The “women’s march” that’s all about the men.

[BackToLurk]

I couldn’t see a thread about this, but I’m just here to share how annoying it is to see a so-called women’s march so concerned with placating men. This is the march in January.

As well as the highly predictable “this is for all women” (meaning including the ones who are men) and the ‘we don’t tolerate transphobia’ (meaning any concept of sex-based oppression), the Facebook group is full of posts reassuring men that of course they’re welcome and it’s not all men and obviously “not my Nigel”. It’s infuriating. Why do people do this?

Depends on the city but you would need to pay for some stewards I think as some need to be registered, equipment, permit (depending where you are), hi-viz gear, tannoys, microphone and sound equipment etc...it can add up

Really depends. In theory, it should be free to have a protest march, although you have to inform the police with notice.

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/how-to-organise-a-protest/

It depends on which country too as Scotland and England differed quite a bit.

Well sent another message as awaiting feedback from the meeting on 29th December. I provided a list of bullet points for her to bring to the meeting so she could at least have some courtesy and provide feedback.

Definitely interested to hear any reply.

The suggestion is the council are taking their time. Not sure how much coverage they'll get anyway as there's a massive Gaza protest in London the same day

Police would probably be more interested in that too. Why would they add another march?

Well got a response from one of the original admins / organisers who has now also stepped down.
I do have another point of contact. I certainly don't agree with them segregating women for men at this march.

Just posted it. Interesting to say the least

Segregating trauma victims to appease men? Wtf? I have requested to join the march group again as I have some points to make(especially since they apparently don't ban you for different views 😂😂). Let's see.

The book gift chat has just been bumped, someone is not happy about the meanies suffragette colours.

One of the arguments that gets touted around on this forum time and again when discussing trans women using women’s toilets is ‘why are they so desperate to be in women’s toilets anyway?’.

(To me, it’s pretty obvious- they’re women, and they want to use the loo. Where better to do that than the women’s loos. But I’m not trying to move this thread into a debate on that aspect, noting that many GC posters on this forum disagree. Suggest we agree to disagree for these purposes.)

But I think it might be a good question to ask yourself @TigerLily40 here. Why are you so desperate to be allowed into this group?

They have made it clear that the group is inclusive of trans women, and they don’t want it to be a hostile environment for trans women. And as organisers they can set that parameter. There are plenty of groups you can join that don’t feel like that. So what’s your motivation for wanting to join this particular group- if not to challenge that trans inclusiveness and make it a hostile place for trans women?

Objecting to shutting down any discussion of women’s bodies or talking about the need for some women to access female only spaces or highlighting the criticism of a charity because it provides trauma informed care isn’t about creating ‘a hostile environment for trans women’. Unless…

I’ll tell you what is hostile though. Saying you’d happily belt women who disagree with you, while pretending to care about VAWG

(To me, it’s pretty obvious- they’re women, and they want to use the loo. Where better to do that than the women’s loos. But I’m not trying to move this thread into a debate on that aspect, noting that many GC posters on this forum disagree. Suggest we agree to disagree for these purposes.)

Let's just look at the absurdity of your statement, from which all the problems flow. They are not women, they are literally just any male people who declare one day that their "gender" is "woman", they have as a group nothing in common with women as a group besides what women share with all men.

This is not the "Trans" March or the "Women and Trans March" or the "Intersectional March". It's falsely claiming to be a march focused on women. Don't be surprised when people who actually do focus on female rights feel it's appropriation for publicity.

Sorry I nixed the formatting of your quote, Elle

This. Those women or men or whoever the fuck they are should be removed.

I was one of the organisers who invited the LGBTQ community along my dear so my motivation certainly isn't to cause issues in regards to that matter and certainly not to cause hostility. I seen women getting blocked for having an opinion and men getting made priority by a group of so called feminists.
So a good question to ask yourself would be, why the hostility towards a group of women / myself for wanting to highlight the importance of biological women's rights and their place in a WOMAN'S march? Plus, maybe question their hostility towards any woman that dared question them and their motives.

I acknowledged in initial post that GC posters won’t agree. But the sentence you’re referring to isn’t absurd- it merely reflects how non GC individuals view the situation. I think we’ve long established that you and I are never going to agree on that question in any event- no need to rehash!

It‘s not a trans march as you note BUT the organisers are clear that trans women are welcome to march and should be able to do so without hostility.

If people don’t like that approach, they are free to join another group/set up a different march where the parameters exclude trans people and their allies.

Why push to be part of this when it’s made clear from the outset that anti-trans rhetoric won’t be accepted.

I can answer that question. Because the parameters of this march are that it welcomes trans people, and will not be a hostile space for them. If you want to march for your gender critical ideals, then that’s something different - organise something separately.

But the sentence you’re referring to isn’t absurd

In your opinion. It makes zero sense. We could argue about it all day, but I'll leave it that I consider your ideological belief that any man can self declare as a woman and women need to accept them as women utterly absurd.

Are you okay with it being a hostile space for women? Are you okay with organisers of a March against violence saying they would like to commit violence against women (belt a terf)?

It‘s not a trans march as you note BUT the organisers are clear that trans women are welcome to march and should be able to do so without hostility.

If people don’t like that approach, they are free to join another group/set up a different march where the parameters exclude trans people and their allies.

Why push to be part of this when it’s made clear from the outset that anti-trans rhetoric won’t be accepted.

@TigerLily40 was one of the early organisers. It's really for her to decide whether she wants to walk away.

And you are very welcome to that opinion @Ereshkigalangcleg. I will place appropriate weight on it having read so many of your other enlightening opinions.

Same here, Elle