*WOMEN!!* Stop talking, you're not allowed.....

[SuitedandBooted]

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

For those who missed it;
Yet AGAIN, more intimidation of women, who wanted to hold a LEGAL meeting, and discuss their LEGAL rights.

Turning the Tide: Brighton 16th July 2018

On Monday 16th July, Woman’s Place UK held a meeting in Brighton

The meeting was organised in response to a request by local women, as has been the case with all our meetings.

There was a lot of interest in this meeting with 190 tickets booked. The meeting was clearly welcomed by a significant number of local residents. It is also worth noting that Brighton Pavilion has the highest number of signatures to the parliamentary petition ‘To consult with women on proposals to enshrine ‘gender identity’ in law’

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.

We usually organise our meetings for mid or late week as these days are generally better for those who wish to attend. It was the suggestion of the FMH Brighton that we schedule the meeting for a Monday evening as the venue is usually closed and no other users would be inconvenienced or harassed by any protests as had happened in Oxford.

A July date was chosen to fit in with the schedule of other meetings being arranged and with the availability of local organisers before the summer break. Woman’s Place UK only learnt about Trans-Pride events the week before the meeting and the scheduling was entirely coincidental.

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.

We had sold over 150 tickets by that point and needed to find an alternative venue, which we did.

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.

We were very concerned for the safety of our attendees if they had to leave and we felt aggrieved that a booking made in honesty and good faith was now under threat because of a protest. We persuaded them that the best option was to let the meeting continue. We agreed to finish early and discussed how to enable attendees at the meeting to exit the building safely through a range of different exits.

During this conversation, a representative of the protest came up to the manager and said they would finish their protest at 9.30pm.

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, convenience 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

Dreadful attempts to stop women gather and hold a peaceful meeting. However it will not stop us. Jury's should not have agreed the booking as it is not compatible with running a peaceful hotel - you need a church hall miles from anywhere perhaps where no one can be disturbed.

Difference between protesting at a meeting or lying down on a closed road, and harassing the place where the meeting is held and making abusive phone calls to the staff in a direct attempt to intimidate and close down the meeting, not to mention the past 'form' of violence and cornering women on stairwells. Oh, and making bomb threats. Oh and punching women during a 'protest".

no "can't have it both ways" here. Women haven't done it the 'other' way.

I went to the meeting on Monday, there were protestors and they seemed pretty calm but noisy. There was also a police presence which would probably explain the calmness. The Womans Place meetings are open to everybody who orders a ticket in advance. There were a number of young women at the meeting who I assumed were trans-allies but if they had a point to put after the presentations they were put poorly because I didn't understand what they wanted to tell us other than they were inclusive.

The consultation about the changes to the Gender Recognition Act will affect every one of us females, and we need to be consulted and listened to. It's important that we resist the prospect of:

Males and their intact penises in bathrooms and changing-rooms. Hospital wards.

Women's prisons.

Rape crisis centres.
Domestic Violence Refuges.

There will be nowhere these men will not insinuate themselves into if we're not careful. Some organisations are behaving as if this stuff is already the law.

See what's going on in schools. Young children are being groomed to accept this trans-gender nonsense.

We need to be heard!

There will be nowhere these men will not insinuate themselves into if we're not careful. Some organisations are behaving as if this stuff is already the law.

Best not rely on MP's either.

@pachyderm saw that Irish Times article after. It's ridiculous that an agenda appears to be being pushed in England, but I still don't think we're that far along yet.

@pachyderm I'd also be interested in knowing how many of those signatories to the Solidarity statement actually live in Ireland.

Why we're those meeting being blamed for the abuse of staff by protesters? Did they report the abuse of staff to the police?

Women are expected to share spaces and services with these abusive phone protesting people? no thank you!

I'm not convinced that holding up a parade of tens of thousands of people in blistering heat is less disruptive than picketing one small meeting?

I don't think anyone is condoning abusive calls to staff, violence, bomb threats etc. The OP suggests that the protestors were unreasonably silencing women, which they weren't.

And re bitter's post about the consultation, yes it's important, and I really hope that most mners would have the sense to actually read the consultation document before believing all the hyperbolic and definitive statements about penises everywhere.

It is actually a much more nuanced and detailed situation that that sort of thing implies, and there is no intention whatsoever to remove any of the current exemptions that allow single sex spaces to exclude trans people in legitimate and proportional ways. The document gives specific examples of this, and covers prisons, sports, refuges and many other specific examples.

Everyone can respond to the consultation with full freedom. There is no silencing of anyone in the consultation.

Consultation Document here

@mikeyssister we are very far along indeed unfortunately. Self-id has already happened here, and the new legislation re children is a timebomb waiting to happen.

A lot of those signatures are made up but it got a lot of traction. Owen Jones retweeted it. Dissenters are attacked and excluded. There's serious misogynistic bullying going on in the student unions if you're suspected of being a radfem or even just a lesbian. This is really happening.

In this age of technology Skype meetings held across the country? No need to meet in person have an online meeting room with a moderator who can silence people who are attempting to censure or be aggressive even shouting everyone makes a point calmly or not at all

To those saying women weren't silenced, the point is the TRAs relentlessly attempted to silence them. They succeeded in intimidating the Friends Meeting House into cancelling the meeting with only 5 days notice.
The TRAs tried to get the meeting at Jurys cancelled but despite their best efforts could not.
It is vicious and against free speech and democracy to behave like this.
A protest, sure, whatever, make some noise, but bullying intimidation and harassment is not on.

Transgender people already have all the rights they need. We need to protect ours.

I'm still gobsmacked that in 2018 women who want to meet for a discussion have to do so under conditions of utmost secrecy lest they be abused and harassed.

The entire country should be hanging its head in shame.

Abbsisspartacus, you're missing the sheer buzz of meeting other gender critical feminists in the flesh. At all the meetings I've been to the bit at the bar was the best bit. Meeting Mumsnetters has been such a joy to me. And one feminist after party highlight for me was a long evening spent with Magdalen Berns, who got increasingly pissed while managing to continue being very, very funny.

Yes but initially with all this trouble safety matters so many people are being silenced and we need more people to be vocal

Genuine question. Not trying to shit stir.

Why are (OMG going to get shouted down for wrong terminology) non-trans men (i.e men) silent on this issue?
Also, are they similarly impacted by F to M trans?

Gncq, if intimidation was involved then I would hope that the Quaker venue would be working with police to pursue an arrest.

I don't get the impression from the statement by the FMH that they were subject to intimidation, but rather that they hadn't realised how controversial and polarised the topic was, and that they were not comfortable hosting a meeting without mediation taking place.

The leverage of protest has always hinged on venues being unwilling to have it on thier doorstep, and so choosing to avoid that by not hosting the controversial event. That's the prerogative of venues.

So, the protestors tried to discourage the venues from hosting the meeting but didn't succeed and it went ahead and by all accounts a jolly good time was had by all and they even had a celeb standing a bar tab in the bar afterwards. Complaining in shouty caps on AIBU about women being silenced is overkill.

I would say attempts to stop meetings going ahead counts as attempts to silence them personally. Can't really see how else it could be considered.

"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."

I'm sorry, I just find this bizarre. I can not understand why you would plan the first meeting to take part at a "Friends Meeting House" if you knew there was even a remote possibility of violent protest.

The Quakers are pacifists, advocates of peace and promote pacifism as a primary objective and importance in their belief system and everything they do.

If you used that group as a shield so attendees would feel safe when you knew there might be trouble that makes me feel angry. The Quakers would certainly not want anything like that associated with their building at all.

The Friends Meeting House cancelled at short notice "giving you no opportunity to address concerns or meet with them." What were you hoping to discuss???

The Quakers knew there was a chance of violent protest and this was discussed in advance was it? I find this very hard to believe and that makes me distrustful of you.

Although I am not a Quaker I know a number. They are a pleasure to associate with and I hire another "Friends Meeting House" elsewhere in the country. I wouldn't want anything to do with your group even though it might be relevant to me as a woman and I feel concerned that you could be painting a picture that serves your own agenda and hoodwinking others.

It seems clear that there is misrepresentation going on, and a story being told with a skewed perspective.

Compare the versions here and in the feminist chat board thread about the meeting for why the Quaker Meeting House decided not to host the meeting in their premises with the Quakers' actual statements on the subject.

Here's the statement from the Quakers in Brighton:

-----
“Brighton Quakers were asked to hire out one of its rooms to a campaign group set up to ensure that women’s voices are heard in the debate around proposals to change the Gender Recognition Act.

Having considered the issue further and having consulted with other interested parties we have decided to cancel the booking. We have not come to that decision lightly.

The meeting which was to have taken place in our building was advertised as including spoken contributions from people active in the area of natal women’s rights who have expressed concern about the implications of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. The meeting was to have been open to anyone who had bought a valid ticket via an internet booking site. As such, the attendance was not limited to members of the campaign group and we believe it likely that many tickets have been bought by people, including Trans women, strongly opposed to the views being expressed by the event’s organisers.

Similar events have been run in other parts of the country and have resulted in acrimony and discord. The organisers of the meeting planned to be held in Brighton were made aware that they would need the services of a private security company to maintain public order. We are also mindful that Brighton Trans Pride is being held in the same week (including events taking place close to Brighton Quakers’ premises on the same evening) as well as the annual Trans, Non-binary and Intersex Conference is due to be held at Brighton University on July 19/20.

We are extremely uneasy that our decision may result in the suppression of free speech and in particular suppression of natal women’s voices. However, we do not believe that a meeting of this kind (open to all with a purchased ticket but focused on one particular viewpoint) will enhance the wider debate or a mutual understanding of the very strongly held concerns of different parties. We think it more likely to aggravate the situation.

Instead we intend to work with local groups and agencies to set up one or more meetings at which the differing views and concerns can be addressed with the help of people skilled in mediation. If it is appropriate to all concerned we would be happy to offer our Meeting House as a venue for these fora. We will ensure that all voices are heard in a safe, respectful and thoughtful atmosphere. We believe this approach reflects our Quaker commitment “to respect that of God in everyone though it may be expressed in unfamiliar ways or be difficult to discern”. It will also align with our historic commitment to work for peace.”
----

I can't see anything at all that so much as hints at intimidation or harassment forcing their hand.

And here's another Quaker statement from earlier in the year, specifically referencing WPUK:

--
Following the meetings in Oxford and Edinburgh earlier in the year, QGSDC (Quaker Gender & Sexual Diversity Community) tweeted the following statement:

“We strongly challenge the misrepresentation, misinformation, disrespect and intrinsic antagonism towards trans people by Women’s Place UK and others in pursuing their stated aims around gender identity legislation (including the Gender Recognition Act), and want to highlight the hugely negative effect this is having on trans people in Britain, including trans friends.

We believe peace starts with us, and would be interested in seeking a peaceful way forward with those who are open to doing so. For dialogue to be fruitful each party has to commit to ending behaviour that is likely to kill, hurt or antagonise, and thereby clearly demonstrate a change in attitude. If it can be done in Northern Ireland and South Africa, it can be done anywhere.

We don’t think Twitter, Facebook or any other social media is the place to do this work: it’s too easy for feelings to become heightened and for a situation to escalate very quickly, as demonstrated this week.

QGSDC continues to be a community of support and solidarity for trans people, and a resource for the wider Religious Society of Friends.

We believe that focusing on, and responding to, that of God (or good) in the other, however hidden, is key in all of this”

--

Sussex police recorded two incidents at the event venue. One assault and one hate crime, allegedly by meeting attendees, not protestors.

There seems to be more going on here than the meeting organisers and supporters are saying, or seem likely to acknowledge.

There's a statement on the WPUK website that says their meetings have not been the cause of acrimony and discord.

But at the same time, there was that bomb threat, intimidation, harassment, and a threatening incident in a stairwell at another event, and they are concerned that women may not be not safe arriving and leaving their events.

They can shove that Quakers statement up their assess

1. Use of "natal women" - no. Fuck off. "Women" will do thanks.

2. Despite the event being open to all and inviting trans speakers, Quakers decided for themselves that it was only promoting "one viewpoint"

3. They prioritized trans events above this meeting - why should WPU have to cancel their meeting because it happens to coincide with a trans event?

4. They waited until the last minute to cancel the meeting this causing maximum inconvenience and have said they plan to run their own event.

Is that not just literal fucking mansplaining? "Silly wimmin want to discuss naytel wimmin's issues. We can do it better".

*They being the Quaker's

*Quakers No apostrophe

Not denying the level of disruption, that wasn't what my point was about though.

Bottom line is, they have to organise these meetings in secret, often having to rearrange them when the venues are harassed. And receive bomb threats, and threats of, and actual, violence. That's as a result of more than just a bit of arty farty protest by some really rather annoying people

The majority don't turn up to protests. They just call secretaries over and over again and shout abuse at them. I called one place to thank them for hosting a meeting, and the very nervous sounding woman on the end of the phone almost cried with relief.

They use social media to attack places, giving them thousands of 1* reviews if they don't comply.

This isn't just bullying, it's a form of terrorism - and it could be turned against any topic, any person, any company, any time.

We now live in a country where you cannot say "there is a biological difference between men and women".

If that sort of think-speak against basic facts doesn't worry you, I don't know what will.