Shocking behaviour towards lesbians at Leeds 'pride' today

[CaptainKirksSpookyghost]

Thread 2

Previous thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3656142-Shocking-behaviour-towards-lesbians-at-Leeds-pride-today

No different to you complaining that lots of posters disagree with you, which is bullying

Nothing wrong at all with disagreeing with opinions.
As has already been pointed out, it's the personal shite thrown, not the disagreeing with opinions.
Of course there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with opinions, but some don't seem able to differentiate between that and personal.

People will get personal when it comes to children and safeguarding, and outright lesbophobia.

You really expect that to be ignored? That you go to a parade celebrating everyone, protest against transpeople, and think it won't be condemned?

The lesbians very clearly weren't protesting against trans people. Their point was quite clearly that trans people exist. It's the people who claim that TWAW and that being a lesbian is a matter of idenity, not biology who seem to believe that trans people don't exist.

If someone was racist here, and it’s happened, I’d get personal with them too.

Why the constant expecting every single question answered, but if me or anyone else did that, just ask a question once, you get prolific posters saying "No shan't" or "don't have to answer your demands" but what you just said is A-OK? Even when people do answer it's pretended that you haven't.

You have claimed several times that posters havent answered you. When they have.

You have ignored loads of questions.

Such as why is it so important to you that biological males can be called lesbians.

Why is you coming to a board where its known mainly GC women, to come and argue you points. Any different to the protesters, going to pride where lots ofbTRAs would be?

Why is it it bullying here, when you are a 'lone voice'. But at pride the small numbers were proof most people dont agree with the protesters and so the protesters are wrong in their opinion. Which is it? Small groups dont represent the majority and so are wrong? Or small groups are noble for standing up for their cause in the face of people disagreeing?

RosesAndRaindrops a question I hope you'll answer, but I doubt it:

Why do you deem a protest by lesbians for their rights to be upheld as a protest against transpeople?

I will only ask the once, I would be grateful if you could explain simply and clearly.

As has already been pointed out, it's the personal shite thrown, not the disagreeing with opinions.
And the protesters had terf and bigot shouted at them and then surrounded by these people, who were also swearing.

So again, you are now in he same position (though far less dangerous) that those protesters were. So why is it bullying for you, bit those women deserved it?

People can protest an institution or an ideology they feel has harmed them, without objecting to individuals who believe it.

Eg, the young woman who had a hysto and double mastectomy at 19 I think? because she believed it was that, or die (a common refrain from trans orgs). She is now deeply grieving, regrets it and will be on medication for the rest of her life.

Sincere question - do you believe she has the right to hold a sign “trans ideology harms lesbians.”

Do you still believe yelling “NO TERFS AT PRIDE” was a fair response?

She is not “attacking trans people” but the belief system, “transition or die.”

protest against transpeople

The only way you could perceive those women as 'protesting against trans people' in truth, is if you perceive homosexual women stating their right to distinguish between women and transwomen as an act of unacceptable protest and rejection of trans identity.

This is the crux of it. Those lesbians are saying there are limits to how far they can go in the validation of transition when it comes to their bodies, who they sleep with.

So it becomes an issue of: why is it unacceptably hurtful and aggressive to state those boundaries to trans people, but it's not unacceptably hurtful and aggressive to coerce homosexual women into giving up their homosexuality and prioritising male needs over their own? Why does one group matter and the other one doesn't?

HQ Have referred to a guideline that says people need to be tolerant of others' opinions.

Specifically:

Free speech by definition applies to all; for a debate to take place, opposing views which follow our Talk guidelines need to be tolerated, even if you disagree with them.

Which I'm guessing means you can't say fuck off with that shit you nasty bastard.

But you can say I thoroughly disagree with that and it's coming across as an incredibly nasty opinion.

It is always striking, to me, how patient people are on here with opinions that directly undermine safeguarding. Explanation after explanation.

Showing exactly why telling a parent they are responsible for their child's safeguarding at a family event which allows fetishes, is wrong, etc.

It's difficult to admit, but women will always be vulnerable to men because of the role they play in the reproductive process and because they can be physically overpowered by men.

Women who refuse to engage with men sexually are particularly vulnerable, partly because they are a target for violence but also because historically most societies have organised themselves on the basis that a woman's livelihood and legal standing depend on marriage to a man.

Happily the UK is a country where legislation, services and protections mean that women's ability to participate in society on equal terms with men has improved dramatically in the last century, but legislation and services can be removed if we don't have the language to defend them and explain why we need them.

Only idiots think that everyone who protests against Trump hates America, but somehow any criticism of the particular area of trans ideology that refuses to accept that biological women exist as a separate entity is seen as an attack on all trans people.

I'm intrigued by this leap that a group protesting for their rights which are safeguarded by the law are protesting against another group.

Disabled people protesting for their rights under the law to be upheld are protesting against able bodied people, is that how it works?

