"Cis allies" being asked to provide "protection"

[OlennasWimple]

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?

I think you're right bowl. I reckon that is what is behind it. Definitely.

"Have straight women always been asked to sacrifice themselves to the cause for no reward?"

Sexuality has nothing to do with transgender issues. Shows how little you understand about them.

Pink News today:
The terminology and definitions we use to describe different LGBT+ groups of people are constantly evolving to become more inclusive and representative.
The initialism QTIPOC can be political and is commonly used in activist circles to highlight the varied experiences of queer and non-binary people of colour, the UK-based organisation GIRES (Gender Identity Research and Education Society) explains.

This is because, as the charity points out, queer, transgender, intersex and People of Colour “often experience intersecting oppressions on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation and other factors.”

“These words carry significance as they were coined by People of Colour and QTIPOC communities – these words were created by us and for us,” the organisation states.

The concept of intersectionality is central to understanding the importance of the term QTIPOC.
www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/20/what-does-qtipoc-stand-for/

It’s so obvious what’s going on: men telling boys and girls that they are special and so ‘woke’ to do their bidding. ‘Be on the right side of history’. Not allowed to think for themselves or disagree or you’ll cop for it.

Behaviour typical of an abusive person I’d say.

I wonder what it is about real women that scares them so much. Mummy issues

In some cases, yes. In others, I strongly suspect that it is because they feel that history has denied them the privilege of having women as their legal inferiors. I honestly think that a large number of men see women as things, not people. In some cases, it is all about anger that women won't spread their legs on demand. I also suspect that a lot of the hatred that some gay men have for women is not about wanting to be women, but about not having a woman (like their het counterparts) to feed their egos and do their shit work. Finally, I think it is about the way sons are raised by so many mothers where a woman sacrifices herself for the prodigal son (all very Freudian). Men expect all women to act like that and they don't. Yeah, probably offended everybody now.

Bonkers. But does anyone have any idea what 'MN users call for new section 28' is about?
I was campaiging against section 28 before most of this lot were born, I think I'd have noticed is someone on here talked about bringing it back.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/23/cabinet-minister-liz-truss-backs-mumsnet-in-transgender-row-as-users-call-for-new-section-28/

Having anotomically correct women support their cause helps to legitimise it. It adds political weight. They are trying to claim that feminists are dinosaurs and their thinking needs modernising.

Bonkers. But does anyone have any idea what 'MN users call for new section 28' is about? I was campaiging against section 28 before most of this lot were born, I think I'd have noticed is someone on here talked about bringing it back.

It was a screenshot of a post circulated by a TRA. Taken completely out of context, the poster mentioning section 28 was a trans advocate sarcastically insinuating this was something MNetters wanted.

But does anyone have any idea what 'MN users call for new section 28' is about?

It's about a 'satirical' post by a TRA supporter which got screenshotted and used as 'evidence' (presumably unwittingly rather than as a deliberate lie) by the errant intern.

What frustrates me in particular about that story is even journalists have bought into the section 28 MN myth.

twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/988357375802343424
Just seen this between Marie Le Conte and Janice Turner

And Sal Brinton president of the LDs retweeted the Emma Healey thread reader comment by the LGBT LDs too.

The current accusation by LibDem LGBT+ that Mumsnetters are calling for a new section 28 has resonance due the anniversary.

It's particular meaning for LibDems was highlighted by Zoe O'Connell member of the LibDem LGBT+ executive in a speech to last LibDem conference.

www.complicity.co.uk/blog/

"And, as you’ve already heard, this year is a special anniversary.
"An anniversary of something really, really… bad.
I can see a few staff members near the front looking worried now. Don’t worry, I’m not talking about the formation of the Liberal Democrats!
No, I’m talking about the 24th of May, 1988. The Conservatives implementing section 28, banning any mention of homosexuality in schools. Leaving a generation of frightened LGBT kids with nowhere to turn.
Liberals back then were determined folk – just as many of us are now – and were not going to waste any time. After all, the old Liberal Party had already included full equality in their 1979 general election manifesto so many in the newly formed Liberal Democrats were already well on board.
And they didn’t let being busy with the formation of a new party slow down their campaigning.
Just nine days after the party was formed, Simon Hughes MP – was amongst those standing up in the Commons, speaking out against section 28.
Thirty years on. What’s changed?
In terms of a liberal commitment to LGBT rights, not much."

(I've copied my comment above from the thread )www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3226849-Lord-Paddick-resigns-the-LGBT-LD-executive?pg=4

Bit if women wanted and were willing to attack a male who has changed gender - surely they'd happily go through the woman to get to them? What utter nonsense.

I wonder if people realise that there were women who opposed women getting the vote and that even today there are women who believe it is the females role to be subservient to the male. Just because a female supports those who oppose women's rights, it does not validate the men's behaviour.

I bloody adored Judge Judy until I hear her being interviewed about whether women should be paid the same as men and she said no!!! Thanks sister 🙄

I find that even if there is not an explicit belief stated that many women (perhaps unconsciously) fuck over other women to look after men. Currently in a work situation (said a bit about it in the Pub thread) where this is happening to me.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Spot on - I agree

I started another thread specifically about misogynistic rage as it warrants it - would you mind cross posting? Don't know what the MN etiquette is around that …

I have observed more and more than a lotta men see women as objects - literally - I want to talk about more….

I suspect that many TIMs are so distinctive, that they can't afford to be seen engaging with TERFs in any way.

Whereas, a bunch of thugs in masks.....

Pink News headline:
Cabinet minister Liz Truss backs Mumsnet in transgender row as users call for ‘new Section 28’

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/23/cabinet-minister-liz-truss-backs-mumsnet-in-transgender-row-as-users-call-for-new-section-28/

@womanformallyknownaswoman

I can cross post - which thread is it?

Is that not a tad defamatory - they have no evidence of users calling for a "new Section 28".

Clickbait doesn't need evidence, surely?

Even if there isn't now, all it takes is one troll to post something inflammatory and screenshot it before it's deleted.

Proof enough....

Which raises a question. Should we be reporting all troll threads? There are a lot of them right now. On the last one one of our resident sexist blokes threatened to report me for "derailing" and taking the piss out of the troll (as opposed to answering his super intelligent questions about why women think we're oppressed when we can walk into any pub and get ourselves a shag, etc). Nobody said anything inflammatory, and that particular troll was a regular sexist bloke rather than a TRA, but worth coming to some kind of consensus about what to do with troll thread.

OK, I didn't see the one apparently sarcastic troll post about section 28, but I would say some of the stuff in that Pink News article is defamatory.

Mumsnet users are not calling for a section 28 for transgender people, that is out and out horseshit and a total lie.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3229455-The-Roots-of-Misogynistic-Rage

AAK - Re trolls - it's a question for the Mods I reckon - cos I am unsure they recognise sealioning as they are focused on the one big aggro comment - not the pattern of undermining where one comment can look innocuous but taken over time, a pattern of verbal putdowns, dismissal etc becomes apparent

Bewilderedness said she'd given up reporting - I do think this is a huge issue - the lack of recognising derailing/DARVO etc hence why I keep recommending mods go on coercive control course …..