Jane Harris meets the two Colms

Jane Harris teaches a lazy, dishonest man a lesson in basic reading comprehension and basic ethics

Moley

Only a few days ago, we all enjoyed Colm O’Gorman trying to bully a woman and then shrinking back to his true size when he realised I was in the mix. Now Jane Harris herself has responded to Colm’s threats and…well, just read it.

---

Colm O'Gorman @Colmogorman

@blablafishcakes Dr Harris, for the avoidance of any doubt, are you asserting that I am complicit in acts of sexual violence and child sexual abuse?

Mr O'Gorman @Colmogorman- apologies for the delay in response. I was having a short break from social media.

No, I don’t think you’re 'complicit in acts of sexual violence and child sex abuse’. Sharing a Substack implies none of this. Moreover, the Substack itself does not accuse anyone of being complicit in child sex abuse. If you think it does, you must take it up with the author.

In fact, the Substack is specifically about predators using trans identities to access women’s spaces & the ill-advised policy of housing such predators in women’s prisons.

I was a victim of both child sexual abuse & rape as an adult and for 2 years I was writer-in-residence in a prison that housed male sex offenders & female inmates (separately). I know what predators are like. I know what prisons are like. I understand the dangers of this policy.

I know (as you must) that predators will go to any lengths to gain access to their victims, including becoming Scout Leaders, social workers, youth workers, and priests etc. It’s also much more pleasant in women's prison. You do the maths. It seems obvious to me...

Anyway, as for Graham’s Substack, typically, when it's shared on Twitter, an automatic title comes up. In this case, the title was ‘Complicit’. The word ‘complicit’ has several meanings. Here’s the OED definition.

Here’s the section in the Substack where the word ‘complicit’ is actually used, in response to Jonathan Powles who tweeted about the likelihood of predators using trans identities to access women’s spaces. To me, ‘complicit’- as used here - means ‘passive compliance’.

Just to reiterate, this is what the Substack says: “…your luxury beliefs have betrayed the victims of the men in this list. You are complicit in their ongoing suffering…”

I interpret this to mean that those who believe in gender ideology and in housing rapists in female prisons are passively compliant in the ongoing suffering of victims of the offenders cited in the given list. That’s what the words mean, to me.

The post you retweeted yesterday (below) - which is where you may have first seen the link to Graham’s Substack – was written by someone who, for some reason, misrepresents what the Substack says.

What the Substack actually says is ‘complicit in their (the victims’) ongoing suffering’. It does not say ‘complicit in child sexual abuse’.

So, I’m not asserting that you’re 'complicit in acts of sexual violence and child sex abuse’ and neither is the author of the Substack. To derive that from the actual wording seems far-fetched.

If there’s an issue here, it lies with whoever runs the @commuter_ld account, because they’ve misrepresented the original wording. And, possibly, you misinterpreted the Substack, based on that misrepresentation?

However, I am wondering why, rather than threaten the man who wrote the Substack, you’ve picked on me, a woman, who is simply one of many who presumably shared it. That seems to me like targeted harassment.

I’m aware of your background and your campaigning and would admire you for throwing down the gauntlet to the Pope and the Catholic Church - except that you seem to have difficulty in recognising misogyny and the oppression of women.

Given that you clearly understand the issue of child sexual abuse, I’m bewildered that you see nothing wrong with housing rapists & paedophiles in the same locked (often unsupervised) spaces as women, many of whom are themselves victims of such abuse.

The enforcement of gender ideology in prisons means that these vulnerable women will be trapped in locked wings & wards with sexual predators. Can this really be what you want? Is there no way you can be persuaded to view this issue from the perspective of abused and raped women?