Latest from Mridul Wadhwa

No one has to participate in the debate or become involved unless they choose to. And if you do the least you can do is do it as yourself. Owen Jones may block people but he isn't pretending he's Joe Bloggs or some other fake identity. The abuse is appaling but what is much worse is encouraging the abuse, participating in stirring up hatred and doing so under a name that can't be traced. Because whoever is making those posts it isn't anyone called Jean Hatchet.

Not hiding behind a false identity?
So are you really trisher? Do you have a surname that you’re going to share? ???

If you can't understand why a lot of women won't speak out publicly, there's not much anyone can say, really. The threats are real.

Owen Jones is not as rich as JKR, but he is well-known, and has the media on his side. I'm quite surprised at his views, tbh, as he's usually pro-feminism, but the point is that he has a platform on which to make them - it's his job to tell people his political thoughts.

Women like the ones in the links are just doing their own jobs, but are being stopped from doing so because of their views. Two of them are in Universities - places where young people go to learn, and to be exposed to differing points of view, so that they can make up their own minds about things. Silencing those who teach them is a very worrying trend.

Similarly, Rosie Duffield is an MP - someone who represents her constituents. If she can't like a tweet (or other SM comment) and show people her opinion, how are her constituents meant to get help? There is no record of her ever having done anything against trans people, and no evidence that she thinks any more strongly than I do (and despite what you may say, I am not transphobic).

To say that nobody has to participate in the debate is either disingenuous or frightening. Would you have said the same to people in history who spoke out about injustice? Do you not support people's right to have their say without fear of retribution?

I understand why a lot of women won't speak out Doodledog I know that many women MPs including Diane Abbott have suffered abuse for many years. It is completely wrong.
Everyone should be able to give their views safely.
I still don't understand what this has to do with someone who has chosen to join in the debate and to decry, condemn and criticise other women but does so whilst hiding behind a created personality, It seems she is free to stir up criticism, encourage conflict and attack others but has to stay safe herself.
People and especially women in history have spoken out and many of them suffered dreadfully because of it. They did not shelter behind walls and throw rocks, they stood up and revealed themselves. And some of the treatment they received was actual not threatened physical harm.
Apparently it is now feminist to criticise without owning the criticism. I think that is a very dangerous thing to agree to. It means that hatred and propaganda can be spread with no one identifiable as responsible.

This is an egregious example of twisting things so that people who want to speak out are blamed for doing so.

The TRAs being criticised are, as far as I know, public figures. They are people like MW, who lied to get her role, and has not been shy about making her own views known. Or about the self-id man whose name I forget, but who insisted that a female beauty therapist wax his testicles, and took the case to court. People who enjoy the limelight, or who have behaved in a conspicuous manner in order to make a point.

Otherwise, the criticisms are, like the majority of the ones on here, not aimed at anyone in particular, but about the impact of the GRA, or thee criticisers have defended students' rights to keep a women's group for women - that sort of thing.

I can't think of a single case where an 'ordinary' person has been criticised by a gender critical feminist, much less had her career put in jeopardy and her life threatened.

Three really good posts Doodledog. I await the first report of somebody being hounded out of their position of employment or education for daring to say or write one of the many TRA dogmas/slogans. Try saying sex is immutable, single sex places are necessary in a very few situations or self ID could be the source of compromises to women's safety and.......

trisher I find it disturbing that you appear to revere People and especially women in history have spoken out and many of them suffered dreadfully because of it. They did not shelter behind walls and throw rocks, they stood up and revealed themselves. And some of the treatment they received was actual not threatened physical harm. Nobody should have to endure any threats or actual violence for expressing a legitimate viewpoint, and casual acceptance of such threats is truly frightening.

