To think I shouldn’t have to worry about Mumsnetters’ safety just because they want to attend a lawful public meeting?

[SarahJane73]

Tomorrow a number of Mumsnetters are planning to attend a public meeting to discuss a proposed change to the law that affects women.

On Friday a threat was made that a ‘device’ would be left at the venue. Sussex police are treating this as a serious threat and later that day the bomb squad raided a house in the local area where ‘potentially explosive materials’ were found:

www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/bomb-squad-called-to-st-leonards-1-8536449

www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/police-investigating-bomb-threat-against-hasting-meeting-1-8539357

This is in addition to all the ‘usual’ threats to do some ‘GBH’ to the women attending:

twitter.com/cattdeskatgmail/status/1008686921223204864

And no, that’s not just talk:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-attacker-tara-wolf-is-a-thug-says-feminist-maria-maclachlan-pq0bwvthv

Maybe there’ll be masked men again blocking women from entering the meeting:

Maybe they’ll stand outside chanting ‘burn it down’ as they have previously. Maybe they’ll then track down women who have attended the meeting to harass them as they go about their work:

womansplaceuk.org/footage-of-picket-line-attack/

Whatever your views on the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act, AIBU to think this kind of behaviour is abhorrent in a civil society and the attitude that you get your way by threatening, beating up and maybe even blowing up anyone who attempts to express a view you disagree with is a threat to our democracy?

At some point, one or more woman is going to be seriously hurt and all the politicians are going to pretend that they didn't see it coming. If this had been a terroristic threat on any other group but women, we wouldn't hear the end of it. But it's only women, so nobody gives a shit.

Very true, unfortunately.

Of course threatening to bomb a venue for a talk is always wrong. Surely no one would defend this?

You'd have thought not.

Mumsnet has been unwilling to stand in support of the women who have been threatened either though.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3279637-Statement-in-support-of-women-threatened-with-a-device-for-speaking

What gets me is the complete lack of media coverage. There was a bomb raid this morning that for plenty of coverage - this one got nothing. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but it is weird how this is appearing nowhere.

This type of behaviour is one of the key reasons my views started to change especially around the issue of self id.

These are violent and misogynist people and are damaging the cause they claim to represent.

YADNBU

I think this may be the last time I am online before tonight's meeting so I just want to wish all the Mumsnetters and other attendees a safe, informative evening.

Thinking about it, the bomb threat may make this one safer than some of the others as police/venue security will be on high alert.

Good luck SarahJane73. I hope everyone gets home safe and sound.

Enjoy the meeting. I'll be with you in spirit!

You are most definitely not being unreasonable

I realize that the threat was likely a troll. Nevertheless, the fact that the TRAs are not condemning it speaks volumes.

If the boot was on the other foot, most, if not all, GC feminists would be condemning any threat towards TRAs.

There is a decription of the attempts and tactics used to prevent WPUK from meeting in Oxford and elsewhere by Prof Michael Biggs (Oxford): Free speech at Oxford: Do women have the right to meet to discuss legislation?

he concludes,
"I have entered this debate not because I am a feminist but because freedom of speech is one of the highest values of a democratic society, and the basic foundation of university life.
Transgender activism poses a grave threat to freedom of speech."

He also quotes Amanda Dee, a trans woman who founded Trans Oxford who also commented after the Oxford meeting,
"last night the bullied became the bullies"

This is a very serious challenge to free speech and free association

And when (rather than if) someone will get hurt, they'll claim the attacker was suffering from terrible inner turmoil and was driven to it.

I mean, if some of them believe Ian Huntley can be excused...

Yanbu.
Should be arrested for at least wasting police time.
Could this class as terrorism?

It seems the meeting went well and without incident.

With regards free speech/ attepts to silence women, it does seem that WPUK's hashtag and many of its supporters accounts may have been shadowbanned (or similar?) on Twitter.

link to thread with some feedback etc:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3277616-20th-June-Womens-Place-meeting-Hastings

Yanbu and this sort of threat to women simply for daring to speak or question is why so many have started to read more about self id and its potential impact on women's rights. Surely everyone should become concerned and ask more questions if debate about proposed changes to the law with far-reaching effects on women is snuffed out at every turn (whether through threats such as this, banning of women on twitter and fb, accusations of transphobia simply for asking questions/having an opinion)? A great place to start for anyone who wants to get a bit of background before coming to their own opinion (or reading more) is Fair Play for Women.

Please don't lump everyone who believes in trans women's rights with these people. Extremists exist in every sphere. My friend has been told by "feminists" that she should be raped, has been threatened with physical violence and abused endlessly by some on your side just because she is a trans woman, but I would never assume you agree with that.

Real allies and intersectional feminists absolutely do not agree with violence in any form. This is gross, and needs to stop.

However, it's also worth a reminder that "freedom of speech" and "hate speech" are two very different things. Neither side should be using hate speech and I don't agree with either side using the "freedom of speech" argument to justify it.

@rebbykay

A thread about violence against women is hardly the place for you to berate women about saying mean things.
4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men thus male violence against women is justified.

Ribby kay I have never seen any evidence of any threat to a trans group or person but I have seen evidence of threats to GC feminists so so many times. These threats are not even removed from twitter.

I have seen no evidence of hate speech by feminists.

My friend has been told by "feminists" that she should be raped, has been threatened with physical violence and abused endlessly by some on your side

Really?
I find that difficult to believe.
Feminists are women and women generally do not threaten violence or rape especially towards men. Men do all the time so I would check they were actual feminists.

As for trans rights what are they exactly?

One of the new phrases I have learnt in this 'debate' is DARVO (Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender) because it is used all the time by transactivists and their allies.

Although I am aware of many other incidents, in my posts I have tried to show a few examples with evidence (e.g. press articles on police investigating bomb threats, newspaper article of a transactivist convicted for assaulting a feminist, video footage, tweets from a mainstream transactivist organisation stating ""we must be radically & transformatively violent".).

If you think feminists are just as bad, show me the evidence. Where are all the videos of hordes of feminists trying to prevent trans people from meeting? Where are the convictions for assault? Where are the reports of bomb threats from feminists to trans meetings? Because I've never seen any.

However, it's also worth a reminder that "freedom of speech" and "hate speech" are two very different things. Neither side should be using hate speech and I don't agree with either side using the "freedom of speech" argument to justify it.

These are A Woman's Place UK's demands:

1. Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard.

1. The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

1. A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act which allow or single sex services or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job (such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.

1. Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.

1. Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

Now you may agree with these, or you may not, but it is hardly 'hate speech'.

The single-sex exemptions were agreed by Parliament as part of the Equality Act 2010 - ie less than 10 years ago, a majority of MPs, having examined and debated this issue, decided they were needed.

Yes, sometimes laws need to be updated and, just because something was agreed 8 years ago, doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. However, how have we moved in less than a decade from a position where this was the majority view of our parliament to this being considered 'hate speech' and anyone trying to express this view (or even go and listen to those who express this view) being subject to threats and violence?

What exactly does transphobic hate speech have to do with this particular topic, ie the meeting and the bomb threats?

princess

Im assuming that its going down the "she deserved it' route

I actually can't believe I'm being accused of lying about women telling my friend she should be raped. She was actually told "you should be in the men's toilets" and when she said she was at risk of violence from men in there, the answer was "that's your own problem, and perhaps if you were assaulted you would understand why women don't want you in their spaces a little more." That is why I put the word "feminists" in quotation marks, because to me, any woman who is that blasé about rape isn't a feminist at all.

Many women who are against trans rights use inflammatory and abusive language towards trans men and women. I did not at any point say that I was talking about you. However, to deny that it exists is burying your head in the sand. The trans women and supposed allies threatening violence are just as bad and I don't condone those either. I am hoping that you would not be one of those women who abuses trans women under the guise of being a feminist, and would not accuse you of being such unless I saw reason to.

And no, Rufus, stop projecting. At no point did I ever even begin to infer that anyone deserves anything. I actually said that the entire situation was gross, and that violence from any side was awful.