Metacontex Dossier — Handling Online Abuse & Disinformation

Posted by: TERF_1
Date: October 29 at 9:51 PM

I am beyond tired of the manipulation of trans activists. X is full of men blaming women for the suicide of a college student because he felt rejected by women. We are not responsible, and to suggest that we are is just disgusting.

[Video thumbnail – TERF_1 speaking at timestamp 1:04 / 1:33]

Transcript excerpt from video:

00:00:19:26 – 00:00:45:29
We are not responsible for you, for your feelings, for your mental health. We are not responsible for putting aside our comfort and our well-being so that you don’t have to be around other men. If you don’t feel safe around other men, take that up with them. If it hurts your feelings that women have rejected you in our spaces, take that up with your therapist.

00:00:46:05 – 00:01:06:15
It is not our job to validate you, and it is not our job to keep you safe. All you’re basically saying is women, shut up and let us get naked in front of you. Get naked in front of us. Let us into your competitions. Let us into every part of your life. Because if you don’t, we just might hurt ourselves.

00:01:06:16 – 00:01:26:28
And if we do that, our blood will be on your hands. I’m not sure how that’s any different from incels who say things like, I’m probably just going to end my life and it’s going to be the fault of all these bitches who have rejected me and refused to sleep with me. I’m such a good guy. I don’t mean them any harm.

00:01:27:00 – 00:01:32:03
This will be their fault.

00:01:32:05 – 00:01:39:08
I’m so tired.

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: 2d

Hi ***, it’s been a long time. I saw your post, and I need to say this clearly: what you’ve written isn’t independent thought. It’s the exact script being pumped through a global propaganda machine.

You didn’t come up with this. The phrases, the framing, the tired “men claiming to be women” trope. It all comes from the same right-wing pipeline that’s been running out of the U.K. and the U.S. for years. It started with online forums like Mumsnet and groups tied to American think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Alliance Defending Freedom. They produce copy-paste talking points about “protecting women’s spaces” and “defending children,” which are then amplified by influencers, political campaigns, and Russian disinformation networks. You’re repeating foreign-crafted rhetoric designed to fracture democracies, not defend women.

The illusion of moral fatigue.
The “I’m so tired” tone isn’t organic. It’s part of the formula. It signals exhaustion so you can appear reasonable while spreading cruelty. They tell you you’re protecting your kids, when what you’re actually protecting is someone else’s culture-war business model.

Manufactured outrage.
Twenty years ago, nobody cared about trans people because there was no algorithm monetizing outrage. Now, billions of dollars flow through media ecosystems that thrive on fear. Every hour spent hating someone you’ve never met earns profit for someone else. You’ve been recruited into that economy of hate, and it’s made you miserable.

Real-world results.
The people you’re vilifying are just trying to live. To not be beaten, legislated out of existence, or denied healthcare. Calling them “men demanding validation” isn’t feminist; it’s propaganda designed to make empathy feel like weakness.

Perspective.
You have kids. They deserve to see their mother model empathy, not paranoia. You don’t have to agree with everything, but you should at least understand when you’ve been played. The same machine that fed this to you is the one that told people vaccines were poison and Ukraine didn’t deserve support. It’s all one pipeline, and it runs straight through your feed.

If you ever want to talk about how this stuff actually works — the bots, the algorithms, the think-tank funding — I’ll gladly explain. But right now, you’re not “tired of manipulation.” You’re the one being manipulated. And the people who built that pipeline are laughing all the way to the bank while you waste your energy punching down on strangers who never did you any harm.

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: 2d

JM you have absolutely zero clue what you’re talking about. You haven’t thought this through beyond your knee-jerk impulse to “be kind.” This did not start with Mumsnet or the right, as a matter of fact. Left-wing feminists (like the ones who founded WDI, the organization I am with) began sounding the alarm years ago when lesbians were being called transphobes for refusing to sleep with these men.

Have you ever stopped to consider how a man can feel like a woman, without any frame of reference? Feeling different from other men does not make them women. Only men could oppress women for thousands of years only to put lipstick on and claim to be the most oppressed group in society. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Men are tearing through women’s boundaries, and you stand with them.

You support an ideology that has put countless rapists in women’s prisons and shelters, stolen fairness and safety from women’s sports, forced women and girls to allow men into their changerooms, and stolen our language. “Trans women are women,” and we are “cis women” now. Twenty years ago, trans ideology had not yet damaged women’s rights.

Are you aware that trans-identifying men launched a campaign to have Vancouver Rape Relief’s government funding pulled because they would not allow a man in a dress to work there? They are the only female-only rape crisis centre left in all of Canada and they run solely on donations, thanks to the men you support.

How dare you tell me why I feel the way I do. According to government statistics from Canada, the U.S., and the U.K., between 44–59% of all trans-identifying men in prison have histories of sex offenses. The attached photo provides a few examples, but there are TONS of them.

You have applied zero critical thinking skills to any of this, have not followed any of it through to its logical conclusion, and yet you think you’re going to school me with the same BS all trans activists spew.

