You mean his agreement that women's rights and safe spaces should not be encroached upon & a potential safe third spaces option. Given current case law/guidance, he couldn't really say much else abt trans rights without an MSM pile on, which needs to be avoided. No policies have yet been determined.
Yeah. That transphobic tweet. That's the one.
"Hi, I've checked Adnan Hussain's public statements & speeches & can't find anything that is anti-trans that I disagree with."
For one thing the Idea that womens safe spaces are being encroached upon by trans women is transphobic. Secondly if the new party are going to moderate their support for marginalised groups to avoid negative coverage by the MSM then it's already useless.
One, nowhere is the idea suggested that safe spaces are being encroached upon by trans women. There is a recognition of the need for safe spaces for women. Two, there won't be a new party if the MSM & Lab/Libs/Tories have their way, so debating a non-existent 'policy' simply plays into their hands.
"Potential safe third spaces option" is an oxymoron. If third spaces are provided but then it is mandated that trans people *have* to use them then "safe" isn't anywhere near the equation - essentially anyone using these spaces would be outed upon entry or exit of it.
"Detest inequality" Except the minorities you wanna segregate I guess
Nope, I have no desire to segregate anyone. Couldn't care who you are, who you love, and what you want to be. I have one simple rule, do no harm & let others live. What I detest are ignorant, non evidenced based comments designed to stir up hate/hate.
The notion that trans women are encroaching on womens safe spaces is stirring hate. If you don't see that then it's clear where you're at and you should be regarded accordingly.
You have no idea of that about which you post. You are entitled to your opinion (opinion is not of course evidence). However, wrong that opinion may be.
He wasn't stating the law but a desired state of things. You said it was not transphobic. Stand by it
then look up the actual law. transphobe led Human abuse group guidance isnt legally binding and counteracts HR act 04 and 2010
Do no harm, let others live, segregate the trans people, you know all the benign stuff.
Please read the post again & stop misinterpreting what is said.
Adnan Hussain is calling for segregation of trans people, and you have said you have no problem with that.
Hussain called for segregation of trans people and lied about then encroaching on women's rights, and you said there was nothing else he could say (despite plenty of other people in politics saying very different stuff). Where's the misinterpretation?
You said this, which means you are OK with AH's view that trans people should be segregated, that it's not anti-trans - it's fine, it's good and should be supported. Which means you should probably go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver ☺️
Weird the same guy just has to follow the law here, but not on proscribed terrorist groups... It's almost like the law has nothing to do with it, it's just that he is a transphobe and anti-zionist.
Interesting comment. Now, acting in the same assumptive way you have could lead me to question whether you are anti-Gaza/Palestine, or pro zionist or any number of things. But a terrorism law is not the same as a Supreme Court decision (who may well strike down the PA proscription) re trans rights
Tell me more how it's not the same in this case dude. ... And how you think transphobia is fine and dandy, but opposition to Zionism is justified. Maybe compare and contrast your support for state sponsored segregation of minority groups...
That SC decision has been widely criticised as legally and scientifically deeply flawed. It is liable to be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. Even on its own terms, it has been widely and very deliberately misinterpreted. It is a very poor basis for justifying the different position.
I've just noted that point.
They don't care, they are content with state violence against trans people for the purposes of segregation and elimination from society. Any framework they can grasp at, however tenuous it is will be used as a justification... You know, like most hate groups do.
Undoubtedly that is where a lot of these comments come from. But I do think some people suggest this because they are genuinely trying to find an acceptable compromise, and just haven't thought through what it means in practice. I'm inclined to explain once before assuming bad faith. But only once.
You'd hope that the second they hear the word segregation coming out of their own mouth.... and they are actively advocating for it, some sort of internal alarm would be going off... But nope...
Oh fuck off.
its not the law tho
fuck yourself and your “third space” bullshit
Well, that's an intelligent response, and it's not my suggestion.
It's the response you deserved.
No, it's not. That response was an unthinking knee jerk response to a perception.
No, it was the correct response to someone supporting bigotry.
No, it wasn't, and you know nothing about me.
I know you're a transphobe. That's enough.
Do you know you've got 'detest inequality' in your bio? Because it appears to be a lie.
‘ate inequality, love segregation. Simple as
No, seriously, have I. Well, blow me down. See my reply to another assumptive parson. .
We're not 'assuming' anything, because you're literally defending transphobia. Therefore you are a transphobe.
"Detest inequality" except if it's restricting LGBTQ+ rights or abortion, then it's okay apparently
The "segregation is a perfectly good way to address inequality of marginalised groups I don't want to be around" crowd, have a few questions to answer.
I know all I need to know about you, and that is: you’re a cunt
It was, if anything, too kind a response
It's pointless trying to discuss with people simply willing to hurt insults. Now, I'm not going to respond to you any further because to do so would be a waste of my time.
don’t flatter yourself by thinking you have anything remotely worthwhile to add to this “discussion”
Again, a response based on lack of evidence.
The evidence is your own worthless posts
Someone else mistaking "we are mocking and insulting you for being pond scum" with earnest and rigorous debate
“You don’t get it! He HAS to be transphobic to avoid a msm pile on!! This is something that will somehow not be a problem after conference and isn’t just the most cowardly bullshit excuse you’ve ever heard!! Take me seriously!!!”
These cunts, I swear to god
This might help you understand why that option is not acceptable. www.quaker.org.uk/documents/re...
I get that some people think "a potential safe third space option" is a compromise that will respect everyone's rights, but it simply isn't. First, it accepts by default that trans people are a threat. Secondly, it requires trans people to out themselves publicly.
Trans men are men. Trans women are women. If someone commits a crime, punish the criminal, not a load of innocent people who happen to share one characteristic with the criminal. If TERFs want a third space because of their irrational supposed fears, that's a matter for them.