Woman attacked by transactivists at speakers corner - part deux

Yes, a man hitting a woman in the face isn't that puzzling. It will be because he believes he is entitled to be violent to the woman.

"This might help depuzzle you as to why some peopel act the way they do."

For the record we are not all always puzzled by the way some people (mostly men) behave. Lots of people (well, lots of men) do lots of things I cannot fathom on an intellectual or emotional level but I know enough about the way society attempts to continually control and oppress women not to really be puzzled by some of the stuff we are seeing.

HornyTortoise post at 13.50, I completely agree with you. I used to be an ally to transsexuals, still am, but just so tired now of the whole trans gender thing and the obsession with making us all agree with them. The emperors new clothes on speed!

Datun No one is taking anything from them or denying them anything.

Some of them might disagree when they are being denied access to this that or the other, or are being denied even being considered as this that or the other.

HornyTortoise The only analogy I can make with the gay marriage thing is if gay people, rather than wanting the right to be married themselves, were demanding (aggressively) that every person who is already married had their marriages removed from all records, and were expected to get married again.

The analogy is about understanding what people might consider a threat to their group and the subsequent reactions to this.

When someone expresses puzzlement at the aggression and attempts to silence "a bunch of women sitting around discussing stuff" the first point is that if this "stuff" involved arguing against the rights/recognitions that the group wants, then to this group that is a threat. And such discussions can form the backdrop to denials at a legal level.

Then to further help understand people's motives and actions, consider the way some homosexuals/allies responded to the "homophobes" who were just sitting around "discussing stuff". Being vociferous to them, insulting them, trying to silence them.

This might help depuzzle you as to why some peopel act the way they do.

Of course, if you get hung up on whether you personally agree or disagree with the minority group in question's aims, and start making arguments for why in one case they were justified and in the other, not OK, then you are going to miss the point and may well continue scratching your head in puzzlement as to why some trans people will react aggressively and strongly to a mere trivial discussion of "stuff".

I followed the gay marriage debate very closely, both in the mainstream media and the gay press, wrote to my MP in favour of it etc.

Besides the issues being very different, the way it was treated was nothing like this. Every time the BBC discussed it they had representatives of both sides given equal time, there was loads in the media about the views of those opposing it. There was no silencing, no beating up women in the streets to prevent a debate and, as someone who was active in the LGBT community both on and offline, while people disliked them and their views I never saw anything like the vitriolic hatred, advocacy of rape and mass murder that is directed towards anyone - or at least any woman - who disagrees with the trans agenda.

I look forward to self-identification replacing any form of proof for other legally protected areas. DS would like not to have to jump through hoops to 'prove' his disability, and I would quite like to be young enough for half-price bus fares and better savings rates.

Otherwise, I so no parallels with the gay marriage bill whatsoever.

To me it is more like abolishing marriage as we know it and giving one person in a relationship (or not) the legal right to declare themselves married to another person and all the legal framework that goes with it.

To be honest HornyTortoise I'd see the analogy as being that gay people insist that gay marriage is the only valid marriage and straight people either have to have their marriages dissolved or to substitute into the marriage someone of the same sex instead of their partner.

In fact, the more you think about this abstract world, the less you worry about women being hit in the face. Result!

There is more hatred of women expressed by TRAs even though as far as I know no woman has ever attacked anyone in that community than there ever was (or is) of nasty, violent men whose idea of a fun night out is to bash a gay or trans man.

I've said for a while here that I think that for many TRAs the whole trans thing is an excuse for a socially sanctioned outlet for misogyny and calling for actual violence against women, but it is always the younger, 'queer' activists who I have had in mind, not the older AGPs.

Better not to rise to habitual derailers.

Infact a better one, is that gay people were demanding that all marriages were now non existent (like sex based protections will be with this) and that straight couples now HAD to get a civil partnership instead..and marriages no longer exist at all.

The only analogy I can make with the gay marriage thing is if gay people, rather than wanting the right to be married themselves, were demanding (aggressively) that every person who is already married had their marriages removed from all records, and were expected to get married again.

Can't really compare apples with oranges in this way though

That Parliament UK is really commercial Government Lite isn't it? [not impressed]

Weddings, get your cream tea hear........... it is like the National Trust or something.

JAPAB

You're being obtuse if you think they are two sides of the same coin.

Just because one side want something and the other side doesn't, doesn't mean it can't be objectively analysed.

The rights being discussed that transpeople want are nothing to do with being trans. They're to do with women.

No one is taking anything from them or denying them anything.

It is proposed that they take something from women.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of replacing one set of legislation with another, that makes the first legislation meaningless.

I am openly 'gender critical' these days, probably about as much as they come, but I was once a good little trans ally. And still would be, if they were asking for their own rights in some way (maybe campaigning for 'gender neutral' spaces, as an example) I would fight alongside them gladly.

But thats not whats being asked. At all. Whats being asked is that the rights of females are eroded.

Also in reality it doesn't make any sense whatsoever as, transwomen want into female spaces as the male spaces are unsafe. I do understand that. I understand gender non-conforming males being scared of toxic masculinity. BUT, this self identification idea that transactivists are so intent on getting made into law...would mean these very same males that transwomen are scared of, could just waltz into the female areas that transwomen are using to avoid them. So the end result is simply, male areas remain the same, but female areas are now considerably more unsafe too. I genuinely do not get how anyone cannot see the issues with this...

UK parliament twitter account is tweeting about how the gender recognition account changed someone's life - good opportunity to bring up how the changes will change our lives?

twitter.com/UKParliament/status/911184565414137856

This event all sounds very one-sided. You'd think someone would have invited trans organisations like Stonewall to come and give their viewpoint.

Oh, hang on...

I don't think it is that unexpected that homosexuals and their allies will not see them as trivialities

Maybe JAPAB is right and rather than discussing a woman being physically attacked by transactivists for wanting to discuss gender we should discuss a different topic instead.

Datun, everyone thinks their side on an issue is the right one. Of course you know that those opposing the rights some trans people want are right and justified in their view, whereas those who opposed gay rights are not and not.

irrespective of who in any objective sense is right, it is not surprising that people who want a particular set of rights/recognitions are not going to see a bunch of people sitting around "discussing stuff" - ie why they shouldn't have these rights/recognitions, as some sort of mere unthreatening triviality that it is bewildering that anyone would strongly object to.

That, for me, is the $64,000 question. The violence and aggression and determination to silence women are so disproportionate to the actual threat, which is a bunch of women sitting around discussing stuff.

It reminds me of the animal rights stuff that went on in the '80s, only it is more updated.

That's not at all the same thing JAPAB. Gay people do not encroach on the rights of anyone else.

The only dissent from women is the erasure of their own, hard fought for rights.

The only reason we have to delve down into the trans ideology at all is because we have to constantly justify saying no.

We have to spend all this damn time picking apart the ideology and refuting every assertion.

If they didn't want to take away the rights we already have, no one would care. (Apart from the issue of children).

The reason it has intensified is because misogynistic men do not like women saying no. All women know that.

Do you think, JAPAB, that all sex-based legal protection should be abandoned in favour of gender-based legal protection? Not negotiated alongside it, but replaced by it? Because that is what we are discussing.

That, for me, is the $64,000 question. The violence and aggression and determination to silence women are so disproportionate to the actual threat, which is a bunch of women sitting around discussing stuff.

Those discussions are often about why the equal rights and recognition some in that group believe it is entitled to should not happen. And such discussions can form the backdrop to such legeslative denials.

I have seen Christians complain about being called bigots and Nazis and otherwise attempted to be silences, but if you sit around discussing why gay marriages are not real marriages or why laws should prevent gay couples from adopting, you might think these are "mere" discussions but I don't think it is that unexpected that homosexuals and their allies will not see them as trivialities. And some of them might respond quite vociferously.

Yes, so much rage at females. I have said this before on similar threads, but its very telling that there is no slur against males who question any of this. TERF is used on a regular basis, against any female, radical feminist or not, and tends to be followed by 'should die in a fire' or 'deserve to be raped' or something. Nothing at all about the males...of which there are many...who think that biology is irrelevant.