[Attached image below text: collage of mugshots titled “JUST A FEW OF THE TRANSWOMEN IN U.S. PRISONS FOR SEXUALLY ASSAULTING AND/OR KILLING WOMEN & GIRLS.”]

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: 2d

You are brainwashed, seemingly irreparably. Women and girls are being SAd regularly by these predatory men, and you want women, including your own daughter presumably, to be forced to give up our safety and comfort so that mentally ill men can feel validated.

It has never been about safety, which has been proven by their refusal to accept a third space. They are using us as human shields and validation tools, or worse, objects for their fetish. How many women and girls need to be abused before you wake TF up?

You might be willing to trade men’s feelings for women’s safety, but I won’t. I will stand up for the safety of your daughter, even if you won’t.

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: 2d

One thing first. When I mentioned kids it was to make the point that all of us, as parents, should want our children to grow up in a world that treats people with fairness. It was not a shot at your family.

Now I am going to correct the specific claims you posted. Bill C-18 blocks news links in Canada, so I cannot drop URLs here. If you want the documents, DM me and I will send screenshots or references by email.

“Between 44 to 59 percent of all trans-identifying men in prison have histories of sex offenses.”
I cannot find this figure in any official dataset. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Canadian Correctional Service do not publish a number like that for transgender inmates. What you will find instead is consistent evidence that transgender people in custody are at far higher risk of being victimized than of committing sexual violence in custody. See the BJS sexual victimization surveys in prisons and jails, and CSC research briefs on gender-diverse offenders. If you have an official source for 44 to 59 percent, name the agency, report title, and year. If it is a meme, it is not evidence.

“Trans activism put countless rapists in women’s prisons and shelters.”
Prison placement is case by case, with risk assessments and overrides. Canada and U.S. systems both use multi-factor reviews that can and do deny requests when there are safety concerns. Even in the U.K., where headlines drive this panic, placement decisions are reviewed and many requests are refused. The reality is complicated and administrative, not automatic.

The image collage of trans women “in U.S. prisons for sexually assaulting and/or killing women and girls.”
A collage of mugshots proves only that some people committed crimes. It does not establish rates or causation. These graphics circulate without methodology, sample size, or an agency source, which is the definition of propaganda. If there is a real statistical claim, it should be tied to an official dataset with a denominator and confidence intervals.

Vancouver Rape Relief.
The City of Vancouver’s grant decisions are public record. The dispute was about eligibility criteria and the group’s policy on trans clients. You can read council minutes and staff reports from 2019. This was not a secret conspiracy. It was a local funding decision tied to city policy.

“Trans ideology damaged women’s rights and safety in the last 20 years.”
Safety policy should be evidence-based. On public accommodations, law enforcement and academic reviews have not found that gender identity protections cause an increase in sexual assaults in bathrooms or change rooms. On sport, the science is mixed and evolving, which is why responsible bodies write sport-specific rules and review them as the evidence changes. Sweeping bans are blunt tools that harm real people without solving real problems.

Where these talking points come from.
A lot of the language in your post matches material pushed by celebrity accounts and by political groups that package outrage for clicks and fundraising. That does not make you a bad person, but it does mean the claims deserve source checks before they are repeated as fact. Feminism is about expanding safety and rights, not narrowing them with panic.

A practical path forward if we actually care about safety.
Better funding for women’s services. Stronger staff screening. Case-by-case corrections placement with real risk assessment. Clear, sport-by-sport eligibility rules written with medical and performance data. Education that teaches boys and girls to respect boundaries and treat people decently.

I am not asking you to change your feelings overnight. I am asking you to stop posting statistics and graphics that do not come from official sources. Because of Bill C-18 I cannot link news articles here, but I am happy to share PDFs, report names, and screenshots off platform. If you want to talk calmly, I will.

Posted by: TERF_2
Timestamp: 16h

Normally, I would let Terf_1 embarrass you on her own — she does this to you pathetic little men regularly enough, but you insulted her as a mother. So listen: you’re an obnoxious, condescending little twat.

You just mansplained to the Canadian President of a left-wing, lesbian-run women’s rights organization that has been campaigning for left-wing ideology and women’s rights since you were in grade school. You claimed she’s part of a right-wing trope. You, my friend, are part of a left-wing trope.

You have zero capacity for independent thought and your comment was so far from reality that I genuinely wish you left out the mom part so we could have just laughed at you in peace. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

I’m not sure if it’s willful ignorance or malice, but there is something deeply sinister about a man, especially a father, who would tell women to shut up and let these men get naked with you and your daughters.

Posted by: TERF_3
Timestamp: 15h

Amen TERF_2JM, this was fucked. I expect better even from a disillusioned far-left “man” like you. I can’t believe you have tilted so far that you would puke nonsense against your cousin and disrespect her for having her own opinion behind your keyboard.

And for what, JM? So you feel like a big man? So everyone has to think exactly like you? Well guess what — most of us do not. Fuck man, you went down a few more notches today.

[JM reacted with 😭 emoji]

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: 1d

PS83-3-442-eng.pdf
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/scc-csc/PS83-3-442-eng.pdf
(Originally published in 2022 — this document may now be out of date as of 2025.)

