Mermaids - helping children & teenagers to deceive their parents

A thought that occurred to me alsoGalaxy

this is about men's rights really

No, Men's Demands.

And obviously most men are not making those demands.

What shaming volver?

I think that is a point we should make, when writing, that if we are not the majority of emailers that doesn't mean we are wrong.

I don't think the majority were in favour of several things that we have now, e.g. car seatbelts, airport security searches, smoke-free pubs & workplaces, however some people made the case that there was a need for them and it was accepted.

People who have a minority view are not only entitled to express it, or protest about it, or make valid points, they have a duty to do so, I believe. That's how things change. I'm no stranger to having a minority viewpoint on GN

What they are not entitled to do is misrepresent politicians or anybody else. On previous trans threads, I've been told I'm only asking questions to stir up trouble, that I'm being disingenuous, that as a scientist I must know what such and such means etc, etc.

In my opinion, it's impossible for a "neutral" in this debate to try to take part because as soon as you enter the debate your views are minimised and you are told you just don't understand and you're probably not even a feminist. The thread turns into a mutual appreciation society and dissent is not allowed.

Nothing to stop you dissenting Volver. Nothing to stop others dissenting with you or NS if it comes to that.
Who is misrepresenting politicians on this thread?

Its not here, we don't do that, speak up at the back....

It's not even worth answering. You don't even know you (plural) are doing it.

You can continue with your nice cosy little thread and nobody else will interrupt you. Carry on.

What views are you expressing volver. You are posting memes from Twitter. I for one have heard those 'opinions' a thousand times before.
Women will carry on. These cosy threads particularly on MN have led to a number of successful court cases, to the support of whistleblowers, to the development of education schemes for children etc. So yeah we carry on and ignore the noise.

volver

People who have a minority view are not only entitled to express it, or protest about it, or make valid points, they have a duty to do so, I believe. That's how things change. I'm no stranger to having a minority viewpoint on GN

What they are not entitled to do is misrepresent politicians or anybody else. On previous trans threads, I've been told I'm only asking questions to stir up trouble, that I'm being disingenuous, that as a scientist I must know what such and such means etc, etc.

In my opinion, it's impossible for a "neutral" in this debate to try to take part because as soon as you enter the debate your views are minimised and you are told you just don't understand and you're probably not even a feminist. The thread turns into a mutual appreciation society and dissent is not allowed.

You claim that your views are minimised, Volver yet just a couple of hours ago you expressed this opinion. I have no opinion on Mermaids, don't know any trans people and think the whole thing is ridiculously overblown.

Those of us with an interest in this topic (whether or not we claim to be neutral) will all have heard the same arguments a million times. I can't remember the last time I heard something new, other than yet another incidence of women's spaces being invaded or another child having their life ruined. New things happen, but the ideas are pretty much set in stone.

I'm very open to hearing new or different ideas though, or even decent explanations about the ones I've heard. I (and others) have repeatedly asked what seem to me very basic questions, but we don't get answers.

I think you were being disingenuous, volver, and mischievous to boot. You are clearly politically aware, and the idea that gender politics has somehow passed you by and never given you pause for thought just doesn't stack up. I don't see how saying that is any more dismissive than your post of 11.50 above, or the toddler-like 'feminist' meme - in fact it doesn't come close, as I wasn't sneering - I was making a statement.

It is frustrating when a political group you (generic) support is losing ground because of an issue like this one - I feel that about the Labour Party - but dismissing the issue itself isn't going to change that. Quite the opposite really.

QED.

Some of you also need to check out what a meme is.

What was that again about losing ground?

I for one dont care. Its distraction from issues that have always been important to me. Gay and lesbian rights, child safeguarding, the way we offer services to children with autism, and womens rights. Again randoms on the internet arent going to change that.

That was about the meme definition not the Scottish parliament.

Randoms now is it?

How inclusive.

Volver you’re so funny! When you can’t think of an answer, you just pick on a word and put it in italics .

I find being referred to as a "random", if indeed that is what was meant, to be demeaning and dismissive. I would expect better treatment from a group or person who wants to display their credentials as a caring entity and am disappointed to read such a term on a thread like this.

That suit Mollygo? I must remember not to overestimate the ability of my fellow posters to understand implied criticism. I'll be more blunt in the future.

volver

QED.

Some of you also need to check out what a meme is.

'Some people'? Or did you mean me? Why not say so if you are taking the moral high ground about transparency.

An animated gif then. Happy?

Yes, thank you .

Two people posted about my alleged use of memes, I was trying to cover both of you.

(See Mollygo, I'm really trying hard )

We are all randoms on the internet volver that's the whole point.

You underestimate constantly, Volver dear. For me it’s part of the fun of reading your posts.
I must look out for your exemplars of you being a person who wants to display their credentials as a caring entity. I must have missed them.
Keep going.

must look out for your exemplars of you beinga person who wants to display their credentials as a caring entity.

I wasn't talking about me.

Comprehension's not great on this thread, is it? Or have I underestimated you?

So back to mermaids. What was it that made people ignore the safeguarding red flags?

I suppose the same sort of thing that happened in Rochdale when services didn't want to appear racist (and I think I can say that as it has been well documented)

People didn't want to be labelled as narrow minded or discriminative and it leaves minors and those who are vulnerable, even more vulnerable

It's as if we learn nothing.

Rochdale was also in my view about misogyny, the girls were viewed as consenting, when they werent. I witnessed that view of young girls in the care system quite frequently about twenty years ago.

Unfortunately galaxy, it is still happens.