"Sisters Uncut protests trans exclusionary feminist group"

[morningtoncrescent62]

Ed Uni Student 'newspaper' on last Thursday's protest outside the For Woman Scotland meeting.

www.studentnewspaper.org/sisters-uncut-protests-trans-exclusionary-feminist-group-we-should-fight-for-all-women/

From the article: ''A couple of women who came for the For Women Scot meeting stopped to speak to and debate with the protesters. A trans woman, who wished not to be named, said “I’m not here to debate. This is not a debate for me, this is my life... I realised that no matter how respectful I came across, these people would always dismiss me. Which is why I don’t think there is a debate.” '

So women attending the meeting tried to talk with protestors (presumably not dismissing the quoted transwoman) but the protestors decided they don't think there's a debate. And students at one of the UK's most prestigious universities don't seem to bat an eyelid at that - they simply quote it without comment. Sheesh.

When any male can declare themselves a woman on their say so and have it socially and legally sanctioned to the detriment of those who actually biologically and factually occupy that category then there absolutely fucking will be a debate whether those males like it or not.

There will also be resistance.

I found this interesting:

Earlier this week, the university’s School of History, Classics & Archaeology (HCA) sent out an email to students reporting of “stickers of a highly offensive nature (to have been) found in the toilets in the William Robertson Wing. We adhere to the university’s Dignity and Respect Policy, which enjoins all members to treat others with dignity and respect.

In line with this policy, displaying offensive material is explicitly forbidden and can be met with disciplinary action under the code of student conduct. Under the 2010 Equality Act, there are nine ‘protected characteristics’ which include gender reassignment, alongside disability, race, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy/childbirth, religion/belief, marriage and sex/gender. We remind you that harassment of any kind is simply unacceptable in HCA, which strives to be an open and inclusive community.”

They seem to be playing fast and loose with the protected characteristics there. It's not "sex / gender". It's sex. Just sex. And if the stickers say what I think they say, then they are in breach of the Equality Act for denying females the right to articulate the reality of our biological sex.

'these people would always dismiss me'
they'll never know, will they, if they don't engage- but I would bet that it's their claim to be a woman that might be dismissed, not them themselves

Presumably their 'dignity and respect policy' doesn't apply to women. And who decides what is offensive? I'm not offended in the least by 'woman=adult human female ' stickers. However, I am offended by men in women's spaces.

Sisters Uncut are just one more transactivist organisation.

Strange how these groups fighting for 'all women' seem to constantly exclude natal women from their activism, and spend all their energy telling people with vaginas to prioritise people born with penises instead.
I'm sure there's a word for that

There isn't a debate because there is nothing to debate about. Men are not women however much they scream and shout that they are. That's not anyone's fault, not even the Romans'.

The "uncut" was originally about public spending cuts, not FGM. It was a women's anti-austerity campaign. No idea what happened to it for it to make trans issues its focus.

“We’re just trying to educate people. Because I think people often hear feminism, when they hear about meetings such as with For Women Scot, and they think that must be great, so they come along.”

They’re lying to themselves. I very much doubt anyone accidentally came to this meeting. If they would stop and engage, they might begin to understand why women feel so strongly about this that they are willing to face walking through potentially threatening protesters to access a meeting about women’s rights,

I suspect it was the cuckoo move. Infiltrate group gradually, then create drama so that everyone who might object to the takeover leaves either voluntarily or otherwise. Then make sure it's full of your supporters.

It’s like a wee boys club. Until they get bored and join the local Darby and Joan club for a laugh.

I wonder what the archaeology department makes of the idea that it is hateful to define woman as adult human female. What are they going to do when out on a dig, just stand there looking at the bones and saying, well, we can tell a lot about this person from the skeleton but of course we'll never know the gender identity, as we can't tell now whether they had long hair, wore high heels, used make-up, preferred pink.

Didn’t they recently ‘dead trans’ a whole burial plot because of the grave goods found with them? So desperate.

Yes, they did. www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-ancient-civilization-in-iran-recognized-transgender-people-study-suggests-1.6790205

When human remains are found in an archaeological dig, researchers assign them to one sex or the other, if possible, based on the morphology of the skeleton or objects found in the burial, says Megan Cifarelli, an art historian from Manhattanville College, a liberal arts college near New York City. “Embedded in that use of predetermined categories is the assumption that being male or female meant the same thing a long time ago as it does now,” she says.

Evolution can happen quite fast but I'm willing to bet that 3000 years ago being a woman still meant having periods, getting pregnant, giving birth, breastfeeding, going through the menopause if you got that far, and a good deal of that will leave tangible signs in the skeleton and teeth. So yes, being of the female sex would have meant much the same then as now.

When it comes down to it - it’s sex, not of you wanted to wear a frock and lippy and call yourself Delores.

no, she has a point
morphology of the skeleton can suggest sex (well the pelvis can determine)
but grave goods etc cannot, we assume that spears/swords/shields=male
but we might be wrong! they might be amazons!

interesting article but many assumptions made

We decided to mess with future archaeologists with dads coffin. It’s really what he would have wanted.

Forty people? Where they wearing invisibility cloaks?

Are facts unfashionable just now?

That archaeology piece is astounding. Real Brain of Britain stuff going on in today's universities!

Another individual had a blade and a metal drinking cup, and also, a garment pin and needle. It seems the deceased performed masculine ritual activities but also wore feminine dress, says Cifarelli.

I am Scottish. This could be any Scottish man buried in traditional dress, now or in centuries past.

My brain aches to read stuff like that article, it is the very definition of confirmation bias.