Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
NameChangedAgain18 · 03/10/2018 06:20

Good article, but Shock at the bare-faced lies from LCC claiming they cancelled for safety reasons. Shameless. I really hope legal action is taken.

Igneococcus · 03/10/2018 06:23

The only person reading the article who will believes this will be Leicht betrunkener Max, everybody else will roll their eyes at it.

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 03/10/2018 06:25

Lucy Bannerman is really smashing it at the moment

Activists accuse it of transphobia because it opposes allowing biological males identifying as female to be recognised as women, fearing for the safety of single-sex spaces such as prisons and women’s refuges

nice clear explanation of where all the nonsense transphobia accusations come from. makes people who believe this sound frankly batshit

sunlight is truly the best disinfectant

BlardyBlar · 03/10/2018 06:48

I’d be interested to know how WPUK identified themselves. Interesting to know how it would play out in court, but I should imagine that’s a complicating factor. Yet it’s the ludicrous pressure they’re placed under that means such precautions might be necessary.

I can see the ground is shifting and women are starting to make theor voices heard, but we’re still having to work uphill the whole time.

FlowersAndHerts · 03/10/2018 12:26

The article includes the line "The government consultation on proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act is due to close this month."

Their FAQ guidelines on comments say: "We encourage members to link to other websites which provide insight or additional and relevant information. We try to ensure these links are suitable to be published although we cannot be responsible for linked-to content."

I therefore replied to the story, an innocuous reply, thanking Lucy for the article and linking to the relevant government page.
consult.education.gov.uk/government-equalities-office/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/

My apparently controversial Hmm comment is still pending, five hours later... In the meantime, 24 other comments have been approved.

It would be great if Lucy could do an article about the consultation before it's too late for any response.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/10/2018 12:36

I’d be interested to know how WPUK identified themselves.

This^ There had been a lot of chat about the fact that apparently WPUK lied to obtain the booking. TBH if this is true then I think Leeds CC were correct to council. I'm hoping it's not true though?

UpstartCrow · 03/10/2018 12:41

They cancelled for safety reasons - this in a town where a teacher was abducted from the street and raped. And the gang walked away because she was walking near a red light district.

arranfan · 03/10/2018 12:45

TBH if this is true then I think Leeds CC were correct to council. I'm hoping it's not true though?

According to ClaireOT (who seems to be associated with the excellent Leeds Spinners), WPUK was upfront about the booking:

twitter.com/claireOT/status/1047098924509663234

ErrolTheDragon · 03/10/2018 12:45

There is also a good letter in today's Times, responding to Lucy's earlier piece on the TRA hijack, from one of the cofounders of Transexual Voices Matter. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to get a sharetoken link for it.

R0wantrees · 03/10/2018 12:59

From the article:

"The council said that the group had made the booking under a different name, leaving it without time to do a risk assessment, noting that A Woman’s Place had received bomb threats in the past. "

Interesting that whilst so few condemned this 'credible' bomb threat. It is now being referenced as a reason to be cautious in hosting the group targetted.

At the time, many TRAs were dismissive of its credibility and scornful of those who sought to highlight this threat.

July 4th 2018 James Kirkup: 'Labour and Tories finally see the truth about the gender debate'
(extract)
"Upholding that legal right is possibly the founding principle of several women’s groups that have sprung up since the Government first announced its intent to make it easier for people to change their legal gender. Unlike the charities that lobby for transgender rights, the women’s groups — Woman’s Place UK, Fair Play for Women and ManFriday — have no corporate or public sector funding, and not much money at all. They are genuine grassroots political organisations that have sprung up from a concerned public. Those groups have made a difference. Back in the autumn, that point about female-only spaces was either often ignored or dismissed in political debate. Women talking about penises were ridiculed as bigoted cranks, accused of transphobic misinformation. Their meetings were subjected to violent protests (one person has been convicted of assault) and a bomb threat, threats that went shamefully unremarked on by most politicians. Nevertheless, the women persisted: the meetings continued; the campaigns went on; and it made a difference. (continues)

Why has the Government decided to say it will listen to grassroots feminists? That brings me to the less public bit of the story. Some people have been listening to the women’s groups, even if they don’t say so publicly. They include quite a lot of MPs, of all parties. The steady flow of letters and emails from constituents has helped some see that quite a few voters are unhappy about this. (This poll from Pink News underlines that point: 18 per cent of all voters, and 13 per cent of Tories, support allowing people to change their legal gender without medical approval.) That sort of feeling does tell on politicians, even if many aren’t keen to say so publicly, for fear of being accused, like those women’s groups, of nasty transphobia.

(If you doubt the extent of that chilling effect, consider that bomb threat I mentioned. It was made against a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Hastings, in Amber Rudd’s ultra-marginal seat. Even though it would only take a few hundred angry women to switch votes to topple her, Rudd hasn’t yet responded to campaigners’ requests to speak about what the police call a “serious” incident. I find it hard to think of other circumstance in which a former Home Secretary would stay silent about a bomb threat made against a public meeting in their constituency.)" continues
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

R0wantrees · 03/10/2018 13:01

There is also a good letter in today's Times, responding to Lucy's earlier piece on the TRA hijack, from one of the cofounders of Transexual Voices Matter. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to get a sharetoken link for it.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3383152-Transsexual-Voices-Matter-Letter-in-todays-Times

ErrolTheDragon · 03/10/2018 13:05

Thanks R0wan! Your diligent cross-referencing is such an asset to this board.Thanks

R0wantrees · 03/10/2018 13:11

So much info out there Errol !

R0wantrees · 03/10/2018 13:11

Thank you for the flowers Smile

MnerXX · 03/10/2018 17:12

Wow a brilliant article. There are some really informative pieces coming out now. It's great

BlardyBlar · 03/10/2018 21:42

WPUK have made a statement. They made the booking in their own name and fully informed the council of the nature of the meeting, including the previous threats.

These campaigners really do lie about everything.

WichBitchHarpyTerfThatsMe · 03/10/2018 21:53

Leeds CC have lied too, clearly. I wonder how that stands legally? I used to live in Leeds and worked for the council for years. If i were still paying Council Tax to them or working in their cash strapped department I'd be furious about them ending up paying a fortune in legal costs to defend this, not to mention any possible fines or compensation a legal case against them might bring.

R0wantrees · 03/10/2018 21:56

WPUK statement
(extract)
"The council has issued a statement saying that it was not made aware that the booking was for Woman’s Place UK. This is completely untrue. When we booked the venue in July, we informed the council who the booking was for, the nature of our events and of the issues we have had at previous venues, including the bomb threat prior to our Hastings meeting. They accepted the booking, and additional arrangements were made with security and catering to ensure ticket holders would be able to attend in safety.

In the interim period between booking the venue and the meeting, local organisers remained in contact with Leeds Civic Hall to confirm that the booking and sponsorship was still in place. The council was given every opportunity to research Woman’s Place UK in the time between the booking and the day of the event. No concerns were raised. We are confident that we did everything we could to comply with the terms of booking Leeds Civic Hall and we have acted in good faith throughout." (continues)

womansplaceuk.org/a-womans-place-is-in-leeds/

MnerXX · 03/10/2018 22:06

That is unbelievable that the council lied about this. Did they think WPUK wouldn’t speak up?

littlbrowndog · 03/10/2018 22:13

Jeez
Thanks rowan u so great in the work youn do here

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/10/2018 22:14

Did they think WPUK wouldn’t speak up?

I imagine that as they think WPUK are some sort of terrorist hate group, they believe that no-one would listen to or believe them...

MnerXX · 03/10/2018 23:46

So absorbed in their own world, they may well believe their own lies!

NoSquirrels · 03/10/2018 23:58

I do feel like I’m through the rabbit hole.

Why would WPUK lie about their purpose and history? What on earth would be the point? They’re open about their purpose and they don’t believe they have anything to hide.

But the more times a lie is repeated the more traction it gains.

Either Leeds CC is lying (why? publicly accountable, why would they not check they are rock-solid in the facts?) or WPUK is lying in that statement.

I know which side I’m on. But I can see how this causes doubt - it’s plain old-fashioned cognitive dissonance, isn’t it?

Brava to Lucy Bannerman. I’m so pleased there are strong female voices getting published.

ohello · 04/10/2018 00:13

From the caption under the picture (for anyone later who can't access the share token): "Richard Firth, a Green Party activist who had a role in the cancellation, declined to give evidence of the group’s transphobia"

REALLY glad that was the very first thing I saw! Says it all, really.

WPUK have made a statement. They made the booking in their own name and fully informed the council of the nature of the meeting, including the previous threats.

These campaigners really do lie about everything.

oh please somebody, sue them, I would donate to a crowdfund war chest, the donation doesn't even need to specify any particular cause. Just so the lawyers are ready to go. Feminists keep letting them get away with every little thing (and big things too). Meanwhile, the transactivists insist that police investigate the "literal violence" of biologically accurate pronouns spoken by random people on the street!

BlardyBlar · 04/10/2018 05:34

I would also crowdfund. It should be easy to prove which side is lying and personally I have no doubt which it is. As well as Mr Firth’s inexplicable (satcasm alert) reluctance to produce evidence of “transphobia”, the underhandedness of cancelling at the very last minute speaks volumes.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page