TERFs crash London Pride

[JihadJane]

What are "ciswomen" and "cismen"?

What is a "radical feminist"?

What does "transgender" mean?

 

[Rolfe]

So, a few women turned up at a Pride march, simply intending to march with their banners that said things like "lesbian = female homosexual". This annoyed the trans activists who then set about trying to have these uppity women ejected. The resulting fracas was blamed on the women with the banners and they have been vilified in a most unpleasant way. See this thread for one example.

Meanwhile, this is what was happening to uppity women who tried to organise a public meeting in Brighton to discuss proposed changes to legislation that they are concerned will negatively impact women's rights.

https://womansplaceuk.org/turning-the-tide-brighton-16th-july-2018/

There was a lot of interest in this meeting with 190 tickets booked. [...] When the booking was made with Friends Meeting House Brighton, local organisers discussed in detail the nature of the meeting and that previous meetings had been protested. Despite this, the venue was happy to go ahead and accommodate our meeting. [...]

After lobbying by individuals (see previous statement), FMH Brighton cancelled our booking with only 5 days’ notice giving us no opportunity to address concerns that had been raised or to meet with them. We are still unclear how someone outside WPUK knew of our booking and we are investigating this. [...]

Local organisers made, and paid for, a booking at two other venues. Both were fully briefed about the nature of the meeting. One of the organisers went in to Jury’s Inn and met with staff. She explained what the meeting was about, took some written information and materials from the campaign. She explained that previous meetings had been protested and that a security team had been employed. We made every effort to ensure that the staff at Jury’s Inn were fully aware of the meeting content and possible protest. They were happy to go ahead.

Because of the high level of threat, we announced the venue much later than usual with ticket holders receiving details of the venue from 5.30pm onwards. We did this to try and reduce the amount of harassment for the venue and for our attendees. An agreement not to publicise or share the venue is part of the terms and conditions of ticket purchase.

Despite this, in breach of the conditions of purchase and with little regard for the safety of or rights of attendees or workers, some ticket holders leaked the venue on social media.

On the evening of the meeting, large noisy protests were set up at both entrances to the hotel. Police were in attendance. After the meeting had started, the hotel management approached us and said they wanted to cancel the meeting. They also said the hotel was being inundated with abusive phone calls which were upsetting the staff. [...]

The meeting went ahead and was concluded early at 9.15 as promised to the hotel management. Many women were afraid to leave through the main exits and we had to escort several of them out through the car park and side exits. Some women went to the bar hoping the protest would disperse and they could leave later without fear.

Despite the meeting ending at 9.15pm, the protests continued until at least 10.30pm causing great, and unnecessary, inconvenience to hotel guests. Several came down to complain about the noise.

We truly regret the inconvenience caused to those guests but we were not responsible for it. We are sickened by the abuse and harassment the hotel staff faced for honouring a booking made by a group of women for a legitimate meeting on rights they hold in law.

We would like to thank all the brave people who attended the meeting on Monday, all our speakers and the local organisers who persisted in asserting their right to meet and discuss issues of concern to them in the face of abuse, harassment, intimidation and threat.

The recently announced consultation on reform of Gender Recognition Act has stated the need to engage with all perspectives and yet, once again, we have seen how women face intimidation when meeting to discuss this issue. Councils, universities and other civic institutions have a duty to uphold democracy and provide venues where women’s voices can be heard. We call on them now to do so and facilitate this debate.

Following this, trans activists started mass reporting everyone who was discussing this incident or linking to this web page on Facebook as "hate speech". Facebook flagged the page as "malicious" and banned all links to it. (This has now been rescinded when they actually looked at the content, as opposed to simply acting on the volume of complaints they were getting. In contrast several people - including one trans-sexual - have been banned from Twitter after mass reports complaining about tweets that said things like "the penis is a male organ.")

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ensoring-feminist-campaign-website-concerned/

This is a regular occurrence, and it's getting worse. There was a noisy crowd yelling outside the meeting I attended in November, but at least it wasn't cancelled. (Although after the event trans activists started targeting unrelated organisations which had booked the same meeting hall, telling them that the venue had hosted a "hate meeting" and they should cancel and find another venue. The intent appears to be to financially disadvantage the venue as a punishment for hosting the meeting and possibly to discourage other similar events from being hosted.)

The trans activists seem well organised and well funded, and to have sufficient resources to carry out their campaign of harrassment all around the country from Edinburgh to Devon. These are white males who have hijacked the mantle of an oppressed group to demand that they be given whatever they want. Organisations and politicians are falling over themselves to give in to their demands. It seems as if they simply have to say the word "transphobia" and their every wish is granted. There are many reports of individuals within government and organisations expressing private concerns, saying they're very worried about what's going on but they daren't say anything for fear that the harrassment juggernaut will be turned on them with allegations of transphobia, to the detriment of their career prospects and possibly even costing them their jobs. There are examples of trans activists trying to have female academics sacked.

