Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

I remember the thing about the organ playing now. Caroline was playing the organ in church and the service was being streamed live on Zoom for parishioners who couldn't or didn't want to attend in person. It was during this time that the posts that were complained about were posted. I don't know what evidence was presented to the police that she was the person who had posted them, or that she even had an account with the platform in question. The police spent ages looking at the Zoom footage and her phone and the phones of everyone else in the family trying to prove that she could have had a phone in the organ loft and have been posting offensive messages between hymns. All this purely on the basis of one TRA who made a police complaint and simply asserted that she was the person posting.

I mean you couldn't make it up. This is the police force who won't even turn up to a burglary but just issue you with a crime report number and tell you to contact your insurance company. Who don't have officers free to attend an ongoing domestic violence incident. Who won't take action to recover stolen property even when the owner has proof of where the property is.

There are a few TRAs who are running vendettas against specific people they have taken offence against, and are using the police as their personal enforcement service, a role the police seem quite happy to perform for them, rather than charging them with wasting police time. Caroline seems to have fallen foul of one such person. Harry the Owl and Miranda Yardley are other victims.
 
Pixel42 said:
This is something that's been bugging me for a while.

Rights are what every person in a society should have. Historically some citizens have been denied certain rights because of accidents of birth - women didn't have many of the rights men had, many people didn't have the right to love and marry those it came naturally to them to love and marry, people of colour were unfairly discriminated against, etc etc. These groups had to fight for the rights everyone else already had.

People who are transgender are not denied any of the rights that everyone else has, at least in the UK. That doesn't mean they don't encounter prejudice, of course, sadly they do, and so do the groups I just mentioned, but that prejudice is not enshrined in, and protected by, law.

The things TRAs demand to be allowed to do are things which no-one is currently allowed to do - access the sex segregated spaces of the opposite sex, compete in the sex segregated sports leagues of the opposite sex etc. It bugs me when the term "trans rights" is used to describe those demands.
Click to expand...

Well then surely TRAs is a misleading term given that it literally means "trans rights activists".
 
This all reminds of the IOC being applauded because the IBA had Russian influence.
Man punches woman in the face sort of stuff is OK because Putin is a bad man.
NYT and WAPO had universal obedience to the creed.
Sometimes the Daily Mail is correct.
Probably usually.
 
Overall, we rate Vice Media Left-Center Biased due to wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual rather than High due to a failed fact check.
Click to expand...
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Click to expand...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vice-news/

(The one failed fact check was about something they claimed Trump had said, so nothing whatsoever to do with trans or gender issues.)

Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.
Click to expand...
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Click to expand...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

:rolleyes:
 
Cosmic Yak said:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vice-news/

(The one failed fact check was about something they claimed Trump had said, so nothing whatsoever to do with trans or gender issues.)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vice-media-bias

VICE_mediaBias.png


What a "Left" Rating Means

Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Left display media bias in ways that strongly align with liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas. This is our most liberal rating on the political spectrum.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
I have been unable to find any balanced reporting of this incident.
Click to expand...

This tends to happen when media is politically influenced and biased. Tell me how much "balanced reporting" you find about Joe Biden or Kamela Harris on Faux News, Newsmax etc (or for that matter, The Fat Orange Turd on MSNBC, or CNN).

Much of the media is captured by the gender-ideology cult - in Australia, the media, the Police and the judicial system are almost completely captured. Its getting that way here - and the UK is next. You aren't going to find much balanced reporting there because they aren't going to go against their editorial directives, and they certainly are not going to tell on themselves. You therefore, have to rely on whoever is willing to tell the story, but as you do so, keep in mind their bias and where their loyalty lies. VICE's loyalty lies with the left, the Flail's and the Sun's loyalty lies on the right.

But the whole issue here is with even allowing people to report what others say on Social media. A criminal investigator should not be involved unless what is posted is a direct or veiled threat of violence or death. Investigating Smith because he posted something that Jones was triggered by leading Jones to make a police complaint should not get past looking at what Smith posted. If it wasn't a threat of violence, incitement to violence or a death threat that should be the end of it.

For example, lets say Judy Jones is a transwoman and trans-rights activist. I get into an online spat with him.

I post "someone need to shoot that Judy Jones", or "I know where you live Judy Jones, so you need to watch your back", or "Jones, you'd better hope we never actually meet in person, because if we do, I'm going give you a hiding". If Jones were to make a Police complaint, then I would expect to be investigated for it.

