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?

Yes. This one

@Blencathra seems confused then

Same. Please do continue on the committee, as PP said if you don't, you'll be replaced with a be kinder who ways to reinterpret the law.

I found the phrase 'I'm concerned about the threat of legal challenge' to be useful. Point out that you're terribly concerned about the risk to the organisation of not being able to defend against potential sex discrimination complaints if they don't collect sex based data.

If they mention trans people, look confused and say of course they need support but you're not sure why that's relevant to collecting correct data.

I asked for it to be added to the corporate risk register - that we were knowingly not meeting the PSED reporting duty re the protected characteristic of sex.

That ruffled a few feathers!

Not sure what they did in the end as unfortunately as I left before the squabbling was concluded.

I posted screenshots from one of the founders using the word, saying she wanted to 'belt' them. It's at the start of the thread.

Any group with 15,000 members is bound to include women with gender critical views.

I found the phrase 'I'm concerned about the threat of legal challenge' to be useful. Point out that you're terribly concerned about the risk to the organisation of not being able to defend against potential sex discrimination complaints if they don't collect sex based data.

If they mention trans people, look confused and say of course they need support but you're not sure why that's relevant to collecting correct data.

I asked for it to be added to the corporate risk register - that we were knowingly not meeting the PSED reporting duty re the protected characteristic of sex.

That ruffled a few feathers!

Well done!

Any group with 15,000 members is bound to include women with gender critical views.

Yes, especially when you look at U.K. public opinion surveys.

This group....click on the pic for the full statement. In the organisers chat they were saying they will "sort out TERFs" during the protest etc..

I once saw the term on some thread here, “The pick me dance”. It seems apt. It refers to tge behaviour women seem to have a reflex to exhibit in front of men, specially in front of men who are letting them down.

The expression 'not lady-like' has a lot to answer for. When girls express their thoughts, they can be corrected with this term to remind them to monitor and curb self-expression (to people-please). Boys express the same thing and are not challenged. The divide is set an reinforced into adulthood.
Women who express the fact that men are men are labelled TERFS. It's all control of women (by other conforming women as much as men).

Now instead of "lady-like" it's "Be kind."

Somewhat of a tangent: Regarding the image where they say "Transgender women are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators," so many people say this as though it's a given. Does it have basis in actual statistical fact? EDIT: Or when they say they're more likely to be victims of violence than cis women are?

Think we may need a definition of 'violence '. Could mean to feelings?

"Transgender women are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators,"

Surely that's also true of men in general though. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with females and their right to have single sex spaces separate from males, seems like a non-sequitur.

annejumps

BezMills is spot on.
What the claim is hiding is that male people, including MCW, are far more likely than women to be perpetrators of violence. 90% males, 10% women.
Especially when it comes to sexual violence - 98% male people, 2% women. That's what we are concerned about.

I don’t have the link to hand but, as I recall, when the data was scrutinised previously, it showed that males who identify as transgender were over-represented in the data on perpetrators of murder but under-represented in the data on victims of murder.

Agreed on all points re: males being not only more likely to be victims but perpetrators and other stats contradicting the talking points, but I'm more wondering if there's an actual study(ies) that they're getting this from, or if it's just a "just so, obviously" story.

annejumps · Today 00:16

Regarding the image where they say "Transgender women are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators," so many people say this as though it's a given. Does it have basis in actual statistical fact? EDIT: Or when they say they're more likely to be victims of violence than cis women are?

From linked statistics on MN, I seem to recall that they're far safer as a demographic, even more so than under twos. They're infinitely more likely to be the perpetrators of violent and sexual crimes, than they are to be victims.

The zealots and enablers simply make things up and they all repeat it, so it can seem as though it must be true. I'm thinking of propagandists, such as Tatchell and his:

"As we all know, transw are facing a worsening epidemic of assaults in toilets."
And:
"Transw have no advantages over women in sport. I have a trans friend who is tiny and always bullied and bashed by much stronger women."

It's DARVO on crack.

I've joined the main group and the group for my 2 nearest marches. Their vetting is shoddy - I lied for the questions and nobody can have looked at my FB profile which is very GC. I know other Terfs who have got in too.

If you join, you need to lurk. No point arguing because you will be thrown out.

I joined the FB group because I'm thinking of going on one of the marches with some GC friends.

It's really sad to read the posts. The organisers are totally TRAs, really awful.

But there are posts from ordinary women who have never been on a march before. They say that they are going because of things like having been sexually abused and they are protesting VAWG or they want to be able to go running on their own without men making lewd comments.

Women like that deserve a march which centres women and isn't full of dick panderers.

One of the images posted in the FB group. 🙄

Yep. I am i support of the general idea and several of their principles. I hope they enjoy their march, and I hope at some point the organisers develop the ability to tolerate diverse viewpoints.

There was a brief moment when I thought they had. Then the comments* disappeared and the women were no longer in the group.

*They weren't offensive or hateful in anyway.

I am interested in reading up more on this as the far left always seem to back up every argument with "they are more likely to be attacked than women" etc ...would be good to know where I can read up on things like this properly.

Yes they say we won't tolerate abusive or hurtful comments but I never saw any.

TigerLily40 · Today 18:22

I mainly follow links some of the clever ferrets here post. I have seen programmes, too, such contained the two Tatchell comments, they are probably not verbatim, the essence is correct.