"They are men arguing that their fellow men are not a danger to women, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary. "
I can provide reams of evidence that I would not be a danger in women's changing rooms. The difference is that I absolutely don't want access to them for the simple reason that I understand one simple fact.
Women and girls in changing rooms or similar places have no way of telling the difference between me and a rapist. The question is not whether they are safe but whether they feel safe and the simplest way to ensure they do is to exclude men. That's a principle that is known, understood and agreed the world over.
Well said, Michael! I saw a comment somewhere over the last couple of years: "How do you identify a man that would be safe in womens' spaces? He doesn't want to be in them".
Furthermore, if the thesis is 'there is nothing for women to fear from some men being given access to their private spaces' then the counter thesis is just as true: 'there's nothing for trans women to fear from using men's spaces'. So why should it be so imperative that they MUST have access to women's spaces? If they're saying that this is about their security then why can't they see and respect women's needs for security which must be greater than theirs? If they're not saying it's about security then what is it about? Whose need for validation could be so vital to life and limb that it would be fair to say every other need of every other group for dignity, privacy and security must come in second place? It's narcissism on steroids. And without in any way implying that trans women are rapists and paedophiles, for men who ARE rapists and paedophiles and other assorted perverts, self id is a dream come true.
For some TIMs, their belief that they actually *are* women means that they have to believe that they are at the same risk of the same type of violence, unfair discrimination etc as proper women experience. The statistics show that this isn't objectively true, but the immersion (to use Kathleen Stock's very generous description) in the fantasy means that this type of TIM doesn't believe it applies to them (because they are women). Logically, then, this means that they should be campaigning with proper women to keep men out, but their "immersion" doesn't go that far - they know that they would be kept out too, because they are actually men.
"Time to escalate". Well that's a sinister threat. The Kathleen Stock shit show already showed that these activists are really terrorists. Misogynistic and homophobic brown shirts of Queer Theory. Well done to the BBC on this.
Excellent piece. I would also compare this lot to the Wokies who refuse to back the father in the Loudon county school board rape scandal and cover-up. Instead of standing up for the girl who was raped, they still back the 'trans' boy in a dress who raped 2 girls. SMH, liberals/lefties have gone off the deep end.
The mother's apologist attitude to her son in this Daily Fail interview is beyond bizarre. 'His concern for her was genuine' she says, relating how her son sympathetically asked the girl he was anally raping if it hurt, and what kind of pain it was. WTAF?! And then she accuses the father of the raped girl of ruining her son's life by making such a fuss about it. Deny, diminish, deflect indeed!
The mom sounds insane, which explains the son's behavior. Also, both sound like they have been themselves abused, given all the stuff the mother volunteered - yeeesh.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves in our assumptions. But it certainly sounded like both have their issues. Let's focus on the political struggle ahead of us.
I'd rather call it sad. She isn't the first mother - or parent - to blame the victim for her son's crimes. I don't like it one bit, either, but unfortunately it's nothing that is completely out of the ordinary. What bothers me more is how much space the Daily Mail gives her and how she gets to say what she made herself believe completely unchallenged. Not that I consider the Mail the goldstandard of journalism but that's a bit weird even for them.
Bloody hell! He's just a hormonal teen who wants sex!? Wow. This generation of parents who have indulged their kids and have no boundaries really need to start asking some serious questions of themselves. Just look at the result. Teen boys who hold a major entitlement to sex complex and who don't respect the word No.
I know of a few mothers who state similar and couldn't possibly imagine their little boys could ever be in the wrong, and that the girls or women were asking for it. Despite all evidence to the contrary. Those attitudes take a lot to shift.
IMHO, that boy has probably been hugely molested. The mom sounds either clueless or is too stupid to see that it's obvious, or she is the molester or in league with the molester.
This question was asked when I was foster-parenting: Is a child who sexually abuses necessarily sexually abused? And the answer is no. He probably has not been molested, but he's obviously been given the idea that whatever he wants he gets. If being abused leads to being an abuser, then how many women would be sexual abusers? Entitlement is a key element of being an abuser: Your body belongs to me! And it seems that male children are raised with huge senses of entitlement. This kid needs help and I doubt he will get it.
Well, the stats I've read say 1 in 4 kids are sexually molested/abused which is horrible odds. And one of the telltale signs of an abused kid is being overtly sexual at a young age. So that's what I base my opinion on it. Whether the mom is one herself, who knows, but it's obvious she's a shitty parent.
