“But it was one person”
Twitter has limited visibility of a reply I made to a tweet of Peter Tatchell’s.
This one:
It’s an idiotic thing to say. Of course it wasn’t one person! It was also the crowd who cheered!
So I replied:
I appealed the ruling, but who knows if Twit will pay any attention. It doesn’t matter particularly, it’s just that they missed the point so completely. The whole issue is this guy who joyously screamed about punching women in the fucking face, and Twitter chooses to think I’m the one being naughty.
Update: Oh, I’ll be damned – they did pay attention and restore visibility. At the speed of light, too.
Doing some wild guessing:
An automated system was triggered by the word “faggot”, and presumed that you were calling Peter Tatchell a “faggot”, so reduced visibility.
On your appeal, a human realised the context and over-ruled the automated system.
He absolutely DOES represent the #trans community. The #trans community cheered him on at a #trans community event. The #trans community has expressed EXACTLY the same sentiments, over, and over, and over again. Get real.
Trans activism leads to a lot of that, but we’re not supposed to be so rude as to point it out.
I missed one …
What “abuse”? What “smears”? You mean, saying that men can’t be women? You mean women being concerned about any and all men in women’s spaces? What “wrongs” have critics of transgender ideology committed against “trans people & their allies”? Be specific.
We see your apologetics for trans/trans allies’ threats of violence against women who know that sex is real.
Coel, yes, I’m sure it was just automatic no-ing of “faggot” and/or “fucking” or maybe the two together.
The event organisers chose that vile man to speak at the event, and he is running for political office with trans politics as a central part of his appeal to voters… but sure, he doesn’t represent trans people. Becoming a genderperson seems to make a person stupid or dishonest or both.
It also seems to involve demanding everyone else participate in the stupidity and dishonesty. Or else.
Holms@#6: That’s what jumped out at me, too. You don’t get to say someone doesn’t represent you, when that person’s been asked to, y’know, represent you.
Holms:
To be fair, the organisers have said that they didn’t choose him, but that he stepped up to speak at the ‘open mic’ part of the event after the chosen speakers had finished their speeches. However, your point still stands – he was cheered, not booed, by the crowd; we’re constantly being told to believe people who blatantly lie about who they are; and he most definitely does represent ‘trans’ people (especially if he’s standing for a political office) even if he merely represents the worst of them.
How can anyone believe there IS a ‘trans community?’ Self-mutilating anorexic girls. Effeminate gay teenage sex-workers. Bathroom-invading perverts. How are these to be considered a single entity?
JtD: Any time I see the word “community” I am suspicious. And that applies to more than this issue. O/t example: Half vacant 1980s shopping center abandoned by the anchor to be replaced by nice apartments? The “community” next door objected…the apartments don’t mimic the ugly but “prestigious” 1980s tract homes next door! Plus, pedophiles might rent the apartments to spy on the childcare center next door! the shopping center continues on in its mediocrity and vacancies.
Brian M., interesting analogy. Our (former) shopping center is in the process of being turned into an apartment complex. It took a number of years, as people dithered and bloviated and shuffled their feet, but now we have a new movie theatre (no good movies, though) and a nearly complete apartment complex where the old, empty mall used to be. I remain skeptical that it will have the effect of drawing up and coming young people to Hastings; in a town where there are few restaurants outside of fast food, no department stores but WalMart, and Trump flags on every street, there isn’t likely to be a rush of young urban professionals.