TRAs deface Millicent Fawcett statue

[Peony1897]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/19/transgender-activists-deface-millicent-fawcett-statue/

How dare they.

I know which is why I don't do it 😇

No, afraid not. But then I should probably have asked the Easter Bunny instead. Rookie error!

Sorry. It's been a long day 🤦.

It just gets worse.

They are all going to hell anyway doing shit like this at Easter!

It's interesting about the NAMALT. Of course that's true. But:

Decent men don't try to bully their way into women's spaces.
Decent men don't wave placards about killing women.
Decent men don't attend marches to scream abuse at women who displease them.
Decent men don't assault women who refuse to bow down to their demands.
Decent men don't piss everywhere to mark their territory and assert their dominance, like a pack of feral dogs.

The men on these marches are exactly the kind of aggressive, misogynistic men I don't want in the female toilets- or, tbh anywhere near me or any other female.

Their behaviour marks them out as the worst types of men. Real woman haters. Some of them are seriously chilling.

Agree

And of course they should be locked up.
You incite violence that’s against the law
You wee in public that’s against the law
You wee on public statues that’s against the law

its both vandalism and perverted.

What are you going to do if it comes to court try to say it is neither 🤣🤣. Good luck with that

@DrPrunesqualer What are you going to do if it comes to court try to say it is neither 🤣🤣. Good luck with that.

Probably accuse the judge of being a TERF.

This is a very good point.

😂😂😂😂

Let me guess, upon arrest they will say they merely IDENTIFIED as protestors? (Or that they don’t!)

They are only violent and vile if spoken or written by women is my take.

It really seems from a few posters on this thread and others that the violence advocated in posters and potentially speech by trans activists is mildly denounced but not held to the same standards. Or actively dismissed.

I have asked on a few threads now what was done by other protestors or organisers about those people and no answers have been given. I can now only assume that they were allowed and maybe supported. And lip service paid to those who milDly denounced them while vilifying women’s words.

As I have posted, there is at least one poster of or two or more where Maya Forstater has been demonised and vilified for one short sentence using established English language conventions around sex when discussing female sex based rights and asked a question by a TV presenter. The poster outpoured emotional hyperbole about the feelings of the male person on the panel, while ignoring that the male barrister no less just admitted to having sex with a man where the barrister did not disclose to the man that they were a male person and the man thought the person was female. If the sex partner reported this incident to the police, the CPS would have a case for prosecuting the barrister for sex by deception. Meaning they negated the consent of the partner who then had non consensual sex. This was over looked despite me bringing it to their attention multiple times. No acknowledgement still, just doubling down that Maya is abusive.

The double standards used by some posters stark. I don’t believe anyone told the protestors to get rid of their signs. Why? Is it that people really agree but won’t admit it, is it that they are scared of the reaction? Why?

None of those comments are ' Shame we didn't kill that woman for disagreeing with me' or ' the only good terf ( woman who disagrees with me) is a dead terf' or any level of death or rape threats or doxxing that women have had to ensure from men's rights activists of the trans movement.

"There are only 2 genders [sic]" is hateful and vitriolic?

I cannot quite get my head around what the protests were attempting to do though.

I am a big supporter of protesting peacefully. And by peacefully, I don’t mean simply with no physical violence.

Yet what was the aim of the protest in London?

And not one person has answered my and other poster’s questions about why those placards were not immediately removed on sight by organisers or why supposed moderates didn’t take the people with the signs aside and say ‘hey, that is vile/not appropriate’.

It really doesn’t sink into those defending the protests at all. They just dismiss it as ‘just a few’ or ‘not all protestors are like that’.

Well. We have heard those dismissals before. Perhaps people should consider whether this group’s behaviour being constantly been supported or at the very least lacking push back saying ‘this is not appropriate’, has contributed to the many issues we now face.

And if women’s language is to be demonised as it has been on threads and elsewhere but these protestors behaviour not, the double standards are very clear.

Will crimes originally recorded as being committed by ‘women’ who are trans now be updated as being committed by men?

I know I’m not the only one who would read about a heinous crime committed by a ‘she’ and think ‘that sounds extraordinarily violent for a woman’ only to see a picture of the perpetrator later on and see they were trans.

Honestly I think that the trans community is used to being indulged and having society immediately accede to its demands. They aren't used to hearing the word "no", so they probably do believe that the Supreme Court decision is evidence of fascism and that they are freedom fighters securing their own rights.

It also doesn't help that they've heard people who are now senior members of the government (including the current prime minister) describe people who disagree with them as bigoted. It's going to take a massive mental shift to understand that actually the rest of society doesn't have to see things the way they do and that they aren't the only people who matter. I don't think they're ready for it.

Yes MissS.

And I look forward to one of the posters who said they supported the protest to briefly explain what was being protested.

Because it seems to be just an outpouring to dissent about the law being clarified to be what it always was and what lawyers who researched it and its history said it always was.

It just seemed like a very vicious reaction to a group of people being told that they can't have everything that they want. However, if any supporters can clarify further, I'd be interested to read it.

Trevor Phillips has an article in the Times that is remarkably clear.

There is a profound and cruel deceit at the heart of the protests which have erupted at the justices’ reasoning. Those who sprang on the airwaves to pronounce them wrong seem to have forgotten that the law, powerful though it is, has its limits.

archive.ph/vyqjy

I find it depressingly normal for TRAs. They''ve done it before.

The statue of Pankhurst in Manchester is regularly defaced, or obscured by the trans flag.

They're a Men's rights movement.

That is so depressing.
Pushing back women's rights.

There isn't a purpose.

It's an emotional response devoid of logic.

Why are you expecting a logical response from a group which has pushed it's cause forward so much on the basis of emotion.

We know there are strategists amongst prominent activists - who have actively admitted they wanted to force change under the radar (interesting to see Trevor Phillips comment on the active and deliberate dishonesty amongst some) but these are really the exception to the rule. The ideology is too incoherent and muddled to lend itself to the majority acting logically at this point.

The whole problem is most caught up in this area behaving in a cult like fashion and when cults are put under pressure they don't react well.

If we believe this movement is cultlike then we should take this seriously. They will actively believe they are under siege and that they really are being persecuted. This legitimises protests and actions to stray into criminality in various fashions. I would argue that this is actually a dangerous moment and one we shouldnt just dismiss.

I think there will be some who seek to make a name for themselves - we've seen this purity spiral on social media where people egg each other on and try and prove how committed they are to the cause. Already we are seeing photos in toilets and threats. The police need to be fully aware of what's happening otherwise they risk being embarrassed by an incident and us all asking why something wasn't done sooner because it was so obvious.

It's all very well starting threads saying 'look at this for balance', when we are seeing the manifesting of behaviour that we should be concerned about.

This post I'm sure will go down like a lead balloon but it's based on observation and legitimate concerns about demonstrated and probable behaviour. It doesn't matter if it's a minority of protesters causing a problem - that minority can still have a massive impact. We are in an era of lone wolf incel attacks as it is so this isn't an unreasonable position to be expressing concern about this.

Everyone has a right to protest. What they don't have is a right to threaten, harass or act criminally to persons or property. The difference matters. Behavioural patterns are well known and identifiable. I sincerely hope that the right conversations are being had where they matter right now, on the basis of that.

Indeed Red.

I am keen though to see what the posters who are supporting the protest believe it was all about.

We are being told parents with children with transgender identities (children of any age) joined in. Why? What are they protesting, do the people posting about them know?

Exactly. The TRA protests have displayed such woman-hating masculinist behaviour - light the light shine on them.

It's certainly been illuminating. I genuinely had no idea that there was so much hate there.
Those placards are shocking.