However, if I were to post "Jones you're not a real woman" , or "Listen Jones, you're just another one of those trans-freaks with a dick between his legs trying to cosplay as a woman", then those could be vile, nasty things to say, but I should have a free speech right to say them. If Jones makes a Police complaint, the investigation should not go beyond the investigating officer looking at what I posted, and immediately closing the investigation with the conclusion that I have have not broken any laws and therefore have no case to a to answer. And yes, those words ARE protected speech in a legal sense, but in the real world, if I were living in the UK right now, I could be at least spoken to, and possibly arrested, questioned under caution and have my devices confiscated. No matter how I might ultimately be cleared of any charges, the mere threat of such actions chills (and therefore, infringes) my free speech rights. There needs to be both a procedural and an attitudinal change to the way police deal with complaints such as these... FIRST determine if the speech was protected speech, if it was, end of investigation; if it wasn't, only then should the investigation proceed. Unfortunately, these changes haven't been made.

Now, you repeatedly argue that these incidents will get less and less common over time. Sorry, that is not good enough. They are still happening, and they need to stop immediately - right now. The Commissioner of the Met needs to promulgate an order to all Police districts round the country, to not proceed with any investigation of anything posted about anyone on social media or in public fora that is a not a direct or veiled threat of violence, incitement to violence, intimidation or death.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
This tends to happen when media is politically influenced and biased. Tell me how much "balanced reporting" you find about Joe Biden or Kamela Harris on Faux News, Newsmax etc (or for that matter, The Fat Orange Turd on MSNBC, or CNN).

Much of the media is captured by the gender-ideology cult - in Australia, the media, the Police and the judicial system are almost completely captured. Its getting that way here - and the UK is next. You aren't going to find much balanced reporting there because they aren't going to go against their editorial directives, and they certainly are not going to tell on themselves. You therefore, have to rely on whoever is willing to tell the story, but as you do so, keep in mind their bias and where their loyalty lies. VICE's loyalty lies with the left, the Flail's and the Sun's loyalty lies on the right.

But the whole issue here is with even allowing people to report what others say on Social media. A criminal investigator should not be involved unless what is posted is a direct or veiled threat of violence or death. Investigating Smith because he posted something that Jones was triggered by leading Jones to make a police complaint should not get past looking at what Smith posted. If it wasn't a threat of violence, incitement to violence or a death threat that should be the end of it.

For example, lets say Judy Jones is a transwoman and trans-rights activist. I get into an online spat with him.

I post "someone need to shoot that Judy Jones", or "I know where you live Judy Jones, so you need to watch your back", or "Jones, you'd better hope we never actually meet in person, because if we do, I'm going give you a hiding". If Jones were to make a Police complaint, then I would expect to be investigated for it.

However, if I were to post "Jones you're not a real woman" , or "Listen Jones, you're just another one of those trans-freaks with a dick between his legs trying to cosplay as a woman", then those could be vile, nasty things to say, but I should have a free speech right to say them. If Jones makes a Police complaint, the investigation should not go beyond the investigating officer looking at what I posted, and immediately closing the investigation with the conclusion that I have have not broken any laws and therefore have no case to a to answer. And yes, those words ARE protected speech in a legal sense, but in the real world, if I were living in the UK right now, I could be at least spoken to, and possibly arrested, questioned under caution and have my devices confiscated. No matter how I might ultimately be cleared of any charges, the mere threat of such actions chills (and therefore, infringes) my free speech rights. There needs to be both a procedural and an attitudinal change to the way police deal with complaints such as these... FIRST determine if the speech was protected speech, if it was, end of investigation; if it wasn't, only then should the investigation proceed. Unfortunately, these changes haven't been made.

Now, you repeatedly argue that these incidents will get less and less common over time. Sorry, that is not good enough. They are still happening, and they need to stop immediately - right now. The Commissioner of the Met needs to promulgate an order to all Police districts round the country, to not proceed with any investigation of anything posted about anyone on social media or in public fora that is a not a direct or veiled threat of violence, intimidation or death.
Click to expand...

A few things:

You and others keep using the term “ideologically captured” as if it explains all. It’s almost like a tic, similar to when someone says “the woke mind virus”.


But….

