevitably some will. Especially if they have had their new-found identity lionised and over-valorised and told they are wonderful and should just be whoever they are because nothing (least of all the competing needs of teenage girls) should get in the way of that. 

This is at least partly why it's a safeguarding issue; when we do this, we are putting this teenage boys at risk too. How on earth can they make sensible decisions, at all times, in this situation? It's literally asking too much of them.

And what about the girls? You didn't mention them or their needs. Not interested in that?


----------



## andysays (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> DC is trans by the new wide definition which is promoted by groups like Stonewall - he's what they call an erotic transvestite and is therefore - according to them - transgendered. The court evidence makes it clear that he was cross dressing while he was raping and torturing a 10 year old. He demanded that she call him "Lucy".
> 
> I don't need to show with sources etc that they were promoting the right of erotic TVs into women's spaces; its open public info. Stonewall, the Green Party, just-about-everyone also promote self-id which would allow DC & AC (100%, by definition, but also any man who self-ids) into women-only spaces. What could possibly go wrong with that?
> 
> ...


So you have no sources for your claims. Fair enough, we can draw our own conclusions


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

andysays said:


> So you have no sources for your claims. Fair enough, we can draw our own conclusions





I can’t be bothered with this kind of tit for tat. Life’s too short. Say what you think is false in what I posted - if that’s what you think. Otherwise forget it.


----------



## andysays (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> I can’t be bothered with this kind of tit for tat. Life’s too short. Say what you think is false in what I posted - if that’s what you think. Otherwise forget it.


All your claims might be correct, but if you can't or won't back them up with actual sourced info, they're not worth discussing, and you look like you're not worth taking seriously.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 29, 2018)

I had only seen the BBC article, which was mainly focused on Aimee Challenor rather than her father's crimes, but just found this article...



> A court heard how the 50-year-old would dress up as a small girl in adult-sized baby dresses and nappies before carrying out the attacks at his home.
> 
> Challenor had "various sexual fetishes and fantasies" and when the victim was at his home he took her to the attic where he asked her “to do things to him” including performing oral sex.
> 
> Man held 10-year-old girl captive in ‘torture den’ attic as he played out sadomasochistic fantasies


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2018)

Aimee Challenor was on the panel.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

andysays said:


> So you have no sources for your claims.
> 
> Fair enough, we can draw our own conclusions



“So you have no sources for your claims” = false inference presented as a fact.

“We can draw our own conclusions” = the Royal “we”? Or the usual gaslighty “you are the only one who thinks like this, you are all on your own, I speak for everyone here”?




andysays said:


> All your claims might be correct, but if you can't or won't back them up with actual sourced info, they're not worth discussing, and you look like you're not worth taking seriously.



Dismiss, deride, ignore. This is all so familiar.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 29, 2018)

Andy, if you like I can probably find links, screenshots for all those assertions, and will on behalf of co-op if you like.

However, it's my wedding anniversary today so it'll have to wait until tomorrow. And I'm on holiday so I may not be fucked to trawl through the Internet even tomorrow. 

If you want I'll provide the deets, but likely you'll have to wait a few days.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't understand the world anymore. I can't decide who's right in the whole trans/terf shitstorm. I sort of think they both are but that can't be right.
> 
> And this whole depressing drama is as bizarre as it is disturbing.



It doesn’t help that IDPol is saturated with fast-changing jargon which only the super in-crowd can stay on top of - after a point it seemed clear to me that this (consciously or unconsciously) deliberate. It literally makes it impossible for any ordinary observer to join in and “educate themselves” as TRAs are always demanding. Who has the time? I still struggle to remember half of it and I’ve been in this awful debate for years. Always have to go and look up “truscum”, it’s just odd.


----------



## andysays (Aug 29, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Andy, if you like I can probably find links, screenshots for all those assertions, and will on behalf of co-op if you like.
> 
> However, it's my wedding anniversary today so it'll have to wait until tomorrow. And I'm on holiday so I may not be fucked to trawl through the Internet even tomorrow.
> 
> If you want I'll provide the deets, but likely you'll have to wait a few days.


Appreciated, but as far as I'm concerned it's co-op 's responsibility to back up their claims. If they won't that reduces their credibility, even if their claims are subsequently backed up by someone else giving properly sourced info.

Enjoy your anniversary


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

andysays said:


> Appreciated, but as far as I'm concerned it's co-op 's responsibility to back up their claims. If they won't that reduces their credibility, even if their claims are subsequently backed up by someone else giving properly sourced info.






Laughably silly.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 29, 2018)

> *A statement from the Trustees of Coventry Pride*
> 
> August 28 2018
> 
> ...



So, Coventry Pride was aware of the situation back in 2016 & took steps.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Aug 29, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, Coventry Pride was aware of the situation back in 2016 & took steps.


So if other organisations were aware of criminal proceedings almost two years ago, how was the Green Party not aware?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> So if other organisations were aware of criminal proceedings almost two years ago, how was the Green Party not aware?


perhaps not on the cops' list of people to contact


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps not on the cops' list of people to contact



I would have thought that someone would have mentioned it to the party, I assume Pride were aware of his involvement with them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> I would have thought that someone would have mentioned it to the party, I assume Pride were aware of his involvement with them.


yeh. perhaps lots of people thought that. don't know why you think pride were aware of yer man's involvement with the greens.

of course it wouldn't be the first time the green party had nonces in their ranks, as hackney residents with long memories will recall.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. perhaps lots of people thought that. don't know why you think pride were aware of yer man's involvement with the greens.



Because there seems to have been a fair bit of cross-over between the two, with both of the Challenor's being involved in both, Aimee is listed as a trustee of Coventry Pride, in the Green Party's announcement of her standing for them.

Coventry Greens announce their three candidates for 2017 general election

Of course, it's possible that no one in Pride decided to inform the leadership of the Greens, assuming someone else had or would.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't understand the world anymore. I can't decide who's right in the whole trans/terf shitstorm. I sort of think they both are but that can't be right.
> 
> And this whole depressing drama is as bizarre as it is disturbing.



The TERFS are *all* wrong but that doesn't make everything else right.



co-op said:


> DC is trans by the new wide definition which is promoted by groups like Stonewall - he's what they call an erotic transvestite and is therefore - according to them - transgendered. The court evidence makes it clear that he was cross dressing while he was raping and torturing a 10 year old. He demanded that she call him "Lucy".
> 
> I don't need to show with sources etc that they were promoting the right of erotic TVs into women's spaces; its open public info. Stonewall, the Green Party, just-about-everyone also promote self-id which would allow DC & AC (100%, by definition, but also any man who self-ids) into women-only spaces. What could possibly go wrong with that?



Mate. You do need to show some evidence of what you're claiming actually - where is this self id thing coming from? Stonewall are a group who up until very recently referred to themselves as representing LGB - not trans people, they were specifically exluded. I don't know what daft, shitty politics Stonewall are putting out and don't much care, but it's pretty out of order to use Stonewall to criticise "TRA's" as you term them - Stonewall have had nothing to do with the struggle for trans rights.

I haven't seen anyone - Greens, Stonewall or otherwise - seriously arguing for self id. If you're claiming you have then show some evidence.



co-op said:


> I feel sorry for transpeople who's reputation is tarnished by these people but paedophiles, molestors, fetishists etc will be like bees round a honeypot on self-id and sure enough - just like the NUS trans rep Jess Bradley (caught with "her" dick out last month) - here they are. Utterly predictable.



This is fucking seriously shitty and duplicitious - you've written here that a trans woman was "caught with "her" dick out" last month and that's not what happened is it? Bradley was suspended for posting explicit pictures on her blog: NUS Trans Officer suspended over claims she posted explicit photographs of a person flashing

Out of fucking order. I hope you're gonna apologise.



xarmian said:


> David Challenor committed all his offences as a man. He does not claim to be trans. He did not gain access to any of his victims by presenting as a woman.



Just wanna restate and add to this. Nobody has shown any evidence that this sadistic child rapist has at any point claimed to self identify as trans. Those of you attempting to use the rape of a child as a stick to beat trans people with, it's fucking LOW.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 29, 2018)

I'm too tired to join in the debate today myself, but surely nobody actually wants evidence that people are arguing for self ID? You haven't seen _anyone_ arguing for that?  It's part of the proposed changes to the gender recognition act.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 29, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I also feel sorry for Aimee Challenor, and I hope this is the start of a long period of reflection.
> 
> But I have absolutely no sympathy at all for the Green Party - this is a spectacular failure of duty of care and could have had even worse outcomes.
> 
> And all while an inquiry into high profile child abuse is going on.



Right, this is not an excuse (regarding party oversight and duty of care), but a highly likely explanation: GPEW local parties are largely autonomous and often run on a shoestring in terms of finance and people. Such is the lack of capacity that a lack of background checks on agents (not a role for which there is generally a large queue) is almost inevitable. Her judgement has obviously been shit and I expect the party will instigate or recommend more thorough checks in future (I don't know what practice is in other parties of various sizes).

As a lapsed member, former candidate and agent I am not surprised that the holes were there for this to happen. I expect it will be dealt with, even if it will still rely on people's honesty (do other parties ask for e.g DBS checks for agents / candidates?) I think they just ask and expect an honest reply of candidates, but I really don't know about checks into agents at all. Thanks for any answers to these questions.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

scifisam said:


> I'm too tired to join in the debate today myself, but surely nobody actually wants evidence that people are arguing for self ID? You haven't seen _anyone_ arguing for that?  It's part of the proposed changes to the gender recognition act.



What do you mean by self id? The proposed changes involve getting rid of a panel that determines whether or not someone is 'legitimately' trans. But there's no suggestion that you don't still have to register as transgender with relevant health and legal authorities.

Co-op is using a case of a vile paedophile who has at no point attempted to claim trans status as evidence that self-id (not a term I've heard used) is a terrible idea; see below where they straight up say that self id means any sex offender could walk into a womens shower and rape someone. 



co-op said:


> When you argue for self-id you are arguing for people like David Challenor to have access to women's showers, changing rooms, toilets, refuges.



Now I don't know what you mean by self id but Co-op is suggesting self id means anyone could walk into a women only space without registering their preferred gender with a doctor, on their passport or any other legal body. I have seen nobody that I consider to have anything serious to say on the subject suggest thats what changes to the gender recognition act should mean. Have you seen this from any of the organisations Co-op claims?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 29, 2018)

_It's probably why Aimee, illegally, didn't put her Dad's real name on the election leaflets and instead put Baloo, a nickname he had used when working with kids. That's something that really should have been spotted by other people at the Green Party. 
_
Just seen this, and yes...absolutely.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

scifisam said:


> I'm too tired to join in the debate today myself, but surely nobody actually wants evidence that people are arguing for self ID? You haven't seen _anyone_ arguing for that?  It's part of the proposed changes to the gender recognition act.



To be fair, what posts like SpackleFrog s show is that many people just don't know where we are in this debate. Self ID is the big question and is clearly being lobbied for very very hard by nearly all of the various LBGTQIA official bodies and the GP. This is precisely why there is so much shit flying around on this topic right now - the official consultation is out and people are fighting over what the govt are going to recommend

I haven't time for this today either. But I'm amazed that anyone has missed this point. There you go.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is fucking seriously shitty and duplicitious - you've written here that a trans woman was "caught with "her" dick out" last month and that's not what happened is it? Bradley was suspended for posting explicit pictures on her blog: NUS Trans Officer suspended over claims she posted explicit photographs of a person flashing
> 
> Out of fucking order. I hope you're gonna apologise.
> .




I put the "her" in quotes because I can't seriously say "her dick" - it's just ridiculous; women don't have dicks. But it is what happened isn't it? JB is an exhibitionist who likes flashing "her" penis in public spaces, unless I have completely misunderstood the photos and the allegations. If it's the latter of course I would withdraw the accusation but JB hasn't denied it that I have seen.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 29, 2018)

The self ID law change only affects birth certificates, doesn't it?

And since birth certificates haven't ever been checked on entry to women's spaces (except, I guess, prisons), nothing much will change.   

Which is not to say that male bodied people are never a threat in those spaces... just that if they wanted to present as a woman to gain access, they've been doing that freely for decades.  

Moreover, countries which have introduced self-ID (like Ireland), have seen no escalation of sex offences with trans used as a cover.  DC was able to gain horrifyingly comprehensive access to groups of  young girls without having to present as female.  As have predatory men in depressing number since time began.   Sexual violence is a huge problem.  Self ID is a sideshow.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> women don't have dicks.



Funny, last time I checked I had one.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> To be fair, what posts like  Self ID is the big question and is clearly being lobbied for very very hard by nearly all of the various LBGTQIA official bodies and the GP.



So clearly you can't show any evidence for it.




co-op said:


> I put the "her" in quotes because I can't seriously say "her dick" - it's just ridiculous; women don't have dicks.



There we go, that's a lot more honest - now we know that as far as you're concerned transwomen are not women and that biological sex is the be all and end all of gender.




co-op said:


> JB is an exhibitionist who likes flashing "her" penis in public spaces, unless I have completely misunderstood the photos and the allegations. If it's the latter of course I would withdraw the accusation but JB hasn't denied it that I have seen.



That's not the allegation at all, although I doubt you've really misunderstood. Nobody has suggested Bradley is the person flashing. There are just pictures of someone with their dick out on her blog, which is a blog about exhibitionism, so hardly surprising. Additionally all of the papers that have covered it have included Bradley's statement which states that she cannot comment publicly while the investigation is ongoing. Great use of "well they haven't denied it so it must be true".

Dishonest fucking slimeball.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 29, 2018)

xarmian said:


> Trans people don't deserve to be demonised or collectively punished for a failure to deal with predators, or on the basis of hypotheticals which are extremely unlikely to happen.



Yup. This kind of demonisation happens to other maligned social groupings. Don't see why trans people should have to put up with it. As if they are responsible for the actions of those who do bad shit.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2018)

Trans people are not responsible for others who do bad shit. But allowing self id across the board has risks for women and girls. David Challenor dressed in a 'little girl' outfit and demanded his 10 year old female victim call him by a female name. David Challenor was a scoutmaster. David Challenor's child sat on a panel which discussed self id being desirable within Girl Guiding UK both for the children and the adult helpers. How anyone can't join the dots here and see how incredibly dangerous this could be for female children needs to fucking give their head a wobble.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Trans people are not responsible for others who do bad shit. But allowing self id across the board has risks for women and girls. David Challenor dressed in a 'little girl' outfit and demanded his 10 year old female victim call him by a female name. David Challenor was a scoutmaster. David Challenor's child sat on a panel which discussed self id being desirable within Girl Guiding UK both for the children and the adult helpers. How anyone can't join the dots here and see how incredibly dangerous this could be for female children needs to fucking give their head a wobble.


soz, was dc self-identifying as trans? or are you saying that people should watch out for scoutmasters with trans kids?


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> There we go, that's a lot more honest - now we know that as far as you're concerned transwomen are not women and that biological sex is the be all and end all of gender.



I don't think it's the be-all and end-all of gender, but the reverse. Sex is the basis of women's oppression, gender is the means. Sex does not equal gender. Nor does "identifying" this way or that change sex. 




SpackleFrog said:


> That's not the allegation at all, although I doubt you've really misunderstood. Nobody has suggested Bradley is the person flashing. There are just pictures of someone with their dick out on her blog, which is a blog about exhibitionism, so hardly surprising. Additionally all of the papers that have covered it have included Bradley's statement which states that she cannot comment publicly while the investigation is ongoing. Great use of "well they haven't denied it so it must be true".



Yep I had; the account of it I saw claimed it was JB taking photos of "her" flashing "her" dick. If I've got that wrong of course I withdraw it, and you're right absence of denial doesn't mean guilt, but it's a funny thing not to deny if you've not done it.




SpackleFrog said:


> Dishonest fucking slimeball.



This stuff just bounces off me so you should save yourself the effort. Everyone knows that if you deviate from the trans script you're going to get called every thing under the sun. It's lost its power over me. That's what people mean by peaktrans I think.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

weepiper said:


> But allowing self id across the board has risks for women and girls.



NB SpackleFrog is apparently unaware that self-id is an issue and has been demanding proof that it is; that is how out of touch they are. It might be a bit much to expect them to have thought this through.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Funny, last time I checked I had one.



Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

I still don't understand what revising the mechanism for revising a birth certificate - introducing a legal document where you swear to the court which leaves you open to imprisonment if you're lying - has to do with a vicious child rapist who was a man, never said he wasn't a man, was never going to transition and never claimed to be trans, and really shouldn't have been allowed within a mile of a child. Perhaps short of me giving my head a fucking wobble someone could enlighten me.

Was Challenor's birth certificate a factor in this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> NB SpackleFrog is apparently unaware that self-id is an issue and has been demanding proof that it is; that is how out of touch they are. It might be a bit much to expect them to have thought this through.


is it an issue in the case of david challenor?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> Yep I had; the account of it I saw claimed it was JB taking photos of "her" flashing "her" dick. If I've got that wrong of course I withdraw it, and you're right absence of denial doesn't mean guilt, but it's a funny thing not to deny if you've not done it.



You've got it "wrong". Withdraw it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 29, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Trans people are not responsible for others who do bad shit. But allowing self id across the board has risks for women and girls. David Challenor dressed in a 'little girl' outfit and demanded his 10 year old female victim call him by a female name. David Challenor was a scoutmaster. David Challenor's child sat on a panel which discussed self id being desirable within Girl Guiding UK both for the children and the adult helpers. How anyone can't join the dots here and see how incredibly dangerous this could be for female children needs to fucking give their head a wobble.



The examples you give are not representative of trans people, though, are they? 

There's little doubt about wrong 'uns taking advantage of vulnerable targets but the same could be said about joining the dots... where does that lead to?

Not so long ago being gay was equated with paedophilia by some who joined the dots.

(not saying you would ever have contemplated that, btw)


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> You've got it "wrong". Withdraw it.




Just checked the usual news sources and it looks to me like there is a strong suggestion that it *is* JB but unproven as yet. EG



> Another photograph shows male genitals being exposed in an office close to a curved wooden desk that is strikingly similar to a picture of a work desk that Ms Bradley posted on her Facebook page.



But you're right no proof. No denial. Expensive lawyers - Peter Carter-Ruck no less!


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> I don't think it's the be-all and end-all of gender, but the reverse. Sex is the basis of women's oppression, gender is the means. Sex does not equal gender. Nor does "identifying" this way or that change sex.



I don't think you need to keep asserting your opinion on this. Something akin to a peer reviewed scholarly article to prove that transgender isn't something that is as real to transgender people, as intersex is to intersex people and as real as your gender identity is to you should be provided here to push this 'debate' forward. Or if you don't have that then this is must be ruled out of the discussion.

As much as you try to trivialise what transgender people go through and deny the reality of gender identity that we experience - it persists, it's been here as long as there has been recorded history and it isn't going away. Only through great suffering and cruelty will you be able to keep transgender people from living as the gender we experience.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

Wondering here if I posted up post after post of abusive and perverted cis women it would make any difference. Not that I will, not dropping down to your level.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> Just checked the usual news sources and it looks to me like there is a strong suggestion that it *is* JB but unproven as yet. EG
> 
> 
> 
> But you're right no proof. No denial. Expensive lawyers - Peter Carter-Ruck no less!



Since you've checked, you'll be able to provide that link which you were too busy to provide earlier 




co-op said:


> NB SpackleFrog is apparently unaware that self-id is an issue and has been demanding proof that it is; that is how out of touch they are. It might be a bit much to expect them to have thought this through.



Been asked by people who you have on ignore (presumably because they don't share your shitty rad fem politics) to ask if this self id issue is an issue in the case of David Challenor? 

I don't generally have much sympathy for NUS officers or people with expensive lawyers and I don't really give a fuck about Bradley's case. What I care about is you trying to claim a trans woman has committed some kind of act of indecent exposure or sexual assault without a shred of evidence, purely to suit your unpleasant agenda.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Aug 29, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Really?  You need to ask?
> 
> She was a Green Party general election candidate who selected a man who had been charged with raping and torturing a child at the address they both lived in to be her election agent and didn't think to inform the Green Party of this.
> 
> Do you think that she is a suitable representative?



Bound to go far in the world of politics TBH.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> shitty rad fem politics



Not sure her politics are rad fem tbh - I know plenty of radical feminists that are trans inclusive - and a few who are trans. It's just shitty.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 29, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Funny, last time I checked I had one.



No one wants to hear about your dick. Put it away.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Not sure her politics are rad fem tbh - I know plenty of radical feminists that are trans inclusive - and a few who are trans. It's just shitty.





co-op said:


> I don't think it's the be-all and end-all of gender, but the reverse. Sex is the basis of women's oppression, gender is the means. Sex does not equal gender. Nor does "identifying" this way or that change sex.



This is rad fem stuff and it's shitty. I'm not saying you don't know rad fems who are trans inclusive but that doesn't make their rad fem politics acceptable, it just means their worlview lacks consistency. Rad fem politics is rooted in the idea that differences between gender are innate and result from biology.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No one wants to hear about your dick. Put it away.



Fuck off.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> As much as you try to trivialise what transgender people go through and deny the reality of gender identity that we experience - it persists, it's been here as long as there has been recorded history and it isn't going away. Only through great suffering and cruelty will you be able to keep transgender people from living as the gender we experience.



I don't know whether to treat this post as honest or not because it's always been a key part of TRAs to make this debate about 'bigotry' vs 'love' etc. And my role here is the hateful bigot.

But I'll accept it at face value; I defy you to show one word I've written on this that meaningfully 'trivialises' or 'denies' anything that gender dysphoric people go through. Quote me the words where I've said this. It's possible I've done that unawares, but never intentionally.

As far as I'm concerned you can "live as the gender you experience" to your heart's content, it's just that doesn't really mean anything to me. It could mean 'perform a gender stereotype different to the one given to your sex'. It could mean 'try to escape stereotypical gender roles'. There are probably loads of other ways of reading that. All are fine with me - I want people to be as free as possible to live as genderlessly as possible (so yes I have a bit of an issue with trans people who say 'I always knew I was a girl because I liked dollies and pink' but plenty of people think that's normal and true so I'm not holding trans people to any higher standard on this).

What I don't think you can do is 'identify' into another sex. It's just not possible and to believe that it is, completely removes the material basis of women's oppression and trivialises it to a point of 'identity'. Have women just been a bit stupid and 'identified' themselves into subordination for 5,000 years? Are men just jerks who have oppressed women for a laugh? Or is there something more material going on? Is control of women's reproduction crucial to women's subordination by men? Because - for example - 'legitimacy' was inseparable from inheritance of power and capital - making sure that some men get access to that power and capital and others don't. Women's bodies have been the locus for the transmission of class war, not some individualistic choice or identity.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No one wants to hear about your dick. Put it away.



you really are a scumbag aren't you?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> What I don't think you can do is 'identify' into another sex. It's just not possible and to believe that it is, completely removes the material basis of women's oppression and trivialises it to a point of 'identity'. Have women just been a bit stupid and 'identified' themselves into subordination for 5,000 years? Are men just jerks who have oppressed women for a laugh? Or is there something more material going on? Is control of women's reproduction crucial to women's subordination by men? Because - for example - 'legitimacy' was inseparable from inheritance of power and capital - making sure that some men get access to that power and capital and others don't. Women's bodies have been the locus for the transmission of class war, not some individualistic choice or identity.



All you're doing here is showing you don't understand women's oppression under capitalism at all. You're no good to women, you're no good to the working class. Just a useless up their own arse waste of skin.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> All you're doing here is showing you don't understand women's oppression under capitalism at all. You're no good to women, you're no good to the working class. Just a useless up their own arse waste of skin.



Ok you're obviously incapable of doing anything except throw stupid abuse around. Onto ignore with ya. Bye.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> I don't know whether to treat this post as honest or not because it's always been a key part of TRAs to make this debate about 'bigotry' vs 'love' etc. And my role here is the hateful bigot.
> 
> But I'll accept it at face value; I defy you to show one word I've written on this that meaningfully 'trivialises' or 'denies' anything that gender dysphoric people go through. Quote me the words where I've said this. It's possible I've done that unawares, but never intentionally.
> 
> ...


I don't believe a word you say - that comes across completely as 100% disingenuous to me. Especially as you make this about 'gender dysphoria' which is a symptom of being transgender and living in duress as the wrong gender - and not transgender itself. And you ignore all the physical evidence that transgender is something akin to various intersex conditions - which I have already posted something about. Nobody wanted to discuss it though.

You seem intent on rolling back transgender people's rights and smearing us all as abusers. You seem unconcerned about the plight of transgender children.

I quoted the words that show you trivialise the issues of transgender people by belittling it as "identifying as" and implying its a fancy or a choice, or merely a social construct. If it was merely a social construct I and most trans women would be happy living as men.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 29, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No one wants to hear about your dick. Put it away.


Oh come on.  If Sea Star isnt allowed to reply to a statement that directly relates to her and contradicts her beliefs, how is that fair?   She replied calmly, and in good humour.  She gets to do that.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is rad fem stuff and it's shitty. I'm not saying you don't know rad fems who are trans inclusive but that doesn't make their rad fem politics acceptable, it just means their worlview lacks consistency. Rad fem politics is rooted in the idea that differences between gender are innate and result from biology.


Certainly not the impression I've got from those friends I have who describe themselves as radical feminists. But I'm not terribly knowledgeable on this particular strand of feminism, so I'll say no more.


----------



## bimble (Aug 29, 2018)

[QUOTE="SpackleFrog, post: 15708134, member: 58284]" Rad fem politics is rooted in the idea that differences between gender are innate and result from biology.[/QUOTE]
Right. Rad fems , they are the ones who say 'gender is innate'. You learn a new thing every day on here.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Oh come on.  If Sea Star isnt allowed to reply to a statement that directly relates to her and contradicts her beliefs, how is that fair?   She replied calmly, and in good humour.  She gets to do that.


it's not something I ever want to talk about let alone "get out". It's something I mostly - to myself - pretend isn't there, but I don't ever deny it's reality which is why I'm waiting for surgery to remedy this thing I have.

I love how when I say something difficult and personal - to try to make light of what was quite a shitty and unsubstantiated claim - I get smeared as a pervert. Fab.


----------



## campanula (Aug 29, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> you really are a scumbag aren't you?


you are a whiny POS yourself


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> [QUOTE="SpackleFrog, post: 15708134, member: 58284]" Rad fem politics is rooted in the idea that differences between gender are innate and result from biology.


Right. Rad fems , they are the ones who say 'gender is innate'. You learn a new thing every day on here.[/QUOTE]

Probably best if you make it clear this is sarcasm, there’s a lot of ignorance on here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

perhaps we could keep this thread to the discussion of the challenor case and the green party, and i'm not seeing much in david challenor's case about his identifying as trans.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> you are a whiny POS yourself


OK - I'm fucking off. Clearly actual transgender people here to challenge your lies and smears not wanted.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> there’s a lot of ignorance on here.


true enough


----------



## kebabking (Aug 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> ...and i'm not seeing much in david challenor's case about his identifying as trans.



Would you like to put a friendly wager  - £1 to a charity of choice - on, within a calendar year of going to the Nonce Wing, David Challoners' friends announce that he's (she's?) transgender and should be moved away from the bad men?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

kebabking said:


> Would you like to put a friendly wager  - £1 to a charity of choice - on, within a calendar year of going to the Nonce Wing, David Challoners' friends announce that he's (she's?) transgender and should be moved away from the bad men?


ok then

i would also chuck another charity quid on him not being about for the completion of the bet


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

bimble said:


> [QUOTE="SpackleFrog, post: 15708134, member: 58284]" Rad fem politics is rooted in the idea that differences between gender are innate and result from biology.


Right. Rad fems , they are the ones who say 'gender is innate'. You learn a new thing every day on here.[/QUOTE]

I love that you ditched the usual 'I'm so shy and stupid and I don't understand' schtick to suddenly become an expert on radical politics. Keep it up


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> OK - I'm fucking off. Clearly actual transgender people here to challenge your lies and smears not wanted.



I'm sorry about these dickheads Sea Star. Please don't fuck off - put them on ignore or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I love that you ditched the usual 'I'm so shy and stupid and I don't understand' schtick to suddenly become an expert on radical politics. Keep it up


it's wicked to mock the afflicted.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it's wicked to mock the afflicted.



Sometimes I think you should get a new joke really but then it's just such a _multi functional _line.


----------



## campanula (Aug 29, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps we could keep this thread to the discussion of the challenor case and the green party, and i'm not seeing much in david challenor's case about his identifying as trans.



There is plenty of evidence of his involvment in  self ID, terfblocking and generally silencing dissent. 
And the absolute disingenuous lies put about by the son, AD...who 'knew nothing' but was happy to illegally give out misleading information regarding David Challenor's name as election agent.
Saville all over again.

And yep, fwiw, I am not inclined to listen to yet another man telling women we have nothing to worry about from predatory male perverts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> There is plenty of evidence of his involvment in  self ID, terfblocking and generally silencing dissent.
> And the absolute disingenuous lies put about by the son, AD...who 'knew nothing' but was happy to illegally give out misleading information regarding David Challenor's name as election agent.
> Saville all over again.
> 
> And yep, fwiw, I am not inclined to listen to yet another man telling women we have nothing to worry about from predatory male perverts.


if there's plenty of evidence then please introduce it to the thread.


----------



## campanula (Aug 29, 2018)

Oh fuck off Pickman's - not trawling through yet more of the Challenor shit to attempt to convince people who's opinion means zero to me, on this matter.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

More self evident evidence


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> Oh fuck off Pickman's - not trawling through yet more of the Challenor shit to attempt to convince people who's opinion means zero to me, on this matter.


i had a look round earlier and i haven't found anything about his self-id'ing as trans. not so easy when everything you look for mentions the trans status of ac...

i thought if you'd seen stuff you'd be at least in a position to point to it.