Thanks for mansplaining what feminism is really about to me. I just couldn’t understand it until yet another man explained it to me in terms that include men with lady brains.

Here is the link for the CSC study. Table 2 shows that 44.3% are sex offenders. The UK numbers come from the Ministry of Justice (58.9%). Literally every single thing you’ve said is provably false, but rather than dismantling your arguments one by one and wasting my time on a self-righteous ideologue, why don’t we make a deal?

For every case you can find of a trans person being harmed because of transphobia (that’s the catch. The vast majority of those included in articles, etc. are harmed by intimate partner violence or drug overdoses) I will provide five examples of women being harmed by men claiming to be women. I’m not talking about surveys asking men who know exactly what their answers will be used for, I’m talking about specific cases and/or statistics.

Will you then admit that you are wrong and trans activism is dangerous for women and girls? If you are able to find the evidence you believe exists and prove that women are not being harmed, I am happy to admit that I was incorrect.

Regarding sports, if you are unwilling to admit that there are clear physiological differences between males and females that matter in sports, no amount of evidence will change your mind. Your brain has been rotted by a top-down, heavily funded campaign that was designed to turn men like you into exactly what you have become. Every talking point is copied and pasted right from the top. You are not thoughtful or insightful.

If I have the time later, I will dismantle your arguments one by one, but for now, how about you do your best to come up with some proof of your claims? And I wouldn’t start out with Julie Berman, the last Canadian trans activist that was plastered across the news as a victim of transphobia. If you dig just beneath the facade that was put there to dupe you, you will discover that he was murdered in a fight with his lover. And no South American trans prostitutes, who are commonly wheeled out by activists to bolster the number of trans people murdered.

Lastly, you have yet to explain how a man could “feel” like a woman with no frame of reference. Women are more than lipstick and a mystical feeling of femininity. That’s why butch lesbians are still women. We are not a costume. The bottom line is that the safety and rights of women and girls is either more important to you than the feelings of men or it is not, and if you put the feelings of men above the safety of women and girls, you are a disgrace to all that men are supposed to be.

PUBLICATIONS.GC.CA
Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: 1d

TERF_1 You still haven’t answered a single factual point from my earlier posts. You came back with personal insults and one PDF. Since facts don’t seem to be your strong suit, here’s what that document actually says.

I read the PDF you posted. It is Correctional Service Canada Research Report R-442 “Examination of Gender Diverse Offenders.” Here is what it actually shows and what it does not show.

1. What the CSC study counts
   The study is a descriptive profile of a small identified group in federal custody starting December 2017. CSC itself notes that the group is likely under-identified and that the data are not general population rates. It profiles offence histories inside this identified group. It is not evidence that most trans people in prison are sex offenders, and it is not evidence about trans people in the general public.

2. The 44.3 percent number
   In CSC’s own summary of this work, gender diverse offenders with sex offence histories are about 37 percent of the identified gender diverse group during the study period. “Sex offence history” means a current or past sex-related conviction anywhere in an offender’s record. It is not the same as “44 percent of trans women currently in prison for sex crimes,” and it is not a rate you can compare to women or men in the public. CSC also shows that in men’s institutions about 30 percent of the in-custody population have sex offence histories. Small samples and identification limits matter here. If you want the exact table language, I will DM screenshots.

3. The UK “58.9 percent”
   That figure comes from written submissions that repackaged partial Ministry of Justice administrative counts with heavy caveats. The counts exclude important categories and are not a clean statistical rate. UK justice officials have repeatedly warned about data quality on transgender prisoner counts. Pulling a single percentage out of that context and presenting it as a general truth is misuse.

4. The “trade me five cases for one” challenge
   I am not playing a case-trading game about who suffers more. Policy is not made by swapping anecdotes. What matters is what agencies and peer-reviewed research keep finding: gender diverse and transgender people in custody are at high risk of being victimized, and placement, search, shower, and program access rules have to balance safety carefully for everyone. That is why CSC uses case-by-case placement and risk assessments, with overrides when warranted.

5. Bathrooms, shelters, and sport
   These are exactly the places where panic causes harm. The practical path is the same one I already outlined. Fund women’s services properly. Staff screening and safeguarding. Case-by-case corrections placement based on risk. Sport-by-sport eligibility rules written with medical and performance data. Education that teaches boundaries and respect.

Two last points.

• On “what a woman feels like.” That is a philosophy question, not a corrections policy question. Whatever any of us think about gender, public rules still have to be built on evidence and safety.
• On tone. I raised kids to argue in good faith. I am not going to accept lines about my daughter or about me as a father. We can disagree without that.

Because of Bill C-18, Facebook Canada buries news and research links. If you actually want the tables you cited, plus the CSC research brief that clarifies the “sex offence history” figures, DM me and I will send screenshots and titles. I am not going to keep debating percentages pulled out of administrative snapshots. I will stand for policy that protects women and treats people honestly.

