Violent trans rights protest in Manchester.

[GreenFriedTomato]

This happened 2 weeks ago but I only found out about it when Mr.Menno uploaded a video yesterday.
A few local YouTubers were there and got plenty of footage. Notably they were all quite shocked at how aggressive the TRA's were. Well the ones who weren't familiar with the way they operate.
They didn't just stick to marching through the streets. They invaded the Arndale Centre and marched shouting and swearing while rather bemused looking people were shopping and trying to enjoy their day.
Things turned violent as usual. Two young lesbians got punched and dragged to the floor.
I've linked to a video by Billy Moore who generally goes around filming the city and talking to homeless people and so on. It's quite long but the trans stuff starts around the 15 minute.mark if anyone's interested.

So ironic to see allies bleating on about how trans are the most marginalised and vulnerable and have had their dignity and rights taken away, while the delicate flowers are being filmed acting violently and attacking women (and men).

But carry on lads. People need to see more of this.

100%

To add to my other post,

“For example, we have euphemisms around age, around weight, around disability and this is an attempt to minimise people feeling dismissed, othered or rejected by society. We would often tell white lies "does my bum look big in this?", "celebrate your curves" . We refer to "older adults" when we mean the elderly, "differently abled" people. Some feminine gay men have historically referred to each other as "she" as well.”

Again, I don’t see your examples as being at all comparative. At all. If someone lies about another person’s arse looking too big, that is a lie. But do they then act forever if that is the truth in any reference to that person? They also are not generally coerced or emotionally manipulated. And it this example is not relevant to language being fluid. Unless you mean that any of the words answering the question asked has been redefined to mean the opposite of its original intended meaning. Such as ‘no’ intended to mean ‘yes’. But the person answering is lying and does intend the word ‘no’ to mean ‘no’ even though it is a lie.

The rest of your examples are euphemisms. But they also have not been changed to mean the opposite of the intended meaning. Unless ‘older people’ is now meaning ‘younger people’. Whether you use older or elderly you are still referring to a group of people over a certain age. Your examples just don’t fit your point.

She pushed that bloke forwards because he was pushing her from in front. She was getting shoved back onto some other hefty protesters, who were trying to push back at her. TLDR: she was being sandwiched so tried to push the front guy out of the way.

They were grabbing at both the women. You can just see it at the sides of the frame.

Loved Sandwich Board Guy!

By this, I mean that there is also no means at all for a male person to even know what it is that they are really ‘identifying’ as. It is simply not possible for them to describe what they ‘feel’ as being the same as how any female person ‘feels’. They describe it how ever they wish, but unless that label they use comes from materially real experiences, it is just impossible. For instance, I could never label something I feel as being like a man feels. Ever.

But I can label something that I experience or interpret as being that of a girl, because I have experienced that and have an accurate and real reference point to validate that experience. It doesn’t have to be a universally shared experience for it to be a true description that I have given that experience. It can be unique to me and still be valid to me and reflecting reality.

This is the blunt and unvarnished truth no matter how sincerely or desperately the person claiming this gender identity wants it to be.

So when someone says : “Of course it's possible to be trans, and to hold a deeply held belief that one is in one's essence of the opposite sex somehow.” Sure. People can believe they are whatever they want. But when there is no possible way for them to be what they say they are, no way for that ‘essence’ to be the opposite sex, why is society affirming this identity as if it is based on reality?

Last time I saw Charlie in one of Billy's videos he was cutting about with a bodyguard. Suspect he's pushed his luck too far with somebody.

Seriously. Can you imagine this being taken seriously it wasn't driven by men with either a strong sexual motivation or societywide and ingrained homophobia/sexism that says men can't be feminine.

We don't do it with anything else, any other belief.

We don't expect non Christians to wear crosses and say God is good otherwise they're a bigoted Christianphobe.

just because a man wants something a lot, and think it might help him, doesn't mean everyone has to agree, comply, and we have to change all the laws!

He always has a bodyguard with him now. Usually a bloke called Fred but it was someone else that weekend. He does piss a lot of people.off, but he's also exposed a fair few drug dealers (and various other criminal types) and there are regular attempts to stab/bottle him when he's out.and about. He can handle himself but needs an extra pair of eyes nowadays.

Of equal interest are the two Lesbians who explain, right at the beginning, why they are not supporting the pro-Palestinian protest.

They do benefit from the organisational policy of it not being ok to scream at them in the street, sack them from a job, or deny them housing on the grounds of them being trans.