----------



## campanula (Aug 29, 2018)

Sigh - OK, will go there (back to cess pit)..

also, not specifically DC identifying as trans...but his fervent support of Self ID and blocking of dissenting voices (Terfblocker) which, given the hopeless definitions of 'trans' floating around, it would be foolish to dismiss any (ahem) ulterior motives for future perving).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> Sigh - OK, will go there (back to cess pit)..


thank you - have some waders


----------



## campanula (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> More self evident evidence



You can fuck off - go and do some reading about the GRA and, whilst you are about it, exactly what rad feminist thought involves...because from where I am, you are just another bleating right-on male with no fucking skin in the game.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 29, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Trans people are not responsible for others who do bad shit. But allowing self id across the board has risks for women and girls. David Challenor dressed in a 'little girl' outfit and demanded his 10 year old female victim call him by a female name. David Challenor was a scoutmaster. David Challenor's child sat on a panel which discussed self id being desirable within Girl Guiding UK both for the children and the adult helpers. How anyone can't join the dots here and see how incredibly dangerous this could be for female children needs to fucking give their head a wobble.



It confuses the hell out of me where this stuff could be coming from.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 29, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm sorry about these dickheads Sea Star. Please don't fuck off - put them on ignore or something.



Seconded.  Best drop the cross-thread beef.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> You can fuck off - go and do some reading about the GRA and, whilst you are about it, exactly what rad feminist thought involves...because from where I am, you are just another bleating right-on male with no fucking skin in the game.


I have skin in the game.   How will the GRA change men like DC's access to women or girls? What will they be newly able to do?


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Aug 29, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Not so long ago being gay was equated with paedophilia by some who joined the dots"



Not so long ago, pedophiles squirmed their way into the Gay Rights movement.  Lets not let that happen with the LGBT movement.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 29, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> The thing about being somewhat mentally compromised though is it doesn’t mean you no longer have the ability to be savvy. I have this argument with people where I work all the time, where people suffer profound memory problems, anxiety issues, maybe ever physical issues such as being partially sighted- but one instance of savvyness means all of it must be a lie. It’s really complicated that sort of thing and difficult to put down in black and white cause it’s like how do you ever know how compromised and able a person is really.
> I know that’s not what you mean, but I hope you see what I mean. She’s a 20 year old girl that’s found out her dad is a monster FFS. So for that reason I simply choose to not issue a judgement either way, because I have no idea what that does. Why is that never an option? Oh yeah it’s urban



I agree with your conclusion.


----------



## co-op (Aug 29, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Not so long ago, pedophiles squirmed their way into the Gay Rights movement.  Lets not let that happen with the LGBT movement.


 
I am so old I remember the debates. “Children are sexual beings” - sort of true. “The age of consent doesn’t make sense - it’s too young for some, too old for others” - also sort of true. “Everyone’s basically bisexual anyway”(so older men can hit on non-gay young men) - sort of true.

It’s easy to kind of let it go by on the nod.

PIE ended up affiliated with the NCCL for a while if I remember rightly. In the post 60s atmosphere any and all liberations were equivalent, especially sexual ones because everyone was (still is I think) so shy and coy about sex and sexuality. This is partly how the hipster genderqueer crowd get their power now, they act like they are the ones who know whats going on and are having the funkiest time in bed. Actually they’ll be up to the same old shambling learn-as-you-go as in the old days. The main difference now is they are so dominated by pornography, the overlap between hentai/anime and TG is pretty massive. But I don’t want to kink-shame, obviously, or the silly haircut brigade will get cross.

But this game of who is the most hip with the kinkiest is pretty much designed for abusive male sexuality to find full expression.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 29, 2018)

co-op said:


> Just checked the usual news sources and it looks to me like there is a strong suggestion that it *is* JB but unproven as yet. EG
> 
> 
> 
> But you're right no proof. No denial. Expensive lawyers - Peter Carter-Ruck no less!



Carter-Ruck. Hmmmm... They are often mentioned in the Eye.

There used to be a very famous lawyer in Glasgow, Joe Beltrami, very expensive, but very successful. The joke used to be 'Who is his lawyer?' 'Beltrami' ' Oh, he's guilty then?'.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 29, 2018)

I am still struggling with the statement from Coventry Pride that states, 'The Trustees were made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against Mr Challenor in November 2016', and the statement from Aimee that she only recently became aware of her father's crimes, when she was a trustee of Coventry Pride.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 29, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> I am still struggling with the statement from Coventry Pride that states, 'The Trustees were made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against Mr Challenor in November 2016', and the statement from Aimee that she only recently became aware of her father's crimes, when she was a trustee of Coventry Pride.



We can all be fuckwits, even those who should know better.

PIE controversy: Harriet Harman has got this one wrong


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> There is plenty of evidence of his involvment in  self ID, terfblocking and generally silencing dissent.
> And the absolute disingenuous lies put about by the son, AD...who 'knew nothing' but was happy to illegally give out misleading information regarding David Challenor's name as election agent.
> Saville all over again.
> 
> And yep, fwiw, I am not inclined to listen to yet another man telling women we have nothing to worry about from predatory male perverts.



Quite.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 29, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> I am still struggling with the statement from Coventry Pride that states, 'The Trustees were made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against Mr Challenor in November 2016', and the statement from Aimee that she only recently became aware of her father's crimes, when she was a trustee of Coventry Pride.



A politician/would-be politician telling porkies/being _economical with the actualities_?

Shurely shome mistake?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2018)

campanula said:


> You can fuck off - go and do some reading about the GRA and, whilst you are about it, exactly what rad feminist thought involves...because from where I am, you are just another bleating right-on male with no fucking skin in the game.



We've *all* got skin in the game you fucking dinosaur.


----------



## RD2003 (Aug 29, 2018)

Perhaps identity politics is simply a symptom of a world going slowly insane.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 29, 2018)

not got involved with the identity poltics threads as its not something i have anything to contribute or have considered to any great depth  ( though thats never stopped me before) - so its a bit of an eye opener for me  as i have cruised them - is it always this fraught ?


----------



## xarmian (Aug 30, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Not so long ago, pedophiles squirmed their way into the Gay Rights movement.  Lets not let that happen with the LGBT movement.



Thank you for finding that. I was going to post it for the opposite purpose.

The anti-trans position is very reminiscent of the demonisation of all gay people, especially gay men, because some paedophiles target boys. They were never a reason not to legalise homosexuality and equalise the age of consent. They are not a reason to prevent gay men from looking after children.

Gay people in communal showers are not a threat. Equal marriage is not equivalent to allowing people to marry animals. All that bullshit.

Campaigners for gay rights were not wrong because some dodgy characters hijacked their cause. Equalising the age of consent did nothing to help paedophiles and self ID changes nothing because birth certificates are not part of any abuser's toolkit.

Trans people are vulnerable because misogynists police gender violently. I don't understand why people who call themselves feminists are willing to abandon them. I suppose it is individualist v structural analysis? Men are shit v patriarchy is shit?


----------



## co-op (Aug 30, 2018)

xarmian said:


> I don't understand why people who call themselves feminists are willing to abandon them. I suppose it is individualist v structural analysis? Men are shit v patriarchy is shit?




It’s not possible to say gender critical feminism is an “individualistic” analysis - it clearly isn’t. You can disagree with it but it’s clearly a structural analysis rooted in the material reality of women’s bodies and men’s need to control women’s reproduction - thereby controlling the inheritance of wealth and power. This is why so many - most - second wave feminists were also radical socialists and used terms like “sex class” to describe women’s reproductive Labour.

On the other hand a historically huge amount of transgender ideology has been reductively individualistic. GC feminism has always demanded that society is fundamentally changed to smash gender stereotypical behaviour (the need for it) and to liberate the individual by social change. TG theory has - historically (ie until very recently) - been almost exclusively concerned with changing the individual to fit in with stereotypical gender roles and liberate patriarchal society to continue on its merry way. This was a key reason for radical feminists rejecting trans theory so early on; it reified and valorised stereotypical gender roles.


The advent of more complex genderqueer theory has changed the above analysis but - imo - only by going crazy. GC feminism sees sex as a simple material reality and gender (ie the assigned “correct” behaviour) as purely a social construct. You can argue with that (eg is some component of gender innate?) - but the basic analysis is rooted in reality; we can all see that gender roles are part of human culture to some extent and therefore are invented - at least to some extent. 

But full on TG stuff now is basically saying that gender is an innate reality, eternal, that we are each born with, while biology is just a social construct;is that a penis? Or a girl dick? Depends on your socialisation. In the latest version of this crazy stuff TG penises have literally become clitorises - because if “trans women are women” and this is a TWs genital, then by definition it’s a clitoris. This is bonkers.


----------



## xarmian (Aug 30, 2018)

TERF was coined by RadFems to distance themselves from RadFems who rejected trans people so that's not the whole story?

I do find it hard to separate all the strands of transphobic thinking but it feels like the TERFs are going from an anti-essentialist position, gender is a social construct, to an essentialist one, no one can be a woman unless they experience childbirth. Or have been brought up as a girl. Or whatever it is they're using to exclude people today. 

The TERF position ignores a lot of science but those questions are not settled and we shouldn't need science to tell us to believe what a group of people say about how they feel. It was like this with the "gay gene" too.

Trans people are telling us the truth. They don't all agree with each other because trans is not one thing and trans people are people. There are difficult discussions around safeguarding, trust and understanding which need to be approached calmly and reasonably. That seems impossible when the antitrans position is so dominated by scoffing, disbelief, rudeness, ignorance and smearing by association.


----------



## co-op (Aug 30, 2018)

xarmian said:


> TERF was coined by RadFems to distance themselves from RadFems who rejected trans people so that's not the whole story?
> 
> I do find it hard to separate all the strands of transphobic thinking but it feels like the TERFs are going from an anti-essentialist position, gender is a social construct, to an essentialist one, no one can be a woman unless they experience childbirth. Or have been brought up as a girl. Or whatever it is they're using to exclude people today.
> 
> ...




I've got to be honest I find a lot of this post to be incomprehensible - eg what's that first line all about?

But I'd make the following comments;

1. It's not transphobic to question demands made by trans-rights activists. Many of those demands are pretty obviously homophobic and ridiculous (eg the demand that lesbians accept that TG men with penises can be lesbians)

2. You're right to say there are different strands in criticisms of TG activism. Radical feminism is just one of them. No radical feminist that I have seen has ever said no one can be a woman "unless they experience childbirth" - and it would make no sense in terms of anything else rad fems believe - so you are either extremely ignorant of radical feminism or you are lying. If it's the former, educate yourself, why not? If the latter, why bother? You'll get found out soon enough.

3. The stuff about science makes no sense; 'Radical Feminists ignore science, but science isn't important anyway'. Whatever.

4. You say 'trans people are telling us the truth' and then say 'trans is not one thing'. So whose truth are we to believe? Because some of those truths directly contradict each other. Which is why for example so many in the group who used to called 'transsexuals' are coming out _against_ self-id and are building bridges with radical feminists. Several transgender people (mtf) have spoken at Women's Place events, nd written publicly against self-id Standing up for transsexual rights | Letters. The response to this from within the TG camp has been predictably angry but it's exposed a very clear rift. Many TRAs have routinely referred to the group that used to be called transsexuals as "truscum" or more politely "trans-medicalist". You have to acknowledge this split - it clearly exists. So whose truth are we to believe? It's clear that "truscum" (ie what most people take as "transgender") are massively out-numbered by the legions of fetishists and genderqueer poseurs so I'm betting that it's the latter group who will win here, but they are the ones are the problem, this is the group where the problems lie.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

No. Aimee.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 30, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> No. Aimee.




THE ACTUAL VOM WORTHY FUCK IS THIS? 

Pass the fucking bucket please.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

I hope it's a fake tbh. If not I can't quite get my head around Aimee not seeing how inappropriate this would be.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 30, 2018)

When was it posted by AC?


----------



## Edie (Aug 30, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> No. Aimee.



Get this man away from children.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 30, 2018)

It's certainly not on her Tumblr now as far as I can see. Either posted a very long time ago or a fake.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 30, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> It's certainly not on her Tumblr now as far as I can see. Either posted a very long time ago or a fake.



I would hope that so. It looks like a tumblr site. 


If posted a long time ago I would still be concerned re the current revelations. Not necessarily that AC is a participant, but certainly affected, and could be projection. 

A cached page would be needed screenshots, while it should be adequate are easy to fake.

Caution is necessary.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 30, 2018)

OK I've found it. Posted three years ago, September 2015.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> OK I've found it. Posted three years ago, September 2015.



So someone has trawled through and found it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 30, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> OK I've found it. Posted three years ago, September 2015.



Jesus.

LT
Can you cache the page? It may be necessary. At this point it may be that AC knew of the abuse OR was a victim of abuse and is projecting that abuse as "playtime".

Either way. Its a massive childhood safeguarding issue.

I'm not tech savvy enough.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 30, 2018)

In fact, it was posted by a graphic designer (who I assume created it) and then reposted (or whatever the Tumblr equivalent of a retweet is) by Challenor and lots of others. It's an American thing about guns and child safety. 

Karen Hurley | The clever ‘Always lock up your guns’ film I...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Jesus.
> 
> LT
> Can you cache the page? It may be necessary. At this point it may be that AC knew of the abuse OR was a victim of abuse and is projecting that abuse as "playtime".
> ...



Or Aimee reposted/blogged it as it is kind of amusing way of making a serious comment if not in the context of child abuse. That kids will play with just about anything?


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 30, 2018)

I


FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Jesus.
> 
> LT
> Can you cache the page? It may be necessary. At this point it may be that AC knew of the abuse OR was a victim of abuse and is projecting that abuse as "playtime".
> ...


I can't see how it's a massive childhood safeguarding issue. It's a clever piece of advertising that has likely been shared by an awful lot of people. It only looks terrible under Aimee Challenor's name because of what her father did some time later. It's more likely one of those awful coincidences rather than evidence of Challenor's depravity.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Aug 30, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> In fact, it was posted by a graphic designer (who I assume created it) and then reposted (or whatever the Tumblr equivalent of a retweet is) by Challenor and lots of others. It's an American thing about guns and child safety.
> 
> Karen Hurley | The clever ‘Always lock up your guns’ film I...




Jesus fucking christ. I am not sure what to make of that. Somone clearly thought the shock factor of getting kids to play with various sex aids (?) as opposed to guns would be shocking and take the message home.

That it is. But in light of context its really a red flag.

It could be an awful coincidence (and I hope it is!), but I don't think it should go without some serious investigating. Seeing as guns are illegal in the UK.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 30, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Jesus fucking christ. I am not sure what to make of that. Somone clearly thought the shock factor of getting kids to play with various sex aids (?) as opposed to guns would be shocking and take the message home.
> 
> That it is. But in light of context its really a red flag.
> 
> It could be an awful coincidence (and I hope it is!), but I don't think it should go without some serious investigating. Seeing as guns are illegal in the UK.


Tumblr works in a similar way to Twitter. This will have appeared in Aimee's feed, posted by someone else she follows, she's found it amusing and clicked 'repost'. Likely without barely thinking about it. It's a red herring, not a red flag, imo.


----------



## Mrs D (Aug 30, 2018)

You know you’re on the right side of history when you’re with the righteous


----------



## andysays (Aug 30, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> Tumblr works in a similar way to Twitter. This will have appeared in Aimee's feed, posted by someone else she follows, she's found it amusing and clicked 'repost'. Likely without barely thinking about it. It's a red herring, not a red flag, imo.



Much like Tucker seems to have reposted what someone else sent her, without knowing what it was or when it was originally posted by AC and why. And most of those commenting seem to have jumped very quickly to incorrect conclusions on the basis of their own knee jerk assumptions.

Twitter and Tumblr are a shit way to do politics.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 30, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Jesus fucking christ. I am not sure what to make of that. Somone clearly thought the shock factor of getting kids to play with various sex aids (?) as opposed to guns would be shocking and take the message home.
> 
> That it is. But in light of context its really a red flag.
> 
> It could be an awful coincidence (and I hope it is!), but I don't think it should go without some serious investigating. Seeing as guns are illegal in the UK.


I think it's fairly amusing as an ad campaign.  It's the sort of thing I might have shared if I was in a sharing mood.   

I think whoever dug it up and shamed AC for it now was, by neglecting the date or the anti-gun context, dishonestly trying to smear AC.  And TBH, if that's the best they could find even after trawling back to when AC was seventeen years old, they are grasping at straws.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 30, 2018)

Edie said:


> Get this man away from children.


Why?

Edit - if I posted that, should I be stopped from teaching? After all I have a lot more contact with kids than AC does.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 30, 2018)

I look to a future in which Aimee Challenor being trans doesn’t matter | Caroline Lucas


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I also feel sorry for Aimee Challenor, and I hope this is the start of a long period of reflection.
> 
> But I have absolutely no sympathy at all for the Green Party - this is a spectacular failure of duty of care and could have had even worse outcomes.
> 
> And all while an inquiry into high profile child abuse is going on.



I don't feel sorry for Aimee Challenor at all. I met her a couple of times at Green Party conferences last year. She was always a fucking liability, even without her dad's crimes. She's a bully and a bigot who sold herself as an authority on trans issues, who mostly relied on her own biased opinions for "policy guidance". Her behaviour when younger (she threatened a shopping centre with a cyber-attack because they pissed her off) is a fairly good marker of how she behaves now - petulance, poorly-controlled anger, and a need to bully anyone she thinks might have a brighter light shining than she does.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 31, 2018)

The date that AC reblogged that stuff above (3 years ago) and origin was pointed out to Pilgrim, her response is...


----------



## Riklet (Aug 31, 2018)

What a grim grim grim story and shit fucking article.

Still, confronted with that kinda thing as a young age while going through your own personal issues, can we really fully blame her for reacting so badly? She's still only 20 now, although I didnt realise she fiddled her dad's name on the election paperwork... that makes it seem way worse than I thought.

I'm not totallt sure if the Green Party is complicit in such bad judgement but I guess maybe the party should have realised what was going on and intervened, though.  How tragic that her shit parents managed to get their kids back via facebook campaign.  Urgggg.

As for why she's been pushed to go far in the Green Party and stand for whatever....... could any of us hazard a guess as to why that might be?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 31, 2018)

Because the green party is shit?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 31, 2018)




----------



## lazythursday (Aug 31, 2018)

OMG, a trans cabal running the green party! They're taking over everywhere! This is nasty stuff, really reminiscent of some of the awful bigoted shit about there being a gay mafia in the Labour Party in the late 90s. 

I'm pretty much neutral in this fight - I can see both sides and I've swung back and forth. But really, some of the gender critical voices need to think harder about how they speak about trans people. Yes, there's plenty of bullshit that comes the other way too, but I seem to see much more downright bigoted stuff against trans people.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 31, 2018)

I don't really care that much about the Green Party but I do wonder whether they are losing their way a bit.  I get that they can't be a single issue party and they need to have the relevant policies that they believe will appeal.  However first and foremost surely a green party candidate should be an environmental champion and the other policies stem from this?

I googled 'Aimee Challenor environmental' and there were very few useful hits.  There is tons of stuff about gender and identity but very little about the environment.  I get that she had a particular brief and she can't control the questions or indeed a lot of the stuff people choose to focus on but, I dunno from everything I've read she seems like an odd candidate.  As I say though its their party.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2018)

What does an environmental champion consist of?

Edit: nah, prob not for this thread - ignore.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 31, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> What does an environmental champion consist of?
> 
> Edit: nah, prob not for this thread - ignore.



Fair enough its a horrible phrase.  But someone who believes environmental issues are the most important issues facing us today, someone who is very green basically.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 31, 2018)

I thought the Green Party had moved on from that sort of thing to a wider philosophy that recognises you can't divorce the environment, however important, from the wider social and economic context. More red-green these days isn't it? 

Perhaps Challenor is single-issue-focused, I don't know. But it wouldn't be the first time that someone from a particular minority group has been accused of being only interested in those issues / not able to represent others etc.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 31, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Fair enough its a horrible phrase.  But someone who believes environmental issues are the most important issues facing us today, someone who is very green basically.



It should be someone dressed mainly in hemp and corderoy, inoffensive, and probably called Gavin or Shiela. They need to be _terribly _inclusive, a Vegan, they don't have a car - obviously - but it turns out they _have access to a Toyota Prius _that they sometimes take to the Costwolds or St Ives. They will spend most of their time talking about Whales, plastic bags, Polar Bears, light bulbs, that they are a Vegan (obviously), they will occasionally say something interesting about the amount of resources (water, fertilizer, pesticide, man hours, acrage etc..) required to grow X tonnes of Beef vs the much lower amount required to grow Y tonnes of Mung Beans or Celeriac or whatever, they will be very earnest, and their partner will be having an affair with a Pilates instructor called Raoul - this will be an open secret within the party central beaurocracy.

In reality the Greens are so vunerable to this stuff because they have a barely existing central part machine that other parties ruthlessly use to police the local branches and to keep the fruitcakes and weirdos out, or at least down. That they are so desperate to be seen as terrifyingly right-on doesn't help them either - matched with their total lack of a central party beaurocracy this means that they are vunerable to entryism by every single-issue loon with a half-dozen Twitter followers.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 31, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I don't really care that much about the Green Party but I do wonder whether they are losing their way a bit.  I get that they can't be a single issue party and they need to have the relevant policies that they believe will appeal.  However first and foremost surely a green party candidate should be an environmental champion and the other policies stem from this?
> 
> I googled 'Aimee Challenor environmental' and there were very few useful hits.  There is tons of stuff about gender and identity but very little about the environment.  I get that she had a particular brief and she can't control the questions or indeed a lot of the stuff people choose to focus on but, I dunno from everything I've read she seems like an odd candidate.  As I say though its their party.



It could just be because she's so young she hasn't had time to build up a profile beyond the one issue. Likes and retweets/reblogs wouldn't show up in a Google search.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 31, 2018)

Green party launches inquiry as it suspends Aimee Challenor


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 31, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Green party launches inquiry as it suspends Aimee Challenor



About bloody time!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Green party launches inquiry as it suspends Aimee Challenor


I see they promise to learn the hard lessons but not the easy ones like suspending election agents charged with serious offences


----------



## LDC (Aug 31, 2018)

I remember first meeting a reasonably high-up Green Party person in the mid '90s and being completely shocked at how such a obvious fruitbat had managed to reach the levels they did. The name eludes me now though...


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 31, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I remember first meeting a reasonably high-up Green Party person in the mid '90s and being completely shocked at how such a obvious fruitbat had managed to reach the levels they did. The name eludes me now though...


Oh that's not fair. My local green party has some seriously impressive characters...


----------



## trashpony (Aug 31, 2018)

The Green Party is dead in the water


----------



## free spirit (Aug 31, 2018)

Well, that took a little more effort and time to achieve than it should have, but the party got to step one of doing the right thing eventually.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 1, 2018)

co-op said:


> Whether "trans is an active component" (you mean relevant I guess?) depends on what you mean by "trans". If you mean people suffering from severe gender dysphoria who want/need to alter their bodies and their gender expression as much as possible to be like the opposite sex (ie what used to be called trans-sexuals), then it would be irrelevant I think. But once you widen the definition of "trans" to "transgender" to mean just about anything, and then make the criteria simple self-id then yes I think it's really relevant. Because one of the arguments against that is that it disregards the safeguarding issue of letting men (ie people with male bodies, male genitalia etc) into women's/girl's spaces so long as those men claim they are female. So to find wide definition trans people like DC and ??AC too? arguing for self-id and getting into positions of power and influence in a national political party to [push that narrative is worrying. Actually what worries and depresses me more are the legions of trendy wannabe progressives who will do their level best to make any querying of this "bigotry".It's not, it's basic fucking safeguarding and anyone who tried to shout down a safeguarding debate in this way should automatically have a warning light go up.
> 
> David Challenor is trans - at least by the wide definition. He's also a predatory paedophile who was in tight with the Green Party using his position to push for the right of erotic transvestites and other fetishists to access women's spaces. AC was helping him do that. I feel sorry for transpeople who's reputation is tarnished by these people but paedophiles, molestors, fetishists etc will be like bees round a honeypot on self-id and sure enough - just like the NUS trans rep Jess Bradley (caught with "her" dick out last month) - here they are. Utterly predictable.


Belated reply, but thanks for the detail on AC and DC which I didn't know. I take your point that DC is perhaps the ultimate example of what might go wrong with regards to access to women only spaces (without, of course, seeking to make any generalisations beyond the risk he _personally_ posed). Also, I agree that AC and Jess Bradley are at the worst end of trans activism, reducing politics to closing debate down and threats.  My question about whether you think AC (or DC's possible) trans status was an 'active component' wasn't well put. I can see that trans featured in AC and DC's _politics_, may well have added to his opportunism and cover - I just couldn't see any way that it had a _causal_ role. He was a child rapist because he was a child rapist, not because he was trans.

Edit: too waffly


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 1, 2018)

RD2003 said:


> Perhaps identity politics is simply a symptom of a world going slowly insane.


Perhaps?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2018)

RD2003 said:


> Perhaps identity politics is simply a symptom of a world going slowly insane.


Slowly?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 1, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Fair enough its a horrible phrase.  But someone who believes environmental issues are the most important issues facing us today, someone who is very green basically.



AC appears to be pretty green tbf.


----------



## andysays (Sep 1, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> AC appears to be pretty green tbf.



Green definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


> If you say that someone is green, you mean that they have had very little experience of life or a particular job.
> _He was a young fellow, very green, very immature_.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 1, 2018)

andysays said:


> Green definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary



Thank you for explaining my lame joke


----------



## andysays (Sep 1, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Thank you for explaining my joke



I thought you might be making that joke but wasn't sure, so I thought I'd just make it 100% clear for the benefit of those as slow as me.


----------



## LDC (Sep 1, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> Oh that's not fair. My local green party has some seriously impressive characters...



If you live in Hebden Bridge you deserve everything you get.


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 1, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> If you live in Hebden Bridge you deserve everything you get.


Heh. I live in one of the valley's less annoying towns. Which I hope would not tolerate rainbow ralph's creepy desire for endless bodily contact.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 2, 2018)

Mm.



 this is not a stable young person. The Green Party can't safeguard for toffee, clearly


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 3, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Mm.
> 
> 
> 
> this is not a stable young person. The Green Party can't safeguard for toffee, clearly




I wonder how many young people would be stable in the face of loads of anonymous trolls examining everything they'd ever done or said? 

Unless anyone has any actual evidence that AC was in any way involved in the crimes her dad committed or any other crimes, then this is just cynical mud raking.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Sep 3, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm sorry about these dickheads Sea Star. Please don't fuck off - put them on ignore or something.


THANKS, ANOTHER MAN


----------



## trashpony (Sep 3, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I wonder how many young people would be stable in the face of loads of anonymous trolls examining everything they'd ever done or said?
> 
> Unless anyone has any actual evidence that AC was in any way involved in the crimes her dad committed or any other crimes, then this is just cynical mud raking.


I don't think you can blame anonymous trolls for Challenor's brony proclivities. 

Either she is a vulnerable young person who wasn't aware of the rules, in which case why on earth did the Greens push her forward into leadership roles, or she knows exactly what she was doing, in which case she's unsuitable for public office. Either way, she's not fit to be a candidate. 

TBH I blame the Greens much more than her. She's clearly a very damaged young person but she's not that bright, has mental health issues and has only been propelled through the ranks because she's trans. That's not at all fair on her


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I don't think you can blame anonymous trolls for Challenor's brony proclivities.
> 
> Either she is a vulnerable young person who wasn't aware of the rules, in which case why on earth did the Greens push her forward into leadership roles, or she knows exactly what she was doing, in which case she's unsuitable for public office. Either way, she's not fit to be a candidate.
> 
> TBH I blame the Greens much more than her. She's clearly a very damaged young person but she's not that bright, has mental health issues and has only been propelled through the ranks because she's trans. That's not at all fair on her


Maybe the greens are short of young hacks


----------



## trashpony (Sep 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe the greens are short of young hacks


I'm sure little Owen Jones has a few mates he could send Caroline's way


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I'm sure little Owen Jones has a few mates he could send Caroline's way


Not now he couldn't


----------



## trashpony (Sep 3, 2018)

Challenor has resigned. There's a surprise


----------



## weepiper (Sep 3, 2018)

Caroline Lucas has been added to Terfblocker 

Block Together


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Sep 3, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Caroline Lucas has been added to Terfblocker
> 
> Block Together



She's a terf or she blocks terfs?


----------



## Bun (Sep 3, 2018)

A terf


----------



## weepiper (Sep 3, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> She's a terf or she blocks terfs?


It means Aimee Challenor and chums consider her to be a TERF.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Sep 3, 2018)

Am I allowed to still like Caroline?  I'm none the wiser.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

Go on then, I'll ask: how does terfblocker work? Does it mean that subscribers _automatically_ block the people reported as terfs (as opposed to being just a list of people you might yourself block)?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Am I allowed to still like Caroline?  I'm none the wiser.


I used to like the old uncomplicated days when I could dislike the green party for making cuts in local government. 

So, now that CL is a terf, does that mean the party as a whole has also gone from being trans inclusive to a bunch of terfs overnight? I usually think I don't understand the modern world of twitterywhatsapp type things, but I've actually got a handle on this: _it's like 1930s Kremlinology_.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I don't think you can blame anonymous trolls for Challenor's brony proclivities.
> 
> Either she is a vulnerable young person who wasn't aware of the rules, in which case why on earth did the Greens push her forward into leadership roles, or she knows exactly what she was doing, in which case she's unsuitable for public office. Either way, she's not fit to be a candidate.
> 
> TBH I blame the Greens much more than her. She's clearly a very damaged young person but she's not that bright, has mental health issues and has only been propelled through the ranks because she's trans. That's not at all fair on her



I had to google 'Brony'.

Just to be clear, I'm not blaming anyone for whatever sexual kinks AC or any other consenting adult gets up to with other consenting adults. I really don't care, it's not a crime, its someone's private sexual life, it doesn't make someone less suitable for public office.

My point was that weepiper posted a tweet thread that implies that because AC is into some kinky/weird stuff, then she must have been involved in her dads crimes (just for clarity I'm not denying it was wrong for her to put the fake name on the leaflet that was wrong). And that's not just bigoted shite and cynical muck raking, it's bigoted shite and cynical muck raking directed at someone who as you say is "clearly a damaged young person...not that bright (who) has mental health issues".

