Andrew, this was a difficult one for me to read. Whilst I agree that innocent human beings should not be abused and I also agree that no one should be coerced into accepting the opinions of others, I can also understand the anger that has created such reactions. Women have been dehumanised, abused, treated as sub human, the rights of sex offenders taking precedence over our rights, for example rape victims having to refer to the rapist as ‘she’, paedophiles being incarcerated in prisons with mother and baby units. We are all human, we all make mistakes when angry. I always try to express my anger against the ideology rather than individuals but I’m pretty sure I’ve had my unguarded moments. I’m not trying to excuse anything or anyone and I’m glad the site was taken down. I agree it’s not helpful and we must oppose anything with authoritarian tendencies. I’m simply saying that I understand what is behind it. All I can say is that I can’t wait for this vile episode in our history to be over. And for that to happen, the insanity of gender ideology has to be defeated.
It is testament to your principles and character that, even though you feel an intensity of anger that makes you understand why some people become authoritarian extremists and so find this critique of them difficult to read, you nevertheless read it, do so in good faith and agree that we must oppose authoritarianism even on behalf of causes that are the most important to us.
Too many people who are not authoritarian themselves will find ways to miss the point, minimise the problem or ignore it entirely of a sense of loyalty and solidarity with people on their own side. Those who are authoritarian will find ways to misrepresent it utterly and accuse those opposing authoritarianism of being complicit in abuse and attribute appalling motivations to them.
Above all, and in every situation, we need people who will say to their own side, "I understand why you feel so strongly about this. I do too. But we cannot allow ourselves to become dishonest, be authoritarian, dehumanise those with whom we disagree most strongly and viciously bully those within the movement who refuse to do so or with whom we have any points of difference at all. It's counterproductive, but, more importantly, it's wrong."
Goodness, thank you so much. And I completely agree, authoritarianism in whatever form and from whatever direction, is one of the biggest threats we are facing today.
This thread answers the extra point I came here to add in reply to Andrew’s article. Since getting into this fight, my fairly innocent eyes have been opened to the scale of bad male behaviour to women, and I can see why it makes some women very, very angry. I think it could drive a person mad. But yes, being justifiably angry doesn’t give you license to stomp around wildly.
I agree wholeheartedly, and this is a very useful piece. One name left off Stella O'Malley's list of people bullied by other GC feminists is Posie Parker/Kellie Jay Keen. Plenty of left-wing GC 'activists' - I won't name them - have smeared KJK as 'far-right adjacent', even repeating those slurs in the context of the events in Melbourrne, when neo-Nazis gate-crashed one of her Let Women Speak rallies. (KJK has won some defamation cases after various journalists and Australians labelled her a neo-Nazi, including a grovelling apology from Liberal Party leader John Pesutto.) Supporters of the now defunct WPUK - as well as the risible witch-hunters of Hope Not Hate - were to the fore in these lies. I know that Stella and Kellie-Jay don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, and KJK is far more hard-line and populist, nevertheless the latter has contributed a great deal to raise public awareness of the threat posed by gender ideology, at great risk to her personal safety, and the attempts to undermine her and her movement from the left are unforgiveable, in my opinion.
I agree with you about the way the GC left has smeared KJK. It was particularly disappointing from WPUK because they, too, had been physically attacked by transactivists for bravely speaking up for women's rights. However, it's also disappointing to see ultra Gender Critical people behaving in authoritarian ways - such as the homophobic dogpiling of Andrew on Twitter. KJK has made it clear that she doesn't support the Far Right, and her vindication in the Australian courts confirms it. Has she also distanced herself from the GC extremists?
I think it's important for a movement to remain true to being civilised and decent. As it is inevitable members of a communal movement won't agree on every topic and approach, this means sometimes people will publicly express disagreement. The sign of a strong and open community is that public disagreement can be handled well and in the spirit of free speech. Free speech is essential to any community remaining democratic and transparent. It's also important to balance spending time lingering over disagreements with preventing infighting. Again, a successful community needs to be flexible enough to accommodate some difference of views. I'm not at all well informed about this current disagreement between different people in the wider GC movement. So my only comment about this online list of transnpeople is that if it is conflating innocent trans identified people with ccriminals then that's not on. I would also add that TRAs, as we all know, have been pretty ghastly in their rape and death threats. TRAs violent behaviour doesn't excuse the indiscriminate listing of trans identified people, but it can explain why some women might feel genuine fear about the whole trans movement. On the whole, I think the pro women's rights community has behaved extremely well. I am not aware of any public events, placards, slogans etc by women that have threatened rape or death towards trans people. I don't know of any trans people who've been "cancelled", or who've lost jobs or needed a security guard. But TRAs are guilty of all this and more towards women. So, I think the women's rights movement is demonstrating our commitment to free and civilised speech, non-violence, scientific facts, and well reasoned arguments.
Yes, there's no "both sides" issue when it comes to violent threats. I've never seen that kind of thing from the GC side at all. And the bullies within the GC movement are small in number - but they still should be criticised.
It's astonishing that so many people are completely irrational & unable to separate the individual from collective group think. We're all entitled to use whatever language we choose to address ppl & have an opinion that differs from the group. I bitterly resent anyone telling me how to think or what to say. I just won't tolerate. Everyone else should be the same.
I admit to being a little guilty of this in the past. I recall arguing with a GC friend who used the word 'cis' a lot and told her to stop. I still hate the term myself, but I had no right to try and purify her speech.
It's not a word I'm in favour of & I think it's a completely unnecessary prefix. Ppl are perfectly at liberty to use it. I only take issue when I'm told I have to do the same, because that's compelled speech 🙂
Hear, hear: "Personally, I judge each individual on his or her own merits and actions, irrespective of sex, race, or any other immutable characteristic. How old-fashioned of me." This has to be our North Star. It's the only way through.
I'm exactly the same. Making sweeping generalisations isn't logical or fair to anyone. I know two men who identify as women & neither are predatory males. They just live a peaceful existence. I refer to both by their female name & those of us who knew them before their gender change don't have a problem with it. That said, obviously none of us including they themselves believe it's possible to change biological sex. That's the issue for me. The denial of biological reality. The men that insist they're women & will not listen to reason are the problem.
Very sorry to see this awful infighting, and attacks on women like JCJ, by GCs who don’t understand her work. Some just don’t have either the intellect or background to understand her arguments.
Actually I’ve had a bit of a crush on JCJ since seeing her interview with Benjamin Boyce a few years back. I guess that makes me a full on sapiosexual.
I agree with the main comment from Tenaciously Terfin.
Barry Wall often says that we on the Terf side are collaborationist not collectivist.
We should, of course, oppose authoritarianism, bullying and homophobia. But our collaborative approach does not mean we have to compromise. In some political causes you can compromise. In some you can't. In this one we can't. This is because:
1. We need all men ( even if they are nice and reasonable) out of all women's spaces and women's sports;
2. We need the end of prescribing puberty blockers and wrong sex hormones and the carrying out of genital surgeries and double mastectomies with regard to children. We need to stop the transing away of the gay. Provide confused or distressed children with therapeutic services.
There are many other important related topics but I will leave it at that for the moment!
I would even question how you can call yourself a Terf or 'gender critical' if you think the above can be compromised in some way ( not suggesting you think this, of course, Andrew) .
For comprehensive documentation of those trans identifying men who have been convicted of serious offences including murder, rape, child sex offences etc I recommend the wonderful JL on the Glinner Update and her weekly Week on the War on Women.
And please do go to my substack for excellent discussions on this subject 😊
Exactly Dusty. Refusing to engage in abuse does not equate to compromise. There is no possible area for compromise to be made without women losing all rights and children being harmed. Having said that, I know I’m no saint when it comes to the expression of anger on this topic but I hope I can admit when I’m at fault.
There's a distinction to be made between feeling anger - an emotion which alerts us to injustice or tells us that our boundaries have been crossed - and aggressively acting it out. You always respect that distinction TT (as I know from your comments on another substack we both follow) by engaging those you disagree with in civil discourse. I wish more people understood that no matter how emotive the issue, it doesn't justify behaving like a bully.
I am glad you called this out. (I am not on any social media except Substack, so missed this.) I did see the that the brilliant, courageous women of For Women Scotland were attacked because, apparently, they did not demand repeal of the GRA. It is enormously self-defeating, and I was very glad to see Jane Clare Jones call it out. It is of course fine to have disagreements—we are after all a big tent—but to attack personally those who disagree is not only out of bounds, but counterproductive.
I'd take issue with your statement, Andrew, that to protect women from predators any list should be of those with convictions for such (I paraphrase). I'm not referring any particular section of society here, but there are any predators who have simply never been caught. However, we always need to be watching out for red flags, and often a man dressing as a woman is a red flag. (This is not in defence of any list.)
The legality of putting suspected predators on a list is obviously dubious, and bypasses due process (the foundation stone of a just society). As a liberal, I will never agree that such lists are acceptable.
There seems to be a surge in overt bullying today, aimed at the usual suspects - Women, Gays and Jews.
Stripping women of their rights and physically assaulting them for speaking. Sterilising gay children. Bashing Jews in the street and fire-bombing Synagogues.
Andrew, an excellent read, with the most obvious sentence not obvious to some hurling accusations and abuse on Twitter: "It should, of course, be possible to disagree without hurling abuse or defaming one’s opponents."
I get that some have anger, some women have suffered unimaginable sexual abuse, threats and vile misogyny that as a man, I can never experience or understand. But that does not excuse the relentless abuse directed at those who have done so much to expose and fight gender ideology and authoritarianism, you more than most.
It saddened and then angered me at the bullying you received as I knew some of those that were part of that, who had done incredible work themselves over many years in supporting women and children and fighting gender ideology. In many cases while suffering themselves. I get their anger but I do not understand how some immediately descend into a purity spiral of abuse that Twitter and anonymity (in some cases) whips up into a pile-on.
I was on the end of some criticism when I was uncovering what was behind Network Rail having two mens cubicles in the women's toilets at Kings Cross station. As the incident, well supported and covered on social media, was nearing conclusion, I received various DMs telling me, as a man, it was time I backed off and let women take over. And this was after I'd previously tried to involve and hand over to Sex Matters and Women's Rights Network. Did I get angry and stop supporting these excellent organisations because they were unable at the time to get involved? Of course not.
Debate, criticise, disagree all you like but never lose sight of the bigger picture and how each of us fits into that picture. As Barry Wall always says (and posted at the time to my critics): "collaborate for the win".
You have done so much behind and in front of the camera to fight and help others against gender ideology. And through it all, whatever the criticism and disagreements, you have always listened. I wish others had paused before their rush to condemn and followed your example.
On the one hand we have trans day of visibility, 31 March for the last 15 years, - every day is trans day of visibility so to speak with such a list, something trans activists talk about, well, incessantly. “We don’t exist and the highly ironic “genocide” claims are supposed to bolster their position, carrying over from lesbian and gay rights work. On the other hand for people who wish to maintain privacy, and it is nobody’s business what mental states people have. So, is it bad? Or is it anodyne?1
There are problems off and on with “outing” gays and lesbians. Same issue, either being lesbian or gay is unremarkable, anodyne, and it’s equivalent to declaring someone prefers jeans, or it’s a secret. It’s not saying what sexual practices they have (however implied) or anything else, which is private.
In trans declaring someone is trans says little about their sexual practices either, or even how fully they’ve “evolved” their bodies. That’s nobody’s business but their own.
I don’t have much issue with identifying people who are trans, in positions of power and influence if their beliefs have impact on me, or trans who are a threat to health and welfare.
Outing someone however for the purpose of shaming them or causing emotional stress is not good under any circumstances. That’s where the only intention prurient.
The internet apparently exists primarily to irritate people in the social media sphere. It’s the primary method of monetizing social media. Gender critical people calling names, and being irritating is part of the territory, stop using social media if that bothers you. Certainly they all look rabid. And that, perhaps should be on a list too,
Hi Andrew i have been a follower of yours for sometime. i am a big fan of free speech nation and subscribe to your substack. i have just noticed you have blocked me on twitter . A bit hurt as i have no idea why.
I saw one response to the article before I had had time to read it. No idea whether it was the one you saw. It prompted me to read the article and my immediate thought was "I'm not sure she read the same article as me". 🤣
Andrew, this was a difficult one for me to read. Whilst I agree that innocent human beings should not be abused and I also agree that no one should be coerced into accepting the opinions of others, I can also understand the anger that has created such reactions. Women have been dehumanised, abused, treated as sub human, the rights of sex offenders taking precedence over our rights, for example rape victims having to refer to the rapist as ‘she’, paedophiles being incarcerated in prisons with mother and baby units. We are all human, we all make mistakes when angry. I always try to express my anger against the ideology rather than individuals but I’m pretty sure I’ve had my unguarded moments. I’m not trying to excuse anything or anyone and I’m glad the site was taken down. I agree it’s not helpful and we must oppose anything with authoritarian tendencies. I’m simply saying that I understand what is behind it. All I can say is that I can’t wait for this vile episode in our history to be over. And for that to happen, the insanity of gender ideology has to be defeated.
People do terrible things when they're angry. It explains it, but it doesn't justify it.
Absolutely, completely agree.
It is testament to your principles and character that, even though you feel an intensity of anger that makes you understand why some people become authoritarian extremists and so find this critique of them difficult to read, you nevertheless read it, do so in good faith and agree that we must oppose authoritarianism even on behalf of causes that are the most important to us.
Too many people who are not authoritarian themselves will find ways to miss the point, minimise the problem or ignore it entirely of a sense of loyalty and solidarity with people on their own side. Those who are authoritarian will find ways to misrepresent it utterly and accuse those opposing authoritarianism of being complicit in abuse and attribute appalling motivations to them.
Above all, and in every situation, we need people who will say to their own side, "I understand why you feel so strongly about this. I do too. But we cannot allow ourselves to become dishonest, be authoritarian, dehumanise those with whom we disagree most strongly and viciously bully those within the movement who refuse to do so or with whom we have any points of difference at all. It's counterproductive, but, more importantly, it's wrong."
Goodness, thank you so much. And I completely agree, authoritarianism in whatever form and from whatever direction, is one of the biggest threats we are facing today.
This thread answers the extra point I came here to add in reply to Andrew’s article. Since getting into this fight, my fairly innocent eyes have been opened to the scale of bad male behaviour to women, and I can see why it makes some women very, very angry. I think it could drive a person mad. But yes, being justifiably angry doesn’t give you license to stomp around wildly.
I agree wholeheartedly, and this is a very useful piece. One name left off Stella O'Malley's list of people bullied by other GC feminists is Posie Parker/Kellie Jay Keen. Plenty of left-wing GC 'activists' - I won't name them - have smeared KJK as 'far-right adjacent', even repeating those slurs in the context of the events in Melbourrne, when neo-Nazis gate-crashed one of her Let Women Speak rallies. (KJK has won some defamation cases after various journalists and Australians labelled her a neo-Nazi, including a grovelling apology from Liberal Party leader John Pesutto.) Supporters of the now defunct WPUK - as well as the risible witch-hunters of Hope Not Hate - were to the fore in these lies. I know that Stella and Kellie-Jay don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, and KJK is far more hard-line and populist, nevertheless the latter has contributed a great deal to raise public awareness of the threat posed by gender ideology, at great risk to her personal safety, and the attempts to undermine her and her movement from the left are unforgiveable, in my opinion.
Well said, Pynchon and I totally agree.
I am proud to be a member of let Women Speak ( have attended 6 rallies) and the Party of Women.
Dusty
I agree
I agree with you about the way the GC left has smeared KJK. It was particularly disappointing from WPUK because they, too, had been physically attacked by transactivists for bravely speaking up for women's rights. However, it's also disappointing to see ultra Gender Critical people behaving in authoritarian ways - such as the homophobic dogpiling of Andrew on Twitter. KJK has made it clear that she doesn't support the Far Right, and her vindication in the Australian courts confirms it. Has she also distanced herself from the GC extremists?
I think it's important for a movement to remain true to being civilised and decent. As it is inevitable members of a communal movement won't agree on every topic and approach, this means sometimes people will publicly express disagreement. The sign of a strong and open community is that public disagreement can be handled well and in the spirit of free speech. Free speech is essential to any community remaining democratic and transparent. It's also important to balance spending time lingering over disagreements with preventing infighting. Again, a successful community needs to be flexible enough to accommodate some difference of views. I'm not at all well informed about this current disagreement between different people in the wider GC movement. So my only comment about this online list of transnpeople is that if it is conflating innocent trans identified people with ccriminals then that's not on. I would also add that TRAs, as we all know, have been pretty ghastly in their rape and death threats. TRAs violent behaviour doesn't excuse the indiscriminate listing of trans identified people, but it can explain why some women might feel genuine fear about the whole trans movement. On the whole, I think the pro women's rights community has behaved extremely well. I am not aware of any public events, placards, slogans etc by women that have threatened rape or death towards trans people. I don't know of any trans people who've been "cancelled", or who've lost jobs or needed a security guard. But TRAs are guilty of all this and more towards women. So, I think the women's rights movement is demonstrating our commitment to free and civilised speech, non-violence, scientific facts, and well reasoned arguments.
Yes, there's no "both sides" issue when it comes to violent threats. I've never seen that kind of thing from the GC side at all. And the bullies within the GC movement are small in number - but they still should be criticised.
Hear hear, Emma
It's astonishing that so many people are completely irrational & unable to separate the individual from collective group think. We're all entitled to use whatever language we choose to address ppl & have an opinion that differs from the group. I bitterly resent anyone telling me how to think or what to say. I just won't tolerate. Everyone else should be the same.
It's a red line for me. Anyone who tries to police my speech will be told where to go.
Nothing is more infuriating.
I admit to being a little guilty of this in the past. I recall arguing with a GC friend who used the word 'cis' a lot and told her to stop. I still hate the term myself, but I had no right to try and purify her speech.
It's not a word I'm in favour of & I think it's a completely unnecessary prefix. Ppl are perfectly at liberty to use it. I only take issue when I'm told I have to do the same, because that's compelled speech 🙂
Hear, hear: "Personally, I judge each individual on his or her own merits and actions, irrespective of sex, race, or any other immutable characteristic. How old-fashioned of me." This has to be our North Star. It's the only way through.
I'm exactly the same. Making sweeping generalisations isn't logical or fair to anyone. I know two men who identify as women & neither are predatory males. They just live a peaceful existence. I refer to both by their female name & those of us who knew them before their gender change don't have a problem with it. That said, obviously none of us including they themselves believe it's possible to change biological sex. That's the issue for me. The denial of biological reality. The men that insist they're women & will not listen to reason are the problem.
Andrew,
I've made a list, I've checked it twice and you're on it. Merry Christmas.
And to you!
Very sorry to see this awful infighting, and attacks on women like JCJ, by GCs who don’t understand her work. Some just don’t have either the intellect or background to understand her arguments.
I fear it may be worse - that they understand but are deliberately twisting their interpretations as a smear tactic.
You may be right. Either way it’s disappointing.
Actually I’ve had a bit of a crush on JCJ since seeing her interview with Benjamin Boyce a few years back. I guess that makes me a full on sapiosexual.
Thanks, Andrew.
I agree with the main comment from Tenaciously Terfin.
Barry Wall often says that we on the Terf side are collaborationist not collectivist.
We should, of course, oppose authoritarianism, bullying and homophobia. But our collaborative approach does not mean we have to compromise. In some political causes you can compromise. In some you can't. In this one we can't. This is because:
1. We need all men ( even if they are nice and reasonable) out of all women's spaces and women's sports;
2. We need the end of prescribing puberty blockers and wrong sex hormones and the carrying out of genital surgeries and double mastectomies with regard to children. We need to stop the transing away of the gay. Provide confused or distressed children with therapeutic services.
There are many other important related topics but I will leave it at that for the moment!
I would even question how you can call yourself a Terf or 'gender critical' if you think the above can be compromised in some way ( not suggesting you think this, of course, Andrew) .
For comprehensive documentation of those trans identifying men who have been convicted of serious offences including murder, rape, child sex offences etc I recommend the wonderful JL on the Glinner Update and her weekly Week on the War on Women.
And please do go to my substack for excellent discussions on this subject 😊
Here is the latest update:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/an-angel-gets-his-wings
Hold the line 😀
Dusty
Exactly Dusty. Refusing to engage in abuse does not equate to compromise. There is no possible area for compromise to be made without women losing all rights and children being harmed. Having said that, I know I’m no saint when it comes to the expression of anger on this topic but I hope I can admit when I’m at fault.
I think the anger is absolutely understandable, TT
Dusty
There's a distinction to be made between feeling anger - an emotion which alerts us to injustice or tells us that our boundaries have been crossed - and aggressively acting it out. You always respect that distinction TT (as I know from your comments on another substack we both follow) by engaging those you disagree with in civil discourse. I wish more people understood that no matter how emotive the issue, it doesn't justify behaving like a bully.
Thanks Dulle
Have cross posted 😀
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/scrooge-a-christmas-carol
Dusty
Or indeed...a feminist 🤷♀️
I am glad you called this out. (I am not on any social media except Substack, so missed this.) I did see the that the brilliant, courageous women of For Women Scotland were attacked because, apparently, they did not demand repeal of the GRA. It is enormously self-defeating, and I was very glad to see Jane Clare Jones call it out. It is of course fine to have disagreements—we are after all a big tent—but to attack personally those who disagree is not only out of bounds, but counterproductive.
Quite. All of this is exhausting enough without being attacked by our own side.
