Demonstration against Let Women Speak Oxford

Question: do you deliberately set out to misconstrue every point and argument that's made on this board?

Or do you just genuinely not understand?

he filmed himself with her, [he] said she was part of his "inner circle" and released the video on his X page.

He said that. Did she? Has she expressed a view on him? The trouble is, the people so desperate to smear her are so relentless that they obscure the truth. It’s not clear what the truth is here.

Nowhere have I said the exact same people who attended London attended Oxford.

You said this:

Not sure what confuses you. She attended, very publicly, Yaxley Lennons march in London with a union jack around her shoulders. Now the flag shaggers are attending her LWS events.

What else did you mean?

Nowhere have I said I don't like her. If you'd bothered to look back you'd see that I say, I neither like nor dislike her.

Ok, fine. Your words belie that claim.

I haven't said anything about LWS in any derogatory tone.

I said you were smearing LWS and KJK by making unevidenced claims that to use your disgustingly derogatory term ‘flag shaggers’ were attending her events. But Now the flag shaggers are attending her LWS events. does sound pretty derogatory.

I'm assuming that you support YL otherwise you wouldn't be so dogmatic

Again, wild and totally unfounded accusations. I have made it clear why I am objecting to your repeated and unevidenced attempts at smears and extremely derogatory language and it’s got nothing to do with TR.

I'm also not dishonest. Imo you are - see below for an example.

I said it wouldn't look good if flag wavers start regularly attending the events.

but actually you said Now the flag shaggers are attending her LWS events.. (My italics)

Not the same.

"and that the only reliable way to define them is through biology because that's the only thing you can prove."

False. Sex distinctive behaviours aren't figments of the imagination. If they were gender criticals wouldn't need to exclude males from 'private spaces' 'cause violence'…..

So waving a flag or wearing a political or national symbol that isn’t a women’s rights one should be out. Because it’s a distraction from the important issues at hand which don’t get enough women being together with women airtime.

I agree with much of what you said @Slothtoes but as far as anyone has offered evidence for, the only ‘national’ flags being waved had Terf Island written on so are women’s rights flags. No one has offered any evidence otherwise and I do think it is a bit much to expect her to police every single flag brought to her event.

The people who dislike her, even on here, have shown themselves to be dishonest in the way they twist and misrepresent her every interaction . I think she has said before that it isn’t worth the effort to attempt to second guess and curate everything she does and says as the people who dislike her will dig and smear regardless.

KJK is also entitled to support her own issues. I don’t think she went on the London march under the LWS banner and I don’t see why that should detract from the huge achievements she has made for women.

Unfortunately there are always those who will try and take down someone as brave and focused as KJK and sadly, there are those that will listen to the lies and smears. There’s not a lot she can do about that.

So because KJ went to a march on immigration attended by many people and was in the same location as TR.

This is so disingenuous, KJK was in a restaurant on the day of the march with Tommy Robinson having a 'pre match brunch' where he filmed himself with her, said she was part of his "inner circle" and released the video on his X page.

I'm amazed that you believe that you know what the world view of every person who doesn't agree with you is. You're wrong about at least one person because I believe that women are equal but different and that the only reliable way to define them is through biology because that's the only thing you can prove. I also believe in the difference between evolution and adaptive behaviours, but I don't believe that a man can become a woman because he feels as if he is one, not least because that reduces a woman to a set of male defined behaviours.

So farewell, in the old sense of the world, whoever you are and whatever you believe.

Nowhere have I said the exact same people who attended London attended Oxford.

Why is there a link between the women who attend LWS events and kjk's opinions but not a link between people who attend YL's events and YL's opinions?

Nowhere have I said I don't like her. If you'd bothered to look back you'd see that I say, I neither like nor dislike her. I haven't said anything about LWS in any derogatory tone. I said it wouldn't look good if flag wavers start regularly attending the events.

I'm assuming that you support YL otherwise you wouldn't be so dogmatic. Fill your boots love, I'm all for people believing what they want to believe. Even if it isn't accurate, that's the free speech and the freedom to hold beliefs we have in the UK. And before you imply I'm criticising that, I'm not.

I'm also not dishonest.

No the issue I have is that you are now smearing all people who wave a flag at the event as ‘flag shaggers’ that support Tommy Robinsons views in their entirety.

You have made vast assumptions that these are exactly the same individuals that attended the march in London and are attempting to smear LWS and KJK on that basis.

Its your dishonesty I object to, not your dislike of KJK and the amazing organisation she has built.

I’ve always admired KJK (and donated to her in the past) for sticking her neck out and making it happen for women and generally not taking shit in a very aggressive atmosphere towards her. Her thought provoking, striking projections, billboards and public meetings and the coverage they get are needed to advance a GC message to the wider public.

Just as much as the people slugging it out on X are needed or the bloggers or the columnists and the activists, the people talking at the school gate or work or hobby meeting, the experts from different professional fields, the journalists, the service providers, the academics, lawyers, and the politicians in Parliament. It’s all needed. I thought KJK’s trips to America several years ago were fine and she was the first to test the waters with trying to engage everyone to come in the tent to talk about women’s rights going out of her way to include those on the right. Good.

I don’t support this approach though if it’s either indiscriminate or not being clear about what’s changing and that that is in effect becoming discrimination in a particular direction.

To remain UK LWS as it initially said on the tin, people shouldn’t be able to be there to signal other issues or give the views about other issues, and doing that should be strongly rejected by LWS.

its not blaming a woman for the actions of men of they were to reiterate that a) any women of any view can come but b) the sole topic is women’s rights and that has to be the focus. C) your views will likely be challenged whatever they are. D) men have to fuck off (unless they are say, a carer for a woman attending or her kids).

So waving a flag or wearing a political or national symbol that isn’t a women’s rights one should be out. Because it’s a distraction from the important issues at hand which don’t get enough women being together with women airtime. This all becomes more urgent to enforce particularly since the disorder at the free speech Tommy Robinson and Musk event in the summer in London. It is divisive and threatening to have England flags at LWS events since the flags being put up in neighbourhoods in the UK which signal racist turf claiming, since then this will rule out completely a lot of women who would otherwise want to come to LWS and speak for fear of racist aggression or attack on themselves or on anyone else.

If people come without symbols to LWS events and then talk about women’s rights which includes their racists views then that’s part of public meetings and is to be expected in the current climate. Nobody has the right to support for their personal views. Everyone else has to hear them at such an event but they can also challenge them. Obviously nobody can incite violence etc. There have to be strict rules. They must stay on topic.

The strength of the GC movement has come from women of all political sides coming together on one single issue. KJK has contributed to building that strength.

But widening that to accept hot button political issues that are not laser focused on one issue- women rights- will change the LWS demographic attending.

The alternative for KJK is to rebrand as ‘Let a right wing woman speak with the focus removed from being only on women’s rights’. Then the power of that original LWS concept is lost and a different power gained which looks much less likely to advance women’s rights. But that’s up to her, it’s her party.

The left wing and centrist GC movement needs to also respond to these changing times and provide an alternative explicitly inclusive of all political angles set of women’s rights meetings, very carefully moderated to be genuinely inclusive. Sadly I bet this won’t happen because it’s very intensive on resource and time and fending off aggro, though I would love to see it happen. KJK was originally doing something amazing just on the power of her own personal gumption and that isn’t easily going to be replicated.

The articles didn't mention him, no, but there was reference to flags in the other article. There were two, maybe you only read the LWS one. And as I've already said, possibly twice, the flag link is to her attendance of his protest. If she was only seeking refuge away from some intimidating TRA's, and didn't agree with his sentiments, she would have made sure there was a distance, however figuratively. But she didn't, she wore a flag at a right wing march where right wingers were wearing and waving flags.
I don't really understand what youre after apart from being incredibly pedantic. I don't mind pedantry, but you seem to be going round in a kind of circle that appears to end with "do you hate Kjk?".
I've already said my opinion of her, so if that's what you're after, have a look back.
And, just in case you're after this too, because you aren't really as clear as you think you are, Stephen Yaxley Lennon is a far right activist. Who doesn't give one iota for women's and girls rights.

I hate to break it to you but brains don’t have the capacity to produce sperm. Unless you are suggesting that all men’s brains are in their penis which in some cases could seem like a reasonable suggestion.

Anyway, another attempt to derail a thread from you - you are never going to prove that criticising Islam is racist. We are criticising an ideology and the people who practice it.

As to your ‘interesting’ theory below - have you forgotten about/erased homosexuals again? Oops! The only way the mind is involved in sexual reproduction is through sexual attraction. Sexual attraction that would cause reproduction is not universal.

How does one begin to explain the concept that it's just not the body but also the mind that evolved for the purposes of facilitating reproduction when the world view of gender criticals depends on that it doesn't?

You said, in the post I was responding to:

Not sure what confuses you. She attended, very publicly, Yaxley Lennons march in London with a union jack around her shoulders. Now the flag shaggers are attending her LWS events.

So because KJ went to a march on immigration attended by many people and was in the same location as TR (possibly for security reasons as the trans activist lunatics actively threaten her life) for a while, you have now deemed all attendees (presumably including KJ) as ‘flag shaggers’ to be shunned at all possible opportunity.

You then decide, with no apparent evidence that these so called ‘flag shaggers’ went to LWS and start smearing KJ on that basis.

You didn’t say ‘it seems’ here, you just made a direct accusation.

That’s rather a desperate reach isn’t it?

Do you also have an issue with her wearing the Union flag around her shoulders?

If you don't think YL is far right that's up to you. And if you think he or his followers are genuinely supportive of women's rights and not jumping on a discriminatory bandwagon - as they see it - then that's also up to you.

You started talking about ‘flag shaggers’ being at LWS. You have provided no evidence that any such man (whatever ‘flag shaggers’ means to you) was actually there. You are now making up stuff I haven’t said about TR and ‘his followers’ - I haven’t even mentioned him. It all just looks like a desperate attempt to justify your dislike of KJK. You are entitled not to like her as I am entitled to think the opposite. But your dishonesty undermines your argument.

Such sweeping and tenuous attempts to show ‘guilt by association’ are obvious.

"So if a man thinks hard enough, he can get pregnant? That's what your bullshit boils down to."

I rest my case…

"As for Islam being a race, are you really claiming that Bosnians are the same race as Senegalese Muslims? Again, if you claim that Islam is a race, that's what it boils down to."

Err, I never said they were a race. Might be time to step away from the Prosecco…

How does one begin to explain the concept that it's just not the body but also the mind that evolved for the purposes of facilitating reproduction when the world view of gender criticals depends on that it doesn't?

So if a man thinks hard enough, he can get pregnant? That's what your bullshit boils down to.

As for Islam being a race, are you really claiming that Bosnians are the same race as Senegalese Muslims? Again, if you claim that Islam is a race, that's what it boils down to.

Sorry I read that twice and it still makes absolutely no sense. And “gender critical” are not a movement they are the majority who are realists. It’s why we don’t have “round earthers”

Thankyou for this info. Of course it doesn’t change the fact men cannot be women and aren’t allowed not allowed in female spaces. This may make them sad. Might I suggest they “reframe their trauma”. I hear that’s a good solution.

"I'm eager and willing to be educated by my self-appointed better, so please can you explain how the human brain impacts on society and how the sophistication of the human brain overrides DNA?"

How does one begin to explain the concept that it's just not the body but also the mind that evolved for the purposes of facilitating reproduction when the world view of gender criticals depends on that it doesn't?

An ideology that believes gendered behaviours are purely the result of patriarchal influences & not survival mechanisms can't process how our gendered actions influence societal sex categorisations let alone the biological variation that makes a minority exceptions to the rule.

"What I'm seeing is that a small group of people have stealthily removed rights from another group who were also protected by the Equality Act and who have now had those rights confirmed by the Supreme Court. Is that what you meant by the human brain impacting on society?"

Of course that's all you can 'see'….

Im referring to YL's followers (and himself) at his protest event in London. I'm not referring to a lone old lady with a flag. I also said in my original post "it seems" implying that if that's the case it isn't very useful for other supporters of women's rights to be associated, however loosely with people perceived as far right. I clearly referenced kjk's appearance at his event in London, which is well documented.
If you don't think YL is far right that's up to you. And if you think he or his followers are genuinely supportive of women's rights and not jumping on a discriminatory bandwagon - as they see it - then that's also up to you.

Yeah mate. But still men will never be women and aren’t allowed in female spaces. Shame innit. Those pesky women staying no.

I'm eager and willing to be educated by my self-appointed better, so please can you explain how the human brain impacts on society and how the sophistication of the human brain overrides DNA?

What I'm seeing is that a small group of people have stealthily removed rights from another group who were also protected by the Equality Act and who have now had those rights confirmed by the Supreme Court. Is that what you meant by the human brain impacting on society?

"And how do you decide that complexity doesn't come naturally to anyone?"

By the pattern in reasoning. The reduction of a human to body parts or chromosomes without taking into account the sophistication of the human brain & its impact on society means we aren't exactly dealing with multi faceted thinking…

Who are 'we' please? And how do you decide that complexity doesn't come naturally to anyone?

On second thoughts, maybe we are simple people. We believe that a DNA test shows biological sex while 'gender' is based on unprovable beliefs. We also believe that we have a right to single sex toilets and changing areas and to our beliefs. That's why we don't need to complicate things or threaten other people.

You don't bore me, and it wouldn't matter if you did, because you have a right to your views, and we have a right to snigger and/or ignore you. You've made a good argument and I don't mean that in a patronising way but as a stark contrast to a poster who appears to lecture at Oxford and has decided to give us a lecture too!

Read the link up thread from New Arab then.