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: 1d

JM I’ve found your “deleted response.” Firstly, a man with a history of sex offenses is a sex offender. At no point did I say they were currently in for sex offenses or that the study directly reflects the general population. Second, perhaps you should compare their numbers to those of female inmates, since you believe they are women, right? Seems like you just told on yourself.

Third, you said all you needed to say with your comment that we need to protect everyone equally. Women’s spaces are meant for protecting women and girls, not everyone who feels vulnerable. I am aware that these men are at higher risk of danger from other men. Male on male violence is not women’s problem to solve, and the solution to protect these men is not to put women in danger. Shall we start allowing every effeminate gay man, disabled men, etc. into women’s prisons as well? Because they, too, are at higher risk from other men.

It’s funny that you side stepped the challenge presented. Statistics and specific cases are not anecdotes. Hilarious. The fact that you’re clutching your pearls because I said something about you as a father is laughable, considering that you opened this conversation with a suggestion that I am setting a poor example for my daughter. Your breakdown of the information provided is dishonest and heavily flawed. The UK study was quite large, if the Canadian one was not large enough for you. Either way, though, the fact that you can’t admit that even one sex offender being allowed into a women’s prison or shelter is too many is quite telling.

Your comment about how a man can feel like a woman is odd, especially considering the fact that this conversation was not solely about prisons. It is about whether or not you believe that women and girls deserve comfort, dignity, and safety. Clearly, you do not, and clearly you are unable to respond to that question. Shocker.

I would like to point out that even the most unhinged trans-identifying men, the ones who call me a n@zi and wish death and r@pe upon me and women like me have never spoken to me as condescendingly as you did right from the start. Take from that what you will. I have debated this issue with leading trans activists, school boards, and several members of the Canadian CEDAW committee for the United Nations. You are welcome to provide any info you like, but the chances that you come up with anything they haven’t are pretty slim.

Finally, regarding sports, perhaps you should take a look at the recent report from the UN Special Rapporteur for Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, where she lays out all the ways trans-inclusive policies are putting female athletes in unfair and unsafe circumstances, since you want to pretend not to know that men cannot fairly compete against women. Women and girls are meant to be allowed into the lifeboats first. It seems you would be fine with men in dresses climbing over us because their safety is your priority, evidently. So weird.

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: 1d

***, it’s clear this conversation is emotional for you. I haven’t deleted anything, and I’m not interested in point-scoring, only facts and how they’re used.

The study you’re citing from Correctional Service Canada does not state that 44 percent of trans-identified inmates are sex offenders. It notes that of the extremely small number of trans women housed in male prisons at that time, nearly half had prior convictions, a figure not representative of any broader population. Presenting that as “nearly half of all trans women are sex offenders” is statistical malpractice.

Women’s safety and trans safety are not competing goals. You keep framing this as “protect women or protect men.” In reality, both groups need protection from actual violence, not each other. And yes, violence between men is society’s problem. Pretending it is not women’s problem ignores how gendered violence, prisons, and trauma overlap.

Comparing trans women to gay men or disabled men is not logic. It is stigma. Trans women exist. Pretending otherwise does not make anyone safer.

Citing committees or UN rapporteurs does not replace context. UN bodies publish many views, including ones supporting trans inclusion and women’s rights simultaneously. Cherry-picking one name to make your case is politics, not proof.

You have accused me of being condescending, dishonest, and a bad father. That is not debate. That is character assault. I have not insulted you. I have only challenged misinformation.

At the end of the day, this is not about who wins. It is about whether we treat people as human beings or as talking points. I choose facts, empathy, and equal protection for everyone. You can choose differently, but please stop calling hate feminism.

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: 1d

For people who claim to love truth and facts, it’s pretty entertaining how fast you delete my replies when you can’t handle them. 🤣😂 do you have anything other than personal attacks for me?

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: 1d • Edited

JM wtf are you talking about? I haven’t deleted a single reply. I provided you with the CSC study and presented you with a challenge. Did you just try to pretend I was deleting replies so it would look like you weren’t losing this argument so badly? That’s a first, I must say. And the personal attacks started with you speaking to me in an incredibly condescending manner and suggesting that I am setting a poor example for my daughter.

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: 1d

No problem, I enjoy keeping track of everything and making sure we all know what we’ve said.

Summary of the thread so far:
Terf_1 begins the thread stating she’s “beyond tired of the manipulation of trans activists,” accusing “men blaming women” for the suicide of a college student. She insists women are not responsible and calls such suggestions disgusting.

JM replies with a long message explaining that her phrasing is not organic but comes directly from a coordinated propaganda machine. He cites the Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Mumsnet as sources of copy-paste rhetoric about “protecting women’s spaces” and “defending children.” He argues that this messaging is part of a right-wing disinformation network that monetizes outrage, using algorithms and culture-war marketing to turn fear into profit.

JM adds that the tone of moral exhaustion (“I’m so tired”) is intentionally crafted to appear compassionate while spreading harm. He urges her to see that the people she is vilifying are…

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: 1d

JM, this breakdown conveniently leaves out every bit you likely wouldn’t have wanted to share, like the fact that my accusation of deleting comments came as a direct result of you claiming that I had deleted comments, the fact that you are unable to answer how a man could feel like a woman, your refusal to engage in the challenge presented, the fact that Aja’s response also mentioned the abusive nature of trans-identifying men (she is also a member of WDI), and plenty more. Where did you get this? TransActivistsBreakdowns.com? It is very obviously biased and is breaking things down from a pro-trans viewpoint, leaving out anything that would damage your arguments. What a weird thing to do on your part.