So who has casually accepted any threats?
Of course nobody should have to put up with threats (I think I have already said that).
But if we accept that someone should be able to hide their true persona from the public because they are afraid there might be threats how far should that extend? As one of the main bodies of people who are subected to abuse is female MPs ahould they be able to hide their true identity?
MW has become a public figure because of the publicity surrounding her appointment to Rape crisis. JH has chosen to make herself a public figure by creating a website, writing a blog and taking part on Twitter. Yet the one who had publicity thrust upon her must endure abuse, whilst the one who chose publicity can hide behind a pseudonym. What on earth is right about that? and what is feminist about it?

This is victim-blaming of the worst stripe, and I'm sure you know it.

Are you seriously saying that MW has eschewed publicity? You have got to be joking.

What difference does it make if JH has chosen to remain anonymous. If she (or he) knows her career and potentially her life is at risk from TRAs it is a wise precaution, IMO. What would be gained by her name being known, other than to make her a target?

What would be gained by her name being known, other than to make her a target? precisely! It seems as if trisher wants JH to be identified so s/he can receive the usual onslaught by TRAs.
To quote myself I'm still waiting for the first report of somebody being hounded out of their position of employment or education for daring to say or write one of the many TRA dogmas/slogans.

Well if you can't see the need to know who is actually saying the things you are listening to, you can't. But then my other scenario applies would it be OK for a woman MP to pretend to be someone she is not to protect herself? If not why not?
If we say that people can hide behind false or created personas to protect themselves then we open the way up for people with unacceptable views using the media to subtly introduce ideas and create hostile environments with absolute immunity.
It's not only a danger to free speech it's a danger to democracy, equality and freedom. It goes far beyond the narrow confines of trans or anti-trans ideology which seems to limit some people's outlook.
*Rosie51" why would I spend my time looking on the internet for things which I have no interest in and which if I did find would be instantly dismissed, like any other information I post which doesn't fit ?

Trisher there is no need to spend time on the internet searching for something you know won’t exist, so I’m not surprised you won’t do it.

Mollygo That's fine then isn't it?

A woman MP? It would matter if any MP felt the need to be anonymous - of course it would. The role of an MP is to be there for her (or his - I don't see gender as important here) constituents, and to represent them in parliament. It would not be possible to do so, under out current system.

It would not be necessary anyway unless their lives were in danger from violent and unreasonable people who want to silence any debate, or any voices that criticise their agenda, and whose behaviour constitutes a danger to democracy, equality and freedom. What kind of person might that be?

*Rosie51" why would I spend my time looking on the internet for things which I have no interest in and which if I did find would be instantly dismissed, like any other information I post which doesn't fit ?

No I'd not dismiss it. If you can find it. I wonder why you'd have no interest in the first report of somebody being hounded out of their position of employment or education for daring to say or write one of the many TRA dogmas/slogans. Surely that sort of injustice and persecution would be abhorrent to you?

But like Mollygo Trisher there is no need to spend time on the internet searching for something you know won’t exist, so I’m not surprised you won’t do it. I think this is the reason.

Posts from feminists threatening rape, abuse with a vulva, death wishes etc towards TRAs will do if that's easier. Or maybe you're just not interested in, or bothered about, abuse of TRAs?

Actually Doodledog although I think the abuse is wrong and not acceptable I think the amount and degree of publicity and fearmmongering that a comparitively minor number of people are receiving and the absolute unceasing obsession of some people means that I feel I don't need to get involved or comment.

If there was the amount of publicity given and the degree of offence raised on social media and press was the same for other things, which are impacting hugely on the lives of more women than this, perhaps women wouldn't be suffering the degree of discrimination in the workplace they are just now, and they wouldn't be losing their jobs for far less glamorous reasons

Blame transpeople for the abuse women receive even though the majority of it has absolutely nothing to do with transpeople and is just plainly trolls with problems. It must be so much worse for people like Jane Hatchet than women like Diane Abbott and Mary Beard.

Yes being sent porn and threats is so glamorous.

I think the amount and degree of publicity and fearmmongering that a comparitively minor number of people are receiving and the absolute unceasing obsession of some people means that I feel I don't need to get involved or comment.
I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of this. Who are the 'minor number of people', and who are the 'some people'? Do you mean that because only a few people are singled out for the worst abuse then it's ok? Why is 'some people's 'obsession (with what?) absolving you from comment? Why would you get involved anyway? (Other than as someone who is always saying that she stands up for injustice wherever she finds it, that is?)