Maybe she was propelled through the ranks because she was a trans woman. Maybe she was propelled through the ranks because the Greens aren't exactly saturated with talented young activists. But what's the difference between you saying "she's only been propelled through the ranks because she's trans" and some UKIP nobhead saying "she's only in the job for diversity quotas" about a cis woman or whatever the correct term is?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Am I allowed to still like Caroline?  I'm none the wiser.



No she's a fucking scab we're not allowed to like *anyone* in the Green Party


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> So, now that CL is a terf, does that mean the party as a whole has also gone from being trans inclusive to a bunch of terfs overnight? I usually think I don't understand the modern world of twitterywhatsapp type things, but I've actually got a handle on this: _it's like 1930s Kremlinology_.



Best post in weeks. Funny _and _scathing, with Soviet references.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Best post in weeks. Funny _and _scathing, with Soviet references.


"As the biofuel powered tanks rolled past, the Co-leadership took the salute amid this unprecedented display of low economic growth..."


----------



## JimW (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> "As the biofuel powered tanks rolled past, the Co-leadership took the salute amid this unprecedented display of low economic growth..."


Review of the Green Guard from Admirality Arch


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

JimW said:


> Review of the Green Guard from Admirality Arch



It'd have to be Green Guardians so it didn't sound quite so militaristic.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I had to google 'Brony'.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not blaming anyone for whatever sexual kinks AC or any other consenting adult gets up to with other consenting adults. I really don't care, it's not a crime, its someone's private sexual life, it doesn't make someone less suitable for public office.
> 
> ...


Well, personally I think that someone's private sex life being based around an adult baby fetish and other fetishes based on infantilised fantasy stuff like bronies (based on a toy marketed heavily to primary school aged girls) means that they ARE unsuitable for public office, certainly for public office in which they are pushing for women and girls' sex based protections to be removed. Apparently that's an unfashionable thing to say but I don't really give a fuck. Aimee Challenor shouldn't be advising policy if that's what she gets off on. She's not a suitable person.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Go on then, I'll ask: how does terfblocker work? Does it mean that subscribers _automatically_ block the people reported as terfs (as opposed to being just a list of people you might yourself block)?


Yes. If you subscribe to it then it automatically blocks all 10,000 odd people so you'll never see any of their tweets.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> No she's a fucking scab we're not allowed to like *anyone* in the Green Party



Still one of the four parties I'd potentially vote for.  If we don't look after the environment, we're all fucked, but particularly poorer people.  Also Caroline is against arms sales to some horrific regimes.  So, yeah, I'm not going to automatically disqualify them when it comes to voting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Still one of the four parties I'd potentially vote for.  If we don't look after the environment, we're all fucked, but particularly poorer people.  Also Caroline is against arms sales to some horrific regimes.  So, yeah, I'm not going to automatically disqualify them when it comes to voting.


What are the other three?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> It'd have to be Green Guardians so it didn't sound quite so militaristic.


Continuity Woodcraft Folk.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Yes. If you subscribe to it then it automatically blocks all 10,000 odd people so you'll never see any of their tweets.


Ta.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well, personally I think that someone's private sex life being based around an adult baby fetish and other fetishes based on infantilised fantasy stuff like bronies (based on a toy marketed heavily to primary school aged girls) means that they ARE unsuitable for public office, certainly for public office in which they are pushing for women and girls' sex based protections to be removed. Apparently that's an unfashionable thing to say but I don't really give a fuck. Aimee Challenor shouldn't be advising policy if that's what she gets off on. She's not a suitable person.


it's a pity we can only speculate about the sex lives of other politicians, some of whom are likely to enjoy pastimes which make this baby business look positively pedestrian


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well, personally I think that someone's private sex life being based around an adult baby fetish and other fetishes based on infantilised fantasy stuff like bronies (based on a toy marketed heavily to primary school aged girls) means that they ARE unsuitable for public office, certainly for public office in which they are pushing for women and girls' sex based protections to be removed. Apparently that's an unfashionable thing to say but I don't really give a fuck. Aimee Challenor shouldn't be advising policy if that's what she gets off on. She's not a suitable person.


Is there evidence that AC gets off on adult baby fetishism, or is it just ('just') bronyism?*

Whatever we think of her, I think it's important we don't conflate her behaviour with her father's,  or hold her responsible for his activities.

ETA: having now read back it appears there is. The general point about not conflating her actions with her father's still stands, though it now looks like she's involved in enough dodgy shit of her own...

* auto corrected to cronyism...


----------



## bendeus (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> My point was that weepiper posted a tweet thread that implies that because AC is into some kinky/weird stuff, then she must have been involved in her dads crimes (just for clarity I'm not denying it was wrong for her to put the fake name on the leaflet that was wrong). And that's not just bigoted shite and cynical muck raking, it's bigoted shite and cynical muck raking directed at someone who as you say is "clearly a damaged young person...not that bright (who) has mental health issues".



It's not just *any old* 'kinky/weird stuff' though, is it? AC's nappy fetish as exposed in the tweets posted by WP is very reminiscent of that of DC, who would wear both nappies and a girl's dress while raping his victim. 

I don't see why someone who shares the same kinks as the perpetrator, who lived in the same house as him while he was abusing his victim, who clearly lied about her knowledge of the crime to her party and who was a fellow traveller in pushing an agenda that would, if it came to fruition, potentially remove safeguards and allow potential abusers easier access to vulnerable people shouldn't come under _some _degree of scrutiny. I've no doubt that AC is a victim herself and, as you say, damaged by her background but to simply ask questions about a very grim subject isn't necessarily cynical muck raking, IMO.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> But what's the difference between you saying "she's only been propelled through the ranks because she's trans" and some UKIP nobhead saying "she's only in the job for diversity quotas" about a cis woman or whatever the correct term is?


The only relevant question is whether or not she is fit for public office. She has demonstrated that she isn't.


----------



## salem (Sep 4, 2018)

bendeus said:


> It's not just *any old* 'kinky/weird stuff' though, is it? AC's nappy fetish as exposed in the tweets posted by WP is very reminiscent of that of DC, who would wear both nappies and a girl's dress while raping his victim.
> 
> I don't see why someone who shares the same kinks as the perpetrator, who lived in the same house as him while he was abusing his victim, who clearly lied about her knowledge of the crime to her party and who was a fellow traveller in pushing an agenda that would, if it came to fruition, potentially remove safeguards and allow potential abusers easier access to vulnerable people shouldn't come under _some _degree of scrutiny. I've no doubt that AC is a victim herself and, as you say, damaged by her background but to simply ask questions about a very grim subject isn't necessarily cynical muck raking, IMO.


Jesus, I hadn't realised just how depraved the abuse was. Any party that even debates whether they want to be associated with that is fucked, yeah there are some questions of how knowledgeable etc Aimee was but some times you have to draw the line for the sake of self-preservation.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Challenor has resigned. There's a surprise



Because the Green Party has "significant transphobia problems" apparently.

If loonspuds like this cant succeed in the Green Party, boy are they going to struggle in the rest of the world.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Because the Green Party has "significant transphobia problems" apparently.
> 
> If loonspuds like this cant succeed in the Green Party, boy are they going to struggle in the rest of the world.


this reason for resigning is as convincing as field's.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

salem said:


> Jesus, I hadn't realised just how depraved the abuse was. Any party that even debates whether they want to be associated with that is fucked, yeah there are some questions of how knowledgeable etc Aimee was but some times you have to draw the line for the sake of self-preservation.



The extent of knowledge isn't an issue; AC and DC were engaged in framing GP policy on issues that have an absolutely clear overlap with safeguarding and the rights of women and children. In that role they aggressively pursued a campaign to completely silence any dissenting voices, not just through things like terfblocker etc but by smearing anyone who dared to question any part of their agenda as a 'bigot' or a 'transphobe', ie by intimidation.

_In itself _this behaviour is abusive.

In itself this, in a safeguarding context, this should be flagged as a risk behaviour.

It is also typical behaviour of a predatory sexual criminal - and in this case it turned out to be _exactly_ that.

For AC to now flounce off accusing everyone else of 'transphobia' is also typical.

No regret, no reflection, no attempt to understand, just accuse, accuse, accuse. "I haven't done anything wrong, it's everyone else" - this is what abusers say.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2018)

Lucas has been 'terfblocked' because she has agreed to talk to the Woman's Place people next week. 

This horrible affair might possibly mark a bit of a watershed moment in the terf wars. It is possibly the clearest demonstration of how the debate has to change, from the trans activists' side. They cannot just scream 'bigot' at anyone who does not agree with them that trans women are women, while shoving them (and anyone who talks to them) on 'ignore'. They need to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at issues of sex and gender identity from theirs, that there are other perfectly valid definitions and points of view. They need to find a way to start _respecting_ certain positions that they currently label 'terf'.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lucas has been 'terfblocked' because she has agreed to talk to the Woman's Place people next week.
> 
> This horrible affair might possibly mark a bit of a watershed moment in the terf wars. It is possibly the clearest demonstration of how the debate has to change, from the trans activists' side. They cannot just scream 'bigot' at anyone who does not agree with them that trans women are women, while shoving them (and anyone who talks to them) on 'ignore'. They need to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at issues of sex and gender identity from theirs, that there are other perfectly valid definitions and points of view. They need to find a way to start _respecting_ certain positions that they currently label 'terf'.



I wouldn't hold your breath.  The whole thing seems utterly polarised.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lucas has been 'terfblocked' because she has agreed to talk to the Woman's Place people next week.
> 
> This horrible affair might possibly mark a bit of a watershed moment in the terf wars. It is possibly the clearest demonstration of how the debate has to change, from the trans activists' side. They cannot just scream 'bigot' at anyone who does not agree with them that trans women are women, while shoving them (and anyone who talks to them) on 'ignore'. They need to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at issues of sex and gender identity from theirs, that there are other perfectly valid definitions and points of view. They need to find a way to start _respecting_ certain positions that they currently label 'terf'.



I tried arguing this position for years (literally) - from a personal place of genuine sympathy with trans people. But I have ended up a full-on terf because the reactions I got were so aggressive, dishonest and weird. I now think it is literally impossible for the hardline TG position to actually be engaged; it now seems to me fundamentally abusive, misogynistic and closed to any opinion not 100% aligned to itself. It's a cult. And like all cults it will blow up and destroy itself. The only question is how many people will get fucked up by it before that happens. 

It's interesting listening to the silence of the hipster left on the DC case - the Novarra types were fully - aggressively - signed up but strangely they ain't saying much on this at the moment. Bit of re-positioning going on?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lucas has been 'terfblocked' because she has agreed to talk to the Woman's Place people next week.
> 
> This horrible affair might possibly mark a bit of a watershed moment in the terf wars. It is possibly the clearest demonstration of how the debate has to change, from the trans activists' side. They cannot just scream 'bigot' at anyone who does not agree with them that trans women are women, while shoving them (and anyone who talks to them) on 'ignore'. They need to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at issues of sex and gender identity from theirs, that there are other perfectly valid definitions and points of view. They need to find a way to start _respecting_ certain positions that they currently label 'terf'.



I was just coming to post that.



> CAROLINE Lucas has defended her decision after she announced she would meet with a group widely seen as transphobic.
> 
> The Green MP for Brighton Pavillion tweeted on Sunday that she had contacted the controversial Woman’s Place UK group and would meet them next week.
> 
> The announcement of her meeting prompted outrage from many Green supporters who felt that the party’s only MP should not be meeting with a fringe group thought by many to have unacceptable views.


MP criticised over meeting anti-trans group


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well, personally I think that someone's private sex life being based around an adult baby fetish and other fetishes based on infantilised fantasy stuff like bronies (based on a toy marketed heavily to primary school aged girls) means that they ARE unsuitable for public office, certainly for public office in which they are pushing for women and girls' sex based protections to be removed. Apparently that's an unfashionable thing to say but I don't really give a fuck. Aimee Challenor shouldn't be advising policy if that's what she gets off on. She's not a suitable person.



Oh fuck off you boring old dickhead.


----------



## xenon (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh fuck off you boring old dickhead.



 Really?  You’ve lost it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

bendeus said:


> It's not just *any old* 'kinky/weird stuff' though, is it? AC's nappy fetish as exposed in the tweets posted by WP is very reminiscent of that of DC, who would wear both nappies and a girl's dress while raping his victim.
> 
> I don't see why someone who shares the same kinks as the perpetrator, who lived in the same house as him while he was abusing his victim, who clearly lied about her knowledge of the crime to her party and who was a fellow traveller in pushing an agenda that would, if it came to fruition, potentially remove safeguards and allow potential abusers easier access to vulnerable people shouldn't come under _some _degree of scrutiny. I've no doubt that AC is a victim herself and, as you say, damaged by her background but to simply ask questions about a very grim subject isn't necessarily cynical muck raking, IMO.



Look, lots of people are into weird stuff and don't commit any crimes. Lots of rapists and paedophiles have had glittering political careers with no issues whatsoever. 

It's not reminiscent at all. Because DC raped and abused a child. Consent and being of age are the pertinent issues here. DC was convicted because the brave victim told her story and told people what he had done. Nobody has accused AC of anything. 

We need as a society to get better at supporting women and girls who are victims of sexual abuse. But you don't do that by inventing allegations that aren't there and saying well they must be guilty of something they're trans AND a pervert and they're related to that guy. It won't help any more than demonising gay men as paedophiles in the 1970's helped to support child victims of sexual assault.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> No regret, no reflection, no attempt to understand, just accuse, accuse, accuse. "I haven't done anything wrong, it's everyone else" - this is what abusers say.



You don't show any regret, reflection, attempt to understand and you accuse others constantly. Are you a paedo?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Continuity Woodcraft Folk.



I'd totally vote for the Kibbo Kift if they were on ballot.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> I was just coming to post that.
> 
> 
> MP criticised over meeting anti-trans group


My interest in this thread has been more about the debate as an aspect of the left, wondering the connections might be to wider struggles and the rest. Ironically, though not as part of the left, Lucas is actually making some connections, talking across the divides (following the Challenor stuff of course). That she then bounces straight over to becoming a terf as a result is bonkers. Green party should be more concerned with having a child rapist in their ranks/an election agent.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Still one of the four parties I'd potentially vote for.  If we don't look after the environment, we're all fucked, but particularly poorer people.  Also Caroline is against arms sales to some horrific regimes.  So, yeah, I'm not going to automatically disqualify them when it comes to voting.



They're not going to look after the environment, they haven't got a clue, useless wastes of skin all of them. Look at Greens in Ireland, Germany, Brighton etc.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't show any regret, reflection, attempt to understand and you accuse others constantly. Are you a paedo?



That's out of order.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> That's out or order.



How is it more out of order than what co-op said in the first place? Who made them the Paedofinder General?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't show any regret, reflection, attempt to understand and you accuse others constantly. Are you a paedo?



You've just been abusive to weepiper by telling her to fuck off and calling her a boring old dickhead because she has an opinion that differs to yours. By your logic I should also be asking you if you are a paedo then? 

FFs, have a word with yourself.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> How is it more out of order than what co-op said in the first place? Who made them the Paedofinder General?



its _Noncefinder_ General, it, err.. roles off the tongue easier.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are you a paedo?



This is pretty desperate.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

kebabking said:


> its _Noncefinder_ General, it, err.. roles off the tongue easier.



Nah fam


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> How is it more out of order than what co-op said in the first place? Who made them the Paedofinder General?



Who made you the Bigot-finder General? Which side has ensured that this entire goat-fuck of a debate has been conducted in the most extreme, abusive and morally repugnant terms? 

If you don't like something I've posted why not actually quote it and say why it's wrong? Instead you reach automatically for the most extreme abuse.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> You've just been abusive to weepiper by telling her to fuck off and calling her a boring old dickhead because she has an opinion that differs to yours. By your logic I should also be asking you if you are a paedo then?
> 
> FFs, have a word with yourself.



No, not my logic. Co-op's logic. The person who has kept this whole thing going with lies and distortions in a (partially) successful effort to make the case of horrific cis male paedophile somehow about his young trans (and according to a lot of people on here very stupid and vulnerable) trans daughter. 

But for the record, yes, I think if you think a sexual fetish involving consenting adults means you're unfit for office then you are a boring old dickhead and probably pretty bigoted as well. What's next? Lock up all the adult babies or whatever they call themselves because their sexual fetish is somehow unacceptable while actual rapists and paedophiles have had careers in the BBC and Parliament?


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Who made you the Bigot-finder General? Which side has ensured that this entire goat-fuck of a debate has been conducted in the most extreme, abusive and morally repugnant terms?
> 
> If you don't like something I've posted why not actually quote it and say why it's wrong? Instead you reach automatically for the most extreme abuse.


Which side? Surely it is both sides. This case is a good example. The sheer desperation of many gender critical voices to somehow prove that AC is involved with her father's abuse because that will help the trans=perverts case has been particularly unedifying.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Who made you the Bigot-finder General? Which side has ensured that this entire goat-fuck of a debate has been conducted in the most extreme, abusive and morally repugnant terms?
> 
> If you don't like something I've posted why not actually quote it and say why it's wrong? Instead you reach automatically for the most extreme abuse.



I've done that with you, remember?


SpackleFrog said:


> The TERFS are *all* wrong but that doesn't make everything else right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





co-op said:


> I don't think it's the be-all and end-all of gender, but the reverse. Sex is the basis of women's oppression, gender is the means. Sex does not equal gender. Nor does "identifying" this way or that change sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





co-op said:


> Just checked the usual news sources and it looks to me like there is a strong suggestion that it *is* JB but unproven as yet. EG
> 
> 
> 
> But you're right no proof. No denial. Expensive lawyers - Peter Carter-Ruck no less!



Just some examples of you deliberately engaging in untruths which you refused to respond to other than saying "Oh I heard different."

Also what happened to this? 



co-op said:


> Ok you're obviously incapable of doing anything except throw stupid abuse around. Onto ignore with ya. Bye.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Also what happened to this?



The thread stopped making sense so it was obvious that someone I have on ignore was posting stuff; I only ignore you and Pickman's Model. So I looked and saw that you thought you'd decided to start claiming some equivalence between what I've posted and the behaviour of the Challenors. Cute. It's a good reminder of why I put you on ignore in the first place and why you're going back on. Life's too short to waste time on the likes of you.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 4, 2018)

Ahhh, a bunfight hiding in the corner disguised as a Green Party thread! 

Trouble is, once threads hit around the 10 pages mark, people start getting curious.

Can I join in?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh fuck off you boring old dickhead.


Constructive.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Ahhh, a bunfight hiding in the corner disguised as a Green Party thread!
> 
> Trouble is, once threads hit around the 10 pages mark, people start getting curious.
> 
> Can I join in?


There should be a temperature gauge for threads on the main forums page. This one officially just went RED.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 4, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Can I join in?




You can.  Whether you may or not is a different question.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Constructive.



Fine, alright then. Weird sexual fetishes don't make someone unsuitable for public office. Why do you think they do? What is it about you that thinks "oh dearie me I don't want the person cutting benefits and axing jobs to be into latex or enjoy shitting themselves that would be terrible". 

I mean, adult baby fanatics would literally be an improvement on the actual violent criminals which inhabit Parliament. 

You're right it wasn't constructive. But how constructive was it for you to repost that twitter thread basically saying that because someone is into weird stuff and their dad is guilty of heinous sexual violence against a child so they must be to? How is that useful? Why do you expect your view that people you consider to be sexually deviant are unsuitable for public office to be taken seriously? Would you take me seriously if I said someone shouldn't be an MP if they were Catholic or gay?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Ahhh, a bunfight hiding in the corner disguised as a Green Party thread!
> 
> Trouble is, once threads hit around the 10 pages mark, people start getting curious.
> 
> Can I join in?



The worst thing about this is I really hate the Green Party but come on in, join the party!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> This one officially just went RED.


Flashing amber I reckon. As U75 kick-offs go this is quite genteel. It’s the kind of scrap you imagine could go off in Suburban but never quite has. I just searched the thread for the word “cunt” and it’s only been used once in 10 pages and that was with regards to the GP themselves. 

It’s a sneaky tactic though. Putting “Green Party” in a thread title is guaranteed to stop most people opening it so you can have it all to yourself. As I said though, once it gets a bit lengthy people think “who the fuck can post about the Green Party for 10 pages without dying of boredom” and they open it to have a look. 

Ta da!


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Flashing amber I reckon. As U75 kick-offs go this is quite genteel. It’s the kind of scrap you imagine could go off in Suburban but never quite has. I just searched the thread for the word “cunt” and it’s only been used once in 10 pages and that was with regards to the GP themselves.
> 
> It’s a sneaky tactic though. Putting “Green Party” in a thread title is guaranteed to stop most people opening it so you can have it all to yourself. As I said though, once it gets a bit lengthy people think “who the fuck can post about the Green Party for 10 pages without dying of boredom” and they open it to have a look.
> 
> Ta da!


I quite like the idea of innocuous titles with raging spats going on within them. Fist fights in Cake Recipe discussions, legal threats in Recycle Your Stuff. All good.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well, personally I think that someone's private sex life being based around an adult baby fetish and other fetishes based on infantilised fantasy stuff like bronies (based on a toy marketed heavily to primary school aged girls) means that they ARE unsuitable for public office, certainly for public office in which they are pushing for women and girls' sex based protections to be removed. Apparently that's an unfashionable thing to say but I don't really give a fuck. Aimee Challenor shouldn't be advising policy if that's what she gets off on. She's not a suitable person.



Aye.  This quite frankly.
What also makes me laugh is that accusations of not accepting kink/weird sex practices tied to power imbalances and tied to sex and/or age as "prude" or "boring" is somehow meant to shame women into being more "accepting" of whatever boundaries they might like to set.

Really it's just another form of misogyny.

Being a "prude" is a position of power that allows a woman to dictate the terms and quality of intimacy. Men, quite obviously, do not like that.

The concept of a woman being a "slut" and her being a "prude" are concepts more alike than you might care to realise.

"Women are private property" is a known historical pattern, and it hasn't gone away with liberal progressiveness, merely it has changed shape.

What happened was society went from seeing women as private property (meaning she was supposed to have sex with her husband and him alone and act as his submissive broodmare), to seeing women as public property - meaning she's supposed to be sexually available to all men and participate in hookup culture, kink, whatever else abuse, and then of course bear the brunt of the liability when it comes to sex, reproduction and safety.

Notice that this shift ISN'T really a CHANGE OF CONTRACT between men and women because women still have no negotiating power.  Especially when stuff like TERFblocker exists. Rather, the power remains amongst men in how THEY would rather relate to women (and now with this baby diaper kink thing -it seems children too). So instead of a 1-1 correspondence codified by marriage and a private sex life, those who run modern society have realised you can have all the sex and kink and beatings and "kiddie role play" with none the liability (for men of course). All women for all men became a more appealing option.

When a woman is a "prude", she is blatant about not giving men the opening to sexually exploit her (or kids) in an uneven playing field. And when a women is shamed in "feminist" (and I use air quotes deliberately) circles for not being "sex positive" or "kinky" or being "too vanilla"... well then it isn't feminism.  It's just more misogyny, more ignoring of boundaries,  and more social gas lighting.

I am a proud prude.  And fuck you if you think that's boring.  I will judge men for their BDSM, sissy and baby diaper fetishes, and have every right to say "I do not want those types speaking for women".  And I will judge those people who push those men's agendas onto women and kids.

And really, if you stop thinking of "sex positive" liberal feminism as feminism, and start thinking of it as patriarchy with glitter and catchy soundbites of "choice" you're not even making which you can sell on a T-Shirt - then really the horseshit that it really is starts to make a lot more sense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I will judge men for their BDSM


What about women into BDSM?  And not wanting to do kinky stuff but feeling like you should to please another is also not something only women experience.


----------



## Santino (Sep 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What about women into BDSM?  And not wanting to do kinky stuff but feeling like you should to please another is also not something only women experience.


It's ok for women to talk about something relevant to them without having to mention that it's also relevant to some men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2018)

Santino said:


> It's ok for women to talk about something relevant to them without having to mention that it's also relevant to some men.


You have missed my point. BDSM isn't a typically man-thing in the way FLB is suggesting.


----------



## Santino (Sep 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have missed my point. BDSM isn't a typically man-thing in the way FLB is suggesting.


I was referring to your second point.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What about women into BDSM?  And not wanting to do kinky stuff but feeling like you should to please another is also not something only women experience.


,
What about them?  Kink is primarily a male thing.  And women into it don't exist in a vaccum, there might be reasons why they are into it, and it does play on societal power imbalances. 

I'm sure men feeling like you should be some sort of sex hound and that you should be horny all day (because that's what society says), when that isn't the case, happens to men quite often too.

Either way both of these work on social power-play.  

Men aren't in the main kinky (IME) but most kinksters are men, and it absolutely is about power play with those men and I certainly don't want their sissy, or beating fetishes or whatever being imposed on women by calling them "boring" or "prude" or whatever who in the majority of cases do not want it, or people like are into that, speaking up for what is, and isn't a safeguarding and safety issue.

Women's boundaires should be respected, specifically when it comes to their rights and protections.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> ,
> Kink is primarily a male thing.  .


Is it? That's pretty much specifically the thing I'm disputing.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I quite like the idea of innocuous titles with raging spats going on within them. Fist fights in Cake Recipe discussions, legal threats in Recycle Your Stuff. All good.


That'd be brilliant, esp in Suburban.

Anyone Got A Recipe For Lemon Posset That Actually Works?



GO FUCK YOURSELF, PAEDO!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? That's pretty much specifically the thing I'm disputing.



Yes.  The majority of people that end up having fetishistic disorders are men.  Sometimes psychological help is needed to overcome it.  That's not the same thing as saying all men are fetishists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Aye.  This quite frankly.
> What also makes me laugh is that accusations of not accepting kink/weird sex practices tied to power imbalances and tied to sex and/or age as "prude" or "boring" is somehow meant to shame women into being more "accepting" of whatever boundaries they might like to set.
> 
> .


 I think there are certainly echoes of the 60s/70s 'sexual revolution', something portrayed as liberating for women - which it was in the sense of opening up debates about female desire - but ultimately played out to men's advantage (along the predictable lines of existing power relationships).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> ,
> What about them?  Kink is primarily a male thing.



This is probably the most vile example of mysogyny on the whole thread. 

Women! Remember not to let the men folk corrupt you. Stay true to your _innate and natural sexual preferences. _


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is probably the most vile example of mysogyny on the whole thread.
> 
> Women! Remember not to let the men folk corrupt you. Stay true to your _innate and natural sexual preferences. _



No.  I don't think so. Keep reaching though.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> ,
> Kink is primarily a male thing.  .



I think debating this is a bit of a dead end? It may be that fetishistic sexuality/paraphilia etc is distributed more equally between men and women than it appears but that (a) the nature of male sexuality means that it manifests more obviously and (b) the nature of patriarchal society means that women are well-advised to keep their sexuality hidden. So how can we know? Sexuality is complex stuff.

But I completely agree that the kind of prophet-of-kink types who flaunt their 'openness' about sexuality are often little more than abusers on a confidence trick. And it's pretty clear that the people who use their power to damage others via sex, sexuality etc are overwhelming men.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> I think debating this is a bit of a dead end? It may be that fetishistic sexuality/paraphilia etc is distributed more equally between men and women than it appears but that (a) the nature of male sexuality means that it manifests more obviously and (b) the nature of patriarchal society means that women are well-advised to keep their sexuality hidden. So how can we know? Sexuality is complex stuff.
> 
> But I completely agree that the kind of prophet-of-kink types who flaunt their 'openness' about sexuality are often little more than abusers on a confidence trick. And it's pretty clear that the people who use their power to damage others via sex, sexuality etc are overwhelming men.


I don't know much about the fetish scene, but get the impression it has 'democratised' in terms of gender. But how could it _ultimately_ be other than you describe, in the contest as it is of existing gender inequalities.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> I think debating this is a bit of a dead end? It may be that fetishistic sexuality/paraphilia etc is distributed more equally between men and women than it appears but that (a) the nature of male sexuality means that it manifests more obviously and (b) the nature of patriarchal society means that women are well-advised to keep their sexuality hidden. So how can we know? Sexuality is complex stuff.



Yes.  I think your right about all of this.  It probably is a dead end.  These things are always difficult if not impossible to untie.



co-op said:


> But I completely agree that the kind of prophet-of-kink types who flaunt their 'openness' about sexuality are often little more than abusers on a confidence trick. And it's pretty clear that the people who use their power to damage others via sex, sexuality etc are overwhelming men.



Innit.  Those people saying women as a class setting their boundaries, and saying they do not want representation, or what rights they should have being discussed by male kinksters, or those heavily influenced by them as "boring" or "prudes"... you gotta laugh really.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> I think debating this is a bit of a dead end? It may be that fetishistic sexuality/paraphilia etc is distributed more equally between men and women than it appears but that (a) the nature of male sexuality means that it manifests more obviously and (b) the nature of patriarchal society means that women are well-advised to keep their sexuality hidden. So how can we know? Sexuality is complex stuff.
> 
> But I completely agree that the kind of prophet-of-kink types who flaunt their 'openness' about sexuality are often little more than abusers on a confidence trick. And it's pretty clear that the people who use their power to damage others via sex, sexuality etc are overwhelming men.



This is fantastic double think - on the one hand you (quite rightly) point out that women are likely to feel safer by not being open about their sexual preferences. And then you go on to state that if they are they're abusers! Amazing.


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Who made you the Bigot-finder General? Which side has ensured that this entire goat-fuck of a debate has been conducted in the most extreme, abusive and morally repugnant terms?
> 
> If you don't like something I've posted why not actually quote it and say why it's wrong? Instead you reach automatically for the most extreme abuse.



Neither side in this debate (the whole Trans Activist  vs TERF debate, which is what this current thread has quickly become a proxy for) has a monopoly on extremism, abuse and morally repugnance.

And there's a certain irony in you asking people to quote something specific which demonstrates what they're saying, given your utter refusal to do that earlier in the thread...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is fantastic double think - on the one hand you (quite rightly) point out that women are likely to feel safer by not being open about their sexual preferences. And then you go on to state that if they are they're abusers! Amazing.


he'll put you on ignore if you show up his paucity of thought.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

andysays said:


> Neither side in this debate (the whole Trans Activist  vs TERF debate, which is what this current thread has quickly become a proxy for) has a monopoly on extremism, abuse and morally repugnance.