TRAs didn't get those rights for them though. They had those rights already, as do we all.

What TRAs got them was the dubious "right" to trample all over other people's rights (mainly women's)

And now they're upset to discover that, actually, they don't have that right after all. And I didn't see any of them complaining when they thought they did.

They were surrounded by an intimidating crowd who sang at them 'there are many many more of us than you' which I would find threatening. Both women were pushed about and the stewards pretended they saw nothing. True, one of the women pushed the TRA with long hair (later called Meatloaf) when he purposefully (i.e. he glanced back to make sure she was there) barged into her.

The sheer number of people wearing bodycams are YouTubers filming the events.(And it prevents getting your camera snatched and leaves your hands free)
Sure there are some controversial ones (aka Charlie Vietch) that do antagonise but most are just there to film and aren't there looking for drama.
They're not there to innocently attend or join in the march as participants but as observers and for content..There's nothing strange or sinister about the fact there are people with bodycams.
I mean Mr Menno doesn't wearing one because he has someone filming for him instead.

Edit : or were you talking about protestors with bodycams? I might have misunderstood your comment

The sheer number of YouTubers says much.

It's people out to rubberneck and stir the pot for financial gain or social media hits and notoriety.

It's not cool. It doesn't matter who is doing it. It leaves me with a bad taste.

You haven't seen Rose of Dawn's YouTube Channel then. No longer posting on YouTube unfortunately.

These playlists are an eye-opener for anyone who has not come across these characters before.

Serious expose of Jess Bradley including relentless pestering NUS for information. The only other coverage at the time that I can recall was a couple of very short pieces in Private Eye:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLChYytKhbbRoobsW3K9JVtEZXH0qxLErl

The Jessica Yaniv Saga
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLChYytKhbbRpKpl15FjMlNSgHkzXR1Iem

Pillars of the Community
(a right House of Horrors!)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLChYytKhbbRoFQte12Jdq2pPOsITSC2Tl

Trans-Stupid
(Both funny and horrifying!)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLChYytKhbbRowhOv_Vm-GIWNJ1gCmbpJW

How else would we know what happens at events if people aren't there to document them? It's not as if the mainstream media are going to to broadcast an unbiased unedited account?

Do you include anyone videoing an event or just those who post the footage on social media ?

Personally I'd rather see someone like Billy Moore or Wesley Winter simply standing there and filming (either asking questions or not providing any commentary at all) than the BBC for example that will edit things about and provide a biased account only showing one side of the story.

I appreciate many YouTubers because without them, I wouldn't have a clue what happens in my city because the regular media either don't report it, or report inaccurately

They end up antagonising the situation though. They aren't neutral bystanders. They have a firm agenda and a vested reason to want aggro. It gives them a career. So yes they are part of the problem because they are making a career out of it.

We live in an age of mobile phones. If something happens then there's footage that can be used. It's much less confrontational and if it's coming from those affected it's not adding this element of professional YouTuber looking for drama.

YouTubers could use this. They don't because they want to be the one with the insight, exclusive or scoop. And that's where it goes wrong.

And their in lies a lot of the problem. They aren't neutral observers. They benefit from sensationalism. Many have very clear agendas. And that raises questions about the information they give you.

It's fuelling problems and they become part of that problem as a result.

It creates situations which are being manipulated to cause disorder.

I agree they some YouTubers are like that. On the other hand many others aren't.

We live in an age of mobile phones. If something happens then there's footage that can be used

You mean if someone is attacked, this footage can be given to the police? Fair enough.

But I'm not going to be able to watch a protest (or other event) from someone's random phone footage unless they are posting it to social media. Which would then make them part of the problem according to your posts.

Billy Moore for example generally just wanders around talking to random people in the street. He's an ex drug user and chats a lot to homeless people. I didn't see him causing any aggro at this event. He did respond to people blocking and shoving him though. He just turned up because he was already in the area that day. The lesbians clearly turned up to document.
If Mr Mennos presence at TRA marches is considered confrontational (or any opposition for that matter) tough They're just filming a s I'm grateful for that. We wouldn't even know half of the violent behaviour women have suffered if it hadn't been filmed. They're not attacking or threatening the protestors. Should people only be able to attend and observe/film if they are on the same side as those protesting?
I don't think the aggression of TRA protestors can be blamed on those filming. They go mental at anyone who challenges them
Do women at LWS events go mental and start attacking people who film them? No. They just carry on and ignore them

And finally back to your point of there are people with cameras so if anything happened some would have footage. One side aren't going to publish footage of their own misbehaving and how would some random passerby have footage if they weren't already continuously filming with that purpose? They're not going to dig.their phones out and capture an assault AFTER it's happened and probably wouldn't stick around anyway.

