Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Roz Adams won her case against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.
You know, the rape crisis centre run by a man with no gender recognition certificate.

I’d warn you to only read this if you’re ok with the fact that you’ll be a full TERF by the end (or in complete denial)

Read this to get the true extent of how this activism works in practice



Btw, the women in her 60s was a woman seeking help from a rape crisis centre.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 12:48 pm You’ll never guess what the throwaway sentence about “spouse objections” means in practice, by the way

Go on…..

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 2:36 pm

CEB wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 12:48 pm You’ll never guess what the throwaway sentence about “spouse objections” means in practice, by the way

Go on…..

Currently a person who is in a marriage with a person who comes out as trans can exit the marriage before the person is legally recognised as having “changed sex”, on the grounds that a sex change is about the most fundamental change to a marriage as you can get. The thinking is that a person seeking to legally transition should be expected to allow the partner to decide whether or not they want to be in a marriage with someone who has undergone such a change.

The proposal by activists is that this is (you guessed it!) transphobic, because the person they are married too has always been trans, so a person seeking to transition should be able to legally do so without marital status having anything to do with it, so effectively a person transitioning would be able to force a partner into being legally in marriage that doesn’t reflect their sexual orientation, with transition not being legally recognised as grounds for divorce.

Never a good sign when a judge uses terms like "nonsense".

The evil, abhorrent JK Rowling (who personally founded and funds the only female only rape crisis centre in Edinburgh) has had a say.
Warning - when reading you might think “hmmm, she’s not wrong is she?”

Absolutely damning. And yet the silence from the usual suspects on the left that have fully thrown their lot in with this mental ideology is deafening.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 2:53 pm

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 2:36 pm

CEB wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 12:48 pm You’ll never guess what the throwaway sentence about “spouse objections” means in practice, by the way

Go on…..

Currently a person who is in a marriage with a person who comes out as trans can exit the marriage before the person is legally recognised as having “changed sex”, on the grounds that a sex change is about the most fundamental change to a marriage as you can get. The thinking is that a person seeking to legally transition should be expected to allow the partner to decide whether or not they want to be in a marriage with someone who has undergone such a change.

The proposal by activists is that this is (you guessed it!) transphobic, because the person they are married too has always been trans, so a person seeking to transition should be able to legally do so without marital status having anything to do with it, so effectively a person transitioning would be able to force a partner into being legally in marriage that doesn’t reflect their sexual orientation, with transition not being legally recognised as grounds for divorce.

Hopefully we've now reached the tipping point where proposals like this can be binned. And we can adjust our opinions of those making such cruel proposals accordingly.

Just one guess as to what King Henry the 8ths reaction would have been if he had found out that he had been tricked into marrying a transgender women..... heads to be chopped off to all concerned !

He would have gone MENTAL.

He wouldn’t have been happy, that’s for sure!!

Divorced
Beheaded
Died
Divorced
Beheaded
Misgendered

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 12:26 pm He would have gone MENTAL.

Thomas Cromwell was Henry the 8ths trusted fixer but he fell out of favour big time when Henry felt betrayed because Cromwell had encouraged him to marry Anne of Cleves. Henry had his revenge on Cromwell by having him executed.

So maybe Anne was actually Andy?

CEB wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 12:30 pm Divorced
Beheaded
Died
Divorced
Beheaded
Misgendered

Divorced
Beheaded
Died
Divorced
Beheaded
Pride

I'm just glad I can let the kids watch Harry Potter films again. They've been nagging me for the past 2 years.

"Did you call me "Sir"?"

The 'you're crazy, bro' was a nice touch.

Another one of these violent women again. They really are putting in the effort to be equal to men, aren't they?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro

Female pensioners are a notoriously violent group

“We are urging the public not to speculate”

Why?

I’m really interested in how and why the decision is made to report stories like this in this way. The steel man version would seem likely to be this: “in order to respect the principle that people’s gender identity can overwrite their sex in public life, we have to do that regardless of the circumstances”

I don’t think anyone (including trans activists) would disagree that that’s the principle.
It’s not really sustainable though, is it? It undermines trust in honesty and accuracy of reporting, it gaslights people who don’t believe male people are women, and it legitimises the idea that the category “woman” is so meaningless that violent men who claim it can’t be questioned.

CEB wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 6:02 pm I’m really interested in how and why the decision is made to report stories like this in this way. The steel man version would seem likely to be this: “in order to respect the principle that people’s gender identity can overwrite their sex in public life, we have to do that regardless of the circumstances”

I don’t think anyone (including trans activists) would disagree that that’s the principle.

I think there's an extra layer to it. Once a group becomes victim-coded (i.e. marginalised, oppressed, disadvantaged etc) then a set of unwritten/unspoken editorial guidelines appear to be activated within western media agencies. This can be driven by good intentions as much as nonsensical decisions, as news agencies do not want to inflame and/or incite further hostile reactions against particular individuals or groups.

In some instances, it can make sense. The ethnic, racial, sex or religion of a perpetrator is not always a relevant factor. But it can also lead to situations where it becomes unhelpful of even misleading. There was an example recently (I cannot recall the specifics), when the news article stated that the Police were appealing for the public to be vigilant for a knife wielding maniac, but the description given was simply that he was "a man".

This then had the opposite effect, as everyone interpreted this as meaning that the perpetrator was a non-white man (which turned out to be the case). So, the absence of any meaningful descriptors of alleged perpetrators now act as code that the perpetrator is black, trans, an Islamist etc.

I'm not sure what news agencies are supposed to do about it. They must be aware of the amount of ridicule, scorn and reactionary takes their efforts create. But, like I said, they will be largely doing this through good intentions.

Another good recent example is this. The headline - Police officer stabbed during attack at far-right rally dies - is accurate. However, without reading the story, you'd be forgiven for assuming that one of the far-right thugs at the rally had stabbed the officer.

However, reading the article it soon becomes clear that something very different happened. And then, when you read the comments beneath the link, it becomes clear that the good intentions of the news agency are wasted anyway as the thing they hoped to avoid is happening because of their approach.

Who did stab the police officer?

A 25-year-old suspect from Afghanistan was shot and wounded at the scene.

He remains in hospital and a judge has ordered he be held on suspicion of attempted murder.

Is this fake news? 89 pages on here seems to suggest so