Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
Jesus Christ dude. I just said, in the post you are quoting, that it is from the Mail article, the first mention of this event posted by smartcooky.

Here is the link again. The first thing you see under the banner is a video link. The reporter says that one trans protester and one counter protester had been arrested, going on to mention that it was for attacking camera equipment.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Three arrests as trans rights activists clash women's rights groups

Three people have been arrested after women's rights groups and trans rights activists clashed 199 days after the Supreme Court's transgender ruling.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Eta: if you are getting so petty now that my saying the reporter in the Mail article (to differentiate it from any written text) was actually from the GB Seig Heil reporter, you're at full tilt trolling. Again.

Also, it confirms that when the story was first reported, it relied entirely on the same low credibility source, calling into question any and all reporting that was not strongly evidenced.

Eta2: I'll give you this much: the reporter, on listening again, is unclear. He first says one protester has been arrested, and one counter protester, etc. It may be that he was talking about the same person, or two different ones.
Click to expand...

The video clip included at the beginning of the Mail article is taken from GB News, complete with the misunderstanding that the clash was between the TRAs and the women's group, rather than between the TRAs and the police, which is what actually happened. You can see in the video that there are only TRAs and police involved in the scuffle, nobody from the entirely separate 199-days protest.

The GB News reporter is obviously only talking about one arrest, he says one protester, then clarifies this as being "just one counter-protestor from these trans-activists arrested". This is the person we see on camera being arrested after trying to take or damage another broadcaster's camera equipment. He says "so far", but he's in the middle of it and as we know, two more TRAs were arrested later.

You're still claiming this is a trans protest with a women's rights counter-protest, like days after we've explained to you that the organised, officially sanctioned protest was a women's rights protest (199 days) and the TRAs turned up uninvited to counter-protest, with abuse and violence.

Please, please, don't tell me you thought this was a Daily Mail video clip. It's absolutely clear it's from GB News, and to accuse someone of "full tilt trolling" for pointing that out is a new low, even from you.

1762453331106.png

1762453375855.png 1762453486610.png

Look at the images. This is entirely a scuffle between TRAs and the police. No women's rights demonstrators there at all. Yes, GB News is not great, but this is the only error in the coverage that I can see.

The reporter is absolutely clear that the side that "brought violence" to this event was the TRAs. That they advertised in advance for people to come to disrupt the entirely peaceful women's event and to come masked and to "bring their rage". He explicitly contrasts the behaviour of the two groups, the aggression and violence of the TRAs, and the incitement to violence, with the peaceful conduct of the women.

I have absolutely no idea how you came by your interpretation of this, the allegations that it was the women who "brought violence" to a peaceful pre-arranged trans demonstration and that a woman was arrested, but you have been entirely 100% wrong all the way through this so hows about giving it up and discussing why your darlings are always the ones with the violence and the threats and the criminal behaviour?
 
Matthew Best said:
Let's not forget that he's already told us it's his normal practice to lie, exaggerate and indulge in what he calls "fact-switching" when his mistakes are pointed out. So I suppose it's just as likely that he's still doing that now.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right. He's still "sledgehammering", that is doubling down on his errors with abuse and outright lies, and he thinks this is clever. I should go do something else.
 
theprestige said:
'No further incidents were reported, both groups were kept apart at all times. The protestors have since dispersed.'
​
Notwithstanding what the reporter says in the moment, the final arrest tally recorded by the Mail is 3 trans-activist counter-protestors, and 0 women's rights protestors.
Click to expand...

That quote there clarifies what I was saying all along. The two groups were kept apart at all times, there was no clash between the groups, and the clash reported on by GB News was between the TRAs and the police. As can be seen in the video. Not only were no women's rights protestors arrested, no women's rights protestors were even involved in the scuffle/clash at all.
 
d4m10n said:
(Alternatively, we could ask why middle-aged old-school feminists seem content with taking a nonviolent approach, but that question almost answers itself.)
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think it does answer itself. 100 years and more ago it was the suffragettes who prevailed in the end, the ones who broke windows and jumped in front of horses and got themselves arrested and went on hunger strike in prison and were force-fed. The non-violent suffragists didn't get anywhere.

I think at the moment women don't really believe they have to do that to get their rights back. We still believe that going the legal route is the best way to prevail. We quite like the moral high ground which the TRAs have not attempted to colonise. (Last century I don't believe there were any violent anti-suffrage groups.)

But who knows what might happen if governments and organisations remain in thrall to the transcult. There's plenty precedent for not remaining non-violent.
 