At the end of the day, you have bent over backwards attempting to break down the multiple studies proving that there are sex offenders being allowed to self-identify into women’s prisons in a way that proves that there aren’t AS MANY as one might think there are at first glance. Not the flex you seem to think it is. I have pressed you on whether or not any sex offenders should be allowed entry into women’s spaces multiple times. Your inability to unequivocally state that no male sex offenders should be allowed entry is, as I said earlier, quite telling.

The fact that you would prioritize the feelings of a sex offender over the safety of incarcerated women, abused women in shelters, or any women at all is evidence that you have lost your ability to use common sense. You refused to engage with my challenge, which is unsurprising because you likely found that when you dig beneath the surface, very few of the deaths used by trans activists resulted from transphobic attacks. It’s almost always IPV or drug overdose. Feminism is meant to protect women. The clue is in the name.

Your statement that trans women exist is a red herring regularly used by trans activists. Men who claim female identities exist. Believe me, I know. They’re not women. For you, a man who has never experienced how terrifying it is for a woman to be alone in an enclosed space with an unknown man, to attempt to shame me for standing for my sex-based rights is just gross. You stated in your other comment that this is an emotional conversation. Of course it is. You have no idea how it feels to have to fight with men to convince them that women and girls deserve basic human rights that our foremothers fought for.

I did not state that you are a bad father, but honestly, if you would push your daughter to undress with grown men, I don’t know what to tell you. This will be my last response to you. I honestly can’t believe you got some AI to provide you with a biased breakdown of our thread. Let me give you an actual summary of our conversation: I maintain my position that trans-identifying men present a danger to women and that women are not responsible for their safety or their mental health. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. I believe it is not acceptable for our system to allow even one woman to be unnecessarily victimized by a mentally ill man. You have made it clear that you accept women and girls being r@ped and abused to protect the safety and feelings of men.

There will come a time, likely in the not too distant future, when the penny will drop and you will realize that men were forcefully breaking down women’s boundaries and you proudly stood with them, shaming women all the while for wanting privacy and safety. You will likely wish you could backpedal, but unfortunately for future you, you engaged in this conversation and publicly outed yourself as a condescending misogynist and a champion of sex offenders. It begs the question… why? There are only two possible conclusions. One, you’re completely lost to your ideology. Two… well, I hope it’s one.

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: 2h

Hi ***.
I read everything you posted and I read the documents you linked. I am not here to play games. You used loaded language, personal insults, and cherry-picked numbers to build a scare story. I will now dismantle every single claim with clear facts and show how you misused evidence to manufacture fear.

1. The CSC paper you shared is a small descriptive profile of a tiny group in federal custody. It is not a population study and it does not justify a broad claim that trans people are more likely to offend. You are using a small, context-specific percentage as if it were a headline-proof for a whole population. That is statistical abuse, not debate.
2. The UK counts you invoked are tiny absolute numbers, often produced by FOI requests, and they require full context and careful interpretation. Small sample sizes, shifting definitions, and selection bias make those counts useless as a blunt instrument to demonize an entire class of people.
3. The slogan “even one is too many” is emotionally powerful. I get it. But slogans do not form policy. Corrections and shelters operate on case-by-case safety assessments because that is how you protect people in practice. Blanket exclusions and fear-driven bans create predictable harms and shift risk onto vulnerable people. If you care about safety, support robust assessments and actual safety policy instead of panic slogans.
4. The Vancouver Rape Relief funding you referenced was a municipal funding dispute and a complicated legal and civic fight. It is not proof of a coordinated movement to “put rapists into shelters.” You turned a complex policy dispute into a story that fits your panic narrative.
5. The “5 for 1 anecdote” challenge you offered is a classic derail. You want to trade cherry-picked horror stories for stories you hope I will not spend time proving. Policy needs representative research and verified cases, not a contest of horror stories. I refuse to reduce policy to emotional barter.
6. On sports: citing one UN report as a justification for blanket exclusion is dishonest. The UN report is one contribution in a nuanced debate about sport-by-sport rules, medical evidence, and human rights. It does not justify the wholesale erasure of a whole group from public life.
7. You accused me of deleting replies. That is false. I have preserved screenshots, timestamps, and a compiled timeline. Facebook can hide or surface comments intermittently. If you think something is missing, point to the specific timestamp and I will show you the screenshot. Do not try to gaslight the record.
8. Your tone is personal attack after personal attack. “Brainwashed,” “zero capacity for independent thought,” “not thoughtful or insightful” — all ad hominem. You are substituting insults for evidence. That says more about your argument than any of my responses do.
9. This public record is documented. I have compiled screenshots, timestamps, and a proof dossier. I have saved everything as an HTML dossier and a proof timeline that lists every post and reply with time slots and image evidence. If anyone wants the PDF or the link to the dossier, ask and I will provide it. I am not deleting anything. I am preserving the record so this conversation cannot be erased or recharacterized later.