Fair enough, there's a lot of shit on both sides, that's obvious. But if one side starts from a pov that the *only* response to their demands is "ok whatever you say or you are a bigot" then I think it's fair to lay this one at their feet. On this thread it's been clear who has been hurling abuse, some of it pretty nasty. 



andysays said:


> And there's a certain irony in you asking people to quote something specific which demonstrates what they're saying, given your utter refusal to do that earlier in the thread...




Are you still beefing about me not linking to sources that show the GP is arguing for self-id? TBH that just seemed crazy. You were at the point that you said even if there were utterly clear links from other posters you that what I posted was true, my credibility was irreparably damaged. That just looks like bulletin board ego-fight stuff to me.

Maybe I missed some other stuff, I don't live on here. My point re Spacklefrog was that they just yell obscenities - no arguments.


----------



## nyxx (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> What's the betting that he's going to shortly publicly announce that he's TG too? There's nothing like 22 years on the nonce wing vs 22 years in a women's prison with a chance to act out some more rapey fun with other inmates to concentrate the mind.




I wish people would do some very basic research into how the prison system works. 

Someone convicted of these kind of crimes would be kept in solitary confinement. 

Coming out as transgender would not get them transferred to an open wing of a women’s prison.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

Serious, but also funny...



> But of course, in the looking-glass world of transgender politics, this is not OK to talk to people who might take a different view of the world to your own. It is bad, and must be punished.
> 
> Never mind that Lucas had been an outspoken advocate of trans rights in general, and of Aimee Challenor in particular. Never mind that all she said she would do is meet some people and listen to them. None of that could mitigate her sins against transgenderism. The online mob quickly gathered to ensure Lucas was suitably chastised: she said she’d talk to witches, so she must be a witch! Burn her!





> (As is common here, lots of the abuse directed at Lucas came from men keen to tell women what to do, say and think. My favourite reprimand was this one:  “Sincere word of warning Caroline: the people you’re agreeing to have dialogue w/ may appear to be reasonable & well-meaning individuals – couldn’t be more untrue. #WPUK and its associates spread hateful rhetoric, & seek to deny #trans people their existing legal rights. Avoid.” That came from a person using the name Adrian Harrop and claiming to be an NHS doctor; I assume it’s a parody account because the alternative explanation – that an actual real person is so comically stupid and awful – is too troubling to contemplate.)





> Fittingly enough for this topsy-turvy world, the final sentence on Lucas was passed by none other than Aimee Challenor. In a statement on Twitter (of course) she announced she was resigning from the Green Party, saying that Lucas’ proposed meeting with WPUK was proof the Greens have a “significant transphobia problem”.
> 
> At around the same time, it emerged that Lucas had been added to Terfblocker,  an online widget that allows someone to ensure that they are never exposed to the hateful words of people who fail to follow trans orthodoxy, by automatically blocking them on Twitter. According to Lucas’ own account, Aimee Challoner helped run Terfblocker, helping to ensure the voices of thousands of women (and a few men) are kept quiet online.



How Caroline Lucas fell foul of the transgender thought police | Coffee House

ETA: It looks like Lucas has now been removed from Terfblocker (I did a search on her username), a case of AC coming to her senses or someone else involved telling her to grow the fuck up?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fine, alright then. Weird sexual fetishes don't make someone unsuitable for public office. Why do you think they do? What is it about you that thinks "oh dearie me I don't want the person cutting benefits and axing jobs to be into latex or enjoy shitting themselves that would be terrible".
> 
> I mean, adult baby fanatics would literally be an improvement on the actual violent criminals which inhabit Parliament.
> 
> You're right it wasn't constructive. But how constructive was it for you to repost that twitter thread basically saying that because someone is into weird stuff and their dad is guilty of heinous sexual violence against a child so they must be to? How is that useful? Why do you expect your view that people you consider to be sexually deviant are unsuitable for public office to be taken seriously? Would you take me seriously if I said someone shouldn't be an MP if they were Catholic or gay?



I'm sorry, I'm too busy with boring old dickhead stuff (you know, working, childcare, looking after an ill relative, YAWNSVILLE I know) to waste my precious free time by bothering my arse to answer your 'questions' that you don't really want to hear my answers to anyway. Perhaps you'll understand once you're a boring old dickhead too.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

I find this collective blocking thing almost like some sort of religious excommunication (and whilst this is a trans activist thing, I mean the phenomena more widely). It's akin to saying 'don't contaminate me', really shitty and a bit embarrassing.  And in this particular case, Caroline Lucas going from friend to enemy in a day is just as bad pre-teens excluding people from their friendship group - and telling everybody about it. Just dreadful.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I find this collective blocking thing almost like some sort of religious excommunication (and whilst this is a trans activist thing, I mean the phenomena more widely). It's akin to saying 'don't contaminate me', really shitty and a bit embarrassing.  And in this particular case, Caroline Lucas going from friend to enemy in a day is just as bad pre-teens excluding people from their friendship group - and telling everybody about it. Just dreadful.



Actually, Lucas has gone from friend to enemy, and back to friend again.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I'm sorry, I'm too busy with boring old dickhead stuff (you know, working, childcare, looking after an ill relative, YAWNSVILLE I know) to waste my precious free time by bothering my arse to answer your 'questions' that you don't really want to hear my answers to anyway. Perhaps you'll understand once you're a boring old dickhead too.



Fair enough, maybe I will!  And sorry to hear of all your burdens I hope you're having a good day. 

You are wrong though.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Actually, Lucas has gone from friend to enemy, and back to friend again.


'Unblock Lucas, but don't leave the gate open, we don't want any more escaping!'


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I find this collective blocking thing almost like some sort of religious excommunication (and whilst this is a trans activist thing, I mean the phenomena more widely). It's akin to saying 'don't contaminate me', really shitty and a bit embarrassing.  And in this particular case, Caroline Lucas going from friend to enemy in a day is just as bad pre-teens excluding people from their friendship group - and telling everybody about it. Just dreadful.



Yeah I'm not really sure what terfblocker is, hadn't heard of it until now, but agree it seems utterly bizarre, childish and pointless. Having said that I've also seen people suggesting that it's some sort of attack on Nazi-esque free speech which seems odd, I mean it's not like free speech involves the right to have your tweets read by people who don't want to read them. 

I sometimes feel like there's an attitude developing that Twitter is in some way more important than real life, and that restricting someone's ability to reach an audience on Twitter is somehow a violation of their rights. Maybe it is in some way, I dunno, maybe in a couple of decades we'll all tweet more than we talk to each other. The FBPE thing makes me think of that too, the way it's designed as a tactic to 'win' Twitter as if Brexit will be decided through discussions involving 140 characters or less.


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> We need as a society to get better at supporting women and girls who are victims of sexual abuse.



We need to prevent sexual abuse. Which is why there's so much concern about what little protection females have being eroded to accommodate a relatively tiny number of people born biologically male and raised and socialised as boys and men.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> We need to prevent sexual abuse. Which is why there's so much concern about what little protection females have being eroded to accommodate a relatively tiny number of people born biologically male and raised and socialised as boys and men.


And how would you propose preventing the greater proportion of sexual abuse which happens at the hands of people the victim knows or is related to? Yeh, prevent sexual abuse: but the volume of abuse you're talking about from trans people is a tiny percentage of that perpetrated by the cis.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

I find the fetish line of argument problematic.  

It's pretty essential, since second / third wave feminism to acknowledge that women's traditionally less kinky attitude to sex comes in part from the patriarchal expectation that nice girls don't do that kind of thing. Not that non kinky types are repressed, but that in the past many of them suppressed their libido.   How many of us read Nancy Friday's collections of female fantasies as a young woman and felt empowered to acknowledge our own?  Sex positivity is at the intrinsic to almost all contemporary feminist thought.  


BDSM is enormously popular with men and women.  Fifty shades of Grey - while scorned by the fetish community precisely because it disempowers the female submissive - became a phenomenal bestseller with a near exclusively female demographic. 
I used to do Ann Summers parties, and furry handcuffs, diamanté-handled crops, and nipple clamps were enormously popular.  

Many of the people, men and women, enthusiastically and consensualy engaging in bdsm will also have lives relating to the safeguarding of children.  They will be parents, teachers, doctors...  

And who gets to decide where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable types or levels of kink? Because I'd have thought the only dividing line is consent.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What are the other three?



Wouldn't you like to know?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Wouldn't you like to know?


Tory ukip English Democrats, that's my bet


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I find the fetish line of argument problematic.
> 
> It's pretty essential, since second / third wave feminism to acknowledge that women's traditionally less kinky attitude to sex comes in part from the patriarchal expectation that nice girls don't do that kind of thing. Not that non kinky types are repressed, but that in the past many of them suppressed their libido.   How many of us read Nancy Friday's collections of female fantasies as a young woman and felt empowered to acknowledge our own?  Sex positivity is at the intrinsic to almost all contemporary feminist thought.
> 
> ...


It occurs to me that two of the most renowned writers of bdsm/kink are female (Anais Nin, and the writer of "The Story of O", which is hardcore bdsm, and whose name escapes me).


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> They're not going to look after the environment, they haven't got a clue, useless wastes of skin all of them. Look at Greens in Ireland, Germany, Brighton etc.



I don't know if they're full on capable of running anything, but at least Caroline is a decent voice on the issues I've mentioned.  Green issues have now gone mainstream, but the Greens were pushing this stuff first and are certainly the biggest environmental voice.  As said, I wouldn't be against voting for them - but I'm not committed to any party and usually decide on the day depending on a mix of things.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Tory ukip English Democrats, that's my bet



That's certainly an interesting answer, but I'm not sure you've been reading my posts.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I don't know if they're full on capable of running anything,



They aren't, they tried in Brighton for 4 years & totally fucked-up.


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> And how would you propose preventing the greater proportion of sexual abuse which happens at the hands of people the victim knows or is related to? Yeh, prevent sexual abuse: but the volume of abuse you're talking about from trans people is a tiny percentage of that perpetrated by the cis.



I think the biggest concern is that cis men will claim trans status to commit such crimes, if the law becomes sufficiently lax to facilitate that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> I think the biggest concern is that cis men will claim trans status to commit such crimes, if the law becomes sufficiently lax to facilitate that.


Really? Trumping abuse at the hands of relatives, acquaintances and friends?


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Really? Trumping abuse at the hands of relatives, acquaintances and friends?



No, being far greater than the risk from trans people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> No, being far greater than the risk from trans people.


And to what extent do you believe this biggest concern justified?


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> And to what extent do you believe this biggest concern justified?



I think that's a question for women to decide.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 4, 2018)

Coming in a bit late on this but I've got to say I'm not convinced by the argument that just because something is forms part of someone's 'kink' it is beyond criticism and reading anything into kinks is akin to homophobia. I didn't find it convincing in the SWP splitters race play debate (lol) and I don't think it's fair to expect people not to raise an eyebrow when they find out that Green Party woman's kinks overlap so heavily with the forms of abuse her dad committed while living under the same roof. It might not be admissible in a court of law but the burden of proof is considerably lower when you're talking suitability for safeguarding roles etc


----------



## Smoking kills (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> It occurs to me that two of the most renowned writers of bdsm/kink are female (Anais Nin, and the writer of "The Story of O", which is hardcore bdsm, and whose name escapes me).


Sadism and Masochism are literally named after male writers tho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> I think that's a question for women to decide.


What, for them to tell you your opinion?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Smoking kills said:


> Sadism and Masochism are literally named after male writers tho.


By other men natch


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What, for them to tell you your opinion?



No, for them to decide who can come in to their spaces.

I've said many times across a number of these threads that I suspect the risks of exclusion outweigh the risks of inclusion, but that it's not my call.


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Fair enough, there's a lot of shit on both sides, that's obvious. But if one side starts from a pov that the *only* response to their demands is "ok whatever you say or you are a bigot" then I think it's fair to lay this one at their feet. On this thread it's been clear who has been hurling abuse, some of it pretty nasty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it was a far more specific claim which you made and then refused to substantiate.

To be clear, I'm not beefing, I'm just pointing out the contrast between what you demand of others and what you've done yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> No, for them to decide who can come in to their spaces.
> 
> I've said many times across a number of Therese threads that I suspect the risks of exclusion outweigh the risks of inclusion, but that it's not my call.


That's got nothing to do with my question


----------



## trashpony (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> And who gets to decide where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable types or levels of kink? Because I'd have thought the only dividing line is consent.


Some people (including Aimee Challenor's mother) think that children are capable of consent.


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> That's got nothing to do with my question



If your question is, effectively: 'to what extent do think women's fears that cis men will take advantage of changing laws and societal attitudes to abuse women reflect a real risk', then I'd say: 'to a reasonable extent.'  If your question is something else, you'll need to make it clearer.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Some people (including Aimee Challenor's mother) think that children are capable of consent.


Ok, but the law is very clear on that not being the case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> If your question is, effectively: 'to what extent do think women's fears that cis men will take advantage of changing laws and societal attitudes to abuse women reflect a real risk', then I'd say: 'to a reasonable extent.'  If your question is something else, you'll need to make it clearer.


I'm at a loss to see why a simple clear question required so much effort to get a relevant answer out of you


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Some people (including Aimee Challenor's mother) think that children are capable of consent.



If true, that's scary, do you have a source/link for that?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Ok, but the law is very clear on that not being the case.


It is now.  But when people who think that children are capable of consenting are close to the people who are involved in pushing legal change, I think it demands a good deal of scrutiny.


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Some people (including Aimee Challenor's mother) think that children are capable of consent.


Is there any reason why the views of Aimee Challenor's mother are of particular relevance here?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 4, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> If true, that's scary, do you have a source/link for that?


Tina Challenor has referred to the victim as a 'little slut' in a tweet. I can find it for you but I'm sure I'm not the only person on this thread who has seen the revolting things she's written about her husband's child rape and torture victim


----------



## trashpony (Sep 4, 2018)

andysays said:


> Is there any reason why the views of Aimee Challenor's mother are of particular relevance here?


Aimee said she needed to be left alone after her dad's sentencing to care for her disabled mother. Her disabled mother who stood up in court and accused the victim of being a lying fantasist and of being a little slut. When she was a 10 year old child. 

In addition, Tina (as well as David) was convicted of animal cruelty in 2015 which means she was unable to stand as a Green Party councillor in 2018 - because she had a 3 month suspended sentence. She stood anyway. And David Challenor was also her election agent.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> It is now.  But when people who think that children are capable of consenting are close to the people who are involved in pushing legal change, I think it demands a good deal of scrutiny.


There is no political party in the land that would countenance lowering the age of consent to include children having sex with adults.  It's not part of trans activism, even at the more extreme end.   You seem to be linking paedophilia with the trans agenda, with no evidence other than the vile bollocks spewed by some really fucked up adults and a very young person who may or may not have been subject to the most awful sexual abuse, and who - in their teens - has courted controversy online with some sexually provocative posturing.  

ACshould never have been given a position of influence within the GP. She's too young, she doesn't seem very bright and she employed an election agent who'd been charged with the most vile of offenses.  I agree with that.  And she herself may turn out to have caused harm - though I see no evidence has been dug up yet, though I suspect it's not through want of trying.  But that doesn't mean that her trans status is what made her in appropriate, and it doesn't mean TRA want to allow paedophilia.


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Aimee said she needed to be left alone after her dad's sentencing to care for her disabled mother. Her disabled mother who stood up in court and accused the victim of being a lying fantasist and of being a little slut. When she was a 10 year old child.
> 
> In addition, Tina (as well as David) was convicted of animal cruelty in 2015 which means she was unable to stand as a Green Party councillor in 2018 - because she had a 3 month suspended sentence. She stood anyway. And David Challenor was also her election agent.


All of that is to be condemned,  and I do, but that's just more evidence of the utter disfunctionality of AC's family background.
I was just wondering if she was actively campaigning for a change in the law regarding age of consent, given the accusations that the other Challenors are being accused of actively and deliberately campaigning to weaken legal protections against child abuse, something which I still haven't seen any actual evidence for here.
I can't see that there's much point in heaping up yet more examples of cuntishness when that's already been well demonstrated.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Sometimes the discussion about tg stuff does seem to focus too much on individual personalities

Like when the telegraph produced hitler's dietary preference as an argument against vegetarianism

Like when co-op did his best to impose transgenderism on dc


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> In addition, Tina (as well as David) was convicted of animal cruelty in 2015 which means she was unable to stand as a Green Party councillor in 2018 - because she had a 3 month suspended sentence. She stood anyway. And David Challenor was also her election agent.



I did a quick google search on this animal cruelty conviction, but couldn't find anything. 

Where are you getting this from? 

Not twitter, I hope.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> We need to prevent sexual abuse. Which is why there's so much concern about what little protection females have being eroded to accommodate a relatively tiny number of people born biologically male and raised and socialised as boys and men.



You think gender segregated bathrooms are a protection against sexual abuse? 

As Pickers has pointed out the vast majority of sexual abuse is committed by people known to victims. Not social outcasts in dark alley ways. People known to victims who are often viewed as 'respectable' who get themselves into positions of power or access. 

You know what's *really* gender segregated? The Catholic Church. 

Guess what, all the bathrooms at my uni are now gender neutral. I fucking hate it to be honest with you, I don't like shitting in the same room as other blokes but at least I'm used to that. But it's not causing an increase in sexual assaults. There are sexual assaults on campus but they're not happening in brightly lit bathrooms with lots of other people around.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> I did a quick google search on this animal cruelty conviction, but couldn't find anything.
> 
> Where are you getting this from?
> 
> Not twitter, I hope.


I've seen the court report on TC.  The charge broadly seemed to amount to having a fucktonne of animals in a tiny house and not looking after them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I've seen the court report on TC.  The charge broadly seemed to amount to having a fucktonne of animals in a tiny house and not looking after them.


Surely the not looking after them is the animal cruelty/abuse? Come on. That's what it is for everyone else. Neglect, poor judgement, leading to suffering. Not every case of AC  has to be purposeful torture. It comes in many guises.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> You think gender segregated bathrooms are a protection against sexual abuse?
> 
> As Pickers has pointed out the vast majority of sexual abuse is committed by people known to victims. Not social outcasts in dark alley ways. People known to victims who are often viewed as 'respectable' who get themselves into positions of power or access.
> 
> ...


Pickers is not Pickman's model


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely the not looking after them is the animal abuse? Come on.


I wasn't trying to imply that the conviction was undeserved.  Sounds terrible.  Just that it wasn't "Croydon cat ripper" territory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I wasn't trying to imply that the conviction was undeserved.  Sounds terrible.  Just that it wasn't "Croydon cat ripper" territory.


I suppose we should be relieved dc wasn't using them for his own perverted ends


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I suppose we should be relieved dc wasn't using them for his own perverted ends


Well yes.  I think the type of animal abuse is relevant to understanding more about the type of home AC grew up in.   And potentially to understanding whether TC is a Rose West type, or "just" a nasty piece of work.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I wasn't trying to imply that the conviction was undeserved.  Sounds terrible.  Just that it wasn't "Croydon cat ripper" territory.


Yeah..I know...see my edit.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Tina Challenor has referred to the victim as a 'little slut' in a tweet. I can find it for you but I'm sure I'm not the only person on this thread who has seen the revolting things she's written about her husband's child rape and torture victim



You're the only person who has mentioned it. Given co-ops deceitful bullshit, I'm sure you'll indulge us with evidence of your claims.

Not that anything AC's mother says means AC is a paedophile.

Not that DC's wife blaming the child or calling her a slut means that she was involved in any way in the abuse either, come to that. Shitty behaviour sure. Indicative of awful attitudes. But also quite possibly borne of denial, or an inability to process what her husband has done. 

Urban is one of the few bits of the Internet that I like because people don't tend to engage in guilt by association. I don't really like all this "sins of the father" shite to be honest.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 4, 2018)

There's far too many claims being made, without links and/or sources to back them up, it's becoming very uncomfortable, TBH.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

SpineyNorman said:


> Coming in a bit late on this but I've got to say I'm not convinced by the argument that just because something is forms part of someone's 'kink' it is beyond criticism and reading anything into kinks is akin to homophobia. I didn't find it convincing in the SWP splitters race play debate (lol) and I don't think it's fair to expect people not to raise an eyebrow when they find out that Green Party woman's kinks overlap so heavily with the forms of abuse her dad committed while living under the same roof. It might not be admissible in a court of law but the burden of proof is considerably lower when you're talking suitability for safeguarding roles etc



No one's saying you can't raise an eyebrow. I'm not saying you can't react to it or criticise it! But it's a whole jump beyond that to say that a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> There's far too many claims being made, without links and/or sources to back them up, it's becoming very uncomfortable, TBH.


Yeh it's all a bit billie piper for me


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm at a loss to see why a simple clear question required so much effort to get a relevant answer out of you



There's a lot you're at a loss to see.


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> No one's saying you can't raise an eyebrow. I'm not saying you can't react to it or criticise it! But it's a whole jump beyond that to say that a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent.



Has anyone claimed that, then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> There's a lot you're at a loss to see.


Yes. A good man knows his limitations, as Harry Callahan said, and I know mine.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

nyxx said:


> I wish people would do some very basic research into how the prison system works.
> 
> Someone convicted of these kind of crimes would be kept in solitary confinement.
> 
> Coming out as transgender would not get them transferred to an open wing of a women’s prison.



Wait - you're claiming that someone convicted of paedophile rape is automatically kept in solitary confinement for the whole of their sentence? In this case 22 years? 

It sounds like you might be the one who needs to do some "very basic research" into how the prison system works. For a start any sc longer than 42 days requires the authorisation of the Secretary of State.

You're talking twaddle.


----------



## xenon (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> No one's saying you can't raise an eyebrow. I'm not saying you can't react to it or criticise it! But it's a whole jump beyond that to say that a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent.



No one has said that though.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

The sometime elephant in the room, is that all the people on this thread who are most critical of Aimee Challenor, are also some of the most vehement posters against trans inclusion, on other threads.  

But I fail to see any strong link between this case and the GRC.


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> The sometime elephant in the room, is that all the people on this thread who are most critical of Aimee Challenor, are also some of the most vehement posters against trans inclusion, on other threads.
> 
> But I fail to see any strong link between this case and the GRC.


That's what I find most disturbing and disappointing about much of this thread, that for some posters this issue is merely a proxy for the wider Trans/TERF argument, and that they seem to be happy to smear this admittedly unpleasant and unsympathetic individual with guilt by association as if that somehow demonstrates something about trans people or trans rights in general.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 4, 2018)

I feel sorry for AC. I'm not going to speculate too much about her childhood but I think it's safe to say it wasn't exactly perfect given who her dad was. I don't see any evidence that she was involved in any abuse and until I do will assume she's innocent of that. I think she's a very damaged individual.

But none of that detracts from the fact that it was utterly irresponsible of the greens to allow her to get so high up in the party and someone somewhere needs to be asked some serious questions about how this was allowed to happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I find the fetish line of argument problematic.
> 
> It's pretty essential, since second / third wave feminism to acknowledge that women's traditionally less kinky attitude to sex comes in part from the patriarchal expectation that nice girls don't do that kind of thing. Not that non kinky types are repressed, but that in the past many of them suppressed their libido.   How many of us read Nancy Friday's collections of female fantasies as a young woman and felt empowered to acknowledge our own?  Sex positivity is at the intrinsic to almost all contemporary feminist thought.
> 
> ...



Well said. I didn't have the time to expand earlier, but I wanted to say similar things, particularly the bit in bold. Things become pathologised with technical, medical-sounding terms like paraphilia, but what is sexy underwear if not an example of paraphilia. Fetish is far more widespread and 'normal' than is sometimes allowed: _your fetish is paraphilia and perversion and makes you someone to distrust; I don't even recognise my fetish as it is so normalised within me and my life that I just don't see that this is what it is_.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2018)

andysays said:


> That's what I find most disturbing and disappointing about much of this thread, that for some posters this issue is merely a proxy for the wider Trans/TERF argument, and that they seem to be happy to smear this admittedly unpleasant and unsympathetic individual with guilt by association as if that somehow demonstrates something about trans people or trans rights in general.



Like this isn't the precise opposite of what posters who have swallowed the tg agenda are doing. Defend, minimise, ignore, disparage, smear anyone who says, 'hang on'. I've had a "pro-trans" poster implying that I'm a paedophile.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think she's a very damaged individual.


 Would you share why you think that?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 4, 2018)

Anyway, getting back to the Green Party, it seems that DC's arrest was reported by AC to the Green Party (though not through the proper channels) but fuck all was done about it:

From Green Party Women facebook: 

Green Party Women:
"In its support of Aimee the Party should have made clear that she was in care/supported independent living and therefore not living at home during the period the police have stated the crimes took place. Aimee was similarly not living at home when her father was charged in November 2016.

"However, what little information Aimee had about the charges she shared with the Party at that time, as is now fully apparent. We call for any subsequent statements by the Party to publicly acknowledge this. How this information was not retained by the Party will hopefully become clear & lessons learnt in the investigation.

from a comment by Green Party Women:
"It was reported to one of the External Communications Coordinators who was elected like Judy onto GPEx who then reported it to the GPEW press team in Nov 2016."


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Like this isn't the precise opposite of what posters who have swallowed the tg agenda are doing. Defend, minimise, ignore, disparage, smear anyone who says, 'hang on'. I've had a "pro-trans" poster implying that I'm a paedophile.


You weren't saying hang on when you said dc was trans because you thought he fitted the stonewall def.


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Like this isn't the precise opposite of what posters who have swallowed the tg agenda are doing. Defend, minimise, ignore, disparage, smear anyone who says, 'hang on'. I've had a "pro-trans" poster implying that I'm a paedophile.


No you haven't, you twit...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

andysays said:


> No you haven't, you twit...


Hold on, I think that's just the start of a larger smear or skidmark


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 4, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Would you share why you think that?


No


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

SpineyNorman said:


> No



 Right.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Like this isn't the precise opposite of what posters who have swallowed the tg agenda are doing. Defend, minimise, ignore, disparage, smear anyone who says, 'hang on'. I've had a "pro-trans" poster implying that I'm a paedophile.


If you see a minority group being criticised because of the actions of someone not even in that minority group, it's pretty important to step in and intervene, in my book.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> There is no political party in the land that would countenance lowering the age of consent to include children having sex with adults.  It's not part of trans activism, even at the more extreme end.   You seem to be linking paedophilia with the trans agenda, with no evidence other than the vile bollocks spewed by some really fucked up adults and a very young person who may or may not have been subject to the most awful sexual abuse, and who - in their teens - has courted controversy online with some sexually provocative posturing.
> 
> ACshould never have been given a position of influence within the GP. She's too young, she doesn't seem very bright and she employed an election agent who'd been charged with the most vile of offenses.  I agree with that.  And she herself may turn out to have caused harm - though I see no evidence has been dug up yet, though I suspect it's not through want of trying.  But that doesn't mean that her trans status is what made her in appropriate, and it doesn't mean TRA want to allow paedophilia.


I'm not 'linking paedophilia with the trans agenda - that's a fucking horrible thing to say. I think AC is a very damaged young person who has grown up in a really toxic and abusive household. Why you would extrapolate that to make broader accusations against trans people is beyond me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 4, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Right.


It's just a general impression I get from what I know and can deduce about her behaviour and background. Not a lot else to say really


----------



## trashpony (Sep 4, 2018)

Here's the tweet from Tina. Just to reiterate, I have never once said or even implied that Aimee Challenor is a paedophile and I don't believe she is. I have questioned her fitness for office - I think she's a very damaged person who has grown up in a horrible home with horrible parents. That's all


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> You think gender segregated bathrooms are a protection against sexual abuse?



Of course they are, you moron.

swimming pool changing room pervert - Google Search


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

How anyone else could imagine a 10 year old as a ''slut' is unfathomable regardless of the fear Tina may have felt after DC was charged and whatever reasoning he gave her for that. There is poor judgement on many levels in this family and case.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 4, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> Of course they are, you moron.
> 
> swimming pool changing room pervert - Google Search



Unisex changing rooms put women at risk of sexual assault, data reveals
The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal. 	 				 				 				 					 				 				 			 				 		
The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the _Sunday Times_, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.
Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.
What’s more, two thirds of all sexual attacks at leisure centres and public swimming pools take place in unisex changing rooms.
Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.
In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.
Unisex facilities account for less than half the changing areas across the UK, but the number is on the rise - doing away with separate male and female changing rooms and toilets is seen as a way to cut staff costs and better cater for transgender people.​


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I'm not 'linking paedophilia with the trans agenda - that's a fucking horrible thing to say. I think AC is a very damaged young person who has grown up in a really toxic and abusive household. Why you would extrapolate that to make broader accusations against trans people is beyond me.


The link was originally made that someone politically advocating for trans rights is inappropriate and they pose a safeguarding threat, because their parent is a paedophile. That we can't trust that they simply have their stated pro trans agenda, and 

Then when anti trans campaigners dug up a teenager's repost of a slightly cheeky gun safety campaign, urbanites with history of opposing trans rights were quick to condemn it as evidence of moral turpitude, going silent when the age and context of the post was discovered.	Now today, reports that AC has previously posted about Bronies - a trendy and quite open youth-and-pop-culture kink, we once again have vocal anti trans rights posters leaping to condem AC because of its supposed paedophilia overtones, and again saying that it makes her unfit for office on safeguarding grounds.  

The voices rushing to condemn AC over and over are those already committed against trans rights, which suggests that her trans status is in some way relevant.  The method repeatedly being used to attack her, is repeated suggestions that she herself is pro-paedophilia.  

It's all here.  


AC has done one thing wrong (twice), fudging her dad's identity on the GP forms.  As far as we know, as far as the legions of mumsnetters have been able to dig up, that's it.  She deserves to be dropped, but it's fuck all to do with her being a transwoman, and attempts to link her to paedophilia seem like certain people WANT that to happen.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 4, 2018)

It's not just Bronies though, she herself was posting on an adult baby forum. I don't care if it's kink shaming  to find someone getting sexual kicks from dressing as/pretending to be/treating another adult like a baby really disturbing and evidence of basic wrong un'ness. And the 'advocating for trans rights' was specifically her and her father pushing for trans women to be allowed to be girl guide leaders. DC was already a scout leader. He was trying to break boundaries that would give him and people like him easier access to young girls. AC was potentially being abused by DC and/or DCs friends, certainly groomed to think all this is normal and I stand by my assertion that all of that combined makes her deeply unsuitable to be in a position of influencing policy on such things as sex protected segregation.


