Let Women Speak in Glasgow this weekend 9th August 2 - 4pm

[IKnowWhatAWomanIs]

LET WOMEN SPEAK GLASGOW

Posting this to let women in and around Glasgow know.

9th August 2pm - 4pm outside the Kelvingrove Museum G3 8AG

Let Women Speak Glasgow! A weekend of terfy events organised by our fabulous Locals.

Starting the weekend with 8pm Friday Night Dinner, a small dinner with Kellie-Jay and the team.

LWS Glasgow, free event 2 - 4pm on Saturday

Saturday Night dinner, drinks and dancing.

Sunday brunch with TERFtalk live.

More info & to buy tickets for Friday Night Dinner / Saturday After Party / Terf Talk Live

https://www.letwomenspeak.org/event-details/let-women-speak-glasgow

i think that’s a joke, chuck. Strange you missed it, given how free with terribly witty and amusing comments you are yourself.

And you have never removed context to make flawed accusations about KJK?

That is correct.

And you have never removed context to make flawed accusations about KJK?

You are at perfect liberty to go through my posts. Of course if there is a 20 minute video, and 1 or 2 minutes if it are particularly harmful rhetoric in my view I will focus on that.

So it sounds like the GUU’s defence maybe on safety because the signs made a staff member feel unsafe, along with the presence of PP and there is a potential for Sandie Peggie style mud slinging based on her past views being seen as unacceptable.

Hello, Free Speech Union. Interesting test case but I think it sounds a bit more like the NI bakery case than the other case law. The devil will be in the detail on this one.

Massive headache incoming for all parties involved.

Or... as per the thread link I posted, one word in particular you found problematic.

Which, in my opinion, you tried to remove context from to make a flawed accusation. I said so at the time.

If I remember correctly, there is another video that you did this with as well. You used to post the same two videos often saying 'look ... see...' But like with some of your other links and quite a few of your other statements, you don't actually explain the issues or the relevance. But you do insist that what you posted is relevant without explanation why.

It doesn't make your posts correct interpretations though of what the person who has written or said something intended.

I am intrigued, despite myself, by the bizarre claim that an anonymous account, posting on a forum like this can suffer 'reputational damage'.

Given that posters here are anonymous and could claim to be something completely different to what they are in real life, any one of us could claim any number of things. I could name change and set up a different persona claiming to be, say, a 55 year old vet who lives in Surrey, who is in a polycule, keeps bantam hens and likes to pond dip of a weekend. If I made myself a nuisance to all and sundry by continually posting a completely debunked article about the nocturnal habits of fruitbats and continually derailing threads with nonsense and other posters pointed this out, I could then decide that other (anonymous) posters had somehow damaged my online reputation. In a sort of 'oh God, here comes Surreyvet55 again with that bloody article'.

Is the implication that Surreyvet55 could then sue in real life that their anonymous account, completely made up and not linked to real life in any way, had suffered reputational damage?

(Edited to add, I think it's blatant nonsense but am intrigued to see the workings).

Suggestions, if people misinterpret your content why should you be able to demand people interpret your posts in good faith when you don't interpret other's content in good faith?

I’ve got plenty of suggestions FWIW.

I really don't know what you are referencing here, but I can assure you I have never deliberately misrepresented Posie Parker / Kellie-Jay Keen (honestly her words speak for herself, there is no need for anyone to pretend otherwise!)

What have I misinterpreted about Posie Parker/ Kellie-Jay Keen exactly?

https://x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1712874124618449138

“nothing gives them the right, no matter how strongly they hold their views, to shout down women” - the last First Minister was pretty clear.

I think the “extreme” (or “ultra”) accusations come from the fact that she’s pretty hardline and uncompromising in her views. Some campaigners/supporters think women should be more accommodating but I don’t see why we should have to be. It’s all a bit “can’t you be kind?” and I think we’ve all had enough of that. It’s the same criticism that was levelled at FWS after the Supreme Court ruling: why do you have to be so strident? Look at those awful women crowing and celebrating in the street…

I don’t know where the accusations of racism come from, maybe it’s just mud flinging (“I bet she’s racist too!”) or perhaps from her Free Your Face campaign where she’s saying that women should not have to cover their faces to be modest under Islam. Criticism of a religion which can do harm to women isn’t racism in my book, Posie is standing for women’s rights and giving a platform to those who otherwise don’t have a voice (cf her reposting on X of women’s testimonies) but to a certain cohort of people, criticism of Islam is racist.

The “too far” also probably relates to one of her TERF Talk videos where (IIRC) she said she wouldn’t employ a trans person or rent a property to one, and she would advise against it. Now, that would be discrimination under the EA2010 if it happened, but it hasn’t. I’d also argue that if many people who’d been doxxed, arrested, had their family harassed and had to have two security guards just to stand in Hyde Park and speak because of the behaviour of trans rights activists, would probably feel the same.

I take off my hat to her for her refusal to be silenced.

That is interesting.

You have also never once acknowledged the times you have misrepresented her words 'in error'.

These are the 'unsafe' signs which allegedly brought a grown man to floods of tears.

Well you'd need to show me where I have actually done this!

🙄

But yet, signs saying 'decapitate terfs' and 'the only good terf is a dead terf' displayed at various public events were not considered actionable by Police, including Police Scotland.

Julie Bindel and someone else, Sorry I forget who, both won cases where venue’s cancelled because of their views.

I think Women Won’t Wheesht might take this to court.

If you cannot even bother reading the thread I linked, that is you choice. That is just one example.

Either way, this is the question that is relevant.

If people misinterpret your content why should you be able to demand people interpret your posts in good faith when you don't interpret other's content in good faith?

Oh... don't bother. Because the answer will be that you always try to interpret other people's content in good faith.

And I will then just keep my own interpretation of that to myself because this leads nowhere. However, it is somewhat enlightening to see your threats. It has pulled together some things that I had not really solidly formulated before. So, thanks for that.

Funnily enough I'm not inclined to spend my morning reading 1000 posts on a historic thread, can you not just reference explicitly what you are talking about rather than being so opaque?

"I'd rather be opaque than a fucking liar". I miss Magdalen Berns.

You'll probably need to read it for your lawsuit, so may as well start now ☺️.

I keep getting flashes of IW speaking.