A Woman's Place is Speaking Up in Wales

[Fozzie Bear]

If discussing something is by its very nature going to be painful and difficult for some people, does that mean we just shouldn't ever discuss it?

I think that's great question. And the answer is obviously no.

But I think it means people have a duty to be kind and compassionate.

Which is a big ask.

And not turn it into a shouty abstract parlour game. And not leap into mad stereotyped examples of the other side as the default option.

Which seems very hard for a lot of people online.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

i knew Rachel Dolezal would be brought up as if gender transitions haven't existed for centuries, historically.

As if it's a trend. yeh. everything on this fucking forum is a fucking trend these days.

 

[8ball]

...Frankly I'm appalled that in 2018 we can still discuss racism as if its just hate crime. On an anarchist forum no less.

Go back to your treacherous imperialists in the lp, then.

I agree with almost everything you say in this post, but I think it could be framed in a way that builds bridges rather than burns them.

 

[frogwoman]

look I know there are lot of guys who will do literally anything to hurt women.

however, they can do that anyway ffs. do you think that there is anything stopping a guy from entering a women's toilet now that the law has not been changed yet. Much of the time public toilets in the UK are left unattended anyway with nothing to stop a guy entering them if they want to. It is true that men have assaulted people in women's toilets. Surely the answer to that is to actually have staff in the toilet monitoring whether anything dodgy is going on.

I agree there's issues around medicalisation (although again the UK is not the US and it is incredibly lengthy and difficult to get a referral on the NHS for any sort of procedure related to being trans). But some of the rhetoric around this reminds of a far right conspiracy theory. It is being pushed by far right conservatives, many of whom support trump and have an agenda against abortion and sex education.

If you look on twitter and search 'trans lobby' there is page after page of such rhetoric for example:

Cause there is a literal invasion of womens spaces and because there are events being cancelled under pressure by the trans lobby, events created by women who just want to discuss what the fuck is going on with a movement that is not taking their opinions and reality in account.

Planned Parenthood, heavily funded by & shills for the trans lobby r moving extreme sex ed into children's schools. A global movement of parents are rising on 4/23 & have organized a Sit Out. Lend them your support by R/T & signing petition. #SexEdSitOut #MamaBearsUnite

#sexedsitout Follow these moms who have started a global grass roots movement to get HRC/trans lobby money out of schools, along w/extreme sex ed & gender ideology. They're doing a school sit out 4/23!! So impressive, so strong & courageous. https://sexedsitout.com

Milwall stadium pulled out of hosting a meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the GRA, because the
trans lobby bombarded them with complaints. Davies stepped in to offer space in the HoC. So the complaints turned on him.

Pressure from the homosexual/trans agenda lobby and political correctness caused that change.
Same with homosexuality itself
pressuring the APA to conform to PC and political pressure doesn't change you DNA
You are the sex you were born with no matte what changes you make

You didn't, but in some places you can be fined for "misgendering" someone. In other places the trans lobby is pushing for the legal substitution of sex for "gender identity". Are you ok with this?

That really is sinister, it just proves how powerful this trans lobby are so any question that they're victims goes out the window.

The trans lobby is embarrassing itself. The lower they stoop, the more people they #peaktrans. @DavidTCDavies (tory) is the only MP bravely standing up for women and children.

Why is #TransDayOfVisibility2018 on the last day of #WomensHistoryMonth2018? A clever marketing scheme to make liberal feminists feel like a bible clinging trump supporter if they disagree with the trans lobby. #realwomen #womenrights #womenshistory

Gender transition is the ruse. The trans lobby are assaulting bio sex at every front. If they are successful, we can all go home becauae humanity as we know it is now being redesigned & socially reconstructed by the state. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVAvmZS0Dj8&sns=tw … via @youtube

I think that it is important to remember that even though *you* might personally be a socially progressive person, that does not apply to everyone who is involved in this movement, and therefore people need to be careful about how their arguments can be used even if they do not intend it to be used this way. I don't think such conspiracy theories can be put down to the idea of 'gaslighting women', there are people who are using this issue to push extremely dodgy ideas and stir up hatred and fear, and trying to recruit people to more and more extreme positions.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I agree with almost everything you say in this post, but I think it could be framed in a way that builds bridges rather than burns them.