----------



## Rebelda (Sep 4, 2018)

I don't care that AC is trans and don't think she's a paedophile. I also don't think it's safe for someone in (afaict, happy to be corrected) close contact - presumably even taking advice considering DC's role - with people who hold views and perpetrate abuse like her parents' to be allowed to run for political office. Potential access to power with those snake tongues whispering in your ear? Hell no. GP need/ed to be all over it. 

What becomes tricky to my mind is...AC is I (I think fairly) assume very damaged by her upbringing. She shouldn't have been allowed to reach the heights (lol) of the GP she did but that's not to say all victims of abuse must be barred from politics. So how should this stuff be monitored? It's not as simple as DBS checking is it? In this case it would have been a start, sure, but if she hadn't made DC her advisor or whatever - then what?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 4, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Here's the tweet from Tina. Just to reiterate, I have never once said or even implied that Aimee Challenor is a paedophile and I don't believe she is. I have questioned her fitness for office - I think she's a very damaged person who has grown up in a horrible home with horrible parents. That's all


And TC also stood as a Green Party councillor in 2018 - with DC as election agent - and also branch membership secretary.  Is the Green Party incapable of even doing a quick check of its candidates social media?  Were no other GP members aware of those posts?


----------



## Rebelda (Sep 4, 2018)

Also, I'm finding the whole AC/DC thing confusing


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Sep 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> The link was originally made that someone politically advocating for trans rights is inappropriate and they pose a safeguarding threat, because their parent is a paedophile....



AC clearly has a difficult background, brought up for most of her life in the same household as a predatory child abuser.  That predatory child abuser was a cross dresser.  Some in the trans advocacy movement (incl. Stonewall) suggest that cross dressers come under the trans umbrella.

AC appointed that person to a position of responsibility, and was happy to be associated with them, despite knowing what they were accused of.
AC clearly didnt believe those allegations, but didn't see the political risk in her actions regardless of whether they were true or not.

AC, through the Green Party, is advising Stonewall on safeguarding procedures including consultation on the GRA.
Lots of people are concerned that self-id will undermine the safety of women and young female (assigned at birth) people.
They are particularly concerned that creepy rapey men will use self-id to gain access to female adults and children for the express purpose of sexually assaulting them.

AC has blocked 10K people through a tool she developed to restrict the communication power of people who have been trying to raise these issues.

*****
Its not because she is a transwoman, its not because she is advocating for trans rights.  Its because she is advocating for trans rights in a manner that many people think endangers women and girls.  She has a known history of being naive when it comes to serious child sexual abuse, and of taking actions which silence people - mainly women - who are pointing out the potential dangers of the course of action that she promotes.

Survivors can be very important in developing policy, but only after they have processed the trauma.  Up until a few weeks ago, DC still had considerable psychological power over AC, and since then she has been in the middle of a shitstorm.  She has had no time to process it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2018)

Rebelda said:


> Also, I'm finding the whole AC/DC thing confusing


Yes..I also just wondered after reading my own post why I am talking about TC/topcat the cartoon cat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

Rebelda said:


> Also, I'm finding the whole AC/DC thing confusing


You're on the highway to hell


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> AC clearly has a difficult background, brought up for most of her life in the same household as a predatory child abuser.  That predatory child abuser was a cross dresser.  Some in the trans advocacy movement (incl. Stonewall) suggest that cross dressers come under the trans umbrella.
> 
> AC appointed that person to a position of responsibility, and was happy to be associated with them, despite knowing what they were accused of.
> AC clearly didnt believe those allegations, but didn't see the political risk in her actions regardless of whether they were true or not.
> ...


You don't seem to have read the bit about self id in the stonewall def, it's not oh there's a cross-dresser they must be trans


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 4, 2018)

weepiper said:


> It's not just Bronies though, she herself was posting on an adult baby forum. I don't care if it's kink shaming  to find someone getting sexual kicks from dressing as/pretending to be/treating another adult like a baby really disturbing and evidence of basic wrong un'ness. And the 'advocating for trans rights' was specifically her and her father pushing for trans women to be allowed to be girl guide leaders. DC was already a scout leader. He was trying to break boundaries that would give him and people like him easier access to young girls. AC was potentially being abused by DC and/or DCs friends, certainly groomed to think all this is normal and I stand by my assertion that all of that combined makes her deeply unsuitable to be in a position of influencing policy on such things as sex protected segregation.


Run through for me why trans women shouldn't be allowed to be guide leaders?   Given that scouts have both male and female children and male and female leaders?

Or that mixed groups of school children go on overnight trips with male and female teachers.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Sep 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't seem to have read the bit about self id in the stonewall def, it's not oh there's a cross-dresser they must be trans



From the stonewall definition

"
*TRANS*
An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois."

DC dressed in clothes traditionally associated with females and used a traditionally feminine name of "Lucy" while doing this.

Is DC a cross dresser?  
Are they only a cross dresser if they say "I am a cross dresser"?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Like this isn't the precise opposite of what posters who have swallowed the tg agenda are doing. Defend, minimise, ignore, disparage, smear anyone who says, 'hang on'. I've had a "pro-trans" poster implying that I'm a paedophile.



Co-op has probably got me on ignore by now but just for the record, I don't think they are a paedo. But if I were to think like co-op does then I would have to conclude that co-op is an abuser:



co-op said:


> No regret, no reflection, no attempt to understand, just accuse, accuse, accuse. "I haven't done anything wrong, it's everyone else" - this is what abusers say.



Co-op is clear about having no regrets about what they say, does not reflect on criticism from others, makes no attempt to understand anyone else, repeats smears and accusations and is convinced they have done nothing wrong, it's all those TRA people 

So by Co-op's definition they would indeed be an abuser. But obviously I don't think like that and am not saying that. 

ALTHOUGH 



co-op said:


> If it's the latter of course I would withdraw the accusation but JB hasn't denied it that I have seen.



Shit guys. I don't see co-op denying that they are a paedo.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> Has anyone claimed that, then?





xenon said:


> No one has said that though.



Plenty of people have implied that on the thread


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Plenty of people have implied that on the thread



Which posts, specifically.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> Of course they are, you moron.
> 
> swimming pool changing room pervert - Google Search



I said bathrooms. Also, it's very much possible to be sexually assaulted in a gender segregated changing room.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> Which posts, specifically.



Oh fuck off mate, read the thread. I've been fairly patient with going back and quoting stuff, particularly in co-ops case.


----------



## Athos (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh fuck off mate, read the thread. I've been fairly patient with going back and quoting stuff, particularly in co-ops case.



I've read it. I can't find what you're referring to.  Are  you able to point to any examples?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 4, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I said bathrooms. Also, it's very much possible to be sexually assaulted in a gender segregated changing room.


Of course its very much possible, but stats show just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment at public swimming pools in the UK are about incidents in unisex facilities while less than half of changing areas are unisex.  See the link in my post #368


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> I've read it. I can't find what you're referring to.  Are  you able to point to any examples?



 lazy tool...



weepiper said:


> It's not just Bronies though, she herself was posting on an adult baby forum. I don't care if it's kink shaming  to find someone getting sexual kicks from dressing as/pretending to be/treating another adult like a baby really disturbing and evidence of basic wrong un'ness.





weepiper said:


> Mm.
> 
> 
> 
> this is not a stable young person. The Green Party can't safeguard for toffee, clearly






Edie said:


> Get this man away from children.





co-op said:


> I completely agree that the kind of prophet-of-kink types who flaunt their 'openness' about sexuality are often little more than abusers on a confidence trick.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 4, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Of course its very much possible, but stats show just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment at public swimming pools in the UK are about incidents in unisex facilities while less than half of changing areas are unisex.  See the link in my post #368



Fair enough. Although I would expect unreported incidences of sexual assault in segregated changing rooms, particularly male ones, to be much higher.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2018)

The thing I'd really focus on in this mess is the terfblocker. That is antipolitics from a politician, and deeply antidemocratic, and the Greens should be ashamed of themselves for allowing and facilitating that kind of measure. It is designed to shut down debate and exacerbate the internet's already strong tendency to provide us with reflections of ourselves, isolating ourselves from the arguments of those who would disagree. The very idea is rotten to its core. You are a politician on Twitter? Well then, you damn well open yourself up to hear from everyone. Don't want to do that? Don't be a damn politician.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 5, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> From the stonewall definition
> 
> "
> *TRANS*
> ...


I know it's a long thread but I think I went through this yesterday. 

Trans is an umbrella term representing the T in LGBTQ+.  As your quote shows it includes a whole stack of groups, only one of which is transgender.  Another is crossdressers.  Both are "trans" groups.  However, crossdressers are not transgender.  When Stonewall campaigns for transgender people to be able to self ID, they are not campaigning for everyone under the trans umbrella to have that. It would be weird, since overwhelmingly, most groups included under the T, don't want that.  

It's unfortunate that "trans" gets used as a short form of the word transgender.   If I were stonewall I'd want to do something about that.


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> lazy tool...


 None of which accounts to an assertion that "a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent."


----------



## xenon (Sep 5, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Plenty of people have implied that on the thread


 I don’t trust your inferring abilities. I’m saying you are talking shit.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> None of which accounts to an assertion that "a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent."





SpackleFrog said:


> Plenty of people have implied that on the thread



I didn't say asserted, I said implied.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 5, 2018)

xenon said:


> I don’t trust your inferring abilities. I’m saying you are talking shit.



Well, idgaf. Night!


----------



## xenon (Sep 5, 2018)

Yeah well whatever. Shame I thought you were better than this.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Sep 5, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Trans is an umbrella term representing the T in LGBTQ+.  As your quote shows it includes a whole stack of groups, only one of which is transgender.  Another is crossdressers.  Both are "trans" groups.  However, crossdressers are not transgender.  When Stonewall campaigns for transgender people to e able to self ID, they are not campaigning for everyone under the trans umbrella to have that.






Well, I'm not really sure its that clear.

Yes, there is "legal" self-ID - changing passports, birth certs etc, but there is also social self-ID.

Eddie Izzard has written in his autobiography about how he was bullied by teen girls for using a womens toilet*....which he had no right to be in. * The clear implication was that these cigarette smoking, school skipping harlots were completely out of order and he was oh so brave and strong for standing up to them.

At the moment, someone who had a GRC would not be changing back into their male persona...or if they were, they would not be using the womens toilets.  But in future?  What checks are there that a cross dresser (like Izzard) doesnt go and get a GRC so that the next time that young girls question them about why they are in a secluded space that is reserved for women they can produce it with a flourish.

You say Stonewall are not campaigning for that, fair enough, but how are they preventing it?

Eddie Izzard on beating the bullies and sorting his sexuality


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> I didn't say asserted, I said implied.



You didn't say "implied", you originally said "say." Here's the full quote:

"But it's a whole jump beyond that to *say* that a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent." (My emphasis)

You've now changed that to implied, but the posts you quoted don't imply any such thing.  It's a straw man.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> You didn't say "implied", you originally said "say." Here's the full quote:
> 
> "But it's a whole jump beyond that to *say* that a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent." (My emphasis)
> 
> You've now changed that to implied, but the posts you quoted don't imply any such thing.  It's a straw man.



Give over! They all imply exactly that - one of them even says that baby fetishes are "evidence of basic wrong 'unness."


----------



## Athos (Sep 5, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Give over! They all imply exactly that - one of them even says that baby fetishes are "evidence of basic wrong 'unness."



We can agree to disagree.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 5, 2018)

Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?

How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?
> 
> How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?


I generally hold to a bog standard 'consenting adults' line - providing that 'consent' is real and not just a by product of other power imbalances. But there's no contradiction to thinking that, whilst it's still up to consenting adults, 'gee, that's really fucked up'.


----------



## andysays (Sep 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?
> 
> How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?


I think the argument is (or should be) more about whether someone who enjoys that behaviour as consensual activity can or should be banned from taking part in political activity of whatever sort.

As long as they aren't actually campaigning for acts of non-consensual and/or underage sex acts to be made legal (and no one has demonstrated that anyone in the current case has done that), I'd be wary about banning them simply because they like doing stuff which you, me and many other people find distasteful or even 'really fucked up'.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 5, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I generally hold to a bog standard 'consenting adults' line - providing that 'consent' is real and not just a by product of other power imbalances. But there's no contradiction to thinking that, whilst it's still up to consenting adults, 'gee, that's really fucked up'.



That is true. But politically speaking I neither want an adult baby fetishist speaking on the dissmantling of safeguarding and gatekeeping for women and children. Nor do I want someone who wanks off to the thought of fucking children. Or who gets off on "child sex dolls".

Because all those are examples of consenting adult behaviour and/or do not use actual real life kids. Still dodgy as fuck though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I generally hold to a bog standard 'consenting adults' line - providing that 'consent' is real and not just a by product of other power imbalances. But there's no contradiction to thinking that, whilst it's still up to consenting adults, 'gee, that's really fucked up'.


i'm sure i'm not alone when i think the people in the spanner case should have had every right to have whatever they like done to their bodies, that it's not the place of the state to police consenting adults acting in private. and if it's not the place of the state to govern sexual mores between consenting adults, then - as you say - it may be fucked up, but who's to judge? how do you identify this rather peculiar practice as beyond the pale, undermining participants' ability to work in certain fields because of their bedroom behaviour? how about dressing up in school uniforms?


----------



## Santino (Sep 5, 2018)

There are lots of kind of behaviours and beliefs that you wouldn't want people to do/have that you nonetheless would find it difficult to regulate in a formal way.

For example, you wouldn't want someone who didn't understand or believe certain basic scientific facts to be in certain positions of authority, but it would be very difficult to codify that in a rule, or 'ban' them from those positions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2018)

It's a dangerous path to go down to say that you think something should be legal (involving consenting adults and with no victim, so you can't think of any reason why it should be illegal), but that you nonetheless judge those who do it in such away that you would want to exclude them from certain other areas of life. We're straying into Section 28 territory here.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 5, 2018)

andysays said:


> I think the argument is (or should be) more about whether someone who enjoys that behaviour as consensual activity can or should be banned from taking part in political activity of whatever sort.
> 
> As long as they aren't actually campaigning for acts of non-consensual and/or underage sex acts to be made legal (and no one has demonstrated that anyone in the current case has done that), I'd be wary about banning them simply because they like doing stuff which you, me and many other people find distasteful or even 'really fucked up'.


I don't think its about the state or organisations banning people from doing certain things or occupying political positions - but more that such activity isn't above question when it is relevant to the issues a politician is campaigning on (eg I I would say  anything that might impact on safeguarding) especially when said a politician is open or semi-open about their activity (ie has social media accounts where they post pictures of themselves in nappies or whatever).


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> That is true. But politically speaking I neither want an adult baby fetishist speaking on the dissmantling of safeguarding and gatekeeping for women and children. Nor do I want someone who wanks off to the thought of fucking children. Or who gets off on "child sex dolls".
> 
> Because all those are examples of consenting adult behaviour and/or do not use actual real life kids. Still dodgy as fuck though.


 Neither do I (technically, I'm not sure whether the underlined is what people with this fetish actually think 'in the moment' - I really don't know). But to clarify, that's something I _literally wouldn't want as a personal subjective position_. I've got plenty of similar personal reactions to people I wouldn't want to be anywhere near me, my (imaginary) kids etc. More than happy to admit to that. However making that into public policy or incorporating it into safeguarding is a different matter.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Sep 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?
> 
> How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?




While there will be exceptions, adult baby fetishism isn’t really about the fucking.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a dangerous path to go down to say that you think something should be legal (involving consenting adults and with no victim, so you can't think of any reason why it should be illegal), but that you nonetheless judge those who do it in such away that you would want to exclude them from certain other areas of life. We're straying into Section 28 territory here.


Rather depends what you mean by 'judge'. We judge on a routine basis, in our interactions with people, our discussions of topics. 'Judge' as in taking a formal public positon, from which certain actions and rules follow is very different (and something I'd agree with you on).


----------



## kebabking (Sep 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> ... how about dressing up in school uniforms?



perhaps it just depends on context - Mr and Mrs Bloggs, who are Architects/Librarians/garage mechanics/civil servants, its all just consenting adults and who cares. Mr and Mrs Jones, and Mr Jones is a School Teacher in a sixth form - its certainly straying well into uncomfortable territory.

for me, personally, yes, the particulars of this individual case take it well beyond 'eewww', and well into 'fuck off to the other side of fuck, and when you get there fuck off some more' territory. i'm very happy for the Green Party to take that as an indication of my attiude to this individual candidate, and as a wider view of the kind of people they select as candidates..


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Sep 5, 2018)

SheilaNaGig said:


> While there will be exceptions, adult baby fetishism isn’t really about the fucking.






> *But it has nothing to do with children. I want to make sure we’re making that very clear. This is about wanting to act like or be children, not wanting to be with children, correct?*
> Absolutely. It has nothing to do with actual children. The gratification comes from the objects or the role play and the persons themselves “being” the child. From a fetish standpoint it could be like… being treated as a child can be a degrading thing. If someone has a sexual response to being degraded, then being treated as an infant can be very embarrassing.
> 
> *Tell me about the non-fetish side of it.*
> For people who are into it for non-sexual reasons, it’s more of an emotional response rather than a sexual stimulus. There’s a comforting aspect for them. A lot of the things we offer are just that — they’re meant to be comforting. They’re meant to be something innocent. So, as far as these people go, there are two real segments in that crowd: There are people who are on the autism spectrum, and then those who are not but who still find it comforting. People who are autistic or more specifically have Asperger syndrome, often times have social anxiety, and products like our can offer a security blanket of sorts which help them deal with stress or anxiety. For those who aren’t autistic, it can also be a way for them to forget about their cares — to be a stress release. It really is as simple as that for a lot of people. The biggest thing as far as stress relief comes from the actual product themselves. It’s basically an accessory to the moment, whether it be the diapers or anything else that we have. And some people who are incontinent buy our products because they remove that stigma for them. It brings back some of the innocence from childhood rather than being a medical product or rather than being an overtly fetish product. It’s also very personal for different people. I could probably give you a thousand different answers and I still wouldn’t cover all of them.



Inside The Misunderstood World Of Adult Baby Diaper Lovers





> Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding[12] but infantilism involves role-playing exclusively with other adults;[13] infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any form of child sexual abuse.[14] Sexologist Gloria Brame states that "...infantilists who recognize and accept their sexuality - and its possible roots in infantile trauma - tend to be acutely protective of real children."[7]
> 
> John Money states that diaper fetishists may be sexually attracted to diaper-wearing babies, a condition he calls nepiophilia, but describes infantilism as autonepiophilia in which the individual desires to be and impersonate a baby and does not desire an infant as a sexual partner.[34]



Paraphilic infantilism - Wikipedia


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

kebabking said:


> perhaps it just depends on context - Mr and Mrs Bloggs, who are Architects/Librarians/garage mechanics/civil servants, its all just consenting adults and who cares. Mr and Mrs Jones, and Mr Jones is a School Teacher in a sixth form - its certainly straying well into uncomfortable territory.
> 
> ..


I'm probably somewhere around the same position, though what you do (if anything) about people and practices that stray into uncomfortable territory is more difficult.

Worth saying of course that the bigger threats to children come from where they've always come.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2018)

kebabking said:


> perhaps it just depends on context - Mr and Mrs Bloggs, who are Architects/Librarians/garage mechanics/civil servants, its all just consenting adults and who cares. Mr and Mrs Jones, and Mr Jones is a School Teacher in a sixth form - its certainly straying well into uncomfortable territory..


Who gets to draw that line, though? For instance, Mr and Mrs Jones enjoy role play. Mr J (or mrs, or both, or likes being the one doing it) likes being tied up and whipped/fucked with a strap-on/whatever. Maybe they sometimes invite friends to join in. What side of the line is that on for Mr Jones the schoolteacher? At what point does it cross the line of 'none of your business', and who decides? 

If our hypothetical Mr Jones likes being tied up and slapped about, that doesn't mean he has any inclination to do that to his students, does it? If he were, let us say, to try to get one of his students to join in, that would be as out of order as any other sexual advance towards a student. Are people into BDSM more likely than people who are not into BDSM to lack that particular bit to their moral code?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Sep 5, 2018)

And just by the way, there are lots of good studies that strongly suggest that BDSM folk are actually pretty healthy emotionally. Obviously not all of them, obviously there are exceptions, obviously there are plenty of predators and obviously it’s a place where emotionally unwell people can express their fucked up-ness in very florid and unpleasant ways and so forth.

But because some high profile wrong’uns find a bolt hole in the kink world doesn’t mean kink equates to wrongness.


People Who Have This Type Of Sex May Be Healthier


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who gets to draw that line, though?


 I've had a call from the daily mail, they said they'll give it a go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I don't really care that much about the Green Party but I do wonder whether they are losing their way a bit.  I get that they can't be a single issue party and they need to have the relevant policies that they believe will appeal.  However first and foremost surely a green party candidate should be an environmental champion and the other policies stem from this?
> 
> I googled 'Aimee Challenor environmental' and there were very few useful hits.  There is tons of stuff about gender and identity but very little about the environment.  I get that she had a particular brief and she can't control the questions or indeed a lot of the stuff people choose to focus on but, I dunno from everything I've read she seems like an odd candidate.  As I say though its their party.



I'm a Green Party member. I've met AC briefly at a GP thing in 2017. They are pushy, rude and quite frankly abusive of anyone that doesn't agree with them, but the party hierarchy wanted to be seen as "up" on trans and youth issues, so their behaviour was excused. As for her father, while Aimee was in care around the time the crime for which he was prosecuted took place (for, I believe, their threat to "cyber attack" a shopping centre  ), I'm not convinced that they could have been unaware of their father's predelictions, nor that they were not in turned damaged by knowing about them.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I've had a call from the daily mail, they said they'll give it a go.


Actually, (weak) jokes aside, there's something in that. Issues about teachers who once worked as an escort or go to sex parties are assessed and processed by the right wing media - that's how the lines are created. 'We'/the public rarely have any input into those debates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I don't think you can blame anonymous trolls for Challenor's brony proclivities.
> 
> Either she is a vulnerable young person who wasn't aware of the rules, in which case why on earth did the Greens push her forward into leadership roles, or she knows exactly what she was doing, in which case she's unsuitable for public office. Either way, she's not fit to be a candidate.
> 
> TBH I blame the Greens much more than her. She's clearly a very damaged young person but she's not that bright, has mental health issues and has only been propelled through the ranks because she's trans. That's not at all fair on her



GP was enamored of the idea of being relevant to "the kids" AND to a section of the LGBT community. They let their guard slip, and now they're paying the price. That said, Challoner, whether with their father's pushing, or solo, did put themselves forward and push themselves forward for those roles, but the GP should have been much more "self-aware" than they were. Sadly, people think there's a big party organisation looking after the bureaucratic side of things, when actually "central office" has a handful of full-timers, and a lot of stuff done by local and regional activists.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who gets to draw that line, though? For instance, Mr and Mrs Jones enjoy role play. Mr J (or mrs, or both, or likes being the one doing it) likes being tied up and whipped/fucked with a strap-on/whatever. Maybe they sometimes invite friends to join in. What side of the line is that on for Mr Jones the schoolteacher? At what point does it cross the line of 'none of your business', and who decides?
> 
> If our hypothetical Mr Jones likes being tied up and slapped about, that doesn't mean he has any inclination to do that to his students, does it? If he were, let us say, to try to get one of his students to join in, that would be as out of order as any other sexual advance towards a student. Are people into BDSM more likely than people who are not into BDSM to lack that particular bit to their moral code?


Except none of that has anything to do with getting off on symbols of being an infant or child or teenager any more than vanilla sex, whereas getting off on school uniforms or nappies does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2018)

co-op said:


> The extent of knowledge isn't an issue; AC and DC were engaged in framing GP policy on issues that have an absolutely clear overlap with safeguarding and the rights of women and children. In that role they aggressively pursued a campaign to completely silence any dissenting voices, not just through things like terfblocker etc but by smearing anyone who dared to question any part of their agenda as a 'bigot' or a 'transphobe', ie by intimidation.
> 
> _In itself _this behaviour is abusive.
> 
> ...



I've been twitter-spatted as "a terf" recently, for making the uncontroversial remark that hormone blockers and surgery can't change your genetic heritage. I also received threats by DM (from others) to "fuck me up". They stopped when I told them that as I'd gone toe to toe with fascists, the idea of freshers studying politics "fucking me up" was deeply amusing, and to bring it on.  It's attempted bullying, pure and simple. Didn't even bother to report them (and told them so "because you're not deserving of my attention"  ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lucas has been 'terfblocked' because she has agreed to talk to the Woman's Place people next week.
> 
> This horrible affair might possibly mark a bit of a watershed moment in the terf wars. It is possibly the clearest demonstration of how the debate has to change, from the trans activists' side. They cannot just scream 'bigot' at anyone who does not agree with them that trans women are women, while shoving them (and anyone who talks to them) on 'ignore'. They need to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at issues of sex and gender identity from theirs, that there are other perfectly valid definitions and points of view. They need to find a way to start _respecting_ certain positions that they currently label 'terf'.



Sadly, I think you're wrong, and that any watershed moment will be a swing toward more open violence by some trans activists, egged on by those who keep to the rear for fear of compromising their careers or future careers.

Why do I think this? Precisely BECAUSE screaming "bigot" no longer works as effectively in causing their "enemies" to pull back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> That'd be brilliant, esp in Suburban.
> 
> Anyone Got A Recipe For Lemon Posset That Actually Works?
> 
> ...



FEB thread:

Anyone know a decent gastric ulcer treatment?

Fuck off, you Audi-driving cunt!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> And how would you propose preventing the greater proportion of sexual abuse which happens at the hands of people the victim knows or is related to? Yeh, prevent sexual abuse: but the volume of abuse you're talking about from trans people is a tiny percentage of that perpetrated by the cis.



Quite, and until we address the "greater proportion", then addressing the "tiny percentage" on a priority basis entirely misses the point (which is that a majority of abusers were, in turn, abused and unable to escape it, or its consequences).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Except none of that has anything to do with getting off on symbols of being an infant or child or teenager any more than vanilla sex, whereas getting off on school uniforms or nappies does.


So if he or Mrs Jones dressed up in a school uniform to do it, that would cross a line? Thing is, Mr J is a hypothetical sixth-form teacher whose students will be mostly post-pubescent and have various physical characteristics that might fall into Mr Jones's (and many other people's) set of 'things that turn me on'. What would make the uniform in and of itself a different and dangerous thing that he would be less likely to be able/willing not to act on?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So if he or Mrs Jones dressed up in a school uniform to do it, that would cross a line? Thing is, Mr J is a hypothetical sixth-form teacher whose students will be mostly post-pubescent and have various physical characteristics that might fall into Mr Jones's (and many other people's) set of 'things that turn me on'. What would make the uniform in and of itself a different and dangerous thing that he would be less likely to be able/willing not to act on?


I think there are a number of different levels in play, some of which overlap, some don't:

1. Legal safeguarding, risk assessment. Operates by and large within a clear framework.
2. Specific areas of lifestyle that _might_ be relevant to particular positions - can doggers be teachers? Can bare knuckle/unlicensed boxers? [yes and yes, fwiw, but head teachers may well intervene to boot staff out on such grounds.]
3. Moral panics from the press and maybe parents too that will change over time and will move on to different issues as society changes

We've touched on 2. in this thread: would you want someone with a baby fetish running a crèche? [my honest answer, it rings alarm bells in that it doesn't feel 'right', but actually I need to educate myself about it].  For the rest of it there are all kinds of issues in play, but surely the central criterial should be whether the person poses a real threat to children. Beyond that we should support workers who end up being victimised for their lifestyle or identity - trade unionism 101.  There will of course be grey areas...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I think there are a number of different levels in play, some of which overlap, some don't:
> 
> 1. Legal safeguarding, risk assessment. Operates by and large within a clear framework.
> 2. Specific areas of lifestyle that _might_ be relevant to particular positions - can doggers be teachers? Can bare knuckle/unlicensed boxers? [yes and yes, fwiw, but head teachers may well intervene to boot staff out on such grounds.]
> ...


With specific reference to baby fetish, the bit I've bolded is also it for me - it's not something I really know anything about. I am vaguely aware that it is 'a thing', and that's about it. The danger here for all of us is that our judgements regarding what we think is acceptable are dictated by our disgust reactions to certain things. While a disgust reaction might be a good heuristic to go by in everyday life, we can't trust them, and we can change them when we change our level of knowledge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2018)

i am disgusted by the kneejerk reactions and the attempts to define dc as trans on this thread


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With specific reference to baby fetish, the bit I've bolded is also it for me - it's not something I really know anything about. I am vaguely aware that it is 'a thing', and that's about it. The danger here for all of us is that our judgements regarding what we think is acceptable are dictated by our disgust reactions to certain things. While a disgust reaction might be a good heuristic to go by in everyday life, we can't trust them, and we can change them when we change our level of knowledge.


Yes. With apologies for the mangled language, there are 'prejudicial prejudices', perhaps not much different to moral panics, then there are 'legitimate prejudices', for example I wouldn't want my kids taught by some Randist or alt-right crank - neither of which automatically would or should give me a right to stop someone being employed *. And times change. 30 years ago we might have been talking about the reactions of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells towards the employment of a black or gay teacher.

* though I emphatically have the right to oppose these fuckers elsewhere in the public/political sphere.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a dangerous path to go down to say that you think something should be legal (involving consenting adults and with no victim, so you can't think of any reason why it should be illegal), but that you nonetheless judge those who do it in such away that you would want to exclude them from certain other areas of life. We're straying into Section 28 territory here.



So, AC seems to have been into adult baby fetishism, not a problem in a 'standalone situation'.

However, combine that with her father also being into adult baby fetishism & going on to rape a child, plus how they both campaigned on the same issues concerning trans-rights, does somewhat escalate it to a new level.