Thermal said:
Bull ◊◊◊◊. Look at the most recent challenge I made to your tranny bashing retweets. Mobile Alabama ring a bell? What you reposted didn't even jibe with the report: no one reported that Todd Anthony was so hideous and terrifying, nor that he was trans (he is reported as a cross dresser and never once claimed to be trans).

That's representative of the dozens of factual challenges I have put to your postings. You don't even show the integrity to address the factual errors. Sound familiar?

Points 1 ,3, and 4 err the same error on my part. While fact checking, I mixed up the references with other reporting of three arrests in Edinburgh. That was my bad.

Point 2 is a lie. I was directly quoting the Mail reporter in the video who said there were three arrests, and he claimed they confirmed one was a trans protester, and one anti trans. Go ahead, check. it's still there.

So you are lying, while spending multiple pages crowing about me. Have you engaged this much when your teanny bashing tweets from Twitter and Reduxx get criticized? No. You go silent. Because you know they are lies. Why ever would I counter trolled in the face of this utter contempt for the truth (which you might have heard me point out on occasion)?
Click to expand...

Are you not even slightly embarrassed by this? Even now?

You realise now that you jumped to the conclusion that when the reports referred to the "counter-protest", the violent abusive protesters who turned up uninvited to heckle and disrupt an organised, peaceful protest meeting, they were talking about the women's rights group. And that when they referred to the "protest", which was entirely peaceful, they were referring to the TRAs. When it was the other way round, and at no point did anyone say anything that might have led you to this confusion. This is not an insignificant slip. One might even characterise it as demonstrating "an utter contempt for the truth". Even now you don't have the integrity to acknowledge your gross error and your egregious smearing of the women's group.

This, in conjunction with your wilful misinterpretation of what the GB News reporter said, led you to assert, entirely wrongly, that one of the women's group had been arrested. Not seeing any mea culpa, I was wrong, no woman's rights protestor was arrested, either.

You are repeating your previous, entirely false, assertion that there were arrests in Edinburgh, even though you yourself earlier confirmed that you could find no record of any arrests in Edinburgh (because there weren't any). But you resurrect the claim to claim that you mixed something up which you couldn't have mixed up.

You are claiming that there exists a video in which a Daily Mail reporter says that there were three arrests, and that one was "anti-trans". When we look, we find that there is no such video. There is a video clip from GB News, in which their reporter says that there has been only one arrest "so far", and that that was a "... counter-protestor from these trans-activists arrested after they took or attacked one of the other broadcaster's camera equipment at that protest." You are accusing me of lying about this because you can't even listen to a 30-second video clip for comprehension without trying to paste your own completely fabricated interpretation on to it.

This is indeed an "utter contempt for the truth". It's gone beyond misunderstanding and misinterpretation into downright lies.

A group of "grass-roots women" arranged a protest meeting against the government's refusal to implement the SC ruling. With speakers and a programme. Official permission for this was applied for and granted. This meeting went off entirely peacefully, with no scuffles, no clashes and no arrests. Meanwhile a group of trans-activists known as "Trans Kids Deserve Better" solicited people to turn up to disrupt this meeting, with incitement to violence and telling people to "bring their rage". The police kept this group away from the women, but in the course of that counter-protest violence occurred and three arrests were made, including one for interfering with a reporter's camera equipment.

And that's it. We'd like to discuss the contrast the reporter noted, beween the peaceful women's demonstration, authorised and sanctioned, and the violent, abusive trans activists who came along to try to disrupt the women's meeting. But we can't while you persist in lying about what happened.

Your lies about what happened, starting with the assertion that the women's group "brought violence" to a peaceful pro-trans meeting, going on to assert that a woman had been arrested, and all that nonsense about it not having happened because nothing happened in Edinburgh, are trapping you in a net of your own weaving.

Now maybe you're back to claiming none of it happened anyway. Despite actual video footage of it all over the place.

Aren't you even slightly embarrassed?
 
@Thermal, you could have avoided all this animosity and needless crap after we pointed out that you were wrong, by say saying only five words.

"Sorry, I got that wrong".

But your arrogance and over-inflated ego won't let you admit you were wrong, so instead, you decided double down on your wrong, and begin making bad faith posts for giggles.. i.e. you started trolling.

YOUR actions were the root and full cause of all of this animosity.

Sometimes is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of as a fool, than to open it and remove any doubt!
 