If your goal is honest policy discussion, post representative, peer-reviewed research, give exact quotes with links, and explain how a single policy change would protect women while not making other people less safe. If your goal is moral panic and name-calling, keep doing what you are doing and let everyone see it for what it is.

I am for safety for women and I am for protecting vulnerable people. Those aims are not mutually exclusive. You cannot win this argument by throwing numbers out of context and insulting people who ask for evidence. If you want to debate in good faith, I will engage. If you want to keep playing the outrage machine, you will continue to look unreasonable and small.

End of thread. I am done repeating myself.

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: recent

JM, you baited me back with another outrageous comment. Congrats.
You seem to be having a really difficult time following along with my argument. You imagined a few new topics and misrepresented my point of view quite deliberately, so I am going to break this down for you one more time:

Women are being harmed by gender ideology. There are convicted sex offenders in prisons and shelters. Predatory men have been granted access to vulnerable women. If one man is allowed in, they all are. Women’s safety is vastly more important than men’s for reasons that are obvious to most people. This isn’t something that any man should be confused about. That’s why I said you are brainwashed.

At no point did I claim the data from England, Washington, or the CSC are representative of trans people as a whole. The purpose was to prove there are a lot of sex offenders in women’s prisons, period. It is a fact you cannot disprove, and you shouldn’t be ok with it. If you were not a champion of sexual predators, you wouldn’t be.

Further, and let me be crystal clear, I do not give a f*ck about the safety of men if the solution to keeping them safe is jeopardizing the safety of women and girls. There is no acceptable ratio of sexually abused women and girls to protect men’s feelings or safety. As a father and a man, you shouldn’t need a woman to explain this to you. I am not interested in debating a policy that protects both groups or one that even considers the needs of sex offending men. I do not care about their safety. You are for policies that use women to shield sex offenders from harm, judging by your refusal to condemn them. I have asked you several times about that. I find that position to be abhorrent.

Now let’s go through your “dismantling” of my arguments:
The CSC paper. I never claimed it was representative of the trans population in general. That was one of the many paper tigers you built so you could tear it down rather than grappling with the topic at hand. Either way, your statement is irrelevant to the conversation and intentionally misleading. You are either lost with respect to this conversation, or you are maliciously misconstruing my argument and debating your made-up version. Either way, wtf? You know there are many sex offenders being allowed in women’s prisons, and you won’t condemn it despite being asked directly about it several times.

See comment 1. Also, you are carrying on about case-by-case assessments, but you are well aware that there are violent sex offenders in prisons right now. Right here in Canada, baby r@pist Adam Laboucan is housed in a women’s prison with a mother–baby unit. He has been caught leering at babies, and he attacked female inmates when confronted about it, which was reported on recently. He is one of many examples, but you already know that there are plenty of others. There are serial ped0s, child murderers, etc. This is not being decided on a case-by-case basis in any logical or ethical way. That should matter to you more than picking apart studies to paint these men in the most favourable light possible, and as I said before, a man with a history of sex offenses is a sex offender. It doesn’t matter what they are in jail for currently. There is no assessment that can be done that will be safe for women. No man can be deemed 100% safe in a women’s space.

Nope, it is not a slogan. It is what we are campaigning for. The overturning of C-16, along with other relevant legislation. Women’s 100% right to safety and privacy being recognized in law. Ensuring that women are no longer used to shield men from male-on-male violence. This should be a given, especially for fathers of daughters. What if it were your daughter? You called this a scary headline, but there are real women and girls being harmed. I will not be silenced, and I will not rest until women’s human rights are prioritized again.

If a man insists on entering a space where women who do not consent are undressing, if he is fine with making women and girls feel unsafe and uncomfortable, if he gets naked with women who do not consent and girls who cannot consent, he is a predator. Full stop. He should be arrested. This used to be called voyeurism and/or indecent exposure, but now, all a predator needs to do is claim to be trans, and these crimes become impossible to prosecute.

To be abundantly clear one more time, I do not give a f*ck about men’s safety with other men if the solution harms women. I will not trade the safety and dignity of one woman for the feelings and comfort of every TIM on the planet. I do not care about them in bathrooms or changerooms, and I especially do not care about what happens to the ones who insist on entry into women’s prisons and shelters.

VRR was targeted for their female-only status. Morgane Oger (TIM activist) has publicly admitted to going after them, along with an accomplice whose name I can’t recall. He admitted it again just a few weeks ago in a debate with Mia Hughes. His excuse was that they were using the funding to provide public education, and he argued that government money should not be used for educational programs that are not inclusive to trans women. We both know VRR’s aim was and still is to offer a safe space for traumatized women. That’s what got them targeted, and they faced harassment, vandalism, and death threats as a result of the smear campaign launched against them. When women speak out for our sex-based rights, there are always predatory men waiting to belittle us, shame us, attack us, threaten us, or in this case, punish a women’s organization for prioritizing women.

