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.

Ha I thought that

It is an interesting dilemma, who would be the smelly bum bum that has to go and speak to the nasty people on the wrong side, to get your message across to them.

It's never 'well done ladies for getting more people on the side against puberty blockers and wrong sex hormones and against gender identity in schools' it is always 'eugh you spoke in the general vicinity of a far right fascist'.

He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled.

Language is fluid and evolves, you know!

sarcasm

Just a thought experiment. This black lesbian felt safe enough amongst these violent, racist men to hand out leaflets and, horror 😳, possibly even speak to them. I wonder what would have happened if she'd tried to hand out the same leaflets at a rally considered sufficiently left. Say, a pride march or one of the pro-hamas ones.

Plus the irony of bringing up "free speech" when KJK leaflets are being used to shut down free speech in schools and censor reading materials because of "the cult".

Alerting parents to No Outsiders and All Sorts???

You think children should be taught the crap that they propose because of free speech??

Have you ever read any of the numerous threads about these groups??

Not only do you not know what you're talking about, you're actually using these issues for a personal pop KJK.

I've heard it all now. Not wanting children to be taught dangerous crap from No Outsiders is censorship. bloody hell. No wonder these people manage to infiltrate schools.

Safeguarding is censorship? Nice one.

If we're going with thought experiments, you could also try what would have happened if the black lesbian and her girlfriend had walked past the rally holding hands, but without the leaflets.

I meant to add. You've touched on something though. The leaflets wouldn't be handed out at pride or pro-hamas, because the reception would have been shall we say 'frosty'. Despite the fact that some of the defence of this is about getting the message out - although apparently not to those places.

They are at a far right* rally (and let's stop pussy footing that's what TR organises), because they thought the welcome would be warmer. That is the thing that reinforces the idea that these concerns are in themselves far right. I don't really care if that is simplistic, as has been said elsewhere it is bad optics. What I care about is getting things shifted so that women and girls have access to single-sex spaces, stopping children being routinely medicalised for feeling different, pulling young ND people away from this bullshit & winding back some of the frankly misogynistic bullshit of what I guess we're calling gender ideology. I think giving opponents the slightest opportunity to say 'look, palling around with actual racists' takes us further away from that. People can disagree with that opinion, to coin a phrase I don't give flying fuck. What I know is women who are naturally sympathetic, who would push their MPs, push back at workplaces are put off by things like LWS being associated with TR and his ilk. Women who aren't activists, or on Mumsnet or whatever but who will be part of the critical mass that moves opinion.

*I fully blame large parts of the left for branding anything to the right of Corbyn 'far right' and so making it much easier to let the actual far right off the hook.

Not a thought experiment though, there was no violence reported at the march, no arrests. I've seen no reports about 'openly' anyone being threatened with arrest for their own safety.

Answers to the thought experiments:

I think the leaflets would generally have been welcomed at a pro Hamas rally (although there is a mix there with the Queers for Palestine peoplewho'd have been outraged.)
I think there'd be anger if handed out at Pride.
But broad agreement with the leaflet at LBG alliance conference.
I think lesbians holding hands would be largely ignored at a TR rally.
I think overt lesbians would create more issues at a pro hamas rally.

Conclusion: Some opinions intersect with unlikely bedfellows not necessarily along left/ right lines.

I think there is some analogy between KJK and Greenpeace in the 1980s (bear with me! )

They broke rules, sometimes broke actual laws, pissed a few people off (had their ship blown up iirc) and yes, turned a few people off their cause.

But they were often in the news and succeeded in driving green issues up the news agenda and out of the realms of 'hippie stuff'.

Friends of the Earth, who were more softly softly did not get as much airtime.

Over the last 30 years they have successfully morphed into a more law abiding, advisory type organisation now than the old activist position.

We do need both to effect change.

(Edited for clarity).

What I know is women who are naturally sympathetic, who would push their MPs, push back at workplaces are put off by things like LWS being associated with TR and his ilk. Women who aren't activists, or on Mumsnet or whatever but who will be part of the critical mass that moves opinion.

And yet the highly committed, faithful left wing activists that have harassed one of the women off Twitter can't move opinion in Labour can they. Why would Labour listen to your "no effort" women when they won't listen to these apparently superior beings?

The leaflets wouldn't be handed out at pride or pro-hamas, because the reception would have been shall we say 'frosty'.

