Eternal reunion collapses after disagreements over playing Pride.

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12554597/Louise-Redknapp-pulls-Eternal-reunion-bandmates-REFUSE-play-LGBTQ-festivals-Pride-claims-hijacked-trans-community.html

'Louise Redknapp pulls out of Eternal reunion after her bandmates REFUSE to play LGBTQ+ festivals and Pride over claims they are being 'hijacked' by the trans community'

I think you’ve become confused between “explained” and “argued”.

It's perfectly relevant to juxtapose reasons why a band might not reform.

The point is that making an issue of this reason was to LN's benefit. Which is why she did it.

Ergo it was a deliberate ploy to monetise a private discussion through a PR statement.

Let's imagine for one moment that Pride was just for LGB people and Easther and Vernie had said they did not wish to perform at these events because the believe that homosexuality is a sin.

If Louise had reached out to her gay fans and said, "Guys, so sorry Eternal will not be performing at Pride. I would have loved to perform for you guys but unfortunately a couple of band members feel it is not in accordance with their religious beliefs. I am hugely disappointed about this and will always love and support the LGB community."

What would the likely consequences have been?

I suspect there would have been a mild stir on Twitter with people saying things like, "What a shame. Bigotry will not win."

Easther and Vernie might well have been roundly criticised, but that probably would have been all that happened, because as far as I am aware the LGB community does not have form for being aggressive and violent towards people who for whatever reason do not support them.

Not so with trans activism.

It is entirely plausible that Louise's comments might result in, for example, an organised campaign to have Easther and Vernie cancelled, dropped by their agent/publisher/record label/whatever they might have going on these days, reports made to the police alleging a "non hate crime incident", people finding and publishing their addresses online, people standing outside their homes where they live with their children holding placards and shouting aggressively, people sending rape and death threats, and various other intimidation tactics.

These things are plausible because they are all things trans activists have done to women who disagree with them.

If Louise knows that this is how some trans activists choose to behave and she dropped Easther and Vernie in it anyway, that is despicable.

If she doesn't know that this is how some trans activists choose to behave then she needs to better inform herself about this particular political bandwagon before jumping on it. A good start might have been to actually ask Easther and Vernie what it is about the TQ+ community they object to.

I'm not the confused one here. You asked the question.

Because the people who are threatening their safety and welfare are in the wrong.

Just like pretty much all people who threaten other people's safety and welfare.

Well you’re either confused, or wilfully ignorant about the difference between “explained” and “argued”. Which is it?

Because it should be up to them to explain their own views if they feel safe to do so.

Safety is the reason.

What has been done has been a form of work place bullying. They should absolutely be able to make such an announcement for themselves. However, you only have to look at women who have even just questioned the use of puberty blockers, such as Roisin Murphy, to see that this has a detrimental impact for having a view that is actually reasonable. There are plenty of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who feel that their political needs have been overshadowed. Maybe you have missed the significant reaction to those people's declarations?

Why would any person open their colleagues up to such detriment for holding the view that has been so far expressed by that agent?

I think you're the one who is being wilfully ignorant here.

It's patently obvious why Louise shouldn't have brought the reason for her disagreement with Easther and Vernie to the attention of an angry mob.

WomanStanley if anyone on this thread has displayed wilful ignorance, it's you. Many of us have explained (and in many ways) why we feel it was wrong for Louise to publish the statement she did.

Well you’re either confused, or wilfully ignorant about the difference between “explained” and “argued”. Which is it?

Are you ok? You asked a question, more than one actually. I answered.

That’s an opinion though. You’re perfectly entitled to it, but people are presenting theirs as fact.

You are professing a "might is right" or manifest destiny view. It reminds me of the men baying outside feminist meetings who think it's a gotcha that they're afraid. And then frame the women having to leave by a back entrance as proof that they are wrong and ashamed.

You are coming close to justifying the mvawag that underpins the shaming and cancellation of women who think that sex matters.

It is a fact that trans activists routinely harass and threaten women who disagree with them.

Easther and Vernie preferred to disagree with them silently. Louise has made that disagreement public and compromised their safety.

WomanStanley yes, it is opinion. Clearly you think we're mistaken, which rather suggests you believe it was either sensible, inconsequential, non-controversial or within her rights to share what she did about their beliefs?

If we knew @WomanStanleyWoman2 real name and then released a statement saying this person has posted comments on MN and then we say "but of course we wouldn't, we support trans people", it is very clear what is being inferred without explicitly making an accusation, it is dogwhistle PR.

This poster seems to (aggressively) believe that we must know people's private thoughts and conversations (as this was a private matter), publicly make it known and then proceed with the bullying and cancellation.

It's the same old story, give someone a reason why they can aggressively bully and harass women.

@WomanStanleyWoman2 so you think harassing, cancelling, bullying, threatening violence is ok as it's 'standing up for our beliefs'?

You’re making the assumption it will happen.

Harassment is wrong, but blaming someone else for revealing your views rather than dealing with the reaction to views YOU choose to hold yourself is also wrong.

Interesting that you characterise anyone who disagrees with the prevailing narrative on the MN gender boards as “aggressive”…

Well we all have to stand up for our beliefs sometimes.

///

So public death and rape threats to women who belief sex is real, or a woman can't have a penis is all ok and just standing up for your beliefs? Because weirdly these threats of violence are only ever one way.

How are they wrong? How is it 'right' to take liberties to talk about someone's beliefs without their consent?

Their decision to not play at a venue does NOT affect her career at all! It affects theirs. Not hers.

No one is suggesting her views are 'laudable' or 'not laudable'. Just that Louise is not at liberty to talk about someone else's deeply held views. It's not her place to speak for anyone else.

Because bigots hate women having opinions and will threaten women with RAPE and DEATH.

Everyone is allowed to hold views and choose not to share them. I might for instance think that hijab is misogynist, but choose not to announce that view whilst in Iran. I might think my manager is a dick, but choose not to say so in a meeting to discuss my bonus.

Your stance that if a person holds a view then they should have no problem with someone else sharing that view on their behalf and without their agreement is at best pretty naïve. Can you really not think of situations where someone who believes strongly in their opinion chooses not to share it? Do you not think we all have the right to decide if, when and to whom we say what we think?

The tone of your responses is telling. If you can't spot the vindictive attitude you have towards the two Eternal members, well...