You haven’t accounted for the fact that both the Conservatives and Labour have essentially agreed that there should be single-sex spaces for women and the argument is how much they want to have compassion for transgender individuals. By the looks of things, the only party that go far enough on this for you, smartcooky, is Reform:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nng2j42xro

Conservatives
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has suggested voters face a "crystal-clear choice" at this election about the protection of single-sex spaces.
The Conservatives say that - if re-elected - they will "protect female-only spaces and competitiveness in sport", by rewriting the Equality Act to make clear that sex as a protected characteristic means biological sex.
Click to expand...

Labour
Sir Keir Starmer defended his position on single-sex spaces in Wednesday's debate.
"It's very important that we protect female-only spaces," he said, adding that he treats transgender people "as I treat all human beings - with dignity and respect".
He referred to guidance around the existing Equality Act, which says that a trans person with a Gender Recognition Certificate could be prevented from using a single-sex service in some circumstances.
Click to expand...

Reform UK
Nigel Farage
IMAGE SOURCE, GETTY
Image caption, Nigel Farage's Reform party would scrap the Equality Act
In its list of pledges, Reform UK says “divisive, ‘woke’ ideology has captured our public institutions”.
The party says “transgender indoctrination is causing irreversible harm to children”, and plans to ban what it describes as “transgender ideology” in schools in England. In practice, this means “no gender questioning, social transitioning or pronoun swapping”.
Click to expand...

In addition, both the Conservatives and Labour have accepted the Cass Review, as have most of the medical bodies despite their putative “ideological capture by the wokerati”.

In addition, the Sun, that you claim is right-wing, backed Starmer in the election, not the Tories or Reform.

And finally, your claims that these days you can be hauled before the woke ideologically captured judiciary for expressing gender critical views seems at odds with your previous bragging about how you delighted at being gratuitously unpleasant to a trans woman and pointing out their biology as being disgusting to heterosexual men. Yet apparently smartcooky walks free.
 
I note that Smartcookie was talking about the situation in Britain. He lives in New Zealand. It says so right there on his profile.

It also depends on whether a TRA decides to go after you. It may be that you're just an insignificant nobody whose speech no TRA cares enough about to make an issue of it. After all, since everything the light touches is transphobic, and there are only so many hours in the day, you might have a decent chance of getting away with it. On the other hand that could change any minute if you trigger the wrong TRA, and you could join Caroline Farrow, Miranda Yardley, Harry the Owl and quite a few more people in finding yourself the subject of numerous complaints.
 
Rolfe said:
I note that Smartcookie was talking about the situation in Britain. He lives in New Zealand. It says so right there on his profile.

It also depends on whether a TRA decides to go after you. It may be that you're just an insignificant nobody whose speech no TRA cares enough about to make an issue of it. After all, since everything the light touches is transphobic, and there are only so many hours in the day, you might have a decent chance of getting away with it. On the other hand that could change any minute if you trigger the wrong TRA, and you could join Caroline Farrow, Miranda Yardley, Harry the Owl and quite a few more people in finding yourself the subject of numerous complaints.
Click to expand...

Looking at the specific example:

A spokesperson for Surrey Police said: 'On Monday, October 3, officers attended an address in the Guildford area as part of an investigation into allegations of malicious communications (sending of indecent, grossly offensive messages, threats, or information) and harassment.


'A 48-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of both offences.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that of those claims, threats should not be protected. Harassment also.

Do we know the nature of what was actually said? It sounds as though someone posted stuff on Kiwi Farms which may have risen to that level and that Farrow claims that she did not send those.

If that’s the case, then it doesn’t mean that what she posted was what was considered illegal but what she was suspected of posting, presumably anonymously.

Can there be any justification for seizure of electronic devices without a warrant? My understanding is that there can be if the devices can be tampered with before being searched.

It does look to me that the law itself is overly broad and covers both what should be illegal and that which shouldn’t be. But that would certainly, at least in theory, justify an investigation.
 
smartcooky said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vice-media-bias

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9d9r5dyizhhtxizf5f4o2/VICE_mediaBias.png?rlkey=nhy6py12rph9nx2pxfmp08sey&raw=1[/qimg]

What a "Left" Rating Means

Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Left display media bias in ways that strongly align with liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas. This is our most liberal rating on the political spectrum.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


And how was this rating determined?
As of August 2024, 6,551 people have voted on the AllSides Media Bias Rating for Vice. On average, those who disagree with our rating think this source has a Lean Left bias.
Click to expand...