Nah mate. this and the middle eastern revs and crude criticisms of identity politics and i feel like i have little agency and political comrades left.

i am friends with a couple of trans people. apologies to white radfems if i am bogged down with taking care of myself to have a ph.d in gender studies to terf/not terf arguments. i am not going to let some liberal whippersnapper impose their exclusionary conceptions of western feminism on those i know. tough luck if they are too conservative for you. deal with where they are at instead.

 

[MochaSoul]

i knew Rachel Dolezal would be brought up as if gender transitions haven't existed for centuries, historically.

As if it's a trend. yeh. everything on this fucking forum is a fucking trend these days.

The idea that it's not a trend has to be questioned when there is a spike in numbers and especially as those numbers include young girls living in a world chockablock full of gender stereotypes. No one is getting into this lightly or for debate kicks. Women are only too aware of how much that costs them.

And yes, Rachel Dolezal is brought back when schools in the US are being urged to affirm race as if it was a question of "identity". Look up Regulation 225 in Delaware and what the NAACP has to say about it.

 

[iona]

<snip>
But you mention crime, and the article posted above raises a point. Men have undisputedly higher levels of violent crime than women. If trans women have a similar level of violence as men, but their crimes are logged and counted as women’s crime, what does that mean? What might be the effects of that?
<snip>

Iirc the study usually quoted on this (my bold) only actually showed it to be the case up until the late 80s. I believe the author—who has said people are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the study's findings—linked this to trans people later on getting more/better mental health care and other support (this is off the top of my head so not verbatim).

 

[ManchesterBeth]

The idea that it's not a trend has to be questioned when there is a spike in numbers and especially as those numbers include young girls living in a world chockablock full of gender stereotypes. No one is getting into this lightly or for debate kicks. Women are only too aware of how much that costs them.

And yes, Rachel Dolezal is brought back when schools in the US are being urged to affirm race as if it was a question of "identity". Look up Regulation 225 in Delaware and what the NAACP has to say about it.

will have a look now.

 

[Red Cat]

Iirc the study usually quoted on this (my bold) only actually showed it to be the case up until the late 80s. I believe the author—who has said people are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the study's findings—linked this to trans people later on getting more/better mental health care and other support (this is off the top of my head so not verbatim).

That's my memory of that study too.

 

[Edie]

Iirc the study usually quoted on this (my bold) only actually showed it to be the case up until the late 80s. I believe the author—who has said people are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the study's findings—linked this to trans people later on getting more/better mental health care and other support (this is off the top of my head so not verbatim).

I think the simple answer is, we don’t know yet.

That’s okay. But it means caution needs to be taken when collecting data, to differentiate between women and trans women, and men and trans men etc

Which, to me anyway, raises concerns about the ‘trans women are women’ statement.

Maybe an answer to concerns about this is just to agree to collect data for political, crime, health etc with that in mind. And maybe that always would have been the case anyhow, and so women’s concerns in this area can be laid to rest?

 

[weepiper]

 

[frogwoman]

sure. I don't deny that young gay and lesbian people may face social pressure to transition etc. that is one of the reasons why I was convinced by some, or a lot of this in the past. because its hard to be a gender non conforming woman in this world and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some people may be doing this for as an escape, pressured by parents to fit gender roles etc etc.

but this is not all that's being said, people are coming out with the idea that there is some sort of trans conspiracy aimed at silencing them, that they have bought out the media to silelnce people and calling them transphobic if they object, and I have come to the conclusion that such a view is really objectionable, because it is not the only example of people turning on a vulnerable group and claiming they are involved in some sort of conspiracy to do something evil or 'hide the truth' about how they are secretly controlling everything. Given the amount of negative publicity over the last two years in mainstream media and in leftist media like the Morning Star towards trans issues, and the difficulty that trans people face in accessing services, this is definitely untrue.