What are the statistics for boys? Isn't it more like 1 in 6 or 7? My husband's nephew abused children in his mother's daycare. I do not believe he was abused, but he was raised in a nonempathetic environment with very rigid parents. Boys being overtly sexual at 15 is not a young age, and by that age they may have been viewing pornography for 5 years or more. Anal rape is indicative to me of viewing porn.
And, yes, it's obvious the mother is a terrible parent. She makes excuses for a boy who needs limits and firmness, but he's her precious darling. And this is what women are trained to do in patriarchy -- they often have their primary relationship with a son rather than an adult.
John McManus is correct to draw comparisons to Savile. There are many accounts of senior staff at Auntie tolerating and covering up his abuse. I remember being told by a member of Children in Need production staff in early 2000s he was "a child molester" so barred from involvement.
Bless you. That just goes to show why children need safeguarding. Their innocent minds can't comprehend the atrocities that some adult humans are capable of. I just don't know how any of Savile's enablers can sleep at night.
And women can often not comprehend the depths to which men will sink. I repeat this over and over to women who have been abused: it is hard to protect yourself from what you cannot imagine.
It was much worse than do nothing. Active covering up. Most notable Newsnight journalists & production staff who tried to blow the whistle on Savile & cover up were sidelined or "let go", whereas those who followed senior management instructions have shot up Aunties' greasy pole.
I was totally taken aback by the surprise about he allegations about Savile's behaviour, because my (clearly faulty) recollection is that somewhere around my mid-teens (so 1976-ish), there had already been allegations. I went from loving the show to not being able to be in the room when it was on. I couldn't understand why he was still on TV. I've checked with my friends and family whether they remember anything, and they all say no. Whatever the reason, it seems that I had the measure of the ... unpleasant man(!)... some time before it all came out.
Savile's abuse was known in journalistic circles, but no news papers et al had the cahones to publish the story e.g. former Sunday Mirror ed Paul Connew admitted spiking story in 1994 for fear of losing any subsequent libel case.
This is giving me the absolute RAGE. How many of those rape apologist privileged white male pricks have ever been sexually assaulted or coerced into sex? Oh but also how many of them busily tweeted about what happened to Sarah Everard and how VAWG must end and what can we doooooooo? Well how about not give men open access to women and girls spaces and don't fucking defend and justify rapists and abusers who want to force their dicks into places they aren't wanted (ultimate invasion of single sex space: lesbians' vaginas!!!!!)
TRAs: the BBC won't take the cotton ceiling article down = the BBC is siding with the women in the article. A warped view of journalistic impartiality. They've had it all their own way for so long, they've forgotten what impartiality looks like.
Thank you so much for posting this, Graham. What a Rogues' Gallery! Remember their names and faces, remember their tweets. A time of reckoning is at hand.
I find these endless comparisons between Saville and the trans community to be baseless, offensive and incoherent. It seems GL likes to find the worst human beings on the planet and fashion a tenuous link between the nature of their crimes and the transgender community. The evidence so far suggests trans people are no more of less likely to commit crimes than any other people and are in fact far more likely to be victims. These comparisons are harmful and need to stop.
Male trans people are as likely to commit offences as are other males. That is to say - most of them don't. My husband doesn't either, but he also understands why he's not allowed to used women and girls' facilities. Any male who doesn't understand it is selfish at best; not someone I want anywhere near me, my mum or my daughter, at worst.
Are you outraged that the BBC presenter community is misrepresented by Savile? Or the white male with blond hair community? "More likely to be victims". Utter nonsense. Where is your evidence? Your silent lack of concern for lesbian victims is absolutely deafening.
You've got your words wrong. Male trans are as likely to commit crimes as males not trans. Let's quit using the word people when we mean MEN or WOMEN. And the victimization of trans seems to be greatly exaggerated (unless they're working as prostitutes, in which case far more women are victimized as prostitutes than male trans).
There is however evidence indicating that trans identified males offend at the same rate as male offenders.And male offending patterns are a danger to women.
I might suggest this could increase. Where is there for the trans lesbians to go ? It’s more than obvious they are men, and being rejected by the very women they are trying to pursue …
Pile on even more, the victim status, the transmaidens being soooo kind, it could be a slow burning fuse, for more loathing and violence !
There is no evidence that trans people are more likely to be victims of anything. There is plentiful evidence that people who say they "identify" as the other sex are as likely to commit crimes as everyone else. They just have a much better lobby, and that leads to policy changes that endanger mainly women and girls. And in that it is irrelevant if the perpetrators are transgender people or just ordinary sexual predators that use the loopholes created by seemingly trans rights laws (that do not address the needs of most transsexual people, btw.) Btw, it is fairly common that sexual predators disguise themselves as women. It gives them easier access to women or girls. See Ted Bundy. ANY law that makes it easier for them is to be opposed. Period. Even if some people cry murder.
Yes, funnily enough decent men don't get all affronted when the reality of male violence towards women and children (and other men) is pointed out. 10th Rule Of Misogyny: "The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad"
"They are men arguing that their fellow men are not a danger to women, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary. "
I can provide reams of evidence that I would not be a danger in women's changing rooms. The difference is that I absolutely don't want access to them for the simple reason that I understand one simple fact.
Women and girls in changing rooms or similar places have no way of telling the difference between me and a rapist. The question is not whether they are safe but whether they feel safe and the simplest way to ensure they do is to exclude men. That's a principle that is known, understood and agreed the world over.
Well said, Michael! I saw a comment somewhere over the last couple of years: "How do you identify a man that would be safe in womens' spaces? He doesn't want to be in them".
Yet their defence, of these ( submit any word that applies ) people, borders on obsession!
Is there any behaviour they would find unacceptable?
After all, coercion and actual rape are no big deal … obviously.
I try hard to imagine myself, validating this behaviour from anyone, and it just doesn’t happen …
Not from men, no.
Thank you, Michael.
Furthermore, if the thesis is 'there is nothing for women to fear from some men being given access to their private spaces' then the counter thesis is just as true: 'there's nothing for trans women to fear from using men's spaces'. So why should it be so imperative that they MUST have access to women's spaces? If they're saying that this is about their security then why can't they see and respect women's needs for security which must be greater than theirs? If they're not saying it's about security then what is it about? Whose need for validation could be so vital to life and limb that it would be fair to say every other need of every other group for dignity, privacy and security must come in second place? It's narcissism on steroids. And without in any way implying that trans women are rapists and paedophiles, for men who ARE rapists and paedophiles and other assorted perverts, self id is a dream come true.
For some TIMs, their belief that they actually *are* women means that they have to believe that they are at the same risk of the same type of violence, unfair discrimination etc as proper women experience. The statistics show that this isn't objectively true, but the immersion (to use Kathleen Stock's very generous description) in the fantasy means that this type of TIM doesn't believe it applies to them (because they are women). Logically, then, this means that they should be campaigning with proper women to keep men out, but their "immersion" doesn't go that far - they know that they would be kept out too, because they are actually men.
Couldn't agree more.
"Time to escalate". Well that's a sinister threat. The Kathleen Stock shit show already showed that these activists are really terrorists. Misogynistic and homophobic brown shirts of Queer Theory. Well done to the BBC on this.
Tempted to resurrect my twitter just to tweet “Hurrah for the Brown Shirts of Queer Theory” at Little Owen Jones.
Don’t excite the boy !
He gets excited when someone says hello.
Excellent piece. I would also compare this lot to the Wokies who refuse to back the father in the Loudon county school board rape scandal and cover-up. Instead of standing up for the girl who was raped, they still back the 'trans' boy in a dress who raped 2 girls. SMH, liberals/lefties have gone off the deep end.
We're interviewing some Loudoun people on the mess we're in this week!
Splendid! Thank you, Graham!
Thanks in advance. I will definitely watch it.
Have you seen this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10156749/Mother-skirt-wearing-teen-raped-female-classmate-says-identifies-male.html
yes watch ut for wednesday's Mess!
The mother's apologist attitude to her son in this Daily Fail interview is beyond bizarre. 'His concern for her was genuine' she says, relating how her son sympathetically asked the girl he was anally raping if it hurt, and what kind of pain it was. WTAF?! And then she accuses the father of the raped girl of ruining her son's life by making such a fuss about it. Deny, diminish, deflect indeed!
The mom sounds insane, which explains the son's behavior. Also, both sound like they have been themselves abused, given all the stuff the mother volunteered - yeeesh.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves in our assumptions. But it certainly sounded like both have their issues. Let's focus on the political struggle ahead of us.
I'm just putting an opinion on a comments thread. No need to try to control my speech, mate.
I'd rather call it sad. She isn't the first mother - or parent - to blame the victim for her son's crimes. I don't like it one bit, either, but unfortunately it's nothing that is completely out of the ordinary. What bothers me more is how much space the Daily Mail gives her and how she gets to say what she made herself believe completely unchallenged. Not that I consider the Mail the goldstandard of journalism but that's a bit weird even for them.