Who voted?
AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ reflect the average judgment of all Americans.
Click to expand...

It is a feature of American politics that anyone slightly to the left of Genghiz Khan is seen as a diehard Marxist. I have precisely zero faith in the judgement of Americans in this respect. That's doubly true, considering that only 6,551 that voted on this site, and that any one of us can vote to agree or disagree with the rating, thus rendering it seriously unreliable.

Then there's this:
AllSides has low or initial confidence in this bias rating.
Click to expand...

They don't have confidence in their own rating. :eye-poppi
Then, there's no mention of factual accuracy. Nothing. No determination of whether the site is trustworthy on factual grounds.
smartcooky: Do you have any grounds to question the factual accuracy of the Vice report, and the quotes from the police contained within it?
 
angrysoba said:
A few things:

You and others keep using the term “ideologically captured” as if it explains all. It’s almost like a tic, similar to when someone says “the woke mind virus”.


But….

You haven’t accounted for the fact that both the Conservatives and Labour have essentially agreed that there should be single-sex spaces for women and the argument is how much they want to have compassion for transgender individuals.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd like to tell this to the Australian Judge who ruled that a female only app (i.e. a single-sex space) could not exclude transwomen from membership, and the Australian media who support his view.

angrysoba said:
In addition, both the Conservatives and Labour have accepted the Cass Review, as have most of the medical bodies despite their putative “ideological capture by the wokerati”.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would like to re-read what I said (I'll emphasize the bits you glossed over)

Much of the media is captured by the gender-ideology cult - in Australia, the media, the Police and the judicial system are almost completely captured. Its getting that way here - and the UK is next.​

What you think the Cass Review has to do with the Australian Judiciary us anybody's guess :rolleyes:

angrysoba said:
In addition, the Sun, that you claim is right-wing, backed Starmer in the election, not the Tories or Reform.
Click to expand...

And? So what?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sun/

angrysoba said:
And finally, your claims that these days you can be hauled before the woke ideologically captured judiciary for expressing gender critical views seems at odds with your previous bragging about how you delighted at being gratuitously unpleasant to a trans woman and pointing out their biology as being disgusting to heterosexual men. Yet apparently smartcooky walks free.
Click to expand...

And again, perhaps you'd like to re-read what I actually said (with emphasis on the bits you pretended I didn't say)

...if I were living in the UK right now, I could be at least spoken to, and possibly arrested, questioned under caution and have my devices confiscated.​
 
Cosmic Yak said:
smartcooky: Do you have any grounds to question the factual accuracy of the Vice report, and the quotes from the police contained within it?
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak: Do you have any grounds to question the factual accuracy of the Daily mail report, and the quotes from the police contained within it?
 
smartcooky said:
Perhaps you'd like to tell this to the Australian Judge who ruled that a female only app (i.e. a single-sex space) could not exclude transwomen from membership, and the Australian media who support his view.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the UK, you plonker.


smartcooky said:
Perhaps you would like to re-read what I said (I'll emphasize the bits you glossed over)
Click to expand...

And I will highlight the relevant bit so that you can read for context...

Much of the media is captured by the gender-ideology cult - in Australia, the media, the Police and the judicial system are almost completely captured. Its getting that way here - and the UK is next. ​

What you think the Cass Review has to do with the Australian Judiciary us anybody's guess :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Try reading for context. I was talking about the UK. The one that you said "was next".



smartcooky said:
And? So what?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sun/



And again, perhaps you'd like to re-read what I actually said (with emphasis on the bits you pretended I didn't say)

...if I were living in the UK right now, I could be at least spoken to, and possibly arrested, questioned under caution and have my devices confiscated.​
Click to expand...

So supporting Labour hardly means it is down-the-line right-wing.
 
angrysoba said:
I'm talking about the UK, you plonker.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't, you plonker, and MY POST 510 CAME FIRST....

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14396288&postcount=510

... and it was about Australia. It was a response to Cosmic Yak's post, NOT YOURS!! I wasn't talking to you!!!

You responded to MY post, with irrelevant stuff about the Cass review!

Learn to understand a ******* timeline, and learn to actually read and understand posts before you go off half-cocked in another of your typical knee-jerk responses!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom