Fizzle
Where we are now:
Ok. Got it. There was a man playing. Not even a “trans woman” – just a man. How did that happen? Did he just say “My name is Susie” and that was all it took? Or what? I’d love to know more.
But. We still have no indication that three women were dropped on their heads, apart from one person on Twitter saying so. Arty seems to have watched the damn thing and didn’t see any serious injuries.
That’s not a legal tackle in rugby. No WAY would anyone get away with doing it thrice, trans or no trans.
I got partway through the match, and then had to stop for a while. Now it’s saying it’s private and I have to sign in.
Well that’s interesting.
There’s an article by Nesrine Malik in the Guardian about the cat-girl kerfuffle. It’s worth reading in connexion with the rugby story and its coy advertisers. The headline:
It doesn’t matter if a girl identified as a cat (she didn’t). The issue is how post-truth politics exploits it.
Agree with piglet – that’s a red card offence. Just getting your opponent up in a position where that could happen is a yellow. There might be a kernel of truth here (trans player got a red, had questionable tackles earlier), but grain of salt.
I wish I understood the point of this weird game Diana is playing. We all care about this issue, and want what she seems to want – to get men out of women’s sports and spaces. In order to help make this happen, we want evidence of this man hurting women; if she has it, why can’t she share it instead of just posting mysterious tweets about it? If she doesn’t have it, why bother to post in the first place?
Same. And it’s hopeless even to ask her, because she interprets requests for specifics as aggression, and responds with insults.
If I might hazard a guess: Diana seems conservative, and is probably more used to arguing with genderist liberals, so perhaps she assumes anyone who disagrees must be pushing trans ideology. Her reactions remind me of those from trans activists who assume everyone they argue with is a religious conservative, just with the polarity reversed.
@8 that’s a reasonable speculation, but Ophelia isn’t disagreeing – in fact, she’s very much agreeing. She wants to be able to disseminate Diana’s information…but in order to do so she needs that actual information. And I guess Ophelia is correct that she’s responding with ‘insults’, but what I’ve seen on this blog and on the original Twitter thread isn’t so much insults as weird vague and pointless insinuations about…something. Whoever suggested it sounded like QAnon is probably right, though I don’t know a whole lot about QAnon (or even if it’s still a thing).
There have been insults too, for instance yesterday there was “Lazy!”
Much of her weird behavior is as if she’s teaching a journalism class and we’re refusing to do any work apart from asking her a lot of questions. She tells us to do our own digging instead of sharing what she knows. Twitter is not Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.It’s not even Podunk High School Sophomore Journalism.