It seems to be the Mail's way - give them enough rope to hang themselves.
Did I miss it?
Bloody hell! He's just a hormonal teen who wants sex!? Wow. This generation of parents who have indulged their kids and have no boundaries really need to start asking some serious questions of themselves. Just look at the result. Teen boys who hold a major entitlement to sex complex and who don't respect the word No.
I know of a few mothers who state similar and couldn't possibly imagine their little boys could ever be in the wrong, and that the girls or women were asking for it. Despite all evidence to the contrary. Those attitudes take a lot to shift.
No, but hah! *This Never Happens*...
IMHO, that boy has probably been hugely molested. The mom sounds either clueless or is too stupid to see that it's obvious, or she is the molester or in league with the molester.
This question was asked when I was foster-parenting: Is a child who sexually abuses necessarily sexually abused? And the answer is no. He probably has not been molested, but he's obviously been given the idea that whatever he wants he gets. If being abused leads to being an abuser, then how many women would be sexual abusers? Entitlement is a key element of being an abuser: Your body belongs to me! And it seems that male children are raised with huge senses of entitlement. This kid needs help and I doubt he will get it.
Well, the stats I've read say 1 in 4 kids are sexually molested/abused which is horrible odds. And one of the telltale signs of an abused kid is being overtly sexual at a young age. So that's what I base my opinion on it. Whether the mom is one herself, who knows, but it's obvious she's a shitty parent.
What are the statistics for boys? Isn't it more like 1 in 6 or 7? My husband's nephew abused children in his mother's daycare. I do not believe he was abused, but he was raised in a nonempathetic environment with very rigid parents. Boys being overtly sexual at 15 is not a young age, and by that age they may have been viewing pornography for 5 years or more. Anal rape is indicative to me of viewing porn.
And, yes, it's obvious the mother is a terrible parent. She makes excuses for a boy who needs limits and firmness, but he's her precious darling. And this is what women are trained to do in patriarchy -- they often have their primary relationship with a son rather than an adult.
Yep. Definitely a shitty parent. And who would go public with any of that stuff?? Isn't she utterly ashamed?
That's what I was thinking, she has no shame. And she's stupid, to boot.
John McManus is correct to draw comparisons to Savile. There are many accounts of senior staff at Auntie tolerating and covering up his abuse. I remember being told by a member of Children in Need production staff in early 2000s he was "a child molester" so barred from involvement.
Yes. It absolutely beggars belief, all those people who knew (or strongly suspected), and did nothing. To think I loved Jim'll Fix It as a child 😔🤢😖🤮
Bless you. That just goes to show why children need safeguarding. Their innocent minds can't comprehend the atrocities that some adult humans are capable of. I just don't know how any of Savile's enablers can sleep at night.
And women can often not comprehend the depths to which men will sink. I repeat this over and over to women who have been abused: it is hard to protect yourself from what you cannot imagine.
Me too. I wrote in three times.
It was much worse than do nothing. Active covering up. Most notable Newsnight journalists & production staff who tried to blow the whistle on Savile & cover up were sidelined or "let go", whereas those who followed senior management instructions have shot up Aunties' greasy pole.
I was totally taken aback by the surprise about he allegations about Savile's behaviour, because my (clearly faulty) recollection is that somewhere around my mid-teens (so 1976-ish), there had already been allegations. I went from loving the show to not being able to be in the room when it was on. I couldn't understand why he was still on TV. I've checked with my friends and family whether they remember anything, and they all say no. Whatever the reason, it seems that I had the measure of the ... unpleasant man(!)... some time before it all came out.
There had been allegations. Summary of Dame Janet Smith's inquiry: https://apnews.com/article/83b18234d71c45b598268cdaeb874cb9
Savile's abuse was known in journalistic circles, but no news papers et al had the cahones to publish the story e.g. former Sunday Mirror ed Paul Connew admitted spiking story in 1994 for fear of losing any subsequent libel case.
Thank you!
Sadly he seems to have deleted the tweet
Not surprised. Apart from deviating from gender extremist script, t'BBC doesn't like any mention of Savile - let alone from staff.
This is giving me the absolute RAGE. How many of those rape apologist privileged white male pricks have ever been sexually assaulted or coerced into sex? Oh but also how many of them busily tweeted about what happened to Sarah Everard and how VAWG must end and what can we doooooooo? Well how about not give men open access to women and girls spaces and don't fucking defend and justify rapists and abusers who want to force their dicks into places they aren't wanted (ultimate invasion of single sex space: lesbians' vaginas!!!!!)