Those are my views anyway but I understand yours are completely different

Good reminder, and I thank you. That's important to remember and I really understood your Muslim analogy.

No. The Muslim analogy doesn't work here. The 'all Muslims are radicals because of the actions of a few'
No one is saying that all trans identifying males are predators because of the actions of a few. Or that all trans are violent because of the actions of a few.

It's that most TRA's are violent and that ALL trans identifying males are men, and no men should demand the right to enter single sex female spaces regardless of how they identify or how nice they are

That is exactly how what you wrote is interpreted grammatically. You wrote

"Allies (claim) trans are the most marginalised and vulnerable .....while the delicate flowers are on film acting violently and attacking women (and men)".

So whether it was your intent or not, you made no distinction between trans people and TRAs and did in fact in what you wrote, blame trans people for the actions of TRAs.

I expect Muslims to push back when people say "all muslims are terrorists" and i am with them on that.

But when a terrorist organisation says they are acting in the name of Allah, and Islam has just claimed responsiblity for a terrorist act in the name of Islam - and often shouting "Alluh Akbar" (sorry if spelling is incorrect) - i expect Muslims to say "nope, not in my name". The same as i expect men witnessing sexism to address it with other men.

I have mixed feelings about the auditing / citizen journalist community. However, since the protest in front of the Victorian State Parliament House, I do have an appreciation for some of them.

The footage collected by Rukshan was vital in understanding what happened that day. There was not enough footage taken by others to give the depth of understanding. There was no news service coverage. And other people’s footage was fine to see perspective from some vantage points but they were static and not moving around the area.

From watching his footage, he only interacted with people who knew him. But he documented the day, as a whole, better than anyone else.

Same as the guy who audited the NZ rally and had the camera that is very high up as well as at least one other camera.

Whereas The Laughing Auditor does seem to interact with people and it has to be said that some of this interaction could be provocative. However, on the other hand, in the footage he collects it does seem that those who are acting reasonably are not the ones who are antagonised by his presence and questions. Of course, I also don’t think he or anyone should be distracting police with unnecessary questions in those situations. It seems some of the auditors are there to get footage of police negligence. I think there are some auditors who use this provoking style.

The ones who simply record the event giving commentary as they go, seem inevitably to be provocative just by being there. Just recording the group with no other interaction is met with aggression. People at women’s events protesting don’t want to have their actions recorded, they are the ones blocking cameras or knocking them out of hands or trying to chase anyone with a camera away.

It is significant that I have never seen the women attending to listen or speak react in this way. If someone is recording them they might move away, if they ask the women provocative questions they might get humorous comebacks as answers or calm and considered answers. They don’t get aggressive behaviour from the women from what I have seen.

What these auditors do however is provide a continuous stream of footage, usually live streamed. And they are not participating otherwise so they are flexible in where they go. Their objective is to record any controversy as it is happening so of course, if there is any they will find it. (Even if the controversy is showing the aggressive tactics of those supposedly ‘peaceful’ protestors.).

Often these uncut streams are vital to understanding the truth in a situation. Obviously that is their purpose. Piecing together various other footage to establish what has happened is also useful but is time consuming and anyone doing that kind of aggregation takes time before it can be released. And even then need, that needs to be verified too. Often using auditor live streams to do so.

Well I clearly was referring to the irony of the allies claim that trans are the most vulnerable while the trans in the video stood metres away from them* *were acting violently. And I stand by what I said about them not being the most vulnerable group.

I did actually clarify that shortly after you posted.

The woman in the video was clearly including her fellow protestors in this 'vulnerable marginalised ' group..After spending hours marching with them while they pushed and shoved and attacked people..That was the irony.

I think we should discuss these points cos it's relevant and I do see obvious issues starting to arise. The 'both sides' argument raises its ugly head unfortunately.

The ones who simply record the event giving commentary as they go, seem inevitably to be provocative just by being there.

This is the sense I get tbh. The people there can hear the editorial line straight away.

Position in the crowds is also another issue. Having a camera up close is different from filming from a wider angle. Regardless of intention it can create a sense of intimidation.

I think we are going to get more issues with this in future on a range of issues.