Woman arrested for calling a transgender woman a man on Twitter

Mister Vain

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html

A mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to a transgender woman as a man online.

Sweet Jesus you can get arrested for anything these days. It's beyond a joke.

s4uv3

Ara don't be reading that "paper" will ya. It makes as much sense as a three-year old talking in their sleep.

Dakotabigone

The grinder was it?

donkeykong5

Mister Vain wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html

A mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to a transgender woman as a man online.

Sweet Jesus you can get arrested for anything these days. It's beyond a joke.

Maybe go and arrest a few paedophiles when you've finished cross examining the woman for saying the word MAN instead of WOMAN. Ffs. Getting silly now

Ultimate Seduction

s4uv3 wrote: »

Ara don't be reading that "paper" will ya. It makes as much sense as a three-year old talking in their sleep.

Doesn't really matter which paper its in though, What happened is true.

colm_mcm

Quote from article

High Court papers obtained by The Mail on Sunday detail how Mrs Scottow is accused of a 'campaign of targeted harassment' against Miss Hayden, allegedly motivated by her 'status as a transgender woman'.

The papers claim that, as a 'toxic' debate raged online over plans to allow people to 'self-ID' as another gender, Mrs Scottow tweeted 'defamatory' messages about Miss Hayden.

She is also alleged to have used accounts in two names to 'harass, defame, and publish derogatory and defamatory tweets' about Miss Hayden, including referring to her as male, stating she was 'racist, xenophobic and a crook' and mocking her as a 'fake lawyer

So anyway, there was more to it, but who really cares?

s4uv3

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Doesn't really matter which paper its in though, What happened is true.

Ah I know, I was just speaking generally.

Ten of Swords

colm_mcm wrote: »

So anyway, there was more to it, but who really cares?

Sensational nonsense from the Daily Mail as usual. The victim in this case has clarified their position. This took about 3 seconds of effort to find by the way

https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1095310933637976065

hatrickpatrick

Mister Vain wrote: »

Sweet Jesus you can get arrested for anything these days. It's beyond a joke.

Only in the UK. Anonymous actually had a whole campaign back in 2011 or 2012 trying to raise awareness of Britain's imminent slide into mass censorship particularly online, but it got lost in the noise of all the other internet battles which were going on that year, ACTA and SOPA in particular.

As far as free expression goes, as well as internet freedom, the UK is lost at the moment. Between making certain speech a criminal offense on one hand, and banning certain consensual porn outright because it's deemed socially unacceptable, information freedom simply does not exist in the UK.

It's a good reason to remind people about opposing Articles 11 and 13 - Western states can and indeed have gone down the road of ruining the internet, it's not like it's an outlandish thing without precedent.

ohnonotgmail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Only in the UK. Anonymous actually had a whole campaign back in 2011 or 2012 trying to raise awareness of Britain's imminent slide into mass censorship particularly online, but it got lost in the noise of all the other internet battles which were going on that year, ACTA and SOPA in particular.

As far as free expression goes, as well as internet freedom, the UK is lost at the moment. Between making certain speech a criminal offense on one hand, and banning certain consensual porn outright because it's deemed socially unacceptable, freedom simply does not exist in the UK.

It's a good reason to remind people about opposing Articles 11 and 13 - Western states can and indeed have gone down the road of ruining the internet, it's not like it's an outlandish thing without precedent.

none of this bears any relevance to the actual story.

jochenstacker

The DM? Seriously? I wouldn't wipe my arse with it.

dxhound2005

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Only in the UK. Anonymous actually had a whole campaign back in 2011 or 2012 trying to raise awareness of Britain's imminent slide into mass censorship particularly online, but it got lost in the noise of all the other internet battles which were going on that year, ACTA and SOPA in particular.

As far as free expression goes, as well as internet freedom, the UK is lost at the moment. Between making certain speech a criminal offense on one hand, and banning certain consensual porn outright because it's deemed socially unacceptable, information freedom simply does not exist in the UK.

It's a good reason to remind people about opposing Articles 11 and 13 - Western states can and indeed have gone down the road of ruining the internet, it's not like it's an outlandish thing without precedent.

It is illegal to say or write some things. It doesn't matter whether it is in a newspaper, on the radio, or on the internet, it is equally illegal.

gandalf

As usual there's more to it. That woman was spreading information that was confidential that's why they were arrested. Stop using that rag as your source of information.

jochenstacker

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Sensational nonsense from the Daily Mail as usual. The victim in this case has clarified their position. This took about 3 seconds of effort to find by the way

https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1095310933637976065

Bam!
DM proven to be a filthy, lying rag again.
But does it interest anyone who says "dey arresded yer one for calling dat Guy a man!!?111?"
Nah, got a nice bit of hysteria going and who cares about facts anyway.