At LGBT Pride, people were protesting against trans people. You really expect that to be ignored? That you go to a parade celebrating everyone, protest against transpeople, and think it won't be condemned?

Still persisting in misrepresenting the protest, I see.

The protest was about transgenderist ideology not people.

It was about all the lies that transgenderist ideology expresses.

Disabled people protestingfortheir rights under the law to be upheld are protestingagainstable bodied people, is that how it works?

Quite. Were the original stone wall protests, trying to erase heterosexual people?

The only reason people keep saying this was a protest against trans people os so they can excause the behaviour the recived off others.

Anti-Women Activists, eh?

1. Someone tweeted the video of the marching MAP to Stonewall. No response.

1. Stonewall’s pinned tweet says “homophobia has no place in our society!” An article condemning homophobia reports a lone woman shouting abuse as Pride marchers passed (I agree it should be condemned).

1. 120+ people yelling “NO T*FS!” at 13 lesbians? Silence from Stonewall. That* homophobia is sanctioned, and the gleeful shouters knew it.

3. 120+ people yelling “NO TFS!” at 13 lesbians? Silence from Stonewall. That homophobia is

They can't. Because they know their stance is indefensible. Maybe like Humberside police and the College of Policing, they are hoping that the GRA reforms kick in, and then they can show their true colours.

They can't possibly condemn those men now, because it will go viral, and they cannot, must not, alert the public to the fact that homosexuality is now transphobic.

I'm intrigued by this leap that a group protesting for their rights which are safeguarded by the law are protesting against another group.

I think it's just sexism.

Men enforce their need to be respected regardless of whether their arguments make sense. For comparison look at the space and power given to male leaders of religious organisations that very often oppose the ethical bases of modern society e.g. equal marriage, sexual equality.

Look at how much male violence is prompted by the need to be respected.

Women are expected to know their place. Women whose sexuality proclaims their independence from men are a threat. Plus ca change.

Have 10 mins so will respond to some posts.

People can protest an institution or an ideology they feel has harmed them, without objecting to individuals who believe it.

Right, yet the people who protested back, clearly chanted they were protesting against “t*rfs”, but because the individual woman were lesbians it’s seen as a lesbian attack? Do you see the hypocrisy?

Why do you deem a protest by lesbians for their rights to be upheld as a protest against transpeople?

They stated that ‘transgender ideology harms lesbians’ and that ‘lesbians don’t have penis’ both may well be completely factual statements. But in my opinion rather than standing up for what affects them and there rights as lesbians e.g ‘lesbians don’t have to sleep with men’ ‘lesbians don’t have to conform to gender stereotypes ’ sort of thing, they are objecting to trans ideology and people, you’re not a real woman if you have a penis type of thing, and openly objecting to trans ideology with their sign.

Rather than objecting to the notion that lesbians should sleep with men, they’ve reversed it to say that trans people are not lesbians.

As I say, respect their right to free speech and protest 100%, but I can see why trans people may have felt under attack. Sometimes when you’re a little removed from the situation and have no strong alliances either way, it’s easier to see these things.

I don’t think it was specifically meant to be against trans people, certainly against trans ideology.

And the protesters had terf and bigot shouted at them and then surrounded by these people, who were also swearing.

They didn’t say ‘you in the blue top, you want trans people to die! You can’t even say a proper sentence! You sound like a bloke’ etc, though did they?

120+ people yelling “NO TFS!” at 13 lesbians? Silence from Stonewall. That homophobia

Does T*RF now mean lesbian? If the whole definition has now changed to mean lesbian then clearly I’ve got this wrong and that’s where the miscommunication lies.

Rather than objecting to the notion that lesbians should sleep with men, they’ve reversed it to say that trans people are not lesbians.

Oh yes, of course. Otherwise you're talking about it being on an individual basis.

This transwoman, no? What about this one, no? What about that one, no? Why? What's wrong with this one? Bigot.

As I say, respect their right to free speech and protest 100%, but I can see why trans people may have felt under attack.

As has been repeatedly stated, the lesbians were just standing there. Wearing T-shirts. Not doing anything. No banners, megaphone, nothing. And they got surrounded and shouted at.

Framing it as 120 aggressive, mostly men, being under attack, is wrong.

Duh, lesbians who won’t sleep with TW or sufficiently validate their womanhood always get called T**FS, now I gotta wonder if you know any actual lesbians

What EarlyWalker just said.

Rather than objecting to the notion that lesbians should sleep with men, they’ve reversed it to say that trans people are not lesbians.

No, logically I am sure that they would say that some trans people are lesbians. You seem to be assuming that all trans people are born male.

However, I don't understand why it is wrong to say that a person with male anatomy can't be a lesbian. If you don't believe that people should be categorised by gender, or you don't believe that being trans is simply a matter of self ID (which is also a belief held by some trans people), then it is logical to say that some people who claim to be lesbians are not lesbians.

Equally, many people believe that the bible is just a piece of literature and that it contains no justification for discrimination against either women or gay people.