Eternal reunion collapses after disagreements over playing Pride.

I don’t believe she is putting them at risk.

No, they're being punished for not doing it by being thrown to the hyenas.

Can you explain why you think it is OK for Louise to put them at risk like this?

How are they being “held hostage”? They’re not being forced to do the tour.

Worrying that some people on this thread think that she should be a hostage to other people's beliefs.

And that's the point many of us are making. The Bennett sisters should not be held hostage to Louise's beliefs.

Pretty sure the number of people on the thread who have said she should be forced to do the tour with them minus the pride events is zero.

Worrying that some people on this thread think that she should be a hostage to other people's beliefs.

Does anyone think this? Has anyone on the thread said this? Or have they said she can believe what she wants but shouldn't out their personal beliefs due to safety fears and ramifications from rabid trans activists?

We're making the assumption it will happen because it happens to every woman who publicly expressed her disagreement with trans activists.

The difference here (NOT that I am in any way suggesting that JKR, Roisin Murphy, Kathleen Stock et al had it coming in any way) is that Easther and Vernie didn't even choose to make a public statement themselves. They preferred to stay quiet and their choice not to publicly attract the wrath of the trans activists was taken out of their hands by Louise.

Ooh, someone’s found the bold button as is really excited by it…

The abuse they get isn't comparable, no.

However, I don't think Louise is under any more obligation to do the tour without pride events, than the Bennett sisters are under obligation to do it with pride events.

Worrying that some people on this thread think that she should be a hostage to other people's beliefs.

Well you aggressively believe it is right to speak for other people and publicly announce someone else's private beliefs. So yes you are being aggressive and true to form to the bullying that trans activists have as their stock in trade.

It is not up to you to publicly announce another person's beliefs. It is a violation of privacy, and an act of aggression.

Man launches violent attack on group of women, killing one and injuring two. Yes, obviously the fault of feminists….

You’re making the assumption it will happen.

Based on the fact that it happened to others. JKR, Roisin Murphy, Amanda Abbington to name a few.

Women recently couldn't meet up to talk about issues that affect women without getting followed, screamed at and harassed in the street. What a way to stick up for your beliefs eh.

The tone of your responses is telling. If you can't spot the vindictive attitude you have towards the two Eternal members, well...

Everyone is allowed to hold views and choose not to share them. I might for instance think that hijab is misogynist, but choose not to announce that view whilst in Iran. I might think my manager is a dick, but choose not to say so in a meeting to discuss my bonus.

Your stance that if a person holds a view then they should have no problem with someone else sharing that view on their behalf and without their agreement is at best pretty naïve. Can you really not think of situations where someone who believes strongly in their opinion chooses not to share it? Do you not think we all have the right to decide if, when and to whom we say what we think?

Because bigots hate women having opinions and will threaten women with RAPE and DEATH.

No one is suggesting her views are 'laudable' or 'not laudable'. Just that Louise is not at liberty to talk about someone else's deeply held views. It's not her place to speak for anyone else.

Their decision to not play at a venue does NOT affect her career at all! It affects theirs. Not hers.

How are they wrong? How is it 'right' to take liberties to talk about someone's beliefs without their consent?

Well we all have to stand up for our beliefs sometimes.

///

So public death and rape threats to women who belief sex is real, or a woman can't have a penis is all ok and just standing up for your beliefs? Because weirdly these threats of violence are only ever one way.

Interesting that you characterise anyone who disagrees with the prevailing narrative on the MN gender boards as “aggressive”…

You’re making the assumption it will happen.

Harassment is wrong, but blaming someone else for revealing your views rather than dealing with the reaction to views YOU choose to hold yourself is also wrong.

@WomanStanleyWoman2 so you think harassing, cancelling, bullying, threatening violence is ok as it's 'standing up for our beliefs'?

If we knew @WomanStanleyWoman2 real name and then released a statement saying this person has posted comments on MN and then we say "but of course we wouldn't, we support trans people", it is very clear what is being inferred without explicitly making an accusation, it is dogwhistle PR.

This poster seems to (aggressively) believe that we must know people's private thoughts and conversations (as this was a private matter), publicly make it known and then proceed with the bullying and cancellation.

It's the same old story, give someone a reason why they can aggressively bully and harass women.

WomanStanley yes, it is opinion. Clearly you think we're mistaken, which rather suggests you believe it was either sensible, inconsequential, non-controversial or within her rights to share what she did about their beliefs?

It is a fact that trans activists routinely harass and threaten women who disagree with them.

Easther and Vernie preferred to disagree with them silently. Louise has made that disagreement public and compromised their safety.