Hector Savage wrote: » Very reasonable from him, anyone with any sense would agree with his statement.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » did he mention in his statement that he has been doxxing and deadnaming trans people?
Hector Savage wrote: » deadnaming ??
Gatling wrote: » What personal discomfort . You do know the word grooming isn't a sexual term many people including young people can ge groomed for religious beliefs , gangs and criminals , drugs . But yes let's get back to giving vulnerable children being medicated because some qusudo quack has told them it's the right thing to do because they are trapped in the Wrong body ,or someone groomed them online into believing that they don't fit in because they are trans , Children should be protected from all forms of grooming especially where they are being used as guinea pigs to push trans rights , Children need protection not unnecessary medication
BarnardsLoop wrote: » Nah. Even sites like Boards have rules against insulting and abusing other people. Time was when someone was banned because they were being an arsehole like that, we didn't have hordes of hand-wringers screeching about 'free speech'. Well, we didn't have quite so many of them. You know the rules when you sign up to a site like that. Can't stick to them? You should be banned. Thinking the people that person is abusing are fair targets doesn't really change that.
keano_afc wrote: » About a month ago, I was tweeting a person who claimed they were a woman despite being male. I asked them to define woman in the context they were using it, only to be met with abuse. I finished the conversation by saying that she was entitled to believe what she wanted, but biologically she will always be male.
keano_afc wrote: » About a month ago, I was tweeting a person who claimed they were a woman despite being male. I asked them to define woman in the context they were using it, only to be met with abuse.
keano_afc wrote: » Linehan made the mistake of taking on the holy cow of social media - trans radical activists. About a month ago, I was tweeting a person who claimed they were a woman despite being male. I asked them to define woman in the context they were using it, only to be met with abuse. I finished the conversation by saying that she was entitled to believe what she wanted, but biologically she will always be male. An hour later, my account was suspended without warning. Twitter told me it was because I had "multiple accounts for the purpose of harassment". I had one account. I appealed, but Twitter refused to rescind my ban. Trans people and their supporters are untouchable on Twitter. People like Adrian Harrop can stalk, bully and abuse women at will without consequence. Monroe Bergdorf can tweet vile abuse and get away with it. They are given free reign.
Penn wrote: » I know we're all in quarantine etc, but.... nothing better to do? Bit of gardening, maybe? Some good home workout guides available.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman and now you are complaining that you were met with abuse? Mate, I'm a biological female and if you tweeted me with that crap you'd have been told where to shove it.
Deleted User wrote: » Took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman? As if it is open to interpretation?
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » Its up to every woman to define this for herself.
Sittingpretty wrote: » I hadn’t heard of this before either, it’s purposely calling a trans person by the name they used to be known before they transitioned and refusing to acknowledge their new identity.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone? That's what it looks like to me. It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.
thewolfisloose wrote: » Irish people ruin Father Ted by relentlessly quoting it every chance they get.
Bannasidhe wrote: » As is being a man. Most gay people can tell you many many tales of how they have been told that aren't a 'real' man/woman. Not 'masculine' or 'feminine' enough is the usual one. So yes, it is open to interpretation. Ironic how often it is a case of 'I am man and I will tell you what is woman, I do this to protect womankind'. Utter crap. They do it because some people have the cheek to not conform to a narrow definition decided by someone else. And if people want to start dishing out judgement on twitter they can't then complain if they get abuse. They are getting back what they are dishing out.
Hector Savage wrote: » oh booo f*cking hoo and I was called specky 4 eyes when I first got glasses in school....
briany wrote: » I doubt that, but then again I'm very cynical, as you know.
Stark wrote: » Stupid analogy. "Deadnaming" is more akin to an adult calling a gay person a ****** than it is to schoolyard teasing. It's something done deliberately to cause hurt/offence by people who are old enough to know what they're doing.
thewolfisloose wrote: » I am now anticipating a thread full of crybaby Father Ted fans. Boards seems to be full of them. Irish people ruin Father Ted by relentlessly quoting it every chance they get.