To all DM readers:
First, learn to read. Then carefully read the article. After that, do a bit of research online and make sure what they report actually gels with the facts.
Then, and this is important, THROW THAT RAG AWAY!
And never read such utter sh*te again.
It's radioactive waste for your brain. It's a paper for hateful morons.

aaakev

So he is a man then?

wakka12

Well I didnt even need to open the thread to know that wasnt what she was actually arrested for

Thousands of people call transgender people their old gender in order to try and offend them everyday, on twitter, facebook, and many other websites, obviously nobody gets arrested for doing it

branie2

aaakev wrote: »

So he is a man then?

Nope. She's a woman

sabat

How come transsexuals always give themselves names like Tiffany or Stephanie that men might find sexy-it's never Mary or Bridget or Gobnait.

Robert Wolfe

branie2 wrote: »

Nope. She's a woman

Who, yer man?

uck51js9zml2yt

branie2 wrote: »

Nope. She's a woman

.... Who was born a man and has male chromosomes.

Spanish Eyes

ONE WORD in UK now is Brexit.

Everything else is a diversion. I bet some Royal will have a kid or something too soon.

Great day to break bad news and all that.

branie2

Harley Steep Cloak wrote: »

.... Who was born a man and has male chromosomes.

But IS a woman

Sweetemotion

branie2 wrote: »

But IS a woman

Is she female?

branie2

female now

MonkieSocks

aaakev wrote: »

So he is a man then?

A Glaswegian takes his girlfriend home for the first time.

He says "This is Amanda"

His dad jumps up and says "It's a fookin what!!!"

Dante7

Stephanie Hayden? Would that be the same Stephenie Hayden who used to be known as Anthony Halliday and was convicted of assault with a golf club amongst other crimes. But shush, we can't talk about that as that was their previous identity. In fact, what I have just posted is what people are being charged with.

Spanish Eyes

Moving on swiftly from this nonsense.

As long as they do not demand to visit male/female toilets or changing rooms off they go.

If you have a genital appendage you are male, if you don't and have a vagina you are female.

This is like something from tales from the unexpected, if anyone remembers that.

Far too much time taken up with this really. Off they go and live their lives as they wish, no one will complain unless they decide to be bolshie about it. And there is no need for that either.

dxhound2005

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

ONE WORD in UK now is Brexit.

Everything else is a diversion. I bet some Royal will have a kid or something too soon.

Great day to break bad news and all that.

They are very clever like that. But not really. Smart people on the internet always spot it.

Muckka

branie2 wrote: »

Nope. She's a woman

Maybe on paper, but not under a microscope.

Paper scissors rock

Robert Wolfe

branie2 wrote: »

female now

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Atoms for Peace

Don't read the sun or in this case the mail, also keep away from Twitter problem solved.

SmartinMartin

"Paper scissors rock"


Or rocks, as the case may be.

TCM

branie2 wrote:

Nope. She's a woman

How can a he be a woman,?

branie2

used to be a man

TCM

Dante7 wrote:

Stephanie Hayden? Would that be the same Stephenie Hayden who used to be known as Anthony Halliday and was convicted of assault with a golf club amongst other crimes. But shush, we can't talk about that as that was their previous identity. In fact, what I have just posted is what people are being charged with.

Did he/she play off the mens or womens tee box? Just wondering like.

newport2

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Sensational nonsense from the Daily Mail as usual. The victim in this case has clarified their position. This took about 3 seconds of effort to find by the way

https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1095310933637976065

Some pretty cruel responses to her explanation of what happened too, dickheads.

mcmoustache

If there's on thing I've learned from the sudden uptick of trans outrage threads, it's that maybe people should give it a day or two for the truth to emerge before riling those who can't help themselves. I got caught out myself when I repeated the Ian Huntley fake story.

As someone more who's more interested in having the truth inform my opinions than having my existing prejudices validated by any old dubious anecdote like a simpleton, it was a bit embarrassing. It's not the first time ether that I had to point out to the group that I take smoke breaks with or drink with that the story I told them was bullshít. Sure, I could just act like I wasn't made aware that what I had said was bullshít but as someone who likes being respected, I don't want to be that guy who can't be taken seriously.

So while I can understand that some people don't mind spreading horse shít wherever they go, whether they're even aware of it or not, I'd rather not be that sort of person.

If a man genuinely believes he is in fact a woman, wants to dress, be named as and generally identify as a woman, fire away. If the women are happy to have them share restrooms and changing rooms or whatever, fair enough.

But there isn’t anything or anyone that will ever convince me that a person who doesn’t have ANY developed female genitalia by birth, has the inherent bone structure and physique of a man, the hands of a man and so on is what I would agree to be a woman.