Not that I suppose it matters, I can't see AC being welcomed back into the GP, unless they are totally fucking bonkers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, AC seems to have been into adult baby fetishism, not a problem in a 'standalone situation'.
> 
> However, combine that with her father also being into adult baby fetishism & going on to rape a child, plus how they both campaigned on the same issues concerning trans-rights, does somewhat escalate it to a new level.
> 
> Not that I suppose it matters, I can't see AC being welcomed back into the GP, unless they are totally fucking bonkers.


quite, to the gp ac is png


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, AC seems to have been into adult baby fetishism, not a problem in a 'standalone situation'.
> 
> However, combine that with her father also being into adult baby fetishism & going on to rape a child, plus how they both campaigned on the same issues concerning trans-rights, does somewhat escalate it to a new level.
> 
> Not that I suppose it matters, I can't see AC being welcomed back into the GP, unless they are totally fucking bonkers.


This particular case is extremely disturbing on all kinds of levels. My point was more to do with extrapolating from this particular into a general.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> quite, to the gp ac is png


..fo shizzle


----------



## andysays (Sep 5, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> I don't think its about the state or organisations banning people from doing certain things or occupying political positions - but more that such activity isn't above question when it is relevant to the issues a politician is campaigning on (eg I I would say  anything that might impact on safeguarding) especially when said a politician is open or semi-open about their activity (ie has social media accounts where they post pictures of themselves in nappies or whatever).



The very first post of thread calls for the Green Party to suspend Aimee Challenor


q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Why has Aimee Challenor not been suspended with immediate effect?


and many of the recent posts read to me very much like calls for people to be excluded from political roles by either the state or other organisations, rather than a personal statement that the poster wouldn't vote for such a person.

For clarity, I wouldn't vote for AC, firstly because she's a Green, and then because of the various things which I consider make her unsuitable, but I don't think she should be banned from standing if she chooses. I suspect many of those posting literally want her prevented from standing, and don't care too much how that's achieved.


----------



## Santino (Sep 5, 2018)

People are always accusing other people of trying to ban things that they haven't tried to ban. What's next, banning people disapproving of things?


----------



## Santino (Sep 5, 2018)

Do I think industries and utilities should be run for the common good and not for the benefit of shareholders? Yes.

Do I also thereby think that all private property should be banned? Also yes.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2018)

Santino said:


> People are always accusing other people of trying to ban things that they haven't tried to ban. What's next, banning people disapproving of things?


This.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 5, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm a Green Party member. I've met AC briefly at a GP thing in 2017. They are pushy, rude and quite frankly abusive of anyone that doesn't agree with them, but the party hierarchy wanted to be seen as "up" on trans and youth issues, so their behaviour was excused. As for her father, while Aimee was in care around the time the crime for which he was prosecuted took place (for, I believe, their threat to "cyber attack" a shopping centre  ), I'm not convinced that they could have been unaware of their father's predelictions, nor that they were not in turned damaged by knowing about them.



All the Challenor children were apparently taken into care amid reports of TC having Muchausen's by proxy, according to the mumsnet researchers.  

A child commuting a crime of this nature would never be sufficient cause to have that child and two younger siblings taken into local authority care.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 5, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> All the Challenor children were apparently taken into care amid reports of TC having Muchausen's by proxy, according to the mumsnet researchers.
> 
> A child commuting a crime of this nature would never be sufficient cause to have that child and two younger siblings taken into local authority care.


Mumsnet researchers? Are these people from particular professions breaking confidentiality or jounos?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 5, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Mumsnet researchers? Are these people from particular professions breaking confidentiality or jounos?



Most likely just people from the internet.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 5, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Mumsnet researchers? Are these people from particular professions breaking confidentiality or jounos?


People prepared to scour court records and local newspapers to join the dots. Funnily enough, a great many of them coincidentally seem determined to refer to AC as a "he".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 6, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> All the Challenor children were apparently taken into care amid reports of TC having Muchausen's by proxy, according to the mumsnet researchers.
> 
> A child commuting a crime of this nature would never be sufficient cause to have that child and two younger siblings taken into local authority care.



Wasn't aware of the siblings being taken into care too.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> The very first post of thread calls for the Green Party to suspend Aimee Challenor


To be fair i think 'lying about the name of your election agent in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that they have been charged with a serious crime' would be grounds for suspension from most parties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> People prepared to scour court records and local newspapers to join the dots. Funnily enough, a great many of them coincidentally seem determined to refer to AC as a "he".


Strange that


----------



## Lurdan (Sep 6, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> People prepared to scour court records and local newspapers to join the dots. Funnily enough, a great many of them coincidentally seem determined to refer to AC as a "he".



it's worth taking note that the court document, from which excerpts are being extracted and circulated on twitter and elsewhere, is a High Court judgement the first line of which says


> The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.



So identifying Aimee Challenor and her family as the people referred to in that judgement is a breach of a court order. 

I'd imagine that if a Court were to throw the book at anyone for this they might also find themselves less than amused that this judgement is being quoted in a mendaciously selective way in order to make a defamatory suggestion that is the exact opposite of what it actually concludes.

None of the excerpts I have seen identify their source in this judgement, but refer vaguely to 'court document' or 'medical evidence'. I'd suggest great caution in quoting online discussions about this families medical history and its dealings with social services.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 6, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i am disgusted by the kneejerk reactions and the attempts to define dc as trans on this thread



TBF, I'm disgusted by Mr Jones the teacher. The bloke seems to have more kinks than one of those curly phone cables after it's been twisted hither and thither for a decade or two.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 6, 2018)

Santino said:


> Do I think industries and utilities should be run for the common good and not for the benefit of shareholders? Yes.
> 
> Do I also thereby think that all private property should be banned? Also yes.



Goddam Godless Pinko Commie!!! 

Would you like to buy a copy of Socialist Worker, comrade?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, I'm disgusted by Mr Jones the teacher. The bloke seems to have more kinks than one of those curly phone cables after it's been twisted hither and thither for a decade or two.


i'm just glad it's not jones the steam in the frame.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 6, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm just glad it's not jones the steam in the frame.



Jones the Steam is an upstanding member of the community, boyo. Goes to Chapel thrice a week, he does!


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jones the Steam is an upstanding member of the community, boyo. Goes to Chapel thrice a week, he does!


They're the ones you have to watch the closest...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Except none of that has anything to do with getting off on symbols of being an infant or child or teenager any more than vanilla sex, whereas getting off on school uniforms or nappies does.



This is interesting because you're right, these things are symbolic of having sex with children, or possibly symbolic anyway. 

But you're also wrong when you say that a school uniform fetish is different in some way from 'vanilla' sex aren't you really? Because the school uniform thing is actually an incredibly mainstream and 'vanilla' sexual trope isn't it? Not just in pornography or in peoples sex lives but in films, music, the media and in society in general, young girls well under the age of consent are routinely sexualised every day and it's ingrained in our culture. So it often isn't considered as perverse or unusual or weird or whatever. I'm not saying that's not fucked up, you're right, it is. I feel sure that well before I first had sex as a teenager I'd seen porn featuring women dressed in school uniform at least ten years older than I would have been at the time. That's not normal is it? But on the other hand it is normal because you could probably say that about the vast majority of teenage boys, especially in the internet age.

I think in general, it's probably better to think about why it is we live in a world that sexualises children routinely in the mainstream than rage against an individual because you think their particular interest (not even necessarily sexual to them, just what they like to do) is somehow proof that they must be an abuser or potential abuser without any evidence that they have committed an act of abuse or that they intend to.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> But you're also wrong when you say that a school uniform fetish is different in some way from 'vanilla' sex aren't you really? Because the school uniform thing is actually an incredibly mainstream and 'vanilla' sexual trope isn't it? Not just in pornography or in peoples sex lives but in films, music, the media and in society in general...



I think the school uniform thing gets an easy pass because while it has dodgy roots for many, for at least as many it's a callback to formative sexual experiences - that sense of excitement, terror and a tinge of transgression mixed together*.  Which is why you see it so much involving clearly adult women in the uniforms (as opposed to adult women who look of plausibly school age).  It's also part of why those school disco club nights were so popular some years back (I'm a little out of the loop, so maybe they're popular again right now).

* - I was a late bloomer, so for me it's women in DM's and combats.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've been twitter-spatted as "a terf" recently, for making the uncontroversial remark that hormone blockers and surgery can't change your genetic heritage.



Uncontroversial in most quarters, at least.

I'd call it "uncontested but taboo" in certain Twitter areas.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 6, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is interesting because you're right, these things are symbolic of having sex with children, or possibly symbolic anyway.
> 
> But you're also wrong when you say that a school uniform fetish is different in some way from 'vanilla' sex aren't you really? Because the school uniform thing is actually an incredibly mainstream and 'vanilla' sexual trope isn't it? Not just in pornography or in peoples sex lives but in films, music, the media and in society in general, young girls well under the age of consent are routinely sexualised every day and it's ingrained in our culture. So it often isn't considered as perverse or unusual or weird or whatever. I'm not saying that's not fucked up, you're right, it is. I feel sure that well before I first had sex as a teenager I'd seen porn featuring women dressed in school uniform at least ten years older than I would have been at the time. That's not normal is it? But on the other hand it is normal because you could probably say that about the vast majority of teenage boys, especially in the internet age.
> 
> I think in general, it's probably better to think about why it is we live in a world that sexualises children routinely in the mainstream than rage against an individual because you think their particular interest (not even necessarily sexual to them, just what they like to do) is somehow proof that they must be an abuser or potential abuser without any evidence that they have committed an act of abuse or that they intend to.



all of which rather ignores the _who_ - a School teacher getting their rocks off on fucking people in school uniform is a very different thing to a bricklayer getting his rocks off fucking people in school uniform, a nurse who gets their rocks off giving handjobs to people pretending to be in a coma is very different to a surveyor getting his rocks off giving handjobs to people pretending to be in a coma, a nursery nurse who gets their rocks off fucking people wearing nappies is very different to a civil servant in the DVLA with no kids and no access to kids getting their rocks off fucking people in nappies.

its about access and influence/authority.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

kebabking said:


> ...a nurse who gets their rocks off giving handjobs to people pretending to be in a coma is very different to a surveyor getting his rocks off giving handjobs to people pretending to be in a coma...



Oh, my sheltered life.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 6, 2018)

I've always found the school uniform thing a bit suss (though I get what 8ball says above).  I remember saying it on here to an urb who was slavering away at the thought and I got the proper rolly eye treatment.

Then again I'm not really into this whole dressing up / sex cosplay kind of thing.  A mate's g/f had brought a nurses uniform and was excitedly telling me about it when I pointed out that my mum was a nurse and all I remember was her coming home after a shift, utterly exhausted and her uniform covered it stains from whatever after a shift spent cleaning up whatever.

What I will say though is I find the adult baby stuff and Brony stuff proper weird and creepy.  If someone mentioned to me that they were into that sort of thing and I had a child with me I'd definitely hold the child's hand a little tighter.  I respect the right for consenting adults to do what they like in private but I also have the right to find it weird and creepy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

kebabking said:


> all of which rather ignores the _who_ - a School teacher getting their rocks off on fucking people in school uniform is a very different thing to a bricklayer getting his rocks off fucking people in school uniform, a nurse who gets their rocks off giving handjobs to people pretending to be in a coma is very different to a surveyor getting his rocks off giving handjobs to people pretending to be in a coma, a nursery nurse who gets their rocks off fucking people wearing nappies is very different to a civil servant in the DVLA with no kids and no access to kids getting their rocks off fucking people in nappies.
> 
> its about access and influence/authority.


It's also about evidence, though. If you're going to start seeking to deny people certain jobs because of their kinky sex preferences, you need to have some kind of evidence that people with kinky sex preferences who actively act those preferences out in private represent a heightened risk. Otherwise you're just acting on your own prejudice/gut disgust reaction. The danger is that you miss the apparently straight-laced types who attend church three times a week and get the official nod of approval, but are in fact suppressing their kinks in a way that does make them a heightened risk. You're in danger of demonising the wrong people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's also about evidence, though. If you're going to start seeking to deny people certain jobs because of their kinky sex preferences, you need to have some kind of evidence that people with kinky sex preferences who actively act those preferences out in private represent a heightened risk. Otherwise you're just acting on your own prejudice/gut disgust reaction. The danger is that you miss the apparently straight-laced types who attend church three times a week and get the official nod of approval, but are in fact suppressing their kinks in a way that does make them a heightened risk. You're in danger of demonising the wrong people.


anyone who attends church three times a week should be denied the official nod of approval as they're obviously a wrong un


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Then again I'm not really into this whole dressing up / sex cosplay kind of thing.  A mate's g/f had brought a nurses uniform and was excitedly telling me about it when I pointed out that my mum was a nurse and all I remember was her coming home after a shift, utterly exhausted and her uniform covered it stains from whatever after a shift spent cleaning up whatever.



Having had quite a few surgeries and other procedures and spending a long time in hospital, I can't think of anything more likely to provoke mini-8ball into defensive deflation than a nurse's uniform.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

The obvious counterexample here of a group of people who on the surface are not supposed to have any kind of sex life, kinky or otherwise, is Catholic priests. Suppressed sexuality is the greater danger, no?

I'd also wonder, does anyone have a completely 'kink-free' sexuality? I doubt it. What would that even look like?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The obvious counterexample here of a group of people who on the surface are not supposed to have any kind of sex life, kinky or otherwise, is Catholic priests. Suppressed sexuality is the greater danger, no?


i don't know where you get the notion catholic priests' sexuality is suppressed from.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd also wonder, does anyone have a completely 'kink-free' sexuality? I doubt it. What would that even look like?



Extreme niche vanilla forum ------------------------------------->


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> Extreme niche vanilla forum ------------------------------------->


Thing is I think there is some extraordinary rubbish written about sexuality by people who should know better. On a previous trans thread this guy Blanchard was linked to, and he banged on about 'correct' sexual direction, which basically involved a man being turned on by a vagina and a woman by a penis. It was absurd, and from a so-called 'sexologist' who made his living theorising about this stuff. I am a heterosexual man turned on by among other things vaginas, but my sexual awakening happened years before I'd even seen one, let alone got close to one, and all kinds of things that make up our adult sexuality began right back when we started becoming dimly aware of our sexual urges, at which point all kinds of things can come into play 'symbolising' sex, commonly clothing of various kinds - cos things like vaginas and penises are hidden by clothing. But within a healthily 'kinky' sexuality, there is a sharp barrier between the sexual fantasy and real life, which is never crossed.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is I think there is some extraordinary rubbish written about sexuality by people who should know better. On a previous trans thread this guy Blanchard was linked to, and he banged on about 'correct' sexual direction, which basically involved a man being turned on by a vagina and a woman by a penis.



I was under the impression a good many women (correctly) thought penises looked ridiculous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> I was under the impression a good many women (correctly) thought penises looked ridiculous.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> Extreme niche vanilla forum ------------------------------------->



If you can think of it, someone's into it. I bet there are people out there who get really turned on by the thought of short, awkward bouts of fully clothed missionary sex in the dark.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 146217



Maybe if he did it standing up he wouldn't look so stupid.


----------



## maomao (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd also wonder, does anyone have a completely 'kink-free' sexuality? I doubt it. What would that even look like?


Depends how you define kink. Dictionary definition is an 'unusual' sexual preference so liking big tits/big cocks or sexy underwear doesn't really count.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you can think of it, someone's into it. I bet there are people out there who get really turned on by the thought of short, awkward bouts of fully clothed missionary sex in the dark.



<fires up Tor>


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

maomao said:


> Depends how you define kink. Dictionary definition is an 'unusual' sexual preference so liking big tits/big cocks or sexy underwear doesn't really count.


That's a circular argument though. Why would underwear be sexy? That's a paraphilic kink right there, just a socially acceptable one (in certain societies). Presumably within a society that is extremely suppressive of sexuality, in which sex is supposed only to happen through a hole in a sheet, 'sexy underwear' would be a disgraceful perversion.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a circular argument though. Why would underwear be sexy? That's a paraphilic kink right there, just a socially acceptable one (in certain societies). Presumably within a society that is extremely suppressive of sexuality, in which sex is supposed only to happen through a hole in a sheet, 'sexy underwear' would be a disgraceful perversion.



Ooh - that's sparked a memory of a drunken conversation.  Something about girls at a mate's kids' school being told off for exposing their ankles...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a circular argument though. Why would underwear be sexy? That's a paraphilic kink right there, just a socially acceptable one (in certain societies). Presumably within a society that is extremely suppressive of sexuality, in which sex is supposed only to happen through a hole in a sheet, 'sexy underwear' would be a disgraceful perversion.


no it wouldn't


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why would underwear be sexy?



It means you're half-way to nekkid.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> no it wouldn't



Wasn't that exactly the case for a particular religious group at some point (my memory is fuzzy on this)?

Well, not a hole in a sheet, but it was something along those lines - I'm thinking of some Christian offshoot cult in the States or something like that.


----------



## maomao (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a circular argument though. Why would underwear be sexy? That's a paraphilic kink right there, just a socially acceptable one (in certain societies). Presumably within a society that is extremely suppressive of sexuality, in which sex is supposed only to happen through a hole in a sheet, 'sexy underwear' would be a disgraceful perversion.


Well surely if the definition includes 'unusual' a kink can only be defined in terms of the society it exists in and socially acceptable turn ons don't count.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> Wasn't that exactly the case for a particular religious group at some point (my memory is fuzzy on this)?


ah, you refer to the famous urban myth about orthodox jews.

it's a myth.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think the school uniform thing gets an easy pass because while it has dodgy roots for many, for at least as many it's a callback to formative sexual experiences - that sense of excitement, terror and a tinge of transgression mixed together*.  Which is why you see it so much involving clearly adult women in the uniforms (as opposed to adult women who look of plausibly school age).  It's also part of why those school disco club nights were so popular some years back (I'm a little out of the loop, so maybe they're popular again right now).
> 
> * - I was a late bloomer, so for me it's women in DM's and combats.



But that's my point. You can't say that someone who fantasises about having sex, perhaps even rough or violent sex, with a young underage girl gets a pass but someone who enjoys wearing a nappy and literally sitting around in their own shit is to be treated as suspicious and potentially dangerous to others. And I take the point, I think there probably is some element of formative sexual experience type thing there that plays a role but when you have tabloid newspapers aggressively sexualising young girls on a daily basis in order to sell more copies then there is also something pretty dark going on there around the commodification of young girls bodies and that has implications for everybody who grows up and goes through those formative sexual experiences because that's the world we exist in. 

I think what I'm probably trying to say is that if any one of us was subjected to an in depth analysis of our sexuality then that would probably reveal a few weird/odd home truths for us all to deal with and we don't really understand human sexuality very well because we've spent the vast majority of human history actively repressing it. So for now, lets keep the focus purely on consent and the idea that the key dividing line in any kind of sexual activity is whether it involves people who consent to what they're doing and are old enough to consent. The rest, it's probably not worth bothering your head too much with, particularly when we live in a world where societies understanding of consent is often shakey or non existent.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> ah, you refer to the famous urban myth about orthodox jews.
> 
> it's a myth.



I'd never heard it about Jews - I always thought it was something like some kind of Puritan offshoot in the States.

edit:  It possibly dates back to the days when we used to talk shit in the pubs and didn't have the technology to instantly check facts.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> no it wouldn't



No that's true a sheet with a hole in it would be the sexy underwear


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

maomao said:


> Well surely if the definition includes 'unusual' a kink can only be defined in terms of the society it exists in and socially acceptable turn ons don't count.


Socially acceptable to whom, though? Who is making the rules here? At the very least, you have created a very fuzzy and moveable boundary between kink and non-kink. imo not a useful way to look at this at all.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> It means you're half-way to nekkid.



You could also be half way to fully clothed. Is the glass half full or half empty?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> But that's my point. *You can't say that someone who fantasises about having sex, perhaps even rough or violent sex, with a young underage girl gets a pass but someone who enjoys wearing a nappy and literally sitting around in their own shit is to be treated as suspicious and potentially dangerous to others.* And I take the point, I think there probably is some element of formative sexual experience type thing there that plays a role but when you have tabloid newspapers aggressively sexualising young girls on a daily basis in order to sell more copies then there is also something pretty dark going on there around the commodification of young girls bodies and that has implications for everybody who grows up and goes through those formative sexual experiences because that's the world we exist in.



That's a pretty dark interpretation.  My point was that the dodginess isn't always deducible by the symbols themselves, but what is going on in the background.

As for the bit I bolded - I'm pretty sure I clearly didn't say that.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> You could also be half way to fully clothed. Is the glass half full or half empty?



Always half-empty.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> Always half-empty.



There you go then - underwear can't be sexy to you cos it means they're getting dressed!  

Unless you find clothed people sexier than naked people. Which if you do is totally fine go live your best life or whatever


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> *Unless you find clothed people sexier than naked people.* Which if you do is totally fine go live your best life or whatever



I think when it comes to half-clothed, this is pretty much the norm.


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

maomao said:


> Depends how you define kink. Dictionary definition is an 'unusual' sexual preference so liking big tits/big cocks or sexy underwear doesn't really count.


It also depends how strong your preference is. 

I am definitely 'stimulated' by my partner wearing certain kinds of underwear, but it's her that I'm attracted to, not the underwear,  and I'm also attracted to her when she isn't wearing the underwear.

As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are basically focussed on the underwear (or whatever) rather than the person, and are unable to be aroused without the underwear.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are ... unable to be aroused without the underwear.



That's a common definition, but it has been strongly contested on here before.


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> That's a common definition, but it has been strongly contested on here before.


Yes, I remember that 

I'm at work and on my phone ATM,  but I might even dig out a definition when I get home later.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> That's a common definition, but it has been strongly contested on here before.


Either way, not really relevant here if we're talking about kinky sexual preferences. No need at all to add any kind of qualification that it must be _necessary_ for arousal to count.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> It also depends how strong your preference is.
> 
> I am definitely 'stimulated' by my partner wearing certain kinds of underwear, but it's her that I'm attracted to, not the underwear,  and I'm also attracted to her when she isn't wearing the underwear.
> 
> As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are basically focussed on the underwear (or whatever) rather than the person, and are unable to be aroused without the underwear.



That sounds very unlike the way it gets used in conversation! But I suppose these words are poorly defined.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Either way, not really relevant here if we're talking about kinky sexual preferences. No need at all to add any kind of qualification that it must be _necessary_ for arousal to count.



I've no idea what we're talking about.  The thread title has something to do with the Green party...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> I've no idea what we're talking about.  The thread title has something to do with the Green party...


If we've diverted it away from speculation about what a particular damaged young person may or may not have known or done years ago, that's all to the good, imo. Let it be about something else.


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are basically focussed on the underwear (or whatever) rather than the person, and are unable to be aroused without the underwear.



It appears I was wrong. Although there seems to be a difference between the two systems of classification, there's a difference between what's regarded as a fetish and fetishistic disorder, and only in the latter is it the case that sexual arousal or activity is entirely dependent on the fetishised object or behaviour.

_The ICD-10 defines fetishism as a reliance on non-living objects for sexual arousal and satisfaction. It is only considered a disorder when fetishistic activities are the foremost source of sexual satisfaction, and become so compelling or unacceptable as to cause distress or interfere with normal sexual intercourse. The ICD's research guidelines require that the preference persists for at least six months, and is markedly distressing or acted on.

Under the DSM-5, fetishism is sexual arousal from nonliving objects or specific nongenital body parts, excluding clothes used for cross-dressing (as that falls under transvestic disorder) and sex toys that are designed for genital stimulation. In order to be diagnosed as fetishistic disorder, the arousal must persist for at least six months and cause significant psychosocial distress or impairment in important areas of their life. In the DSM-IV, sexual interest in body parts was distinguished from fetishism under the name partialism (diagnosed as Paraphilia NOS), but it was merged with fetishistic disorder for the DSM-5.

_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

Don't really want to pursue that much except to say that, once you have started quoting from the DSM, whichever version you use, you have already entered into deeply contested territory. One thing the DSM largely hides is the extent of disagreement even among supposed experts (even just within the US, which is where the DSM is formulated) over many of these issues and the right way to pathologise them, or indeed whether or not they should be pathologised at all. I have a problem with the very first bit of that: '_sexual arousal from nonliving objects or specific nongenital body parts'_. Who is it that says it is in any way 'correct', or whatever the opposite of 'fetishistic is (normal?) for one's sexual arousal to come from genital body parts (and what are the 'genital body parts' anyway? Presumably lips are included). We can be aroused in all kinds of ways by all kinds of things, and the processes by which our sexuality is shaped are complex, contingent, and infinitely varying. It's a horrible way to look at things, tbh.


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't really want to pursue that much except to say that, once you have started quoting from the DSM, whichever version you use, you have already entered into deeply contested territory. One thing the DSM largely hides is the extent of disagreement even among supposed experts (even just within the US, which is where the DSM is formulated) over many of these issues and the right way to pathologise them, or indeed whether or not they should be pathologised at all. I have a problem with the very first bit of that: '_sexual arousal from nonliving objects or specific nongenital body parts'_. Who is it that says it is in any way 'correct', or whatever the opposite of 'fetishistic is (normal?) for one's sexual arousal to come from genital body parts (and what are the 'genital body parts' anyway? Presumably lips are included). We can be aroused in all kinds of ways by all kinds of things, and the processes by which our sexuality is shaped are complex, contingent, and infinitely varying. It's a horrible way to look at things, tbh.



I'm not really interested in what you think of the DSM, I'm interested in the question of whether a fetish or a kink or whatever we call it should be an obstacle to someone standing for political office, amongst other things.

I posted those definitions in an attempt to make what I think is a significant distinction. These are the important bits, IMO.

_It is only considered a disorder when fetishistic activities are the foremost source of sexual satisfaction, and become so compelling or unacceptable as to cause distress or interfere with normal sexual intercourse

In order to be diagnosed as fetishistic disorder, the arousal must persist for at least six months and cause significant psychosocial distress or impairment in important areas of their life._

If we're talking about people's suitability for standing for political office, it's only when there's this level of fetishistic disorder that it's potentially problematic, IMO.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> I'm not really interested in what you think of the DSM, I'm interested in the question of whether a fetish or a kink or whatever we call it should be an obstacle to someone standing for political office, amongst other things.
> 
> I posted those definitions in an attempt to make what I think is a significant distinction. These are the important bits, IMO.
> 
> ...


Isn't it the very meaning fetish that it is an object which has human powers or qualities atteibuted to it?


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Isn't it the very meaning fetish that it is an object which has human powers or qualities attributed to it?



Originally it meant something which has super natural powers


> A fetish is an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a human-made object that has power over others



I'm using the term here as shorthand for sexual fetish, but arguably the supernatural aspect of the original meaning is still significant here too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> I'm not really interested in what you think of the DSM, I'm interested in the question of whether a fetish or a kink or whatever we call it should be an obstacle to someone standing for political office, amongst other things.
> 
> I posted those definitions in an attempt to make what I think is a significant distinction. These are the important bits, IMO.
> 
> ...


So any old kinky fetish is fine except if it is something that the person him or herself finds distressing to such an extent that they have gone to a shrink to seek treatment for it? If they're fine bumbling along with it, then they're fine for public office, but if they seek help because they're not fine bumbling along with it, they're potentially unfit for public office. 

Well there's a lesson there, no doubt: if you hold a public office, you'd better not seek help for anything that might be diagnosed as a fetishistic disorder. You'll be in trouble if anyone finds out. 

And if you bring up quotes from the DSM, expect people to engage with that. It has provided an important plank upon which everything else you're saying rests.


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So any old kinky fetish is fine except if it is something that the person him or herself finds distressing to such an extent that they have gone to a shrink to seek treatment for it? If they're fine bumbling along with it, then they're fine for public office, but if they seek help because they're not fine bumbling along with it, they're potentially unfit for public office.
> 
> Well there's a lesson there, no doubt: if you hold a public office, you'd better not seek help for anything that might be diagnosed as a fetishistic disorder. You'll be in trouble if anyone finds out.
> 
> And if you bring up quotes from the DSM, expect people to engage with that. It has provided an important plank upon which everything else you're saying rests.


Where have I said that the question of whether someone has sought help for it is a defining factor? Do you only have a disorder once a doctor has diagnosed you as having it?

For some one who claims you 'don't really want to pursue that much' you seem to be pursuing this quite vigorously, and reading plenty into my posts which really isn't there...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> That's a pretty dark interpretation.  My point was that the dodginess isn't always deducible by the symbols themselves, but what is going on in the background.
> 
> As for the bit I bolded - I'm pretty sure I clearly didn't say that.



No, sorry, didn't mean that you said that and I sort of agree with what you're saying because it is entirely normalised and probably very often entirely harmless but at the same time, the schoolgirl trope does potentially encompass people who have these kind of fantasies etc. I'm not sure on reflection on what I'm trying to say here - perhaps that in a society which inherently sexualises children and draws a link between children and some form of legitimate sexuality it doesn't make sense to pick and choose what is unacceptable in terms of peoples sexuality, provided of course it involves no actual sexual activity with someone who doesn't consent or is too young to consent. 

I dunno, ignore me, gone off on one there maybe.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 30, 2018)

She's joined the Libdems now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2018)

There's not much of a "transphobia problem" in the Green Party. The executive committee has 3 trans members, and Challoner was soft-pedalled around by the membership due to her volatility, and her penchant for accusing people of transphobia if they dared challenge her.

The "LGBT+ Lib Dems" Twitter acct is mostly run by a single person who also sees any questioning of them as "transphobic". 

I'm not ignorant of the faults of the GP. I've questioned their continued lack of class analysis, and their tendency to succumb to "Trendy Vicar Syndrome", and I'm not blind to the fact that some older Greens are fairly right-wing. I think they need to do some very deep policy soul-searching, and soon.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 30, 2018)

In regards to Challenor, I think we should welcome the progress represented in the fact that trans people can be just as given to vacuous opportunist party-hopping as anyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2018)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> In regards to Challenor, I think we should welcome the progress represented in the fact that trans people can be just as given to vacuous opportunist party-hopping as anyone else.


Have you joined labour yet btw?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 30, 2018)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> She's joined the Libdems now.