The 1 to 5 challenge. This should have been the one, if any, that made you stop and say, “Shit, am I on the wrong side here?” I could make it 10 to 1 if you wanted, but you won’t. I genuinely want you to investigate it, as I have. That’s why I keep mentioning it. I want you to see beyond the BS. It’s the least you could do if you’re going to argue with women about it. How many women and girls will you trade? If I could put up 50 to 1, would that be enough for you? I doubt it, sadly. These are real women and girls that we are trying to protect from the predators you so vehemently defend. How many SAs will it take before you change your position?

Sports — if you do not understand the basics of human biology and the differences between men and women, you’re not going to be able to follow along with any study that I provide. In truth, it is exceptionally difficult for any study to get off the ground to explain this very basic issue to those who somehow don’t get it. Trans activists will attack and destroy the careers and credentials of any academic that does not go along with the fairytale that physical differences don’t matter, or with any aspect of their agenda.

Gordan Guyatt and his research team at McMaster were recently cowed into directly contradicting their OWN STUDY FINDINGS after they were hounded by trans activists. If you want to see a man who is terrified of these lunatics, watch the Beyond Gender podcast that he appeared on. Do you really need a study, though? We both know you are not that stupid, so stop pretending and say what you have been hinting at all this time. You will side with these men no matter what evidence is provided to you. How could you possibly need more than one study to prove that men are physically stronger, faster, have denser bones, bigger hands, feet, lung capacity, hearts, different centre of gravity, lower body fat percentage, etc…? I don’t believe you.

You accused me of deleting comments. Just scroll up. Because I knew I hadn’t deleted anything, I could only assume that you had deleted your own comments when you made that accusation. That’s the only reason I said that at all. It seems this was once again your inability or unwillingness to follow along.

Posted by: JM
Timestamp: recent

1. I have never defended predators. I have argued for evidence-based safety policy that protects women and vulnerable people through case-by-case risk review. That is how our correctional and shelter systems already operate.
2. You admit your data is not representative, yet you keep treating it as proof. Anecdotes are not policy.
3. Declaring that you “don’t care” who gets harmed if they are men is not feminism. It is cruelty.
4. C-16 protects Canadians from discrimination. Repealing it would roll back human rights law, not advance women’s safety.
5. The VRR dispute was a funding disagreement, not persecution. The organization still functions.
6. Safety cannot be built on emotional barter — how many women for how many men. It must be built on evidence and prevention.
7. Sports are governed by discipline-specific rules using measurable data, not slogans.
8. I saved full screenshots and timestamps because Facebook filters threads. That is transparency, not confusion.

Your rhetoric replaces evidence with fear. My position is consistent: protect women, protect everyone vulnerable, and use facts, not panic.

This exchange will be added to the dossier with the others for clarity. Thanks for helping document how misinformation spreads.

Posted by: TERF_1
Timestamp: recent

8. You came out of the gate swinging with one of the most condescending and disrespectful comments anyone has ever made to me, and I get some nasty ones. You made assumptions about me as a person, told me why I hold the positions I hold (as though I do not have personal experience with these men and their threats, and as though I do not know MANY women who have been victimized by these men). You spoke to me like a toddler. Both my husband and my brother randomly felt the need to come to my defense, which has literally never happened in all the years I have been advocating for women. I also had several people messaging me asking who you were and why you were so hostile. You then proceeded to defend the rights of sex offenders over women and girls. So, yes, I responded in kind. You were given back the energy you gave, plus some extra for your refusal to at least admit that all male sex offenders should be refused entry into women’s prisons and spaces.

9. What – and I can’t stress this enough – the f*ck are you talking about? This is a Facebook comment section, not a courtroom. The only thing to be lost or gained here is the respect of your friends and family, as well as some strangers. I am sure all the ideologs that agree with your tr@nnies first positions think you’re a hero. Everyone else thinks you’re nuts. Your vehement defense of predators, inability to follow my comments, and your derogatory, presumptuous, and condescending manner is probably not something you want to keep a record of. Not to mention the weird AI breakdown. The only reason I mentioned the backpedaling is because a lot of people have already realized that they made a huge mistake defending gender ideology, and many of them attempt to act as though they were never as bamboozled or hostile as they were. That’s why we keep receipts.

10. It is important that you think deeply about how a man could “feel like a woman” without any frame of reference. There is a reason why I keep coming back to this. Without using sexist, regressive stereotypes, what makes us women? It’s our biology, and it’s our unique experience of growing up as girls, and everything that comes along with, as well as being objectified and taught to be careful around men, etc. How can you expect us to forget that because they have makeup and a wig on? Men can perform their idea of what a woman is, but it ultimately always comes down to either preferring femininity to masculinity, or frighteningly often, porn addiction (specifically sissy porn). You would be shocked at how many admit that.