Is this just a tiny minority who should be given a free pass because they're "not representative"? Whatever percentage of the trans population they are, there are enough of them to be able to make a severe nuisance of themselves, and their efforts to shut down all opposing debate have met with quite a lot of success.

So, we have a whole thread dedicated to vilifying a few women who made some banners.

 

[Rolfe]

I certainly do. I would also disagree with an assertion that "transwomen are men."

This is complete woo. It's magical thinking. Drugs and/or cosmetic surgery cannot change someone from a male into a female or vice versa. They can only give a superficial facsimile of the phenotype of the opposite sex, which is frequently (though not always) profoundly unconvincing.

If people want to do that they should of course be able to. Distressed, fragile and vulnerable people should be treated with kindness and sympathy. We may out of common politeness go along with the role they are playing and allow them some concessions in recognision of their vulnerable condition.

We should not, however, start denying reality.

 

[Information Analyst]

So, a few women turned up at a Pride march, simply intending to march with their banners that said things like "lesbian = female homosexual". This annoyed the trans activists who then set about trying to have these uppity women ejected. The resulting fracas was blamed on the women with the banners and they have been vilified in a most unpleasant way.

[snip]

So, we have a whole thread dedicated to vilifying a few women who made some banners.

London Pride is a huge event. Planning for the next year's event begins pretty much the day after the previous one finishes. It is not a protest march that people can just turn up to take part in on spec. Who gets to march is arranged and agreed months in advance; the order in which participants take part is not something that is decided on the day.

 

[Information Analyst]

This is complete woo.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

You really, seriously think that hormones and/or plastic surgery can turn a male into a female? And what about the trans-identifying men who don't bother with either but just put on some women's clothes and insist on their "pronouns"? (An increasingly large proportion apparently.)

Indeed, what about the ones who don't do anything at all and still "present" as male, just insisting that they're in some way "really" women? What about Philip Bunce, who "identifies" as a man some days and a woman on other days, depending on how he happens to feel that day? All actual, biological women?

Do you have somewhere you draw the line, and if so where? Or is it all about the mystical feelz, and perception trumps reality? I would have thought people on this forum were more wary of magical thinking than this.


ETA: From someone on Mumsnet I believe. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DipUGOTXcAch5AC.jpg:large

 

[Rolfe]

London Pride is a huge event. Planning for the next year's event begins pretty much the day after the previous one finishes. It is not a protest march that people can just turn up to take part in on spec. Who gets to march is arranged and agreed months in advance; the order in which participants take part is not something that is decided on the day.

So, L people trying to join an LGBT parade without the proper paperwork is an outrage worthy of its own condemnatory thread, but repeated (often successful) attempts to stop women having meetings by threatening venues and disrupting proceedings (including one bomb threat which police are taking serionsly) is no big deal?

 

[theprestige]

So, L people trying to join an LGBT parade without the proper paperwork is an outrage worthy of its own condemnatory thread, but repeated (often successful) attempts to stop women having meetings by threatening venues and disrupting proceedings (including one bomb threat which police are taking serionsly) is no big deal?

I thought you were doing great, up until you went full Rule of So. Never go full Rule of So.

 

[Lithrael]

Transgender political activists are almost exclusively men, campaigning for the rights of transwomen, who are men. They are explicitly antifeminist. Their oft-stated enemy is "TERFs"

I don’t know any men who support any trans issues full stop, and I only sort of know one trans woman. I know a bunch of women and trans men who support trans issues.

 

[quadraginta]

What an idiotic question. God have mercy on us all!

What are your thoughts on the post which prompted my reply. After all, seven year old girls and seventy year old women aren't going to get pregnant.

So by sadhatter's logic they can't be raped.

I think you are directing your ire at the wrong post.

 

[Information Analyst]

You really, seriously think that hormones and/or plastic surgery can turn a male into a female?

No, I think they are ways of a transwoman changing her body or a transman changing their body to be more in line with how they consider themselves to be.

And what about the trans-identifying men who don't bother with either but just put on some women's clothes and insist on their "pronouns"?

You do know that in order to actually start the surgery process, a person has to have lived as their intended gender for some time? It's not just a case of Trevor turning up in a suit at the hospital one day, and emerging as Tricia in a dress the next. It might come as a shock to you, but you don't get to second-guess where a person is in their transition process.

(An increasingly large proportion apparently.)

Really? You have the statistics to prove that, do you? Or could it just be that you're mischaracterising the majority based in a tiny minority who come to your negative attention?

 

[Information Analyst]

I don’t know any men who support any trans issues full stop, and I only sort of know one trans woman. I know a bunch of women and trans men who support trans issues.

I think it's more accurate to say that most men are simply neither bothered nor interested.

 

[Rolfe]

No, I think they are ways of a transwoman changing her body or a transman changing their body to be more in line with how they consider themselves to be.

So not actually turning into the opposite sex then. I'm glad we agree on that.

You do know that in order to actually start the surgery process, a person has to have lived as their intended gender for some time? It's not just a case of Trevor turning up in a suit at the hospital one day, and emerging as Tricia in a dress the next. It might come as a shock to you, but you don't get to second-guess where a person is in their transition process.

You seem remarkably ill-informed about the issues.

At present someone who wants to transition officially and acquire a gender reassigmnent certificate has to do as you say. However, there is a proposal to change the law to do away with all that so that anyone can have a GRC just on their say-so with no requirement to live as a stereotypical woman or man and no psychiatric or psychological assessment. That's what the meetings that are being organised are about. No women's groups were consulted before this was proposed and it appears that the government(s) were pretty much just taking dictation from the trans activists.

Have you seen the submission the Edinburgh trans activists produced? Here is is reproduced on the Fair Play for Women web site because it's difficult to get the original now. https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-organisation-demands/ OK, that's extreme and they're obviously not going to get very far, but it's a demonstration of the mindset.

However, things are moving faster than even this proposed new legislation. There are actually very few trans people who bother to get a GRC. The vast majority don't. Legally, they belong to their birth sex. However public bodies and organisations are being advised that every man who says he identifies as a woman must be treated as if he was one in all respects. So we have teenage boys sleeping in girl guide tents with the girls (and the guidelines forbid the girls' parents from being told), competing against girls in sports competitions, and sleeper trains saying that they'll give a man a berth with a lone traveller woman if he simply says he's a woman.

Men who have had SRS are a fairly small proportion of the trans community. Men who have GRCs, ditto. Most trans-identifying men haven't even taken hormones never mind had surgery, and of the minority who have had surgery most of these procedures are breast augmentation and facial feminisation.

Women want to discuss the implications of allowing any man who says "I identify as a woman" automatic entry into their protected spaces without any gatekeeping at all. That's what the meetings that are being shut down are trying to talk about. There's the obvious danger of predatory men simply saying the magic words for entirely abusive purposes - how do you tell if a pervert is simply faking gender dysphoria if there's no gatekeeping? And then there's the fact that a proportion of genuinely transgender men are aggressive violent bullies. I saw something on twitter today. "Daddy, how do you tell a real woman from a trans woman?" "That's easy son. A real woman won't threaten to break your face if you refer to her by the wrong pronoun."

There will be no two years and for most there is no surgery (they're not "pre-op", they don't intend ever to have surgery) and for many there are no hormones either. But you want to call all these people women? Ian Huntley as well I suppose?

Really? You have the statistics to prove that, do you? Or could it just be that you're mischaracterising the majority based in a tiny minority who come to your negative attention?

I'm sick and tired of hearing about this "tiny minority". There are a pretty large number of them in absolute terms and their bullying and violence are unacceptable no matter how many pleasant, peaceable trans folk are sitting at home minding their own business.

 

[Checkmite]

Women want to discuss the implications of allowing any man who says "I identify as a woman" automatic entry into their protected spaces without any gatekeeping at all. That's what the meetings that are being shut down are trying to talk about. There's the obvious danger of predatory men simply saying the magic words for entirely abusive purposes - how do you tell if a pervert is simply faking gender dysphoria if there's no gatekeeping?

It should be pointed out this is an exceedingly common right-wing extremist complaint about the existence of accommodations for or recognition of trans people and to my knowledge there hasn't been a single actual historical incidence of this situation to justify the concern.

 

[sadhatter]

So not actually turning into the opposite sex then. I'm glad we agree on that.




You seem remarkably ill-informed about the issues.

At present someone who wants to transition officially and acquire a gender reassigmnent certificate has to do as you say. However, there is a proposal to change the law to do away with all that so that anyone can have a GRC just on their say-so with no requirement to live as a stereotypical woman or man and no psychiatric or psychological assessment. That's what the meetings that are being organised are about. No women's groups were consulted before this was proposed and it appears that the government(s) were pretty much just taking dictation from the trans activists.

Have you seen the submission the Edinburgh trans activists produced? Here is is reproduced on the Fair Play for Women web site because it's difficult to get the original now. https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-organisation-demands/ OK, that's extreme and they're obviously not going to get very far, but it's a demonstration of the mindset.

However, things are moving faster than even this proposed new legislation. There are actually very few trans people who bother to get a GRC. The vast majority don't. Legally, they belong to their birth sex. However public bodies and organisations are being advised that every man who says he identifies as a woman must be treated as if he was one in all respects. So we have teenage boys sleeping in girl guide tents with the girls (and the guidelines forbid the girls' parents from being told), competing against girls in sports competitions, and sleeper trains saying that they'll give a man a berth with a lone traveller woman if he simply says he's a woman.

Men who have had SRS are a fairly small proportion of the trans community. Men who have GRCs, ditto. Most trans-identifying men haven't even taken hormones never mind had surgery, and of the minority who have had surgery most of these procedures are breast augmentation and facial feminisation.

Women want to discuss the implications of allowing any man who says "I identify as a woman" automatic entry into their protected spaces without any gatekeeping at all. That's what the meetings that are being shut down are trying to talk about. There's the obvious danger of predatory men simply saying the magic words for entirely abusive purposes - how do you tell if a pervert is simply faking gender dysphoria if there's no gatekeeping? And then there's the fact that a proportion of genuinely transgender men are aggressive violent bullies. I saw something on twitter today. "Daddy, how do you tell a real woman from a trans woman?" "That's easy son. A real woman won't threaten to break your face if you refer to her by the wrong pronoun."

There will be no two years and for most there is no surgery (they're not "pre-op", they don't intend ever to have surgery) and for many there are no hormones either. But you want to call all these people women? Ian Huntley as well I suppose?




I'm sick and tired of hearing about this "tiny minority". There are a pretty large number of them in absolute terms and their bullying and violence are unacceptable no matter how many pleasant, peaceable trans folk are sitting at home minding their own business.

Just find a way to shift the goal posts of what constitutes extreme views, then that tiny minority becomes enough to blame all members of the group.

And if they complain just sarcastically say " not all trans" ,as that instantly makes a rock solid point.

If you dehumanize the enemy enough collateral damage doesn't matter, just ask James gunn. Who cares if a few innocents get in the way of a truly righteous goal?

 

[sadhatter]

A seven year old girl or a 70 year old woman isn't going to get pregnant either.

Are you suggesting they can't be raped?

Don't remember saying anything of the like. We are talking if rape with a penis could logically be considered worse than rape using other objects.

Do try and keep up, or baring that, actually read the post.

 

[sadhatter]

How is that relevant? Is it your opinion that transwomen are secretly undercover male rapists?

I believe her opinion is that people without a penis have a nearly zero chance of raping her while those that do have a significantly more than zero chance. Enough so to warrent the opinion that there should be places where people with peni are not allowed in order for some to feel safe.

I don't agree but the positron is very,very obvious.

 

[Information Analyst]

So not actually turning into the opposite sex then. I'm glad we agree on that.

Twisting my words does not equal agreement. Since you have repeatedly failed to address some very salient points, despite direct questioning, and only seem interested in regurgitating your own bias, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Rolfe]

Don't remember saying anything of the like. We are talking if rape with a penis could logically be considered worse than rape using other objects.

Do try and keep up, or baring that, actually read the post.

No, we weren't. We were observing the simple fact that in English law, and indeed in common parlance in England, the word rape refers to forced penetration by a penis. Forced penetration with some other object doesn't come under the definition of rape.

It's got nothing to do with whether one thing is worse than the other, it's a simple fact of what the word means. If it has a wider meaning in the USA, fine, lots of words mean slightly different things on either side of the Atlantic. That's not a value-judgement, it's just the way language has evolved. (Indeed, someone pointed out that the penalties for both crimes in English law are identical, which suggests that the law doesn't think one thing is worse than the other.)

 

[Rolfe]

Twisting my words does not equal agreement. Since you have repeatedly failed to address some very salient points, despite direct questioning, and only seem interested in regurgitating your own bias, I'll leave you to it.

I've tried every which way to Tuesday to explain to you the concerns women have about the proposed new legislation and the antics of the trans activist movement. You repeatedly snip my posts to remove these explanations and accuse me of saying things I have not said.

At the moment my main curiosity is where you managed to acquire this fixed conviction that trans-identifying men are the only ones whose feelings on the subject matter, and that women's feelings (and bear in mind that there are a lot of vulnerable women around too) should be brushed aside as at best irrelevant and at worst bigotry and prejudice.

Some of this conversation is quite educational in that respect.