They might be kind, attractive (to some), downright lovely and decent, but a surgeon and hormones can’t give you enough of what nature didn’t to turn man into woman or woman into man, and while I wish all the best to those facing a difficult path to transition, to pretend that surgery conquers nature would be just that, pretence.

AllForIt

Perhaps the solution now is to say that restroom facilities are divided on the basis of physical characteristics and nothing else? Why not? Rather than masculine or feminine traits is what I mean.

Thinking about this further cisgender folk could argue they would prefer to have a singular sexual orientation restroom facility. I.e. one that doesn't allow same-sex attracted folk to use the same facilities. That would be a fun one to sort out.

whisky_galore

People can declare and identify as squirrels or badgers for all I care. Biologically, it doesn't make it so.

TheValeyard

whisky_galore wrote: »

People can declare and identify as squirrels or badgers for all I care. Biologically, it doesn't make it so.

Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger
Mushroom, mushroom,

What the **** is deadnaming?

Dyr

JayZeus wrote: »

If a man genuinely believes he is in fact a woman, wants to dress, be named as and generally identify as a woman, fire away. If the women are happy to have them share restrooms and changing rooms or whatever, fair enough.

But there isn’t anything or anyone that will ever convince me that a person who doesn’t have ANY developed female genitalia by birth, has the inherent bone structure and physique of a man, the hands of a man and so on is what I would agree to be a woman.

They might be kind, attractive (to some), downright lovely and decent, but a surgeon and hormones can’t give you enough of what nature didn’t to turn man into woman or woman into man, and while I wish all the best to those facing a difficult path to transition, to pretend that surgery conquers nature would be just that, pretence.

Congratulations, you are now worse than Hitler

donkeykong5

Dante7 wrote: »

Stephanie Hayden? Would that be the same Stephenie Hayden who used to be known as Anthony Halliday and was convicted of assault with a golf club amongst other crimes. But shush, we can't talk about that as that was their previous identity. In fact, what I have just posted is what people are being charged with.

Omg. Says it all. Weirdo. Also suing Graham linehan
Wtf !

Canis Lupus

Deleted User wrote: »

What the **** is deadnaming?

Calling a trans person their old name.

Yer Da sells Avon

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Don't read the sun or in this case the mail, also keep away from Twitter problem solved.

I see a lot more stuff about trans people on Boards than on Twitter.

NSAman

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Calling a trans person their old name.

Is it wrong to say Fred is wearing a lovely frock today? Just cause he puts on a wig, makeup and still has a penis and balls, doesn’t make Fred a woman.

Even if a surgeon cuts off his manhood, takes a crap load of hormones and has a reconstructed vagina, originally Fred is still Fred but altered, it does not make Fred, Edwina..chromosomes still say it’s Fred.

But I suppose I am being transphobic now.

Did I mention I am trans Billionaire?

klaaaz

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I see a lot more stuff about trans people on Boards than on Twitter.

Yep, alot of people on boards who are offended at the cheek of transgender people existing tend to read the Daily Mail and other British tabloids to feed their ignorance and bigotry.

political analyst

klaaaz wrote: »

Yep, alot of people on boards who are offended at the cheek of transgender people existing tend to read the Daily Mail and other British tabloids to feed their ignorance and bigotry.

Do you not think that at least some of the outrage is justified? If not then why?


In a separate case, UK government lawyers are arguing that the word "mother" is not gender-specific anymore!



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/14/mother-no-longer-gender-specific-term-government-lawyers-say/


Imagine the psychological harm that children born from trans men (e.g. Thomas Beattie) may suffer because of the circumstances of their conception.



Just because surgeons can make pregnancy take place in these cases it doesn't mean they should.

political analyst

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Sensational nonsense from the Daily Mail as usual. The victim in this case has clarified their position. This took about 3 seconds of effort to find by the way

https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1095310933637976065

Hadn't Stephanie already spoken about some of her cosmetic procedures and what she paid? If she had done that on Twitter, then wasn't it already public knowledge before Kate Scottow started sharing it?

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

Do you not think that at least some of the outrage is justified? If not then why?


In a separate case, UK government lawyers are arguing that the word "mother" is not gender-specific anymore!



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/14/mother-no-longer-gender-specific-term-government-lawyers-say/


Imagine the psychological harm that children born from trans men (e.g. Thomas Beattie) may suffer because of the circumstances of their conception.



Just because surgeons can make pregnancy take place in these cases it doesn't mean they should.

A prime example of how hormones and surgery, a mans name and a court ‘recognising’ someone as a man does not in fact make them a man.

Thomas Beattie, a mother and a man? No, not really. If you carry a child in your womb, you are absolutely not a man. Not by a long shot.