11. So, in summation, unless you can prove gender ideology is not eroding women’s rights to safety, comfort, and dignity, that there are 0 sex offenders in women’s spaces as a result of trans-inclusive policies, and that there are no biological differences between men and women that are relevant in sports, you should take issue with gender ideology policies as they stand. It really is that simple. You have a daughter. It is not her responsibility to risk her safety or her privacy for men who claim to be female. You should fight for her rights if you’re going to fight for anyone’s, or at the very least, let me. My position is and always will be women and girls first, no compromises. This is not about winning a debate for me. I am truly horrified that there are still men, especially men I know, defending these men over women and girls to the point where they will spew venom at women for defending our rights. I urge you to think this through more carefully.

Hi ***.

1. I did not defend sex offenders. I support protecting women and also protecting vulnerable people with case-by-case risk assessment. That is how corrections and shelters manage real-world safety. It is not a strawman. It is policy.
2. “My husband and my brother defended me” is not evidence. It is a reaction. Appeals to a crowd do not turn claims into facts.
3. Documentation is not weird. It is transparency. Public threads get misquoted. I saved screenshots, timestamps, and posted neutral copies to my wall so the record cannot be twisted. You say you keep receipts. So do I.
4. Slurs and insults are not arguments. Calling people trannies, calling me nuts, and framing this as “men over women” are ad hominems. They avoid evidence.
5. Gender identity is not makeup or a stereotype. Many women do not conform to stereotypes and they are still women. Smears about porn are not policy. If you have representative research, post it. If not, drop the smear.
6. Your test is impossible by design. “Prove zero offenders exist” is not a serious standard. No system has zero risk. The honest approach is evidence-based placement, supervision, and consequences for anyone who harms others, period.
7. Sports are handled sport by sport. Biology matters. That is why governing bodies write discipline-specific rules instead of blanket bans. One UN rapporteur is part of the discussion, not the final word.
8. Please stop using my daughter as leverage. That is not a good-faith move. I will always fight for her safety. I also refuse to scapegoat another vulnerable group to make us feel safer.
9. When people lose an argument on facts, they often fall back on claiming “everyone agrees” or that the other person must be crazy. That is not proof of anything. It is groupthink. As for the AI comment, I use these tools to check facts, verify sources, and keep the record straight. That is what responsible people do when truth actually matters.

I am not trading insults or anecdotes. If you want a real discussion, cite representative studies, give the sample sizes, and quote the lines you are relying on. I will do the same. Otherwise, I will let the dossier and the timestamps stand as the record.

I will be adding this to the dossier, along with your previous response. Thank you. I will have it up soon.

JM You do love your paper tigers, don’t you? What a long way to say, “I refuse to acknowledge that women and girls deserve protection over men in dresses and I think feminism should protect men.” Add this to your dossier: after being directly asked at least 5 times, you will not say that no convicted sex offenders should be granted access into women’s prisons or spaces. I have nothing more to say to you. FFS.

***, I have said repeatedly that no one convicted of sexual violence should ever have access to victims or vulnerable women. That is exactly why prisons and shelters already use case-by-case risk reviews, not ideology.

You have chosen to twist that into something else because outrage is easier than accuracy.

So I will leave it here: protecting women and protecting truth are the same goal. What you are defending is neither.

This exchange is closed and will be archived with the record.

Terf_1 stop wasting your time. He isn’t debating — he’s performing. Nothing you say matters because he isn’t engaging with your points, he’s just twisting them so he can argue with a version of you that exists only in his head. He recycles talking points and congratulates himself for it. If there’s any pride to take here, it’s in managing to misunderstand every factual point you made while somehow believing he won something. Let him talk to himself. Anyone watching (that is not an ideologue) will be downright appalled by his position and behaviour. After he made it clear (by sharing to his own FB) that he was proud of his defence of a system that harms women and girls. There really is not anything else to say. Men with his position genuinely make me sick. I find the mindset behind that stance deeply unsettling.

JM this is simply not true. You have repeatedly and emphatically defended the current “case-by-case review” system as fair and protective of both women and men — in your opinion. You focused on disputing sample size and attempted to re-frame the purpose of the CSC report, which was nothing more than an effort to sidestep the core issue.

If it was not your intent to defend a system that results in sex offenders being placed in women’s prisons, then why did you challenge the cohort size instead of condemning the failures outright? If you genuinely prioritized the safety of women and girls, you would have expressed outrage that the very process you champion has demonstrably failed. Instead, you offered no support for tightening reviews or improving safeguards at any point.

Now, unsurprisingly — and frankly, predictably — you are attempting to walk it back. Please provide a screenshot where you previously stated that zero sex offenders should ever be placed in women’s facilities. When you can’t, just don’t bother replying. Adding outright lies to your abhorrent positions is not going to help you.

Terf_1
Terf_2 don’t bother. ThE dOsSiEr Is cLoSeD! Imagine sharing this to your own page like it’s not something to be horribly embarrassed about, after you failed to address a single actual point that was made and dodged every actual topic at hand 😂🤣

Terf_2
Terf_1 I couldn’t help but reply when he came out with the lie that he had previously said he was against sex offenders in women’s prisons. He bent over backwards to reframe the CSC study and promote the current system. This is probably actually the craziest engagement from anyone I have ever seen. From the get-go it was absolutely wild. Fairly comical, absolutely gross and very concerning.