If you fancy a good laugh. . .counter article on Peoples History Museum counterprotest

[Lucky222]

medium.com/@sistersuncutmcr/terfs-out-manchester-27-07-2019-2705a084b84b?fbclid=IwAR1L9zR4LpvSrw_NbcC7hCGY86rcJodOg9pVkl7HsYD0r31rlB6oe_opdHc

(Original article: medium.com/@Emilystake/what-is-a-woman-and-who-gets-to-tell-her-story-1aae33393c34)

Lot of funny parts amongst the usual blatant lying (no point guys, we got the whole thing on video!) pseudo-victimisation rhetoric, and liberal sprinkling of casual misogyny.

My fave bit, reading between the lines, was where author concluded that for the trans identifying men, turning up to the protest had been a bit much for them (so exhausted!) so bio females really ought to do everything next time.

Women: if you ever get fed up making all the placards and writing all the articles, whilst biological males take all the credit, come do some real feminist activism with us!

Do you have a copy of the original article? I am getting 404.

I did get some of the silliness of the article, they really need to demonise "TERFS" to the point that they feel at risk when talking to them. I can understand it's stressful interacting with people with opposing views, but feminists aren't known for their violence.

Its been archived;

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190809215149/medium.com/@sistersuncutmcr/terfs-out-manchester-27-07-2019-2705a084b84b" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20190809215149/medium.com/@sistersuncutmcr/terfs-out-manchester-27-07-2019-2705a084b84b

Trying to talk to people!! What dastards you are!! I'm so relieved to see that SU could see through these underhand attempts to have a debate - which, as we know, are NOT allowed.

So, just be quiet in future, please. And no sitting in chairs either, remember.

The original article is still there. (Looks like a bracket got caught up in the link)

Try this:

medium.com/@Emilystake/what-is-a-woman-and-who-gets-to-tell-her-story-1aae33393c34

That article is incredible.

There was no mention of what the GC women supposedly stand for or were protesting, not even an outlandish claim or straw man argument.

Just repeated assertions that they need to be stopped and disrupted, even when meeting in private.

In our safeguarding guidelines for the event, we had asked that people not engage with individual antagonism from TERFs; it had not specified what to do if they attempted to have ‘conversations’ with us.
Conversations! So dangerous. How fragile must your position be if merely engaging in conversation will put it at risk.

[They] attempted to read out a 5–6 page speech. We are unsure of the precise contents of this speech, since we insistently chanted over them, making sure that not a word of it was audible. This is not ‘silencing women’...
"No idea what they were saying but they're not allowed to say it and us trying to stop them saying it isn't us trying to stop them saying it"

Its pretty blatant and utterly bonkers.

Are you sure the Medium article is not satire? They were scared of women getting close to them? They didn’t know what was in the speech because they chanted loudly? The resisters didn’t have any chants ready and something something.

I found it difficult to stop laughing at the possible violence from the GC women. So brave!

The claim that there is a “trans lobby” is unfounded

So who's been lobbying to get Gender ID law changed then?

At least the article acknowledges that, despite the hyperbole about GC 'violence', facing a group of protesting GC women wasn't as risky as counter protesting a group of Tommy Robinson supporters.

I am sorry I didn't manage to get there in time to see it. I got to Manchester in time for the make more noise event.

It's really interesting to see that several people on their side kept their faces covered - are they ashamed of their opinions or actions?

I didn't see anything aggressive from the ReSisters, but that man with blonde hair was shouting quite aggressively at the woman with the placard.

Shame they mostly drowned out the speech.

This is not ‘silencing women’, whatever TERFs may insist, since TERFs are not representative of all women

If you silence any woman who disagrees with you, you're effectively silencing women.

On those grounds they (the women who prioritise men) should silence themselves as they don't represent me.

It's almost like women can have different points of view.

When we did initiate interaction with the group, it was largely to disrupt their photos with trans flags, and using our megaphone to drown out their arguing with members of our group and getting them to leave. We were in no way threatening.

They describe what they did and then have the cheek to say "We were in no way threatening." No, a group of mostly males (no idea how the individuals identified, going by their voices) did nothing to intimidate a group of women when they drowned them out or stopped them speaking to others. Or shoved one middle aged woman. Of course not.

I noticed their mention of safeguarding. It's a term that AWAs have recently adopted from feminists although from its context it's unclear what they mean by it. When I've come across its use on Twitter from AWAs it's been clear they have no idea what safeguarding is or how it works

Hillarious that TPA are now 'caring' about safeguarding. They have heard us discuss our concerns and are trying to use our language while clueless of what safeguarfing actually means.

How do these people find the energy. Trying to stop private meetings? Fgs.

The most telling thing though is the point about the Tommy Robinson rally. I noted on another thread that I have never ever seen the same level of anger and vitriol from these people directed towards any other social justice cause. I unfortunately have lots of contact with angry TRAs in my day job (they don’t know I am GC). I have seen outbursts of pure rage against ‘TERFs’ and unbelievable anger and wishes to stop them from even inhaling oxygen. I have never seen the same people give even half as much of a fuck about racism, about homophobia, about class inequality. I thought it was strange. Then I saw the bit in this article about safety and it struck me that it’s not so much about caring passionately about the cause- it’s the chance they get to attack the person with opposing views. It’s not that they feel so so strongly about the terrible impact that a woman disagreeing with someone will have (🙄) it’s that they want to indulge in some legitimate misogynistic bullying and physical intimidation and here is their perfect opportunity. It’s all about hating women. If it wasn’t, they would be protesting everything, getting in people’s faces, getting arrested for things they believe in. But doesn’t seem to be happening, does it?

We are unsure of the precise contents of this speech, since we insistently chanted over them, making sure that not a word of it was audible. This is not ‘silencing women’,

Absolutely hilarious.

Pota2 - I think it's also that women are a safe target. They know they're not actually at risk of physical violence from women, despite what they claim, so they can safely vent at them. Square up against a group of men, on the other hand, and they know they risk getting a pasting. And for those motivated by misogyny, they probably don't have any interest in other campaigns.

yetanother, precisely. They will earn brownie points for ‘punching a TERF’, but what they are actually doing is physically assaulting someone weaker and often older than them. They will get no physical retaliation from women which is why this cause is so great for them- a chance to look woke, to indulge in some violence, and with no comeback? Ideal.

I have never ever EVER seen even the slightest hint from GC feminists that violence against TRAs should be used as a tactic. Never. It is all coming from the TRA side.

I think it's also that women are a safe target

That's absolutely true, and if there had been men on the GC side these TRA protesters wouldn't have behaved at all in such a confrontational, bullying way.

That first article is so bad it’s like it was written by a 10 year old, they don’t even seem to know what they’re protesting against, apart from TERFs.

As someone said upthread, surely this is satire? Mind you - looking at some of the more deranged contributions round here recently, maybe not....

Once again it's getting harder to tell satire from real life

It's really interesting to see that several people on their side kept their faces covered - are they ashamed of their opinions or actions?

Is it to appear more intimidating? Because this method of face covering with bandanas is favoured by many gangs and their members.

But surely they don't want to look intimidating, they are trying to persuade people that transwomen are scared and oppressed, not that they hang out with gangsters.

It's so bad thay those poor trans people were spoken to calmly, factually and rationally by women how traumatised they will be 😔

Obviously drowning out those nasty women's voices with a megaphone, shouting and chanting isn't traumatic for the women. Anyway, it's not silencing women because for it to be that, all women in the world have to agree. Better make that the universe actually.

Only interested in safeguarding when it refers to themselves?