Mass piss-up?

[Litterpicking]

Has anyone noticed the India Willoughby post on X, re-tweeted by For Women Scotland promoting the #pee4me “mass” demonstration tomorrow in Parliament Square in protest at the SC “removing legal protection from women who are trans”. A mass public urination on Easter Sunday will certainly win over the British public.

He's been out for quite a while I think. Wasn't he outside of the LGB Alliance conference when the crickets were released

How very unladylike of them.

Well, if that doesn’t convince us all to welcome them into women’s spaces, I don’t know what will!

As usual it's the ones with the more, er, interesting rap sheets that are front and centre.

This.
It is a very male thing to suggest.

(I will be interested to see how the LWS in Hyde Park goes next weekend and whether the police will be a bit more inclined to deal with the threats and intimidation from the TRAs. I have always thought that level of aggression would result in arrests under any other circumstances).

'Those nasty WITCHES are so unreasonable and bigoted for not wanting to share all their spaces with us, the most oppressed, vulnerable people to have ever walked this Earth. To prove how unreasonable they and the law are, we're going to protest with a bloke convicted of torture and attempted murder, who encourages his fellow protestors to punch women who disagree with us in the fucking face',

That'll win hearts and minds, won't it lads?

#theservicehumansarerevolting

That’s the anarchy symbol in that vandalism. Don’t think we should overlook that

A spokesperson for the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), who were named among the protest's supporters, said: 'We have not authorised the use of our logo on any materials relating to this demonstration and we have not taken any position on this event.
'RMT supports the Equality Act which provides protections for women and trans people facing discrimination and we have a proud history of fighting all forms of oppression both in Britain and internationally.'

From the Daily Mail report above. I was very pleased to read this.

Statues defaced. This is a shocking one. (Will take a few seconds to show up.)

Fucking hell.

It’s always about hating women.

Loads of men pissing? They'll all end up soaking wet won't they?

Hard to tell if that’s an act of wanton ignorance or chosen for the semiotic value.

Either way - what a tell.

They also defaced a statue of the South African general Smuts and jumped up and started orating on the plinth of the Churchill statue, judging by the Daily Mail report.

Goodness, you have just given me a flashback. I got a delete for that, and another using the word frock. On the bright side, you can swear as much as you like 😀

By the way, I hope the monitors will provide photographic evidence of vandalism spotted after any women's rights protests in recent times (not the Suffragettes! I know about them).

John Swinney: Trans people will feel anxious over gender ruling - BBC News

I hope this gets lots of media coverage. It rather hammers home the point about why women need single sex spaces.

Was the second part of the report in which JS expressed empathy for the sustained gaslighting and attempted erasure of women as an acknowledged legal and social class printed invisibly?

They really haven't a clue what they're doing

https://x.com/satiricole/status/1913621479264076011?t=u59gmGykrOqIIVAMdhgogw&s=19

“Give us wombs and give us titties”

Some questionable lyrics at the Edinburgh protest today #LetThemSpeak

The DM and the BBC have the same interpretation: "This means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces if "proportionate"." - but that's not right, is it? I thought the point is now that, like other men, they are automatically excluded from any single-sex space (coz if they were allowed in, it would not longer be single-sex...), and single-sex spaces are allowed where proportionate.

Once again, for a supposedly universally villified, tiny minority, they’re able to rally quite a lot of support at extremely short notice.

This will get pinned down (hopefully) in the guidance.

To my reading the judgment seems to be along the lines of if it was necessary or reasonable/needed/desired to provide a specific women only something in the first place, then it was proportionate and necessary, or it would have been mixed sex, and to add any men changes its purpose/ability to do this.

If this is the case, then it is rather different from Stonewall law which has insisted that every single separate attempt to say no to male entrants must be based on women proving to the last decimal place their justification for it being 'proportionate and necessary' with almost nothing being agreed to ever be proportionate and necessary enough, such as privacy, dignity, safety, etc never mind the right of association. Lots of talk about the bar being set 'very high'. ie very unlikely to be allowed.

<wonders how much sleep Mr Swinney has been losing over women's anxieties and actual harms over the past few years>

It’s sort of correct in that they and all other men can be excluded, only if it’s proportionate.

But this is a similar lie to that which was propagated before, that the single sex exemptions were all about excluding trans identified people, when actually, they’re about excluding all members of a whole sex class.