YouTube has banned videos that show people how to manufacture or modify guns and their accessories.
It had already banned videos linked to the sale of guns and accessories.
Many firearms enthusiasts noticed that some of their videos had been removed from the video-sharing website and some had their channels suspended.
Prominent gun video-bloggers said the move was an erosion of US citizens’ rights, and some said they would move their content to PornHub instead.
YouTube’s policies now prohibit videos that:
- show how to make a firearm, ammunition, high-capacity magazine or homemade silencers
- are designed to sell guns or specific accessories including high-capacity magazines and tools that convert a firearm to automatic fire
- show how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated-automatic fire
- show how to install such accessories or modifications
The change was met with anger from some videomakers who modify guns and show off their creations as a hobby.
Karl Kasarda and Ian McCollum, who run the gun review site InRangeTV, said they had started posting their videos on Facebook and pornography site PornHub.
“We will not be seeking any monetisation from PornHub… we are merely looking for a safe harbour for our content and for our viewers,” the pair said in a statement.
Firearms manufacturer Spike’s Tactical said the change reflected attempts to “slowly chip away at our freedoms and erode our rights”.
Videomaker Joerg Sprave said he appreciated YouTube was “now defining their guidelines” more clearly.
But he said the change had been introduced without a transitional period.
“Many gun channels must now be afraid,” he told news site Motherboard.
“They should at least get some time to clean up their videos so the new rules are kept.”
This is from today’s PostSecret, I don’t know if it’s ‘significant’ of not! (I wonder if Frank Warren realises the hornet’s nest he’s stepping on?)
The Guardian article I just linked to claims this (which I left out of my original extract):
“A separate speaker Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, has been questioned by police about tweets sent to the chief executive of Mermaids, a charity supporting transgender children.”
Keen-Minshull (‘ThePosieParker’) is saying this on twitter:
How long before lefty/liberal men just start calling battered women and raped children ‘snitches’ or ‘narcs’?
Lib Dem policy is explicitly supportive of trans people’s right to self define. We also support decriminalisation of sex work. Our feminist principles align with our liberalism. We are not a party that has a lot of time for carceral feminism. Hope that clarifies.
This is actually really scary, ‘carceral feminism’ is the newest though-terminating cliché, being thrown around like it actually means something.
Like ‘TERF’, ‘SWERF’, ‘whorephobe’, etc, it is being used to stifle debate and shut down critical thinking. That it is coming from a political party is appalling.
How long before lefty/liberal men just start calling battered women and raped children ‘snitches’ or ‘narcs’?
A group of Labour members have begun legal action over proposed changes to the party’s policy on the formal inclusion of self-identifying trans women on all-women shortlists.
The challenge comes after it emerged last week that the equalities committee of Labour’s ruling body proposed clarifying that all-women shortlists and women’s reserved places were open to self-defining women.
In a legal letter seen by the Guardian a group of Labour women, including community coordinator and campaigner Pilgrim Tucker and activist Jennifer James, have written to the party to demand clarification on its policy to establish whether it was in breach of the Equality and Gender Recognition acts. Last year the government said it would consult on reforming the Gender Recognition Act, to allow transgender people to self-declare their gender. Under current law, anyone wishing to transition must demonstrate they have lived as that gender for two years.
James has raised £26,000 to bankroll a potential legal challenge; she was suspended from the Labour party in January after accusations of transphobia following online comments. After her suspension James tweeted: “I’ve been suspended from the Labour Party for saying women don’t have dicks.”
Tucker said debate around the issue of self-identification had become very polarised, with reasonable debate stifled.
“This [legal action] is about abiding by current equalities legislation, not getting ahead of the law,” she said. “But this is a part of a much wider issue. There are risks and there are important discussions to be had before any changes to the Equalities Act and the Gender Recognition Act. This has to be an educated, informed decision, not one that has been taken out of heightened emotion or an unwillingness to hurt people’s feelings.”
Opposition to the proposed changes gathered momentum this week, with two meetings held by groups who oppose changes to the Gender Recognition Act which would allow transpeople to change legal gender without a medical assessment.
