Police called to National Theatre to deal with gender critical feminists sitting on chairs

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

twitter.com/DadRogd/status/1147181198231429124 has picture of the unfortunate police officer sent to investigate.

Earlier in his tweet thread he says:

National Theatre Green Room bar just refused to serve us. Their grounds? Allegedly, we are a political group with views a member of staff finds offensive. So they offend a dozen customers instead.

Problem is apparently with t-shirt worn by Anne Ruzylo sporting a dictionary definition of a lesbian. As someone else has pointed out the NT is in breach of the Equality Act, given that sexual orientation and sex are both protected characteristics. I wonder how this will play out.

If anyone argues 'Section 28' with regards to trans 'erasure', I shall henceforth refer them to this homophobic incident, forever!

This contrivenes the Equality Act to such an extent that you couldn't make it up. The NT refuses to serve a group of women because they were same-sex-attracted?

This should go to court. If it does, the NT will be fined tens of thousands.

I'm beyond angry now.

It definitely needs a wider audience. I know people who avoid social media and news so are unaware of all this nonsense (and I mean gay men and women) and they are pretty horrified when I mention it.

Julie Bindel was on any qs yesterday but no lgbt qs were explored.

Basically we need to RT and tag as many people into this on twitter.

Stirling work going on on the NT twitter who are all over pride.

Stonewall do define lesbian on their website:

LESBIAN

Refers to a woman who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards women.

Problem is they have redefined what a woman is. Sleight of hand and gaslighting.

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms

Yes woman isn't even listed as a term. I guess we are supposed know what that means....

Datun's posts up thread are spot on - that it isn't the words/symbols/t shirts, but that this ideology (the ideas that underpin gender id) is not compatible with the concept of homosexuality, or any sexual orientation. Taken to its end logic, gender identity pretty much abolishes sexual orientation. This is the bigger picture, and also the small picture because the personal is political.

But Tanith's post upthread is also spot on. The individual staff member has been trained by the wider movement to genuinely believe that gc lesbians make her unsafe. The 'safety' idea is all over the disagreements about cg feminism in academia. Individuals are responding as if there is a real danger to them, and that's being treated by other adults as if it is a reasonable response when it isn't.

I hope lawyers are being consulted.

The problem is Stonewall definition of homosexuality being based on gender identity not sex and it therefore being homophobic in nature.

Stonewall's definition:
HOMOSEXUAL
This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.
www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms#h

This is the wiki on homophobia:
Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.

Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

This is why lesbians are wearing lesbian tshirts in the first place. Because they are the victims of institutionalised homophobia by Stonewall. Then someone discriminates against them for pointing out Stonewall's institutionalised homophobia.

This is why 'transphobic' is such a nonsense. Its homophobia dressed up as progressiveness.

This is why lesbians are wearing lesbian tshirts in the first place. Because they are the victims of institutionalised homophobia by Stonewall. Then someone discriminates against them for pointing out Stonewall's institutionalised homophobia.

Exactly. And unlike a lot of the other gender stuff connected to the ideology, this one is very clear, and very easy to understand.

Everyone knows that homosexuality is based on sex. Not magic words, how you think, what you wear.

And everyone knows that Stonewall has, up until now, been the biggest advocate of homosexuality.

That their stance on transgenderism
is in direct conflict with their stance on homosexuality, needs massive exposure.

While I absolutely agree that there is widespread deliberate misinformation aimed at creating a climate of fear and hatred of women (fucking hell.. !the irony!!) I think when we see this it’s really important to ask anyone who is spreading this or worried about this to look at the stats.

When has a gender critical woman attacked or hurt or killed any transman or transwoman?
Ever?

Genuine question.
(And ask them to look at the reverse- male pattern intimidation and grandmother punching that has been convicted in court..)

But stonewall is not the in charge of the definition of what lesbians are

They are not

And the rest of the country hasn’t got to bow down to them

It's not actual violence they are scared of for the most part is it?

It's the 'literal' violence of the house of cards, upon which they have built their ideology, falling down.

This is why shared words and ideas are terrifying to them.

But stonewall is not the in charge of the definition of what lesbians are

Politically in the UK they are though.

They are not in charge of legal and socially understood definitions but on a political level they very much do control the definition and that's the danger that they can change that political control into one which has legal standing.

Which is precisely why this needs to go legal now to head that off.

2 lesbians I know have just posted that they are off to "Gay Pride". They're going to be in for a nasty surprise.

*When has a gender critical woman attacked or hurt or killed any transman or transwoman?
Ever? *

I used many permutations of words in a Google search to answer this question when I became aware that radfems were being accused of violence against trans people; I could not find a single example.

I went looking because I couldn't believe that TRA violence against GC women happened without provocation but I found that it does, simply disagreeing with them was all the excuse they needed and they felt entirely justified. So much like all male violence against women.

I think the theory is that if you don't believe transwomen are women, it gives other people license to kill them, on the same basis.

The converse being that if you do say transwomen are women, then people will stop killing them.

Quite where they get the idea that women aren't killed, I'm not sure.

I actually posted a little card to Anne Ruzylo last week. I'm hoping her unusual surname and home town are enough for Royal Mail to get it to her.

Didn't realise it was in advance of her standing up to such an utter shitstorm, which only deepens my admiration for her.

The NT are receiving a short sharp lesson in how impossible it is to comply with the demands some people make without trampling over the rights of others.

people make unreasonable demands all the time, the reasoning should not be 'this person has characteristic X therefore I will comply with their demands'

it should be

'are the demands they're making reasonable?'

might they for example, be trying to back me into a corner where I am carrying out their homophobic agenda?

I’m going to try the same if you don’t mind Bobbly that’s a great idea. I think she’s amazing.

thinking about this some more....

even if you believe in the type of lesbian who has sex with males, this is still a clear case of discrimination on the basis of someone's sexuality

Anne is only interested in sexual and romantic relationships with women - that is her sexual orientation

she was discriminated against for being clear about her sexual orientation

I notice no finger waggers have arrived on the thread to tell us how we've got this wrong......

It's the 'literal' violence of the house of cards, upon which they have built their ideology, falling down.

Yes: truth is terrifying. So cult like. So many people desperately needing decommissioning.

TRAs argue there was a gender critical feminist who was violent once. I can't remember the details though. She had a dog? It all sounded rather implausible, but who knows? Chucking lesbians out of bars, Stefonknee Walsh, pink baseball bars. It's all implausible really.

There were some masked TRAs outside one of the court cases with a dog once I seem to remember. Can't think of any feminist incidents with a dog though at the moment...