How do you know that the majority of the abuse that those who speak out are getting is not coming from transpeople? If you know who the perpetrators are then you really should inform the police, as their actions are very definitely criminal, as well as being ethically wrong.

What is worse for Jean Hatchet than for Diane Abbott or Mary Beard? I know that the latter two women get a lot of abuse, and agree that it is reprehensible, but what has that to do with JH, and in what way is JH's experience worse?

We are back to the diversion that there are other injustices for women happening every day. Yes, we all know that, trisher, and I'm sure we all wish that it were not the case. But those injustices are nothing to do with the way that TRAs behave towards people who cross them, and your pretending that the lives of other women would be better if only those pesky feminists would stop asking to be listened to, and complaining when they get threatened is gaslighting and diversionary.

No, trisher, you miss the point. Youare the one who has just said “blame transpeople for the abuse women receive”. I haven’t noticed anyone else on here saying that. Then you go back to your constant version of ‘it’s only a small number’. So that means if only a few women are abused, you think it’s OK. I’m sure you’ll immediately deny that, but if you mention it’s only a few, the implication is there.
Some transwomen are responsible for the abuse of women, in prisons and hospitals. Some transwomen, sadly with the support of some women too, want to erode women’s rights by claiming their trans rights should take precedence or they will hurl abuse at women, declare them to be TERFs, or whatever other sick label they can come up with.
Many transwomen want to be trans, without causing the problems arising from the few.

Mollygo who are TRAs if not trans people? Aren't they being blamed?
Doodledog of course JH's experience isn't worse (don't you get irony?). Yet she gets to hide behind a created persona whilst writing and setting up a website which seems give her life story but doesn't.

TRAs can be of any sex and any gender, I would say Owen Jones is a TRA. Lots of the threats women receive are from men (not trans) who have found a fantastic stick to beat women with whilst still getting to be seen as lovely and inclusive.

Agreed, Galaxy.

trisher, you keep saying that people of both sexes and any gender can be feminist, so I don't know how you can say that TRAs have to be trans.

As for the 'irony' - no, it was not obvious, I'm afraid. But to be honest, the whole post made no sense to me at any level, so the chances of my picking up on nuance in it were going to be small.

Oh and they absolutely cant believe their luck.

I didn't say TRAs had to be trans but some of them must be and Mollygo said no one on this thread was blaming trans people. If some TRAs are trans then they are being blamed.
I would call Owen Jones simply a Radical left winger. He is active and outspoken on a number of issues and not just trans ones.
Strange isn't it how some people can now only define others on their attitude to trans issues. You'd almost imagine they impacted on everyday things like food banks and poor pay. I wouldn't view Owen Jones as beating anyone,(apart from the over privileged) but perhaps that is because our politics are fairly closely aligned and radical in the true meaning of the word.

Trisher, I said no one on this thread apart from you has said, “blame transpeople for the abuse women receive.”

Incidentally you only seem to have two quantities when talking about anything. Either a blanket generalisation-condemning all who go under a given title or a few/small number e.g. women who suffer-when you are trying to say that something is unimportant.
I find that interesting.

Really can you give me an example when I have "condemned all who go under a given title" I may have questioned some titles- TERF to my mind is not only a misnomer it's an insult to all radical people. I suppose any way it isn't a given title is it? Isn't it an insult?
I don't think the issue is unimportant I do think it has been massively over publicised and over emphasised. I do wonder who is profitting from this, because I'm fairly certain it isn't trans people or those challenging gender norms. I am worried about the rise of the far right and the extension of Christian fundamentalism which seems to me to be using the issue. It seems to me to be a short step from providing safe spaces for women to confining women to spaces where they are said to be safe, and I would rather see women out demonstrating for safer public spaces for everyone than arguing over changing rooms and toilets.