Community organiser Lucy McDonagh, who attended the event, said she had been labelled a bigot for asking questions about proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. “Literally just asking a question if these changes could potentially affect women’s safe spaces is deemed as being transphobic. So lots of women, especially working class women, are scared to ask,” she said. “We have had to access this particular space because no one else has allowed us to speak about it. We are trying to find out about law, and we are trying to find out why women have been cut out of the conversation that statistically most affects them.”
A second meeting, in Birmingham, was organised on Thursday by Woman’s Place UK , which is hosting a series of events around the country and describes itself as enabling “proper debate and discussion on sex, gender and the GRA”.
The women say, you are really a slave if ever there was one. Men have made what differentiates them from you the sign of domination and possession. They say, you will never be numerous enough to spit on their phallus, you will never be sufficiently determined to stop speaking their language, to burn their currency their effigies their works of art their symbols. They say, men have foreseen everything, they have christened your revolt in advance a slave revolt, a revolt against nature, they call it revolt when you want to appropriate what is theirs, the phallus. The women say, I refuse henceforward to speak this language, I refuse to mumble after them the words lack of penis lack of money lack of insignia lack of name. I refuse to pronounce the names of possession and non-possession. They say, If I take over the world, let it be to dispossess myself immediately, let it be to forge new links between myself and the world.
Monique Wittig, Les Guérillères, 1969
In 1918 Millicent Fawcett wrote, ‘I can see no reason why the principle of
equal pay for equal work should not in the course of a few years find an almost universal acceptance’. Many of the early feminist campaigners, like Fawcett, believed that from women’s suffrage would follow equal rights for women, including equal pay, yet one hundred years on, despite having full voting rights, women still struggle with the gender pay gap. Most people agree with the concept of equal pay, so why has it been so difficult to accomplish in practice?
Professor Emma Griffin argues that we can only make sense of the gender pay gap by taking a historical perspective. Beginning in the 15th century, Emma explores how work has always been divided along gender lines. Then during the industrial revolution, when women started to enter the workplace in record numbers, women’s work was typically defined by lower wages, in comparison to men’s. At the Helmshore Mills Textile Museum in Lancashire, Emma learns how the new industrial employers maintained the gender pay gap in the burgeoning cotton mills.
Despite women entering the work force in record numbers during the First and Second World Wars, post-war they encountered a backlash of the idealisation of traditional family values, with a male breadwinner at the head of each household, whose wife prioritised her domestic responsibilities over paid employment. This notion was enshrined in the Beveridge Report of 1942, which formed the basis of significant post-war legislation. Yet women have consistently fought against this inequality, and Emma revisits the Ford machinists’ strike of 1968, which helped to usher in the Equal Pay Act of 1970.
Emma argues that these very deep-rooted assumptions around paid and unpaid work powerfully influence the experiences of women in the workplace today. By uncovering this history, she sheds fresh light on one of the most contested issues of our own times: the politics of pay.
As some people are aware, I was a Spokeswoman for the Women’s Equality Party’s (WEP) policy on Violence Against Women and Girls. As a result of my views expressed on the Moral Maze Radio 4 on November 15th, 2017 complaints were made by one or more party members, and I became the subject of a 3-month investigation. The Executive Committee upheld the complaints and on February 20th, 2018 my elected position was taken from me. I was informed I could retain membership but I declined to do so.
Many people have contacted me about the investigation, querying what the issues were and exactly what happened. I have thus far largely maintained silence, hoping that the WEP’s action would speak for itself. However, I have decided to speak out following an event held in London on 27th February by A Woman’s Place UK at which the current leader of the WEP Sophie Walker and I were both present.
On the Moral Maze, I had expressed the view that gender is a social construct while sex is a biological reality which families and society invest with meaning. While I believe adults can define their gender in whichever way they see fit, more caution should be exercised when it comes to the medical transgendering of children. I said:
“A genuinely progressive society would allow boys and girls to be whatever they want to be so I am absolutely perfectly happy if boys want to wear dresses…. but the problem comes when we decide that the child is genuinely internally and in some sense not a boy but a girl and that is where we get into trouble. So, I don’t believe there is anything wrong with a boy’s body if he wants to wear a dress.”