Why do assume the reception would be frosty at a pro Hamas rally? ( I also presume you mean pro Palestine rally though? As I'm unawae of any pro Hamas rallies?? Unless you are suggesting Pro Palestine rallies are pro Hamas in whihc case I think you reconsider your post>0

You do know it was the Muslim community who led the demonstrations about No Outsiders in schools in Birmingham? Many Muslim families do not want gender confusion taught in schools. Or even homosexuality.

(Are you going to imply again that saying Muslims support Palestine is Very Bad. I love it when you do that)

What I know is women who are naturally sympathetic, who would push their MPs, push back at workplaces are put off by things like LWS being associated with TR and his ilk.
The people doing the most to publish this are the soc fems and KJK's other detractors.

Its interesting isn't it , how the people here asserting that the rally was so toxic that anyone there for any reason is tainted, do not seem to apply that same logic to TRA rallies/opposition to women's rights rallies? Anyone attending them is just an ally 🙄

Also that we've got to a point where anti women sentiment is so much part of the fabric of society it seems to be largely invisible. Lesbians kicked out of Pride marches- but the other people that attended those marches aren't labelled as awful homophobes just for being there.

It's the double standard that really gets me.

'pro-hamas' was drawn from the post quoted. Take it up with them, or learn to read

Have been shouted at and threatened by TRAs opposing women's rights rallies, I'm not going to defend them. Not sure where the idea that thinking TR is a racist arsehole equates with thinking TRAs are lovely & fluffy comes from TBH. It's quite possible to think two things are shit.

I agree that GC talking points can and are being leveraged by elements that are extremely concerning, and damaging to women.

I don't think it's correct to say they are part of "the GC movement" because GC is not the catch-all term for any criticism of transgenderism, it's the term for criticism of gender regardless of whether that is expressed in ways that align with traditional stereotypes of sex or cross them. The groups that criticise transgenderism but not traditional gender roles are obviously not Gender Critical!

Activism that seeks to establish or maintain reasonable boundaries to protect or advance a vulnerable or marginalised group within society can be leveraged by others who have an interest in imposing boundaries against other groups in other contexts for other, less reasonable purposes.

Activism that seeks to remove unreasonable boundaries that unfairly restrict vulnerable or marginalised groups within society can be leveraged by others who have an interest in removing boundaries in other contexts for other, less reasonable purposes.

We should be wary of this risk, but the lesson is to be very clear what why stand for, not that we should stop standing for it.

OK. Correction accepted.

But you then went with it said: the reception would be frosty at a pro Hamas rally.

So my quetsion still stands why do you assume it would be frosty to the leaflets at a pro Hamas rally when Muslim parents led demonstations agsinst No Outsiders referred to in the leaflets?

I agree that GC talking points can and are being leveraged by elements that are extremely concerning, and damaging to women

absolutely

and i agree with the rest of your post as well

The groups that criticise transgenderism but not traditional gender roles are obviously not Gender Critical!

Actually I've been told on these boards several times that GC is now the term for criticism of gender ideology and beleief in material reality of sex (as it was used this way in Forstater case) and not just the subset of feminism that views geneder as oppressive.
Then I see the opposite argument as above.

So it's obviously not clear.

I try to avoid using it for myself as I'm critcial of GI but not a GC feminists and keep being caught out either way.

I think you've misunderstood me.

There are a lot of posters on here and other threads who seem to be applying a double standard in terms of purity of association (ie anyone who goes near a right wing rally is awful, same doesn't apply to left wing or TRA etc) .

It's not condoning racism to point that double standard out.

If you don't think that, that's great.

And yes, clearly 2 different things can be shit.

I'm following the thread of the posters thought experiment. 'Why didn't they leaflet at XXX?' Given that pride was mentioned the implication was they wouldn't because they wouldn't be well received. Maybe you're right, maybe the original poster was trying to imply instead 'something bad' about Muslims. Who knows.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that in a thread where the OP is suggesting people will draw conclusions about the relationship between 'GC feminism' & the far right, all the posts suggesting other possible leafleteer/rally combinations suggest that the ones that might happen would happen because the 2 parties have a lot in common, while the ones that wouldn't happen where they have little in common.

I think there are a lot of double-standards on all sides tbh. I can't talk for anyone else, but I'd draw all kinds of negative conclusions about people who 'went near' certain left-wing rallies or individuals. I'm never particularly impressed by anyone who bigs up George 'bad sexual etiquette' Galloway, for example, even if he apparently 'knows what a woman is'