I'm reminded of Stewart Lee's line on James Corden: 'Britain's loss if very much America's loss'.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 30, 2018)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> In regards to Challenor, I think we should welcome the progress represented in the fact that trans people can be just as given to vacuous opportunist party-hopping as anyone else.


I don't want to visit the sins of the father on her, though she's certainly guilty of keeping him as her agent when she knew he was being charged. Given that he was a child rapist, if there was ever a time to keep it zipped and tone down the 'me, me, me' stuff, it's now. As far as I can tell, her only evidence that the greens have gone from being trans inclusive to transphobic in the space of a few weeks is Lucas meeting the Women's Place. Or, _of course_, that they suspended Aimee herself. 

I think her political tactics are awful, for example the terfblocker stuff, much discussed on here. But in branding the greens as transphobic she's as narcissistic and destructive as boris johnson. Hopefully, I don't need to say I'm not generalising from that to trans activism more widely. She does though embody the worst of id politics, where the personal not only overtakes the political, it actually replaces it.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 30, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I don't want to visit the sins of the father on her, though she's certainly guilty of keeping him as her agent when she knew he was being charged. Given that he was a child rapist, if there was ever a time to keep it zipped and tone down the 'me, me, me' stuff, it's now. As far as I can tell, her only evidence that the greens have gone from being trans inclusive to transphobic in the space of a few weeks is Lucas meeting the Women's Place. Or, _of course_, that they suspended Aimee herself.
> 
> I think her political tactics are awful, for example the terfblocker stuff, much discussed on here. But in branding the greens as transphobic she's as narcissistic and destructive as boris johnson. Hopefully, I don't need to say I'm not generalising from that to trans activism more widely. She does though embody the worst of id politics, where the personal not only overtakes the political, it actually replaces it.


So in conclusion the lib dems are welcome to her


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 30, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Have you joined labour yet btw?



Nope. 

My GPEW membership lapsed and I'm only doing a small amount of non-party activism at the mo. Other stuff going on etc. I'm more likely to rejoin GPEW than join Labour, but I do have political and cultural problems with them.

Come a GE, I'm inclined to do some legwork in 1 Lab/Tory marginal, 1 Green hopeful and maybe 1 Plaid hopeful seat but we'll see. 

Thanks for your interest  Hope you're doing well generally and productive in whatever activism you may be up to.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 14, 2019)

From the Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry:


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2021)

This person is now employed by Reddit, causing some controversy over there.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> This person is now employed by Reddit, causing some controversy over there.



To put it fairly mildly. 









						BREAKING: Reddit goes on strike!
					

Could this be...The Peakening?




					grahamlinehan.substack.com


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> To put it fairly mildly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is Graham Linehen really a reliable source on this topic? 

(no. no he is not.)


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Is Graham Linehen really a reliable source on this topic?
> 
> (no. no he is not.)



He's partisan of course, as are you. I doubt whether he's making up the fact that a load of sub-reddits have been locked as a protest about AC using her position to censor any discussion of her connections to known pedophile rings, and how she's used allegations of "transphobia" to shut people up from talking about this.

In other words, the exact thing she did before, as was pointed out by people back at the beginning of this thread in 2018. It's almost like she's just gone and done exactly the same thing again, and I guess the usual useful-idiots will be along to accuse everyone of transphobia again for daring to say this. And round we'll go.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Is Graham Linehen really a reliable source on this topic?
> 
> (no. no he is not.)


You don't have to trust his word for it - read the statement at the top of r/ukpolitics


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> He's partisan of course, as are you. I doubt whether he's making up the fact that a load of sub-reddits have been locked as a protest about AC using her position to censor any discussion of her connections to known pedophile rings, and how she's used allegations of "transphobia" to shut people up from talking about this.
> 
> In other words, the exact thing she did before, as was pointed out by people back at the beginning of this thread in 2018. It's almost like she's just gone and done exactly the same thing again, and I guess the usual useful-idiots will be along to accuse everyone of transphobia again for daring to say this. And round we'll go.


One way of avoiding being accused of transphobia by the usual idiots would be not to use a deranged and obsessive transphobe as your source on a story.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> One way of avoiding being accused of transphobia by the usual idiots would be not to use a deranged and obsessive transphobe as your source on a story.





There is no way of "avoiding being accused of transphobia" unless you simply stand and chant stupid mantras with the rest of the idiot-left. The word is losing its power, although I'm sure that pedophiles will still be hurling it at anyone who exposes them, and of course their chanting chums will join in.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 24, 2021)

Primary source if you'd rather avoid Linehan and/or the spectator


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

You'd get extra information, like this ^^, if you dare to click on the Linehan link, but obviously you'll also be exposed to a different point of view on gender politics so it could be literal violence and utterly terrifying etc


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> you'll also be exposed to a different point of view on gender politics so it could be literal violence and utterly terrifying etc


This is an impressive straw man you're building here. Do you want to borrow a lighter?


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 24, 2021)

Something quite funny about going on about "being exposed to a different point of view" when talking about Linehan, who has form for using legal threats to ensure that articles that give "a different point of view" on him get taken down. I suppose that pinknews article must have been literal violence and utterly terrifying etc as well.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 24, 2021)

great bunch of lad:








						Graham Linehan joined a queer women’s dating app to share trans people’s profiles. It backfired, badly
					

A dating app for women and queer people has been forced to clarify that trans women are welcome after Graham Linehan set up a fake account.




					www.pinknews.co.uk


----------



## 8ball (Mar 24, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> great bunch of lad:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wtf happened to that guy?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 24, 2021)

8ball said:


> Wtf happened to that guy?


I think he’s possibly had a breakdown


----------



## 8ball (Mar 24, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> I think he’s possibly had a breakdown



It's been a continual breakdown going on for some years.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 24, 2021)

8ball said:


> It's been a continual breakdown going on for some years.


Or he’s just a monster. But his bizarre crusade has cost him his family and his career


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Or he’s just a monster. But his bizarre crusade has cost him his family and his career


Linehan's behaviour in relation to this issue has often seemed like that of a person of in the grip of a pathological obsession. But I'd reserve a term like "monster" for a person who rapes and tortures a ten year old girl, or a person who appears to have tried to cover up for that person, and who then goes on to marry a self-confessed paedophile.


----------



## JTG (Mar 24, 2021)

8ball said:


> Wtf happened to that guy?


Got radicalised and lost everything because of it


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> Linehan's behaviour in relation to this issue has often seemed like that of a person of in the grip of a pathological obsession. But I'd reserve a term like "monster" for a person who rapes and tortures a ten year old girl, or a person who appears to have tried to cover up for that person, and who then goes on to marry a self-confessed paedophile.



Yes and then use their new job to shut down any public discussion about all of the above. It's not more or less than you'd expect from a pedophile ring. The truly weird bit is the way that huge chunks of the left have circled their wagons around AC and people like her and forbid any discussion about wtaf is going on in TRA-land and how it impacts on people outside it. What do we call these people? "Fucking idiots"? Doesn't seem quite strong enough to me.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

Funny how once again, a transwoman -  ie a member of the group who we are constantly exhorted to regard as the most oppressed group evah - has managed to walk into a plum job with a multi-billion dollar social media/internet company who are now actively closing down discussion about her extremely dodgy past. Doing this so crudely that they have created a grassroots rebellion against them.

Why's it always this way round? It's almost like the narrative is bullshit and the "transphobia" argument collapses on contact with real life people who aren't in corporate, governmental or political elites. FFS the state of the left on this.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

I think wrong 'un's leveraging real oppression for their own ends doesn't make the real oppression not exist tbf.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> I think wrong 'un's leveraging real oppression for their own ends doesn't make the real oppression not exist tbf.


It does mean that policies to combat such oppression should be designed so that they can't be "leveraged by wrong 'uns".


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 24, 2021)

8ball said:


> Wtf happened to that guy?


It's weird. And a shame really, because who didn't love Father Ted? But nowadays Mr Linehan's just a massive twat.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> It does mean that policies to combat such oppression should be designed so that they can't be "leveraged by wrong 'uns".


Sure. I don't have an overview of Reddit's polices or procedures, or the full background of what's actually gone on here, so it's pretty difficult to assess whether that's been done. It looks like they're in a difficult position though - if one of their employees is being doxxed on their site as they claim, they need to act don't they?

It looks like a fucking mess anyway, and I'm glad I'm not having to try and sort it out.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Sure. I don't have an overview of Reddit's polices or procedures, or the full background of what's actually gone on here, so it's pretty difficult to assess whether that's been done. It looks like they're in a difficult position though - if one of their employees is being doxxed on their site as they claim, they need to act don't they?
> 
> It looks like a fucking mess anyway, and I'm glad I'm not having to try and sort it out.


I was speaking generally, not in relation to Reddit.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> I think wrong 'un's leveraging real oppression for their own ends doesn't make the real oppression not exist tbf.



Of course it doesn't but it means that if the word "transphobe" is thrown at anyone who raises any questions about it that you completely discredit the word - and yourself. Literally the fact that the first reaction of swathes of the liberal left to any raising of the clear presence of safeguarding issues here is to shout "transphobia" and to shut the conversation down IS ITSELF A SAFEGUARDING ISSUE, it's an absolute red flag.

*Anyone who tries to shut down a safeguarding discussion is enabling abuse*, deliberately or not is irrelevant. That's the net effect. The mess the left is on this issue is unbelieveable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 24, 2021)

Setting aside the fact that Challenor/Knight is trans, which is irrelevant really, there is a worrying pattern here. Her father is a convicted child rapist who had fantasies of being a little girl, and she may not have known what he was doing at the time but we know that she was at the very least in denial over his crimes after he was arrested. And she has now chosen to marry a man who has very similar fantasies to those that her father acted out. Whatever else is going on, these are very damaged people. 

Sorry for the mumsnet link but the Coventry Gazette that originally published these tweets from Nathaniel Knight has subsequently deleted them. He chose to make this debate public, so I don't feel bad about repeating it here. I am hesitant to judge people on the basis of 'thought crimes' alone, but I wouldn't want Nathaniel Knight anywhere near children ever. And by her ongoing actions, Aimee Knight does massive harm to the cause of trans rights. 

If you scroll down the thread, you'll find the tweets in screenshots. 

Nathaniel Knight (partner of Aimee Challenor); worrying twitter admissions | Mumsnet


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Of course it doesn't but it means that if the word "transphobe" is thrown at anyone who raises any questions about it that you completely discredit the word - and yourself. Literally the fact that the first reaction of swathes of the liberal left to any raising of the clear presence of safeguarding issues here is to shout "transphobia" and to shut the conversation down IS ITSELF A SAFEGUARDING ISSUE, it's an absolute red flag.
> 
> *Anyone who tries to shut down a safeguarding discussion is enabling abuse*, deliberately or not is irrelevant. That's the net effect. The mess the left is on this issue is unbelieveable.


But Linehan is a transphobe. A vicious and obsessed one at that. By introducing him to the discussion, you made it - inevitably - about him, and not about safeguarding or whatever. You did that.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Setting aside the fact that Challenor/Knight is trans, which is irrelevant really, there is a worrying pattern here. Her father is a convicted child rapist who had fantasies of being a little girl, and she may not have known what he was doing at the time but we know that she was at the very least in denial over his crimes after he was arrested. And she has now chosen to marry a man who has very similar fantasies to those that her father acted out. Whatever else is going on, these are very damaged people.
> 
> Sorry for the mumsnet link but the Coventry Gazette that originally published these tweets from Nathaniel Knight has subsequently deleted them. He chose to make this debate public, so I don't feel bad about repeating it here. I am hesitant to judge people on the basis of 'thought crimes' alone, but I wouldn't want Nathaniel Knight anywhere near children ever. And by her ongoing actions, Aimee Knight does massive harm to the cause of trans rights.
> 
> ...



And why apologise for a mumsnet link? It's one of the few places where this kind of information is not being actively suppressed. If you think it's relevant to your opinion then you should be thanking them, not holding your nose.

AC/AK/whatever was also a mod for subreddits for teenaged children. That also sounds like a really shit idea to me.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> But Linehan is a transphobe. A vicious and obsessed one at that. By introducing him to the discussion, you made it - inevitably - about him, and not about safeguarding or whatever. You did that.



Nope I linked to some information he's posted up, you haven't discussed or debated that info just kept up a steady stream of posts about what a "transphobe" he is, you and your chums did that.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> huge chunks of the left have circled their wagons around AC


The Left? This is reddit, uber-libertatian free speech bastion (as they like to think of themselves)


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Nope I linked to some information he's posted up, you haven't discussed or debated that info just kept up a steady stream of posts about what a "transphobe" he is, you and your chums did that.


If you post info from such a partisan source, you can expect people to question it. You know this.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Nope I linked to some information he's posted up, you haven't discussed or debated that info just kept up a steady stream of posts about what a "transphobe" he is, you and your chums did that.


You linked directly to linehan who posted up his own comment and that from ‘a friend’.  You’re either being disingenuous or naive. 

As to AC, her case seems about as typical as that of far right ‘feminist’ Posie Parker. I’m sure you’d be delighted if we simply ascribed her views to you, in the same way you seek to imply all trans women are AC’s.


----------



## Santino (Mar 24, 2021)

Everyone shut the fuck up about Linehan, starting............ now.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 24, 2021)

Talking of ex-showbiz types being divs, can we use that Lawrence Fox as a reliable source while we're at it?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 24, 2021)

Can we talk about Reddit employing a person who employed a paedophile as their agent when they were standing for GP election and who is now married to a paedophile? 









						Reddit's most popular subreddits go private in protest against 'censorship'
					

A Reddit Private Community message is appearing for users, after a protest against the alleged hiring of Aimee Challenor caused subreddits to go dark.




					www.gamerevolution.com


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

Crispy said:


> The Left? This is reddit, uber-libertatian free speech bastion (as they like to think of themselves)



I'm not talking about reddit - I'm talking about the usual idiotic chant of "transphobia" from the liberal left whenever this issue comes up, which it does with depressing regularity. In the case of Reddit it is the site's owners and upper echelons who have circled their wagons around AC, I'm sure _they_ aren't just super-neo-liberal corporate wankers or anything. Same with twitter who'll ban you for saying you're a woman if a transwoman complains about it. But yeah, "most oppressed minority evah".


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

trashpony said:


> Can we talk about Reddit employing a person who employed a paedophile as their agent when they were standing for GP election and who is now married to a paedophile?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And how talking about it inevitably brings the usual barrage of allegations of "transphobia" in an attempt to shut that conversation down?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2021)

trashpony said:


> Can we talk about Reddit employing a person who employed a paedophile as their agent when they were standing for GP election and who is now married to a paedophile?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


has nathaniel knight has been convicted of a sexual offence?


----------



## lazythursday (Mar 24, 2021)

I assume to be consistent the people angry at Reddit hiring Aimee Challenor are also just as angry about India Knight working for the Times? (convicted paedo partner) 

Challenor seems a damaged person who hasn't necessarily behaved well in the past but has she been convicted of a crime? Is she not allowed to work?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 24, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose nathaniel knight has been convicted of a sexual offence?


Read his tweets. He admits to being a paedophile. He denies ever having acted upon his urges irl. 

His words:



> I have not "graduated" from a fetish for fantasy children to a fetish for real, living, breathing children.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I assume to be consistent the people angry at Reddit hiring Aimee Challenor are also just as angry about India Knight working for the Times? (convicted paedo partner)
> 
> Challenor seems a damaged person who hasn't necessarily behaved well in the past but has she been convicted of a crime? Is she not allowed to work?


never mind india knight's partner, i'm angry that anyone works at the times. or the sun. or the mail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Read his tweets. He admits to being a paedophile. He denies ever having acted upon his urges irl.
> 
> His words:


i have people like you to read stuff like that so i don't have to


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Read his tweets. He admits to being a paedophile. He denies ever having acted upon his urges irl.
> 
> His words:


putting your legal hat on, would that be a defence to any libel action taken against urban 75?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 24, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I assume to be consistent the people angry at Reddit hiring Aimee Challenor are also just as angry about India Knight working for the Times? (convicted paedo partner)
> 
> Challenor seems a damaged person who hasn't necessarily behaved well in the past but has she been convicted of a crime? Is she not allowed to work?


I would say that an admin position on a social media platform is a particularly ill-suited job for such a person. Whoever in HR was responsible for hiring her seems particularly ill-suited for their job too.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

Crispy said:


> I would say that an admin position on a social media platform is a particularly ill-suited job for such a person. Whoever in HR was responsible for hiring her seems particularly ill-suited for their job too.


It's not really clear to me what her job with Reddit involves tbh, and according to the article above they haven't said. Is she definitely an admin?


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I assume to be consistent the people angry at Reddit hiring Aimee Challenor are also just as angry about India Knight working for the Times? (convicted paedo partner)
> 
> Challenor seems a damaged person who hasn't necessarily behaved well in the past but has she been convicted of a crime? Is she not allowed to work?



It's nothing to do with AC getting a job - at least it ain't for me (although the ease with which this rep of the "most oppressed group ever" managed to stroll into a major internet corporate is kinda interesting pinkwashing) - it's everything to do with her using that job to completely shut down a discussion of the pedophile ring centreing on her father and her husband and how for example people like AC were able to draft Trans policy for the Green Party - policy which directly impacted on safeguarding issues and which many people flagged up as problematic on safeguarding grounds. Also the way that the liberal-left has used the shout of "transphobia" to do likewise, including on this thread. 

THAT is a problem for many people, yes. It's interesting again how when someone like AC collides with the real world a load of people end up with egg on their faces. I can see why the liberal left are not keen for any kind of discussion to take place on this, they end up provoking a lot of opposition. 

It'll be fascinating to watch Reddit's weaseling on this over coming days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> It's not really clear to me what her job with Reddit involves tbh, and according to the article above they haven't said. Is she definitely an admin?


Not sure it matters. She was in a position through which she could have content removed and users banned for posting an article that mentions her name. Whatever the name is for that position in the company, she was clearly not the right person to be doing it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure it matters. She was in a position through which she could have content removed and users banned for posting an article that mentions her name. Whatever the name is for that position in the company, she was clearly not the right person to be doing it.


Reddit claim in their statement there was a complaint of doxxing from an employee, and an overzealous autodelete thing - I don't see anything that says she had control over the process. She could work in accounts for all we know.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> It's not really clear to me what her job with Reddit involves tbh, and according to the article above they haven't said. Is she definitely an admin?


It's opaque, because reddit has a policy not to disclose the real world names of their admins. Much like here.
The activation of the automated system that enforces that policy is all the evidence we have here.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> It's nothing to do with AC getting a job - at least it ain't for me (although the ease with which this rep of the "most oppressed group ever" managed to stroll into a major internet corporate is kinda interesting pinkwashing)


Trans unemployment runs at approximately 50% in the uk.  But one trans woman has a job at a company you’ve heard of, so that must mean trans people aren’t really oppressed.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

Crispy said:


> It's opaque, because reddit has a policy not to disclose the real world names of their admins. Much like here.
> The activation of the automated system that enforces that policy is all the evidence we have here.



If you can bear reading a page from Linehan, there's info here - AC identifies herself as a Reddit admin in a mail here  Something rotten at the heart of Reddit


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

Well, she does seem poorly suited to an admin job at a major social media platform, that much is true.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> Trans unemployment runs at approximately 50% in the uk.  But one trans woman has a job at a company you’ve heard of, so that must mean trans people aren’t really oppressed.


Yeah, leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this particular individual, I assume that this logic also means that (cis)women's oppression ended in the UK by 1979 at the latest, and it's ridiculous to talk about black people in the US being oppressed from 2008 onwards?


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 24, 2021)

It really would be great if we could talk about this particular woman who happens to be trans, who most of us agree is a bit of a knob, without it being used as a vehicle to chat shit about trans people as a group.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> Trans unemployment runs at approximately 50% in the uk.



Whiff of bullshit here, who actually has these figures?



belboid said:


> But one trans woman has a job at a company you’ve heard of, so that must mean trans people aren’t really oppressed.



I know you've no interest in finding any common ground, but for the benefit of others, the point is that major social media corporates like Reddit and Twitter are heavily in favour of Gender Identity theory and like to prove this with prominent public appointments of trans or very trans-friendly employees. It doesn't really fit with the "most oppressed evah" line and it sort of indicates that the stupid attempt to make this a left-right issue is also horseshit since these people are clearly aggressive neo-liberal capitalists.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> I know you've no interest in finding any common ground


lol


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> lol



Don't worry I'm not pretending I have, I can see it's impossible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2021)

muscovyduck said:


> It really would be great if we could talk about this particular woman who happens to be trans, who most of us agree is a bit of a knob, without it being used as a vehicle to chat shit about trans people as a group.


yeh but that would involve some people actually thinking and i don't think they're really up for that.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 24, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I assume to be consistent the people angry at Reddit hiring Aimee Challenor are also just as angry about India Knight working for the Times? (convicted paedo partner)
> 
> Challenor seems a damaged person who hasn't necessarily behaved well in the past but has she been convicted of a crime? Is she not allowed to work?


Yes I am. 

I don't think anyone who lives with a paedophile, convicted or self-confessed, should have access to vulnerable children (and it's unquestionable that there are huge swathes of vulnerable children posting on reddit).


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Whiff of bullshit here, who actually has these figures?


ons are key but there are umpteen other surveys you could have found in seconds if you had a genuine interest.

one in three companies openly admitted they were transphobic in 2018.




__





						Transphobia rife among UK employers as 1 in 3 won’t hire a transgender | Onrec
					

Online Recruitment magazine for HR Directors, Personnel Managers, Job Boards and Recruiters with information on the internet recruitment industry




					www.onrec.com
				







> I know you've no interest in finding any common ground, but for the benefit of others, the point is that major social media corporates like Reddit and Twitter are heavily in favour of Gender Identity theory and like to prove this with prominent public appointments of trans or very trans-friendly employees. It doesn't really fit with the "most oppressed evah" line and it sort of indicates that the stupid attempt to make this a left-right issue is also horseshit since these people are clearly aggressive neo-liberal capitalists.


It is true I am not interested in finding common ground with bigots and those who use old right wing arguments and phraseology to shit on other people.  Thankfully everything indicates that the large majority of feminists and lesbians agree with me on that, the trans exclusionary ones are in a minority and have to rely on Sister Patels might to get their way.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

trashpony said:


> I don't think anyone who lives with a paedophile


Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?


Eh, in this case yes it's a matter of public record


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?


If I may say, this seems like a very naive post. She was applying for a job in social media, and already had a history as a social media admin and political activist, with a huge history of putting personal stuff on social media.

A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 24, 2021)

My take is that Knight's trans status has become irrelevant to the story. She acted very badly in terms of her father and has now chosen to marry and defend a nonce.  That her whole story has been 'me, me, me' throughout and that she used every combination of identity politics and procedure to shut people down is the problem.  Or, put the other way round, that the cloak of identity politics is _available _to defend people like her is the problem.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Eh, in this case yes it's a matter of public record


I know it is in this case - I meant more generally, cause that was the topic of the question trashy was responding to


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If I may say, this seems like a very naive post. She was applying for a job in social media, and already had a history as a social media admin and political activist, with a huge history of putting personal stuff on social media.
> 
> A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.


you misunderstood the post. I've already agreed this particular case seems to be a poor hire.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 24, 2021)

For what it's worth, I think it's always worth trying to find common ground, and I'm happy to work with anyone who's interested in, say, stopping the epidemic of fire and rehire, helping stop the employers' attempt at de-skilling in the construction industry, or helping Sisters Uncut campaign to stop the new policing bill. I don't think much of this has any to contribute to that work, though.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 24, 2021)

Wilf said:


> My take is that Knight's trans status has become irrelevant to the story. She acted very badly in terms of her father and has now chosen to marry and defend a nonce.  That her whole story has been 'me, me, me' throughout and that she used every combination of identity politics and procedure to shut people down is the problem.  Or, put the other way round, that the cloak of identity politics is _available _to defend people like her is the problem.


Agree 100%


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Mar 24, 2021)

Wilf said:


> My take is that Knight's trans status has become irrelevant to the story.


More like it should be irrelevant, but the transphobes are so happy to finally have a real world example of transgender and paedophilia intersecting (even though she's not the one accused of the latter) that they're not going to let that aspect of the story die.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 24, 2021)

Different context, but you see the damage people like Tommy Sheridan cause as they play out their own self interested dramas, forcing people in one organisation after another to line up with them or join the list of traitors (Galloway too perhaps).  Ruining one organisation after another and harming the very thing they are supposed to be campaigning on.  All these stories have their specifics and play out around different kinds of identities and authenticities, but must of all, I wish they'd just fuck off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If I may say, this seems like a very naive post. She was applying for a job in social media, and already had a history as a social media admin and political activist, with a huge history of putting personal stuff on social media.
> 
> A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.


i'm sure it wouldn't have been. an interview's what, 45 minutes? and isn't best practice to ask all the interviewees the same questions? possibly, even probably given the nature of this post, that sort of thing is used earlier in the recruitment process. but the interview itself? nah.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.


Mind you, can you imagine doing this particular background check? The case is a bête noire for a whole constellation of bigots - probably makes it easier for her to argue it's all lies


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

Wilf said:


> Or, put the other way round, that the cloak of identity politics is _available _to defend people like her is the problem.




Yeah it would be quite a good thing if the TRAs and their allies didn't throw the allegation of "transphobia" at the slightest pretext, that might make this kind of story quite a lot less likely. But before you know it, we'd have to have a discussion about what is and isn't "transphobic" and who knows where that would end eh?


----------



## BillRiver (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Whiff of bullshit here, who actually has these figures?
> 
> 
> 
> I know you've no interest in finding any common ground, but for the benefit of others, the point is that major social media corporates like Reddit and Twitter are heavily in favour of Gender Identity theory and like to prove this with prominent public appointments of trans or very trans-friendly employees. It doesn't really fit with the "most oppressed evah" line and it sort of indicates that the stupid attempt to make this a left-right issue is also horseshit since these people are clearly aggressive neo-liberal capitalists.



A person could equally point to BAME members of the Tory cabinet, or BAME people with well paid jobs in social media corporates as evidence that racism is not real any more (and some people do try claiming that) but that would be bullshit too.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Yeah it would be quite a good thing if the TRAs and their allies didn't throw the allegation of "transphobia" at the slightest pretext, that might make this kind of story quite a lot less likely. But before you know it, we'd have to have a discussion about what is and isn't "transphobic" and who knows where that would end eh?


With you admitting you’re a bigot who throws around cheap slurs and quotes renowned uber-bigots?


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

btw, I’m pretty sure it would be unlawful to refuse someone a job because of their _partners_ convictions.


----------



## Looby (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?


In lots of jobs there would be a duty to disclose this even if there was never going to be any contact between the partner and children or vulnerable adults.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> With you admitting you’re a bigot who throws around cheap slurs and quotes renowned uber-bigots?



When did I ever "admit I was a bigot" you prat? 

Your definition of bigotry is totally self-serving, all you're doing is making the allegation of "transphobia" meaningless, it tells the listener more about the person saying it than it does about the person of whom it is said.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

Looby said:


> In lots of jobs there would be a duty to disclose this even if there was never going to be any contact between the partner and children or vulnerable adults.


Would you then be able to refuse a hire on this basis?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> btw, I’m pretty sure it would be unlawful to refuse someone a job because of their _partners_ convictions.


I suspect the discussion we are having here is 'with what you know about this person, would you employ them'?  If that's the case, it would be a no from me. If we are trying to guess how an application and references process might work, I don't know what a panel would see/know.  But to be honest, for purposes of general chat on a discussion board, I'd have nothing to do with her.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> When did I ever "admit I was a bigot" you prat?
> 
> Your definition of bigotry is totally self-serving, all you're doing is making the allegation of "transphobia" meaningless, it tells the listener more about the person saying it than it does about the person of whom it is said.


I’m sorry about your literacy issues.  If you recall (tho you could just have read it again as I quoted it) your post finished with the words ‘and who knows where would that end?’ My post follows on directly from that.  

Hope that helps


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I suspect the discussion we are having here is 'with what you know about this person, would you employ them'?  If that's the case, it would be a no from me. If we are trying to guess how an application and references process might work, I don't know what a panel would see/know.  But to be honest, for purposes of general chat on a discussion board, I'd have nothing to do with her.


It’s both (I think) - hence the mention of hr departments at some point above


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> I’m sorry about your literacy issues.  If you recall (tho you could just have read it again as I quoted it) your post finished with the words ‘and who knows where would that end?’ My post follows on directly from that.
> 
> Hope that helps



It did thanks, though when you have to explain your own jokes maybe hold the scorn?


----------



## Looby (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Would you then be able to refuse a hire on this basis?


I don’t know and I think it would depend on the job but there was a case of a teacher who was in a relationship with a convicted sex offender who didn’t disclose it to the governors and was sacked. It went to the Supreme Court in the end who upheld the sacking and the ET supporting the dismissal.
It placed children at an indirect risk. She could have been groomed or coerced into giving this man direct or indirect access to children. Other professions would be similar.
There would at least need to be a very robust safety plan in place I’d imagine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> Mind you, can you imagine doing this particular background check? The case is a bête noire for a whole constellation of bigots - probably makes it easier for her to argue it's all lies


Yes, that's a fair point. However, it also kind of backs up some of what coop has been saying, that for whatever reason there appears to have been something of a reluctance to call her out on what are obvious problems. Changing her dad's name in the records in order to hire him _after_ his arrest for such a despicable crime, and doing so in pursuit of a political objective, ought to be a hard thing to come back from. As far as I know that is public record. She can't argue that it's lie. Should she be ostracised for life for it? Maybe not, but she should have to do some work to retrieve her reputation after such an egregious betrayal of trust when seeking a position of responsibility. Instead, she seems to have been able to walk from one position of responsibility to another. And I'm afraid her subsequent actions, including marrying a paedophile, strongly suggest to me that she is a very damaged person who does not understand certain basic principles to do with trust, consent and responsibility. Not surprising given her fucked-up family background, but not someone who should be anywhere near anything concerning safeguarding issues. She should also probably stop her charity work for children. She needs to find something else to do with her life. She appears not to have the insight to see that. Harsh perhaps, but there it is. Her wishes shouldn't always come first.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Yeah it would be quite a good thing if the TRAs and their allies didn't throw the allegation of "transphobia" at the slightest pretext, that might make this kind of story quite a lot less likely. But before you know it, we'd have to have a discussion about what is and isn't "transphobic" and who knows where that would end eh?