I'd take issue with your statement, Andrew, that to protect women from predators any list should be of those with convictions for such (I paraphrase). I'm not referring any particular section of society here, but there are any predators who have simply never been caught. However, we always need to be watching out for red flags, and often a man dressing as a woman is a red flag. (This is not in defence of any list.)
The legality of putting suspected predators on a list is obviously dubious, and bypasses due process (the foundation stone of a just society). As a liberal, I will never agree that such lists are acceptable.
I do agree with you about lists - any such lists whoever draws them up.
There seems to be a surge in overt bullying today, aimed at the usual suspects - Women, Gays and Jews.
Stripping women of their rights and physically assaulting them for speaking. Sterilising gay children. Bashing Jews in the street and fire-bombing Synagogues.
What the hell is going on???
Andrew, an excellent read, with the most obvious sentence not obvious to some hurling accusations and abuse on Twitter: "It should, of course, be possible to disagree without hurling abuse or defaming one’s opponents."
I get that some have anger, some women have suffered unimaginable sexual abuse, threats and vile misogyny that as a man, I can never experience or understand. But that does not excuse the relentless abuse directed at those who have done so much to expose and fight gender ideology and authoritarianism, you more than most.
It saddened and then angered me at the bullying you received as I knew some of those that were part of that, who had done incredible work themselves over many years in supporting women and children and fighting gender ideology. In many cases while suffering themselves. I get their anger but I do not understand how some immediately descend into a purity spiral of abuse that Twitter and anonymity (in some cases) whips up into a pile-on.
I was on the end of some criticism when I was uncovering what was behind Network Rail having two mens cubicles in the women's toilets at Kings Cross station. As the incident, well supported and covered on social media, was nearing conclusion, I received various DMs telling me, as a man, it was time I backed off and let women take over. And this was after I'd previously tried to involve and hand over to Sex Matters and Women's Rights Network. Did I get angry and stop supporting these excellent organisations because they were unable at the time to get involved? Of course not.
Debate, criticise, disagree all you like but never lose sight of the bigger picture and how each of us fits into that picture. As Barry Wall always says (and posted at the time to my critics): "collaborate for the win".
You have done so much behind and in front of the camera to fight and help others against gender ideology. And through it all, whatever the criticism and disagreements, you have always listened. I wish others had paused before their rush to condemn and followed your example.
Well said
....and like all Bullies, when you point out their unacceptable behaviour, their immediate response is to just bullying you, but more.
On the one hand we have trans day of visibility, 31 March for the last 15 years, - every day is trans day of visibility so to speak with such a list, something trans activists talk about, well, incessantly. “We don’t exist and the highly ironic “genocide” claims are supposed to bolster their position, carrying over from lesbian and gay rights work. On the other hand for people who wish to maintain privacy, and it is nobody’s business what mental states people have. So, is it bad? Or is it anodyne?1
There are problems off and on with “outing” gays and lesbians. Same issue, either being lesbian or gay is unremarkable, anodyne, and it’s equivalent to declaring someone prefers jeans, or it’s a secret. It’s not saying what sexual practices they have (however implied) or anything else, which is private.
In trans declaring someone is trans says little about their sexual practices either, or even how fully they’ve “evolved” their bodies. That’s nobody’s business but their own.
I don’t have much issue with identifying people who are trans, in positions of power and influence if their beliefs have impact on me, or trans who are a threat to health and welfare.
Outing someone however for the purpose of shaming them or causing emotional stress is not good under any circumstances. That’s where the only intention prurient.
The internet apparently exists primarily to irritate people in the social media sphere. It’s the primary method of monetizing social media. Gender critical people calling names, and being irritating is part of the territory, stop using social media if that bothers you. Certainly they all look rabid. And that, perhaps should be on a list too,
Hi Andrew i have been a follower of yours for sometime. i am a big fan of free speech nation and subscribe to your substack. i have just noticed you have blocked me on twitter . A bit hurt as i have no idea why.
Probably just an error. What’s the handle?
@strooyloot
Sorted now! Thanks for letting me know.
Is this stuff mainly on X?
Probably.
Just saw a response here on Substack.
She accused you of "made up" stuff (twice 😅)
I muted her. I was getting tired anyway, but attacking Andrew Doyle crosses my line! 😅
Haha! I saw that. All they can do is lie.
I saw one response to the article before I had had time to read it. No idea whether it was the one you saw. It prompted me to read the article and my immediate thought was "I'm not sure she read the same article as me". 🤣
If she started by saying it was atrocious, that was it. She just rants.