In the interests of transparency let me explain the original charges. One or more WEP members alleged the above views demonstrated:
- “Discrimination against transgender people”
- “Lack of suitability to represent the party”
- “Fundamental disagreement with the core values of the party”
The Committee upheld the complaints and also concluded that my subsequent conduct had brought the Party into disrepute. I disputed the Committee’s findings. I did not accept that I had fundamentally disagreed with the Party’s core values. The Committee’s Report makes clear the core values with which I am fundamentally at odds is the Party’s core value of gender. I initially found this assertion nonsensical. At the time of the broadcast I believed my views were wholly commensurable with the Party’s stated position: “everyone has the right to define their gender or to reject gendered divisions as they choose”. The core value that a child’s biological sex could be socially constructed had not been made clear to me.
I was somewhat surprised to hear Walker state at the #WPUK event that she could not discuss the WEP’s decision to divest me of my role because of issues of confidentiality. This is extremely misleading:
- Firstly, when I was interviewed I adamantly refused to be bound by rules of confidentiality. I feared that confidentiality would protect the complainant(s) and the WEP but ‘put me in the dock’ behind closed doors.
- Secondly, although it did not name me, the WEP drew attention to the fact that, on the date of the broadcast, a complaint had been received and a Spokesperson was being investigated for conduct which promoted “prejudice against the transgender community”. There was no constitutional obligation to publicize the complaint or the ensuing investigation, but the Party chose to do so.
- Thirdly, in today’s world of social media, it should have also been obvious that the moment the investigation was publicized I would be immediately named, and indeed that was the case. After the programme, Toni Harrison, a trans identified WEP member, tweeted to @WEP that my expressed views had demonstrated transphobia and that the WEP should divest me of my role.
The identity of the complainant(s) has been kept confidential
I was moved to exercise a right of reply when Walker refused to address some comments from the panel about the political significance of what had happened to me. She used the issue of confidentiality as the reason for her silence.
My reply to her at the #WPUK event is here:
The purpose of the #WPUK event was to discuss the possible impact on women and girls if the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition ACT (2004) become enshrined in law. The law would enable men to self-identify as women through changes to certification, including birth certification, which would record natal female not natal male. Panelists variously explored issues of the increasing current de facto acceptance that transwomen are women by the Labour Party, the WEP, and other institutions. They did so with subtlety, and affirmed their respect for the rights of trans identifying adults. However, the following day Toni Harrison tweeted about the event:
It is becoming clear that sections of liberal society are persuaded by reductive binary logic: either you accept that men who identify as women, including those with unmodified male bodies, are not only transwomen but are women and have been sexed female since birth, or you are a transphobe (and worse).
In conclusion, I utterly disagree that I promote transphobia, and I have found it shocking that the WEP has chosen to adopt this stance. The importance of this debacle goes far beyond the local, internal wrangles of a small Party. The issues upon which these events shed light are societal, and illustrate a deep belief system at the heart of transgender identity politics whose consequences are wide-ranging: Men who identify as women are women and this belief has to be accepted not only as rational and but as the irrefutable truth.
In anchoring transgender identity as inherent, outside of the social forces that have shaped it, and in describing any dissent as illiberal, free thought as well as free speech can be erased. Whilst the WEP and the Labour Party leave unremarked the chilling comments such as the ones made above, they discipline and expel women party members for any dissent from what has become an article of faith.
The significance of the WEP debacle is the larger terrible irony that a Party which had set out to be revolutionary for women has highlighted the very weakness of its own approach. The result of aligning itself with transgender identity politics is to obfuscate, drown out and suppress the very voices the WEP set out to listen to and to promote, namely the voices of women.
The more ‘the progressive left’ enshrines in its constitutions and policies its belief that transwomen are women, and that boys who do not conform to gender stereotypes are girls, and compels its party members and officials to faithfully adhere, the greater the need for women to resist such authoritarianism and to continue their historical struggles for bodily, intellectual and political freedoms.