Tommy Robinson and Let Women Speak

[eatfigs]

I've only read about this on Twitter so there's a chance this is being taken out of context, but it looks like Let Women Speak were part of Tommy Robinson's rally in London this past weekend:

https://x.com/shularises/status/1797585248580186511

https://x.com/GappyTales/status/1797611080212205988

https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1796931835823362392

This doesn't sit right with me at all. I've been to LWS events and thought I knew what they were about. I've argued against the guilt-by-association tactics that some activists use against LWS when male intruders have turned up to the events, like the neo-Nazis in Melbourne.

But here we see the opposite, LWS deliberately attending far-right fascist marches. This seems inexcusable to me.

Can you seriously not see that there is a difference between sex and gender, and for some people sex is more important than gender and for others it is vice versa?

Why would anyone think that gender, which no one ever seems able to define, is more important than the reality of sex?

Have I gone back in time to 2018?

For me I want a world where both those perspectives are valid.

Valid perspective?!🤣 have whatever perspective you want. Of course that’s valid. Don’t try and validate it as reality or in law though, because that’s not going to go unchallenged.

No one will ever tell us how a man becomes a transwoman. As in, how it happens.

A biological man can never become a woman. No matter how desperate he is to rid himself of his male sex he will always be male. It is what it is.

He knows that and we know that.

Any man can be a "transwoman". All he has to do is say "I am a transwoman".

What they don't explain is how this actually turns him into a woman. Because he's obviously still a man.

Whoever thinks Tommy Robinson is racist is an idiot. I've followed him for ages, he is not racist and has a huge following of black, white, Asian, Muslim people. He is against Islamic grooming gangs! You need to stop watching the mainstream news channels

I'm taking a huge step back, because most of you ladies are on the left side of politics. You probably get your news from sky, BBC, C4 etc, so it's biased.

@TinselAngel

In order to try to prevent them drifting towards extremism, by seeing if there is a way that their concerns can be addressed or if their concerns are genuinely unfounded then they can be educated about why they are unfounded.

Handing out pamphlets headed 'Is your child being groomed into a cult?' at a TR march does the things above?

Timmy Robertson isn't a racist, eh? Like Donald Trump isn't a lying con man.

I'm not advocating for anyone. I think everyone is entitled to say what they want and attend whatever event they want for whatever reasons they want.

My point was, you only find out what people say or think, by listening to them.

If you know what people say, or think, it is because you have listened to them.

So to deny other people listening to them because YOU have already done the listening and have made the decision that they should never be listened to again, is authoritarian.

Why one rule for you, and completely different rules for the rest of humanity?

I personally wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. But it is fascinating to me just how quickly people turn into people who are overwhelmed by their own hate so much so they cannot even fathom that not everyone thinks the same as they do.

It is not " over run". That has become its purpose. Being able to name clearly what a woman is is the foundation for everything that relates to women as a specific human grouping. Without clarity, definition and the ability to discriminate between one type of thing and another, everything else becomes essentially uncertain.

If your definition of feminism includes men/male people - then it doesn't belong on FWR - which is about women and women's rights. 'Women's' rights cease to exist and become meaningless if males are included.

If you don't like that then you could post elsewhere, but secretly I think you must agree...Why else would you spend so much time here?

So what are 'women's rights' predicated upon if males can be women too - in your view? What sort of 'women's rights' can a male person have?

Genuine question, not a throwaway one.

Perhaps that tells you that most serious feminists ( the ones who discussions you enjoyed so much) consider the trans issue to be central.

Where on Mumsnet are all of the 'intersectionalist' 'trans inclusive' feminists posting, and why aren't they providing what it is you are looking for?

I asked GrammarTeacher how TWAW if you don’t believe in stereotypes half the thread ago, so I can’t imagine a succinct answer will be forthcoming to your question with just a few posts left to go.

I'm not here to change your minds on this. I'm here to ask about TR and if you think that's appropriate.
Why aren't more intersectional feminists around here - because they get hounded off. It doesn't matter how I justify my position you will disagree just as I will find your definitions reductionist and the kind of thinking that ends up logically supporting limiting women.

It doesn't matter how I justify my position you will disagree just as I will find your definitions reductionist and the kind of thinking that ends up logically supporting limiting women.

Do you mean limiting women by the definition of only including biological women in that category, or something else?

I will find your definitions reductionist

Can you even define “reductionist”?

Why aren't more intersectional feminists around here - because they get hounded off. It doesn't matter how I justify my position you will disagree just as I will find your definitions reductionist and the kind of thinking that ends up logically supporting limiting women

Intersectional feminists have a whole board (they campaigned for it like Cassie did) why not go there? Because you're more invested in attacking women on this board?

I have not attacked women. I've attacked supporting racists who are violent against women.

Define 'biological' women in a way that doesn't exclude some people who were assigned female at birth.

"I wish women could support each other more and feminism hadn't become so right/left politicised."

Well quite.

And yet here you are spending an entire thread accusing a woman who has done a lot of real tangible work for women and children of being racist because she went to a rally you don't agree with.

Equating right wing with 'far right' and 'racist' as though they're all the same.

Quite! If a male person can also be a woman - then what is a woman -other a set of imagined 'feelings' or socially prescribed presentations? How can 'lady feelings' have rights in equality law - what sorts of rights do 'lady feelings' have?

A woman is an adult human female. A human being who was born female and will remain female for her entire life.

Sex isn't 'assigned at birth'. It's observed at birth (and often before).

Which women do you think are being excluded from this definition?

Which women do you think are being excluded from this definition?

Probably a male kind I imagine 🙄