I'm getting the impression that you have some quite strongly held ideas about where that would end up. Do you wish to share them?


Wilf said:


> I suspect the discussion we are having here is 'with what you know about this person, would you employ them'?  If that's the case, it would be a no from me. If we are trying to guess how an application and references process might work, I don't know what a panel would see/know.  But to be honest, for purposes of general chat on a discussion board, I'd have nothing to do with her.


Yeah, apart from anything else we've established that she's a Lib Dem, so a pretty clear-cut wrong 'un on that basis alone.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 24, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, apart from anything else we've established that she's a Lib Dem, so a pretty clear-cut wrong 'un on that basis alone.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I'm getting the impression that you have some quite strongly held ideas about where that would end up. Do you wish to share them?



Yep, "transphobia" means hating transpeople and wanting to limit their social poltical and legal rights,

Transphobia _doesn't_ mean "anyone who thinks gender identity theory is wrong".


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> Yep, "transphobia" means hating transpeople and wanting to limit their social poltical and legal rights,


Cool, so you agree that Women’s Place (who want to roll back all aspects of the gra and introduce harsher toilet laws, for example) are transphobes.  That’s a start.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> putting your legal hat on, would that be a defence to any libel action taken against urban 75?



Yes. On the basis that it's true; he is a paedophile - he freely admits a sexual interest in children.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2021)

I've no doubt that Challenor is, at once, a victim and a misguided person who has acted appallingly.  But she's not representative of trans people. Similarly, Glinner, who is increasingly looking like a weird obsessive, isn't representative of any group.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> Cool, so you agree that Women’s Place (who want to roll back all aspects of the gra and introduce harsher toilet laws, for example) are transphobes.  That’s a start.



No they're clearly not transphobes. The GRA derives from the theory that sex is a social construct but that gender is innate, thats, (a) stupid and obviously wrong and (b) reactionary, misogynistic and homophobic.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

good to be reminded why all the trans threads are on ignore, if nothing else.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> No they're clearly not transphobes. The GRA derives from the theory that sex is a social construct but that gender is innate, thats, (a) stupid and obviously wrong and (b) reactionary, misogynistic and homophobic.


Blimey, so you don’t agree with the definition of transphobe that you just made, I am shocked and amazed.

(you also don’t seem to understand what the 2004 gra is, but hey ho)


----------



## trashpony (Mar 24, 2021)

Can we PLEASE just discuss this issue?

I think there's a really interesting discussion to be had here about social media and its responsibilities to its users. AC's status as a trans person is neither here nor there except inasmuch as Wilf has said if it means that Challenor is not held to the same standards as other people.

It would be a shame if that discussion got derailed into tit-for-tat stuff.

But this is u75. It's what happens. Who am I kidding?


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

I think a definition of transphobic is quite useful, although I agree a full discussion on what the gra (amended proposals or as it stood) isn’t of much use.  

I’m not sure Challenor is alone in using their oppression as a means of closing down debate, it’s all too commonly used by people from all oppressed groups.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2021)

trashpony said:


> But this is u75. It's what happens. Who am I kidding?


it's what happens everywhere tbf. It's an incredibly polarised debate, and many people involved in it have entrenched and deeply held views.

FWIW, I agree social media platforms have a duty of care to their users, and that platforms with a lot of kids and vulnerable adults should probably CRB check their admins or similar. I think you'd struggle to find anyone who really disagrees with that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 24, 2021)

trashpony said:


> Can we PLEASE just discuss this issue?
> 
> I think there's a really interesting discussion to be had here about social media and its responsibilities to its users. AC's status as a trans person is neither here nor there except inasmuch as Wilf has said that it means that Challenor is not held to the same standards as other people.
> 
> ...


I admit that I know next to nothing about reddit other than that it exists. But it will be interesting to see whether they admit to any culpability in hiring Challenor-Knight. Unfortunately, my bet would be that if she loses her job over this, she will pop up somewhere else eventually. She probably isn't capable of seeing the damage she does and changing her patterns.

Her being trans matters inasmuch as she herself foregrounds it. I hope trans-rights campaigners make sure they have nothing to do with her. She will only damage their efforts.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

killer b said:


> FWIW, I agree social media platforms have a duty of care to their users, and that platforms with a lot of kids and vulnerable adults should probably CRB check their admins or similar. I think you'd struggle to find anyone who really disagrees with that.



You know the only reason AC is not still a Reddit admin quietly deleting GC and lesbian subreddits and banning their users is because she was found out by people who were all denounced as "bigots". "transphobes" and "TERFs" don't you?


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 24, 2021)

Athos said:


> I've no doubt that Challenor is, at once, a victim and a misguided person who has acted appallingly.  But she's not representative of trans people. Similarly, Glinner, who is increasingly looking like a weird obsessive, isn't representative of any group.


What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?



They were useful, they contained for example a screenshot of AC stating that she had been made a Reddit Admin. If someone else had better links, they were free to post them. The fact that you think Linehan is an obsessive doesn't change this. It's about real facts, evidence, stuff like that.


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?



It depends.  There's a big difference between, say, posting something in which he spouts an iffy opinion, and posting something in which he provides facts with sources.  Though, tactically, even in the latter case it'd be better just to refer to the source material, to avoid getting sidetracked about Glinner himself!


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> They were useful, they contained for example a screenshot of AC stating that she had been made a Reddit Admin. If someone else had better links, they were free to post them. The fact that you think Linehan is an obsessive doesn't change this. It's about real facts, evidence, stuff like that.


There’s nowt wrong with being obsessive. But there is with inventing fake id’s in order to harass and dox people.  Hardly makes him or his screenshots reliable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 24, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> What about people who post Glinner links and defend them as being useful?


In this instance they provided useful information. Linehan may be a weird obsessive, but the research regarding Nathaniel Knight was potentially important if it is true that he and his wife are involved in children's charities. Don't want paedophiles involved in children's charities. That's kind of a given, no? 

I'd put linking to that on the same level as me linking to mumsnet. It was the place I had found with the information I wanted. And I was satisfied that it was very likely correct information.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 24, 2021)

I think the left needs to have it's own discussion about 'victimhood', quite distinct from the right's attempt to smear victims of oppression in terms of 'victimhood'. In fact so different from the right's discussion that you wouldn't call it a victimhood discussion'.  In part, it runs as a 'problems of identity politics' debate, but I'm more thinking of an emperor's new clothes maturity of discussion.  Yeah, that person might be a victim of oppression, but it should be possible to note they are an absolute self interested and destructive shit.  That applies in this case, though I'm sure AC is damaged as has been noted. But even more so there should be a 'politics free' ability to call people out for exploitative behaviour. In that I'm thinking of all the abusive little cult leaders on the left. That would stretch as far as Alex Salmond who I see is going on the offensive again today. Even his own barrister descrbibed him as a 'bullying sex pest', while his colleagues chose to ignore it.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In this instance they provided useful information. Linehan may be a weird obsessive, but the research regarding Nathaniel Knight was potentially important if it is true that he and his wife are involved in children's charities. Don't want paedophiles involved in children's charities. That's kind of a given, no?
> 
> I'd put linking to that on the same level as me linking to mumsnet. It was the place I had found with the information I wanted. And I was satisfied that it was very likely correct information.



So we're getting posters saying they're glad that the information about AC is in the public domain, but everyone seems happyish with the idea that we can slate the people who found that info and put it in the public domain as "bigots", "TERFs" and "transphobes" or "obsessives".


That's not really working for me. You either give a shit about the problem of fetishists and pedophiles hiding under the trans umbrella or you don't. One way of giving a shit would be to stop throwing these abusive terms around like confetti and trying to use them to silence people.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

The BNPs campaign against paedophilia was more convincing than Linehan’s.


----------



## Santino (Mar 24, 2021)

Santino said:


> Everyone shut the fuck up about Linehan, starting............ now.


_taps sign_


----------



## Wilf (Mar 24, 2021)

Santino said:


> _taps sign_


_Careful now!_


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2021)

Down with this sort of whatchemacallit


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> They were useful, they contained for example a screenshot of AC stating that she had been made a Reddit Admin. If someone else had better links, they were free to post them. The fact that you think Linehan is an obsessive doesn't change this. It's about real facts, evidence, stuff like that.


Where would you put Linehan on a scale of bad "hating transpeople and wanting to limit their social political and legal rights" to good "anyone who thinks gender identity theory [whatever that is when it's at home] is wrong"?


littlebabyjesus said:


> In this instance they provided useful information. Linehan may be a weird obsessive, but the research regarding Nathaniel Knight was potentially important if it is true that he and his wife are involved in children's charities. Don't want paedophiles involved in children's charities. That's kind of a given, no?
> 
> I'd put linking to that on the same level as me linking to mumsnet. It was the place I had found with the information I wanted. And I was satisfied that it was very likely correct information.


I mean, a) you apologised for linking to mumsnet, I think there's a difference between saying "sorry this is a bit of a dodgy source but I think the info seems to be valid" and just going "look at this", and b) honestly in that instance I think it'd be better to just go straight to the primary source and post stuff straight from reddit or wherever.

(sorry santino)


----------



## BigTom (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> btw, I’m pretty sure it would be unlawful to refuse someone a job because of their _partners_ convictions.





killer b said:


> Would you then be able to refuse a hire on this basis?



"Disqualification by Association" is the term here and yes, in childcare settings you can refuse a hire because of the people that someone lives with:









						Childcare Disqualification
					

The purpose of this document is to summarise the childcare disqualification arrangements operating from 31 August 2018 for members in England.




					neu.org.uk
				



.



> *What does disqualification ‘by association’ mean?*
> Disqualification ‘by association’ meant you could be disqualified from providing childcare in a school setting because of an offence or offences committed by someone who lived in your household. However, because of a change to the law, schools are no longer required to ask staff providing, or employed to provide, childcare if they are disqualified by association.
> 
> ...
> ...


----------



## BigTom (Mar 24, 2021)

On the topic at hand I'm in agreement with those who have said that being an admin of a social media site (and formerly if not currently the mod of various subreddits including ones aimed at teenagers) is not a suitable job for someone who has been, at best, so negligent about safeguarding issues in the past, and at worst actively enabling paedophilia. I think social media sites have responsibility towards their users, who are generally aged 13+ as far as the terms of the sites are concerned, so still built with teenagers in mind and no practical way to prevent younger people from using them even if they had the desire to do so.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2021)

BigTom said:


> "Disqualification by Association" is the term here and yes, in childcare settings you can refuse a hire because of the people that someone lives with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So that’s a ‘no’ for being a moderator on an internet website then


----------



## Knotted (Mar 24, 2021)

co-op said:


> I'm not talking about reddit - I'm talking about the usual idiotic chant of "transphobia" from the liberal left whenever this issue comes up, which it does with depressing regularity. In the case of Reddit it is the site's owners and upper echelons who have circled their wagons around AC, I'm sure _they_ aren't just super-neo-liberal corporate wankers or anything. Same with twitter who'll ban you for saying you're a woman if a transwoman complains about it. But yeah, "most oppressed minority evah".



Who got banned from Twitter?


----------



## Athos (Mar 24, 2021)

belboid said:


> So that’s a ‘no’ for being a moderator on an internet website then



Is it?  What provision of employment law prevents a prospective employer from discriminating against someone for associating with a paedophile?  I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you think.


----------



## co-op (Mar 24, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Who got banned from Twitter?



Twitter regularly bans gender critical posters while letting pretty nasty misogynistic abuse stand.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 24, 2021)

If you say you're a woman these days, you get arrested and thrown in twitter jail.


----------



## JTG (Mar 24, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> If you say you're a woman these days, you get arrested and thrown in twitter jail.


When did this come in?


----------



## weepiper (Mar 25, 2021)




----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 25, 2021)

Reckon this is tip of iceberg. Neo liberal big tech vs sex and the free market, innit. 

I mentioned on this thread 2 years ago about boundaries and safeguarding, how listening to stakeholders in protection of kids/teens (primary care givers and legislation) should be taken seriously. 

Specifically peado apologia and the wedge that drives it into acceptable society (just search my name and make up your own minds). 

Am looking forward to more "bigoteering" from the usual suspects.

However, this is at least a smidge towards a positive step. 
Perhaps now reddit will stop banning people for having Frank conversations about the link between postmodern discourse, lack of boundaries (linguistically and consentually), and the door left ajar.

I stopped posting on Urban on threads like this in 2018. I break that self-inflicted, self-protective rule now just to say I'm sad that the gravitas needed for language clarity, acceptability, and ultimately child safeguarding (as well as the reach into multi millionaire tech acceptability of discourse) is still being argued over.

I shall go back to the fluff threads and forums. 

Just posting to say _it's a real shame_ that historical editing is still part of this, that the power of socmed tech under patriarchy (as in material dialectical analysis) is still being handwaved. I still haven't gone anywhere, even though I post less on here as a consequence. 

Re-reading this was interesting.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 25, 2021)

co-op said:


> Twitter regularly bans gender critical posters while letting pretty nasty misogynistic abuse stand.



And they get banned for saying that they are women? Can you give me an example?


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> And they get banned for saying that they are women? Can you give me an example?



They have done, yes. Someone called Clare Curran who tweeted as @TheCurran73 was tweeted at by some TRA who thought it was a great idea to post up a photo of her next to a  photo of themself and basically have a sneer because the trans woman thought she was prettier and "more feminine" than the biological woman - so radical! - not at all sexist! And everyone knows lesbians and feminists are just ugly slags who can't get a man so it's bound to be true.

The phrase used was something like "I pass better"

Clare's reply - "I don't 'pass', I am" got her banned.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 25, 2021)

That's of course an implicit "and you're not". I thought this was going to be somebody well known and particularly obnoxious like Posey Parker. But it turns out that she still has a Twitter account. I guess the all powerful tra's haven't got round to her yet.

This Clare Curran seems to be an anti-trans conspiracy type, though. And looking at the last few pages, it's fair to say you are too. We saw all this stuff with Labour/left anti-semitism.

   The clunky oppressed/oppressors binary

   The monolithic conception of tra's/zionists combined with the idea that they're really in control

   Trying to exploit bad faith accusations of transphobia/anti-semitism to claim that definitions of transphobia/anti-semitism are now weakened or even meaningless

   The proactive defence and promotion of outriders.

  The obsessive bringing in of talking points where they just don't apply. You have made the bulk of this thread about the threat of self-identifying trans women because of an abuser called David. David.

   Whereas the access to women's spaces issue/Palestinian rights might be sincerely meant but it's still a cover for a whole lot more. Because you're sticking it to the supposedly powerful, it's all fair game.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 25, 2021)

The terrain on reddit is a sort of right wing free market identity politics place for those of you who haven't spent time on the site. There's some good pockets on there but it's mainly an absolute abyss and anything promising gets subsumed into becoming what this thread essentially is


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> And they get banned for saying that they are women? Can you give me an example?


Twitters moderating is shit across the board of all disadvantaged groups. bearing in mind I've done a lot more feminist work that trans rights work (although by nature they overlap significantly) and this reflected in who I was following on twitter, I definitely saw trans people getting moderated more harshly than cis women, who were also being moderated harshly


----------



## weepiper (Mar 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> That's of course an implicit "and you're not".


But isn't that literally the point the trans woman was making? Why is it not transphobia for them to say they "pass", if it _is_ for someone born female to say it?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 25, 2021)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Reckon this is tip of iceberg. Neo liberal big tech vs sex and the free market, innit.
> 
> I mentioned on this thread 2 years ago about boundaries and safeguarding, how listening to stakeholders in protection of kids/teens (primary care givers and legislation) should be taken seriously.
> 
> ...


Libertarianism, innnit. All conceptions of liberty as negative liberty must tend towards the ideal of liberty as total liberty, which ends in the negation of liberty. It must end in the negation of liberty, as in a condition of total negative liberty the strong must be allowed to prey on the weak.


----------



## Santino (Mar 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> That's of course an implicit "and you're not". I thought this was going to be somebody well known and particularly obnoxious like Posey Parker. But it turns out that she still has a Twitter account. I guess the all powerful tra's haven't got round to her yet.
> 
> This Clare Curran seems to be an anti-trans conspiracy type, though. And looking at the last few pages, it's fair to say you are too. We saw all this stuff with Labour/left anti-semitism.
> 
> ...


Which side are you criticising here?


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2021)

weepiper said:


> But isn't that literally the point the trans woman was making? Why is it not transphobia for them to say they "pass", if it _is_ for someone born female to say it?



Not to mention the "ugly feminist" trope that the tw is happily re-cycling. I really don't get why all the keen trans allies don't just disavow this stuff and point out that it's all a bit complex, some shit on all sides etc. But they just can't - it's always black and white.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2021)

co-op said:


> Not to mention the "ugly feminist" trope that the tw is happily re-cycling. I really don't get why all the keen trans allies don't just disavow this stuff and point out that it's all a bit complex, some shit on all sides etc. But they just can't - it's always black and white.


It's always someone else has to do the disavowing and admitting or pointing out and never you. Strange that.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 25, 2021)

co-op said:


> Not to mention the "ugly feminist" trope that the tw is happily re-cycling. I really don't get why all the keen trans allies don't just disavow this stuff and point out that it's all a bit complex, some shit on all sides etc. But they just can't - it's always black and white.


It's all just a narcissistic game to them - "look at me, look at what a great ally I am".


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2021)

Santino said:


> Which side are you criticising here?



I think the gist is that I'm an anti-semite and a "transphobe", but he does sound like he's reading off a prepared script so I hope he's ok.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> That's of course an implicit "and you're not". I thought this was going to be somebody well known and particularly obnoxious like Posey Parker. But it turns out that she still has a Twitter account. I guess the all powerful tra's haven't got round to her yet.
> 
> This Clare Curran seems to be an anti-trans conspiracy type, though. And looking at the last few pages, it's fair to say you are too. We saw all this stuff with Labour/left anti-semitism.
> 
> ...


Not sure you're really helping re the clunky binaries here.

Your analogy does have some merit. There are similarities in that both disputes involve groups seeking ownership of definitions. But I don't think it's quite right to characterise those doing so in either case as 'outriders'. The Israeli government isn't exactly an outrider when it seeks to include within a definition of anti-Semitism pretty much all anti-Zionism. And the likes of Mermaids aren't exactly outriders when they seek to impose their definitions and relative weightings of sex and gender and label everyone who disagrees a bigot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure you're really helping re the clunky binaries here.
> 
> Your analogy does have some merit. There are similarities in that both disputes involve groups seeking ownership of definitions. But I don't think it's quite right to characterise those doing so in either case as 'outriders'. The Israeli government isn't exactly an outrider when it seeks to include within a definition of anti-Semitism pretty much all anti-Zionism. And the likes of Mermaids aren't exactly outriders when they seek to impose their definitions and relative weightings of sex and gender and label everyone who disagrees a bigot.


it's good of you to condescend to say so


----------



## smokedout (Mar 25, 2021)

co-op said:


> They have done, yes. Someone called Clare Curran who tweeted as @TheCurran73 was tweeted at by some TRA who thought it was a great idea to post up a photo of her next to a  photo of themself and basically have a sneer because the trans woman thought she was prettier and "more feminine" than the biological woman - so radical! - not at all sexist! And everyone knows lesbians and feminists are just ugly slags who can't get a man so it's bound to be true.
> 
> The phrase used was something like "I pass better"
> 
> Clare's reply - "I don't 'pass', I am" got her banned.



How do you know that's what got her banned?  People are rarely banned for a single tweet but for a pattern of behaviour.  This may include behaviour that only the moderators are aware of such as using sockpuppet accounts (which happened in Glinner's case).  The tweet they are eventually banned for is usually the 'final straw', not an innocent isolated incident.

Much of this moderation is carried out by low paid workers in places like Manila - who probably think they're the most oppresed group ever but still manage to "stroll into a major internet corporate".  I very much doubt they give a shit about a factional row over trans people taking place in the UK.  People are usually banned for repeatedly breaking twitter's rules, and no doubt people are also banned by mistake.  This has happened to both trans and gender critical people.  It has also happened to those on the far right, and those on the left.  And climate change deniers and climate activists.  And Tories and Labour supporters.  What unites them is those on the crankier ends of all those spectrums are utterly convinced there is big tech conspiracy to silence them - much in the same way a lot of politicos in the UK get  obsessed about the BBC - athough there is at least some truth in that which is that they are generally biased towards the government of the day.

Big tech cares about money, there is no conspiracy, moderation is just done on the cheap.  What gets moderated depends on the mores of the day.  If pogroms started happening against trans people with popular and government support then big tech would no doubt fall inline, just as big business always does in such situations.  Twitter, facebook and reddit are not secretly plotting to destroy women and children by asking people to respect trans people's pronouns, they are just doing business within the spirit of the times because presumably that is what is the most profitable thing to do.  Reddit made a mistake by hiring someone without fully knowing their background, although CRB checks would have done nothing to inform them of this because Aimee Challenor has not been convicted of a crime.  Their anti-dox policies intended to protect employees turned out not to work very well.  A few reddit groups complained, and Reddit have rectified it.  Challenor worked at Reddit for about 3 months.  That's it.  Anyone insisting this is all part of some insidious trans plot to do whatever it is you think trans people are secretly plotting to do is a fucking crank.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 25, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure you're really helping re the clunky binaries here.
> 
> Your analogy does have some merit. There are similarities in that both disputes involve groups seeking ownership of definitions. But I don't think it's quite right to characterise those doing so in either case as 'outriders'. The Israeli government isn't exactly an outrider when it seeks to include within a definition of anti-Semitism pretty much all anti-Zionism. And the likes of Mermaids aren't exactly outriders when they seek to impose their definitions and relative weightings of sex and gender and label everyone who disagrees a bigot.



Are you really comparing a tiny charity with less than a dozen full time employees to the Israeli government?


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 25, 2021)

Holy shit the list of subreddits that set themselves to private is huge. Imagine if the majority of twitter or instagram set itself to private? Full list here . Some of the ones on the list may seem suprising depending on what assumptions you hold about different groups of people and their beliefs.


----------



## baldrick (Mar 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> How do you know that's what got her banned?  People are rarely banned for a single tweet but for a pattern of behaviour.  This may include behaviour that only the moderators are aware of such as using sockpuppet accounts (which happened in Glinner's case).  The tweet they are eventually banned for is usually the 'final straw', not an innocent isolated incident.
> 
> Much of this moderation is carried out by low paid workers in places like Manila - who probably think they're the most oppresed group ever but still manage to "stroll into a major internet corporate".  I very much doubt they give a shit about a factional row over trans people taking place in the UK.  People are usually banned for repeatedly breaking twitter's rules, and no doubt people are also banned by mistake.  This has happened to both trans and gender critical people.  It has also happened to those on the far right, and those on the left.  And climate change deniers and climate activists.  And Tories and Labour supporters.  What unites them is those on the crankier ends of all those spectrums are utterly convinced there is big tech conspiracy to silence them - much in the same way a lot of politicos in the UK get  obsessed about the BBC - athough there is at least some truth in that which is that they are generally biased towards the government of the day.
> 
> Big tech cares about money, there is no conspiracy, moderation is just done on the cheap.  What gets moderated depends on the mores of the day.  If pogroms started happening against trans people with popular and government support then big tech would no doubt fall inline, just as big business always does in such situations.  Twitter, facebook and reddit are not secretly plotting to destroy women and children by asking people to respect trans people's pronouns, they are just doing business within the spirit of the times because presumably that is what is the most profitable thing to do.  Reddit made a mistake by hiring someone without fully knowing their background, although CRB checks would have done nothing to inform them of this because Aimee Challenor has not been convicted of a crime.  Their anti-dox policies intended to protect employees turned out not to work very well.  A few reddit groups complained, and Reddit have rectified it.  Challenor worked at Reddit for about 3 months.  That's it.  Anyone insisting this is all part of some insidious trans plot to do whatever it is you think trans people are secretly plotting to do is a fucking crank.


Actually CRB has been replaced by DBS now and it is possible that 'non-conviction' information is supplied by police forces if it is deemed relevant, part of changes brought in post Huntley.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 25, 2021)

baldrick said:


> Actually CRB has been replaced by DBS now and it is possible that 'non-conviction' information is supplied by police forces if it is deemed relevant, part of changes brought in post Huntley.



Only for an enhanced disclosure check, and even then it might not come up.  Aimee was a child when these offences took place, and I'm not aware that she was ever investigated as being under suspician herself.

I'm not convinced enhanced disclosure for social media mods is a good idea tbh.  Are the mods here all DBS checked?  As you say a lot can turn up on an enhanced DBS, much of which may not be related to safeguarding concerns.  There are lots of jobs which require some contact with children and vulnerable adults, such as working in a shop, I don't think I'd support extending enhanced DBS checks to anyone who might come across a child in their work, because that could mean any relevent police record being released to future employers - such as a warning for shoplifting as a teenager.  It's a bit of a moot point anyway since most social media moderators aren't based in the UK, I think any regulation should be geared towards the safety procedures the companies have in place - such as ensuring any contact between moderators and young users is monitored and recorded.


----------



## baldrick (Mar 25, 2021)

Yeah I don't know the ins and outs of it, like you say, they are based in the US anyway so I don't know how much of it is relevant.

But I guess the point I was trying badly to make is that we wouldn't necessarily know what 'non-conviction' information is available as that wouldn't be public record. If there was anything, it may not be connected to her dad at all, like you say, she was a child at the time.


----------



## BillRiver (Mar 25, 2021)

Wasn't she taken into care at some point? I seem to remember reading that a while back.
Either way, she seems pretty damaged/vulnerable herself.
Can't help wondering whether or not, and how, we'd be discussing her if she was a cis woman.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 25, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Wasn't she taken into care at some point? I seem to remember reading that a while back.
> Either way, she seems pretty damaged/vulnerable herself.
> Can't help wondering whether or not, and how, we'd be discussing her if she was a cis woman.


In some senses, 'why are we discussing her' has itself become the topic.  She emerged as 'a story' as another version of the ongoing battle around gender and biology in centre left organisation, with as you say, the added dimension of her own vulnerability.  People's positions on that will stay embedded in the story as it develops, but I just think the story has become about something else now. She's blundered through a few leftish groups (+ Libdem lice) and we now have the added aspect of her partner.  You've got to kick back against anyone playing the 'look, trans and paedos' card, of course, but ultimately you have to take her case on it's merits. Damaged as she may well be, she's behaved appallingly.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 25, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure you're really helping re the clunky binaries here.
> 
> Your analogy does have some merit. There are similarities in that both disputes involve groups seeking ownership of definitions. But I don't think it's quite right to characterise those doing so in either case as 'outriders'. The Israeli government isn't exactly an outrider when it seeks to include within a definition of anti-Semitism pretty much all anti-Zionism. And the likes of Mermaids aren't exactly outriders when they seek to impose their definitions and relative weightings of sex and gender and label everyone who disagrees a bigot.



The promoted outriders on this thread are eg. Linehan and Woman's Place UK. By way of analogy with left anti-semitism there's a whole genre of defending and sometimes promoting people who are pushing the envelope eg. Jackie Walker or worse someone like Gilad Atzmon, currently it's David Miller.

And yes the Linehan link might have had useful information, but it was not done in an "apologies for the source" sort of way. Very much the opposite.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 25, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> It's all just a narcissistic game to them - "look at me, look at what a great ally I am".



Go on say it. Virtue signalling.


----------



## Santino (Mar 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Go on say it. Virtue signalling.


Rainblow flag-shagging


----------



## Knotted (Mar 25, 2021)

Santino said:


> Which side are you criticising here?



Right now I am most concerned about the state of urban75. People who are friendly towards trans rights on here aren't disingenuously calling people transphobes for instance. Look at the beginning of the thread, everybody is in agreement and saying sensible things until Co-op artificially introduces the dreaded dangers of self-identity. Its just shit stirring. But they've gone into some really crazy territory these last few pages. Making a distinction between real if marginal concerns about transwomen in women's safe spaces and this broader conspiratorial thinking isn't difficult. I think it would be best if we stop thinking about sides and start thinking about who is causing problems.

I have a level tolerance for political argy bargy and ugly politics, but I think this is also a community. If we all look the other way, what does that say to trans members?


----------



## Santino (Mar 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I think it would be best if we stop thinking about sides


Do you recognise the irony of this at all?


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Wasn't she taken into care at some point? I seem to remember reading that a while back.
> Either way, she seems pretty damaged/vulnerable herself.
> Can't help wondering whether or not, and how, we'd be discussing her if she was a cis woman.



She was and the whole family seem very messed up, she is very likely a victim here. 

The problem is that she has been allowed to float upwards into jobs where safeguarding was _obviously_ an issue and it seems pretty clear to me she was promoted into those jobs on the basis of her being a trans woman. She was on Stonewall Trans Advisory Board, that's Stonewall who aggressively seek out corporate partners for their "Diversity Champions" Awards (do/say the right things, pay over a large annual cheque) when they advised groups like the Girl Guides that it's cool for teenaged boys to share sleeping and showering facilities with girls provided that they identify as girls etc etc.

The fact that she's absolutely at the centre of a whole web of pedophiles, furrys, fetishists of all flavours, is important, as is the fact that whenever she was questioned about it she yelled "transphobia" and for loads of well-meaning people, that was enough. It isn't and never will be. There simply is no equivalent for biological women to deflect this kind of investigation.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 25, 2021)

Santino said:


> Do you recognise the irony of this at all?



No I don't. I think it's important to recognise what people are doing as individuals are doing rather than cheering on "your" side.

God god man, we've all been through this with respect to the anti-semitism problem. People cheering on the pro-Palestinian side without stopping to think, excusing whatever as grist to the mill.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 14, 2022)

How the fuck did this happen?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 14, 2022)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How the fuck did this happen?



14 % turnout, apparently.

surprised there had been a green party candidate elected there in the past.  

don't know the patch well, but epping forest parliamentary constituency rarely goes below 50% tory


----------



## Dom Traynor (Oct 15, 2022)

The Green was kicked out of council for non attendence and stood again.


----------

