Can we talk about something that seems to be happening a lot at the moment: "cis allies" (note the " " ) are being asked to, in essence, prove their ally credentials but also take the risk and do the hard work apparently in order to protect transwomen (in particular) and transmen from attacks by terfs.
Just in the last week or so, there has been the video of the protestors on the stairs at the Jam Jar venue, which Bristol Sisters has claimed are "cis allies". There was a call out for "cis allies" to escort trans people home at night because they were scared that the terfs were in town and thus trans people were at risk of violent attack. The Free the She Wolf campaign explicitly asked for "cis allies" to attend the protest outside court in order to provide a human shield to protect the trans protesters who were going to be there.
And it's not just in person that "cis allies" are expected to get involved. When I posted the NUS slide presentation on "How to deal with terfs", one of the authors tweeted something along the lines of "Urgh, can a cis ally sort this out", and lo and behold a few new posters popped onto the thread to object to it, and of course MsIntern tweeted that she would get some of her MNHQ pals to take it down. (The slides also contain the suggestion that delegates "put yourself in between trans people and the TERFS")
What is going on here? How is the narrative growing that trans people are a) at significant risk of physical harm from terfs whilst also b) being significantly weaker than "cis allies" so they need their protection? Why are so many people apparently so keen to do this - to prove their woke credentials? Because they are hanging onto the coat tails of an exciting new movement and want to remain part of the gang? Why are so many of them women, when surely if you were looking for bouncers and security guards to keep you safe, you would want big burly men? (Pesky biology meaning that they are stronger than terfs)
Is this a new phenomenon? Have straight women always been asked to sacrifice themselves to the cause for no reward? Or is this just the TRA equivalent of making the sandwiches and putting away the chairs at the end of the meeting?
