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!

Only interested in safeguarding when it refers to themselves?

That would be a logical conclusion, seeing as they're doing all they can to remove safeguarding from children or vulnerable adults.

I don't know if I can say this without getting deleted, but I've long thought that an exaggerated "concern" for one's own safety can be part of a sissy fetish.

That is absolutely hilarious.

Nobody should expect these 'activists' to protest anything - they clearly find conversation exhausting and any form of discussion endangers their mental health. This is why they need safe spaces, I suppose.

This is a deep-down mother thing, isn't it? Are they all just cross with their mums?

Just gotta post my all time favourite Magdalen Burns clip here of Julie Bindel's reaction to Jane Fae saying people were scared of Jeni Murray.

Are we sure this wasn't written by Jarvis Dupont?

mobile.twitter.com/JarvisDupont

Really? Safeguarding guidelines on how to have a conversation with people whose views you disagree with? And 'no members were harmed by this close quarters engagement'? Its a conversation FFS, and its with a bunch of women with a megaphone, not armed riot police.

Thank you for sharing. Very funny indeed.

They tried to converse. We need to protect our vulnerable members from that - policies will need to be written.

I wish it were satire.

And @TinselAngel that's plausible. Would respond more fully to that point but can't find words that won't be problematic.

They know there is a video, right?

We all saw the tall Lily Madigan lurching over the women and growling in anger at them and having to be pulled away.

Also "we didn't let them get a word out, but this wasn't about silencing women". ORLY.

I don't see how "transphobia also kills 'cis women'", and I note that they didn't expand on this point.

Oh, I didn't realise that was LM!

Not the real LM, a hreat, hulking looky- likey.

And we can't forget that Sisters In Cult supported Tara Wood during their trail for assaulting Maria McLaughlin. And have marched with Jess Bradley.

Ah, I see.

I am not surprised they cover their faces if they are supporting criminals and perverts.

I didn't get much past the first para with its earnest, faux-almost-military-despatches breathless urgency.

They really need to up their game if they want to look like anything more than this generation's "tsk, young people".

Comprehension and reality being two major skills they need to work on.

Good grief! This is boggling in its hyperbole. It's truly cultish. Thanks for putting up with it ReSisters (and the rain). I still can't quite believe that these are the people who are, apparently, on the right side of history. Or, more to the point, the people that politicians are listening to.

@Socrates11 that clip of Julie, Fae (and Murray) is brilliant!

Proper made me chuckle (in a very unwomanly fashion, I shall now return to my lady-crochet before i am asked to hand my membership card back)

I agree that the article is ridiculous for all the reasons people have said, and many more.

But where they may have a point is that they outnumbered the GC women by quite a bit, and with very little notice to mobilise their supporters. I've been thinking recently about whether we need to be more visible ourselves. I don't mean go and protest their meetings, using the TRAs' tactics. But do we need to be out on the streets more, leafleting, setting up stalls, talking to people in city centres, raising awareness and so on? When we do go on the streets, it's in small numbers. We have loads of fantastic women doing fantastic things online and with their local MPs and MSPs. But it comes to a public presence we're often massively outnumbered and that could give the impression that we're irrelevant to anyone who's unaware of what's happening. Should we be more out there?

Were you there, RJFirth?

Should we be more out there?

You make a very valid point, our problem is the risks involved. It allows the TRA's to imagine that we are small in number and that they have public support. Many of us remain too afraid to go, indiscriminately, public about our concerns which means we retain a sense of isolation in real life so it's a vicious circle. I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently and wondering about what I can do to help change things.

I was truly humbled by the courage of the women in Leeds, particularly by Thomasin who is a recent detransitioner (May this year I think) and yet there she was standing her ground whilst a large crowd intimidated the small group she was with.

I'm meeting with GC friends this week so maybe we can discuss some local activism.

You make a very valid point, our problem is the risks involved.

But last autumn, when I and other women were leafleting about the GRA consultation, I was out talking to dozens and dozens people over four or five weekends and never got any grief at all.

As long as AWAs don't know where we're going to be they can't counter whatever it is we're doing.

Yes it's funny they are suddenly talking about safeguarding when their entire movement is about the removal of laws, protections and safe spaces for women and children which is in direct opposition to safeguarding practices. But since they don't seem to understand what the word safeguarding actually means they don't seem to understand that.

It's clear that most of them have been brainwashed in universities rather than educated, especially since they deplatform anyone they disagree with who goes against their ideology and are not interested in free speech.

The irritating thing is that a lot of us in our various careers will have safeguarded these young people. And now they attack us and try to dismantle the safeguarding they benefitted from. Not only idiotic but also reckless, irresponsible and selfish.

It’s just another example of taking words that are used from GC people.

It’s been on recent threads, accusing women of “gaslighting” etc.

Possibly believe using the words are arguments in themselves rather than having meaning that is relevant to the discussion.