Last edited:
This one. Thermal doesn't notice the two clear and obvious "GB News" banner/logos on the video clip. He doesn't even see it when he goes back to claim that all his lying assertions are backed up by that clip, and accuses the poster who pointed this out of "... full tilt trolling. Again."

Thermal said:
Eta: if you are getting so petty now that my saying the reporter in the Mail article (to differentiate it from any written text) was actually from the GB Seig Heil reporter, you're at full tilt trolling. Again.
Click to expand...

I am getting quite incensed by this. It's not just the complete inability to read or watch anything for comprehension. It's not even the wilful assumption that the reports are confirming his world-view of aggressive violent women attacking poor peaceful trans-activists. It's not even the repeated doubling-down and compounding of the errors to the point where deliberate lying is impossible to refute. It's not even the ridiculous assertion that this isn't blind ignorance being doubled-down on with haste and further entanglements is really some sort of ultra-clever game he's playing with us.

It's the blatant lying, repeated again and again, while continually and repeatedly accusing me of lying, even to the point where he castigates my entirely correct correction of his mistake as more lying on my part. It's his own claim that he himself is trolling, with smug satisfaction, while throwing out accustions of trolling against everyone else.

I'm tired of it. I would like to see some good faith in the trans-ally posting here, but we got nothing.
 
Tomorrow should be interesting.

Professor Jo Phoenix is an expert witness in the Darlington nurses' employment tribunal.
 
d4m10n said:
Supreme Court allows Trump to limit passport sex markers for trans and nonbinary Americans

ground.news

Supreme Court allows Trump to limit passport sex markers for trans and nonbinary Americans

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to require the sex designation on US passports to align with a traveler’s biological sex, a blow to transgender and nonbinary Americans who have argued the policy is unconstitutional.
ground.news
Click to expand...
"Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance."

Most trans people out themselves because they don't pass, no documentation is necessary. And very few places check your passport, or care about what sex is marked down there. This might cause problems for passing trans people who want to travel to certain middle eastern countries or the like, where the government might harass them for being trans, but why the ◊◊◊◊ do they want to go there anyways?
 
I hope we can get rid of the assumption that trans-identifying people should never have to suffer any inconvenience or embarrassment whatsoever, and therefore absolutely any and all accommodations must be made to suit their wishes, regardless of how much upset, inconvenience and even danger this might lead to for other people.

Boo hoo, I might feel uncomfortable knowing that someone looking at my passport will see that I'm male, it spoils my comforting fantasy that I pass. Well hard cheese, deal with it.
Boo hoo, I might have difficulty travelling to certain countries as a trans-identifying man. Well, since your only chance to go there without difficulty is to quit this silly pretence of being a woman and travel as the sex you really are, changing your passport really isn't going to help.
And so on.

The fact is that the only reason they have for demanding their passports are falsified is their own vanity in wanting to continue the pretence to themselves that they are the sex they aren't. Nobody else is fooled. Anyone travelling on a passport that falsifies their sex is going to be at risk in any country that is trans-hostile, no matter what they look like, and their only recourse is simply not to go there.
 
Ziggurat said:
"Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance."
Click to expand...
Yeah, this really is a load of utter bollocks, as you correctly point out.
Ziggurat said:
Most trans people out themselves because they don't pass, no documentation is necessary.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't just say most, I would say the number of transgender identified males who pass for women would be exceedingly rare. Not even any of the "Dolls" 🙄 shown in the recent issue of that bastion of transgender ideology, "Glamour" comes close to passing... and they're supposed to be among the best examples.
Ziggurat said:
And very few places check your passport, or care about what sex is marked down there. This might cause problems for passing trans people who want to travel to certain middle eastern countries or the like, where the government might harass them for being trans, but why the ◊◊◊◊ do they want to go there anyways?
Click to expand...
Correct.. if you're a transgender identified male, why on earth would you put your life at risk by going there.
 
I see no reason why passports, identity cards, driving licences etc should mention the bearer's sex at all. It's totally irrelevant information.
 
It seems a reasonable enough thing to put on a passport until you get a bunch of lunatics not only pretending to be the sex they aren't, but insisting that everyone else participate in their delusion.
 
It's another thing that helps confirm that the person is who they are claiming to be, like height or eye colour.
 
Rolfe said:
It's another thing that helps confirm that the person is who they are claiming to be, like height or eye colour.
Click to expand...
You don't have to strip someone naked to confirm their height or eye colour.

There's no good reason to include it. Just remove it. Problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom