Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

126 replies

SuitedandBooted · 19/07/2018 10:18

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

OP posts:
Rufustheyawningreindeer · 20/07/2018 17:17

It's not protest, it's terrorism

Certainly not a peaceful protest...at all...in the slightest

ImAIdoot · 20/07/2018 17:28

*They're not silent, there are just far fewer men who are involved in the discussion mainly because it doesn't affect them to anything like the same extent. (Men aren't being told that they're wrong to not like 'lady penises', only lesbians are. Funny that.)

But there are some men who stick their head above the parapet.*

I was going to mention this before but felt perhaps it wasn't entirely relevant and the sample isn't scientific, but from the conversations I've had this is a brief moment in time where feminists and straight, conservative men who are fathers and husbands seem to be very much on the same page when it comes to safe places for women, who gets to define womanhood (ie only women) and whether consent is ever negotiable or debatable.

Personally I've taken this as a sign that the issue is objectively a problem for anyone that wants to protect women wherever they are coming from, and feminist ideology doesn't come into it.

StealthNinjaMum · 20/07/2018 17:29

Disquieted1

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?

As something like 90% of violent crimes and 98% of sexual assaults are caused by people who were born with penises then people who weren't born with penises understandably don't want them in their spaces. People who were born with penises are usually bigger and stronger than people who weren't so more of a threat. A non-trans man like my dh would have no problem with a trans man (i.e. woman transed to men) in a toilet because he would most likely be stronger and not threatened. A trans man would be unlikely to want to use a blokes toilet anyway because they smell they might be the subject of abuse from natal males.

I'm not an expert (more of a lurker) but I noticed your question hadn't be answered. Someone with more knowledge will come along shortly.

RememberMyNames · 20/07/2018 17:58

Aurielia, that's a comprehensive misreading of what I've said, and wild conjecture, putting words into my mouth that are nowhere near.

No, I don't condone ANY of the violence threats intimidation harassment bullying doxxing etc, and yes I condemn all of those things whoever is stupid enough to do them and no I don't think anyone deserves that .

I have not said otherwise, so you can naff off with that false accusation fuckery. You're inventing it it and everyone who reads the thread will be able to see that for themselves.

There is no victim blaming. If you don't understand or agree with my point about WPUK statements re Quakers conflicting with what their supporters say is happening at meetings then fine, but there is no need to go on the attack and start just making up stuff.

ToeToToe · 20/07/2018 18:12

I agree, StealthNinjaMum - there is not the safety aspect involved when it comes to men allowing transmen into their spaces.

However, the men at Hampstead Pond did not like women "identifiying as men" and going in the men only pond.

Although women are expected to allow transwomen (even with intact penises) into the women-only pond. (The mixed pond just won't do, apparently).

RememberMyNames · 20/07/2018 18:39

Yup, fellas don't seem to be bothered by trans men bring in their spaces, and I agree it may well be down to the absence of perceived threat involved.

Not the case that trans men don't use men's loos though. It's not long into transition before they start being read as male and get challenged by women in the ladies loos because there's a bloke in the ladies.

TheMostBeautifulDogInTheWorld · 20/07/2018 18:50

Sussex police recorded two incidents at the event venue. One assault and one hate crime, allegedly by meeting attendees

If this were true, this would be what was all over twitter though. And there would have been no need for that deeply unpleasant stunt of setting up the lies on the fake facebook page.

So I doubt this is true.

Aurielia · 20/07/2018 19:02

RememberMyNames
I've certainly not been the only person on this thread who has thought you were victim blaming.

You're right people can see exactly what both of us has said.
I've not made accusations nor put words in your mouth. I wouldn't have bothered quoting the paragraphs of yours I had issue with if that was the case, the was no need to make up anything.

But i am glad you have now clarified your stance on the issue however.

RememberMyNames · 20/07/2018 19:04

It was in a report in the Argus paper local to the event Dog. If you have doubts about it I guess you could challenge the paper on it and have them do a correction if it's wrong.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 20/07/2018 19:32

It was in a report in the Argus paper local to the event Dog

Where

Link please as i cant find it

RememberMyNames · 20/07/2018 20:02

Link here

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 20/07/2018 20:05

Thank you

I found the first article and then the link you just posted was coming up as page not found

I knew it would be that one Smile

MipMipMip · 20/07/2018 20:59

That link says there were two incidents; an assault and a hate crime. It does not say who was the victim/assailant.

*WOMEN!!* Stop talking, you're not allowed.....
RememberMyNames · 20/07/2018 21:23

No it doesn't. That was in the comments below the article, which is why I said "apparently".

TellsEveryoneRealFacts · 20/07/2018 21:44

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

Where is the allegation that it was attendees and not protestors?

IJustHadToNameChange · 20/07/2018 22:50

From The Argus "Sussex Policetold The Argus that there were two recorded incidents, one of assault and one hate crime"

No allegation about who did what.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 20/07/2018 22:55

Oh i see

Its one of those extrapolating posts!!

I get it

TellsEveryoneRealFacts · 20/07/2018 23:06

Surely Rufus extrapolating is about taking known knowns and extending them to known unknowns...in this case it is just made up bullshit to suit one person's agenda.

loveyouradvice · 20/07/2018 23:17

I love the idea of "extrapolating posts".....

... makes so much sense of so much Ive heard from TRAs.....

.... the suicide rates, the literal violence, the murders....

yup all "extrapolating" entirely inappropriately from different populations and tiny surveys....

RememberMyNames · 20/07/2018 23:34

It's in the comments under the article, mentioned a few times and not disputed when I last looked. I've already said that it's in the comments.

It may well be made up bullshit, which is why I said allegedly in the post. I'm assuming you know what allegedly means, so are you all wilfully ignoring that to suit your agendas?

If you think it's made up extrapolated bullshit you're quite capable of taking it up with the website publishing it I'm sure. Not my doing and not my problem to solve that the event is getting some iffy press coverage.

Nice to see the usual TRA gibe making an appearance though. So dependable when a GC version of events is not getting exclusively positive encouragement. Well done all. Your work here is done.

AndhowcouldIeverrefuse · 20/07/2018 23:37

Shocked at the victim blaming by the Quakers. It is not women talking who are causing "acrimony and discord".

Harassment of attendees
Abusive barrage of calls to venue staff
Intimidation of venue guests
Bomb threats
ID theft
Silencing campaigns on social media

WPUK didn't do any of it or cause it to happen. It was all actively, purposefully carried out by individuals who want to stop other people from discussing a topic within the limits of the law.

Talk about the right side of history...

TellsEveryoneRealFacts · 20/07/2018 23:39

It is in the comments - must be true then!

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 21/07/2018 09:56

Surely Rufus extrapolating is about taking known knowns and extending them to known unknowns...in this case it is just made up bullshit to suit one person's agenda

Well back in the old days tells when female humans did not have a penis that is indeed what extrapolating meant

Nowadays according to one particular poster, whose name escapes me, making up a complete load of bullshit that nobody has said is actually extrapolating

I remember it well

So i do like to keep up with the new terms, cept i said 'woke' to a friend the other day and she looked at me like i was deranged

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 21/07/2018 09:58

andhowcouldieverrefuse

Exactly!!

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 21/07/2018 10:05

Apologies remember

My latest post was not aimed at your post regarding the comments section

The new definition of extrapolating i used is one that was used by a poster to lie and dissemble on a previous thread

And I absolutely understand that your post related to a comment hence the use of the word allegedly