TRAs: the BBC won't take the cotton ceiling article down = the BBC is siding with the women in the article. A warped view of journalistic impartiality. They've had it all their own way for so long, they've forgotten what impartiality looks like.
Thank you so much for posting this, Graham. What a Rogues' Gallery! Remember their names and faces, remember their tweets. A time of reckoning is at hand.
a rogues gallery. indeed
I see one of the little darlings quite regularly.. 🤮
Another positive take.
James Kirkup
@jameskirkup
The BBC reported the stories of women who suffered sexual trauma. Thousands of people complained. /
My Times column on why the BBC must continue to resist pressure from the online mob.
https://thetimes.co.uk/article/25f08100-3b4e-11ec-a9ce-48a11f44f00d?shareToken=c5b471c7dc42d4546ae6abb1793537f8
https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1455466587671175172
Good old James. He's been consistently great on this.
I hope the BBC has forwarded the most vile messages to the police.
Yes, indeed. I can only imagine the kind of dangerous misogyny and threats many of those complaints will have contained.
I'm dealing with a police issue regarding small children. You'd be amazed what they will cover up.
Tweet has been deleted 🙄
Self Owen Jones https://twitter.com/iseult/status/1455564834855137281?s=21
OJ stands erect on his white male privilege. Ouch!
The context of OJ … and erect .. please, I need to lie down 😞
You made me laugh out loud! Many thanks!
Was it 80 ppl in bbc survey?
The BBC didn't conduct the original survey. It was, if I'm not mistaken, Get The L Out that did.
"Time to escalate" = "Repent motherfucker".
FYI, someone has made OJ aware of this article already and he has tweeted about it.
He’s such an insufferable little prick. Hopefully he’s reading this comment. 👋
I fear he takes pleasure in his insufferable littleness.
😂🤣
I find these endless comparisons between Saville and the trans community to be baseless, offensive and incoherent. It seems GL likes to find the worst human beings on the planet and fashion a tenuous link between the nature of their crimes and the transgender community. The evidence so far suggests trans people are no more of less likely to commit crimes than any other people and are in fact far more likely to be victims. These comparisons are harmful and need to stop.
Male trans people are as likely to commit offences as are other males. That is to say - most of them don't. My husband doesn't either, but he also understands why he's not allowed to used women and girls' facilities. Any male who doesn't understand it is selfish at best; not someone I want anywhere near me, my mum or my daughter, at worst.
Are you outraged that the BBC presenter community is misrepresented by Savile? Or the white male with blond hair community? "More likely to be victims". Utter nonsense. Where is your evidence? Your silent lack of concern for lesbian victims is absolutely deafening.
You've got your words wrong. Male trans are as likely to commit crimes as males not trans. Let's quit using the word people when we mean MEN or WOMEN. And the victimization of trans seems to be greatly exaggerated (unless they're working as prostitutes, in which case far more women are victimized as prostitutes than male trans).
There is however evidence indicating that trans identified males offend at the same rate as male offenders.And male offending patterns are a danger to women.
I might suggest this could increase. Where is there for the trans lesbians to go ? It’s more than obvious they are men, and being rejected by the very women they are trying to pursue …
Pile on even more, the victim status, the transmaidens being soooo kind, it could be a slow burning fuse, for more loathing and violence !
There is no evidence that trans people are more likely to be victims of anything. There is plentiful evidence that people who say they "identify" as the other sex are as likely to commit crimes as everyone else. They just have a much better lobby, and that leads to policy changes that endanger mainly women and girls. And in that it is irrelevant if the perpetrators are transgender people or just ordinary sexual predators that use the loopholes created by seemingly trans rights laws (that do not address the needs of most transsexual people, btw.) Btw, it is fairly common that sexual predators disguise themselves as women. It gives them easier access to women or girls. See Ted Bundy. ANY law that makes it easier for them is to be opposed. Period. Even if some people cry murder.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
fucking quite
Yes, funnily enough decent men don't get all affronted when the reality of male violence towards women and children (and other men) is pointed out. 10th Rule Of Misogyny: "The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad"
Here are those Rules of Misogyny, in full: https://4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/
Errrr. The tweet has been deleted?
McManus has fallen 😅
You think that is funny?
Not remotely. It’s fucking tragic.
Sorry, misunderstood the emoji
It’s ok, sweaty stressed out/ under pressure but laughing doesn’t translate well