so the government may use this to attack women's rights. yes, that is a possibility, there are examples from the US of a few cases like that happening, such as the women who lost a case against her boss because 'men can also lactate'. so yes, I have no doubt that this will be used by unscrupulous people in a courtroom to try and argue that women's rights are not valid.

but if women's rights are actually what you are concerned about, you should know that a lot of people who are pushing for this stuff the hardest are hard-right conservatives who actually do want to push women out of the workplace, who do want to stop women having abortions and reduce civil rights for gay people, they regard gay people having 'opened the door' for all of this. there are people like focus on the family in America who are trying to stir up the dislike of trans people in order to push a wider agenda of limiting sex education in schools. and if you look on radical feminist websites there are often such people in the comments agreeing with it. A lot of these conspiracy theories on twitter are coming from people with #MAGA and Trump support in their profiles, and these people are being backed up and supported by radical feminists and people on the left, not necessarily deliberately as a lot of them don't necessarily realise where this stuff is even coming from in the first place. And so if you find yourself on the same side as people like this, and pushing scaremongering propaganda without any evidence to it you should try and ask yourself why.

and im sorry but on the women's place website it gives the example of how the people who took an anti-trans stance were distinguished activists on picket lines etc in the past. but a lot of shit can hide behind the whole idea that someone was a distinguished activist, it can be used to bolster a person's claim to credibility and stop people critiquing their actions. it can be used to hide some genuinely awful shit.

and yeah until very recently I had fallen for a lot of this but I have been doing a lot of rethinking of my stance and asking myself whether what I have said or thought over the years has hurt people and it probably has.

 

[Vintage Paw]

but it's seemingly acceptable to unquestioningly affirm children's claim to be the wrong sex because they don't like pink and love trucks knowing that being a child is the time in human development to explore and discover.

That you would come out with this guff hopefully affirms for some newcomers to the thread just what your views are and how you don't argue in good faith and are at the extreme end of the anti-trans arguments. I just hope posters like Edie, who seem genuinely interested to discuss and learn, have read enough of your posts on this long thread to see you for what you are.

 

[kabbes]

Thanks for the interesting posts, frogwoman — lots to think about there.

There are some issues I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on, regardless of how rational arguments may or may not sound. But the one issue that currently brings me up short is how gender rights legislation and non-legislative policy and procedure butts up against that of sex equality legislation, policies and practices. The question of whether trans women should be eligible for protections aimed at establishing equality between men and women, basically. Things like women-only shortlists (if you believe in such things) and how you deal with things to do with income differentials.

This is a thorny problem, because the anti-discrimination policies and practices are needed because of socialisation and social roles, not personal identity. It’s not clear to what extent such things apply for trans women. If it’s just a matter if granting extra protection then why not? But if it causes loss of opportunity for cis women (for example by opening up the role of women’s officers in the Labour Party), there is a potential contradiction of needs.

 

[frogwoman]

Thanks for the interesting posts, frogwoman — lots to think about there.

There are some issues I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on, regardless of how rational arguments may or may not sound. But the one issue that currently brings me up short is how gender rights legislation and non-legislative policy and procedure butts up against that of sex equality legislation. The question of whether trans women should be eligible for protections aimed at establishing equality between men and women, basically. Things like women-only shortlists (if you believe in such things) and how you deal with things to do with income differentials.

This is a thorny problem, because the anti-discrimination policies and practices are needed because of socialisation and social roles, not personal identity. It’s not clear to what extent such things apply for trans women. If it’s just a matter if granting extra protection then why not? But if it causes loss of opportunity for cis women (for example by opening up the role of women’s officers in the Labour Party), there is a potential contradiction of needs.

I know others won't agree but imo fuck the LP. Seriously. I don't see that as a body that favours my rights.

But I do know what you mean, about women only shortlists etc. I think these are issues that can be worked out by such bodies, what I don't think is helpful is an organisation going around on speaking tours fear mongering about the 'trans lobby' when the people who would actually try and take these protections away from women actually have nothing to do with trans people at all.

I think some of the views that 'a man is stealing my place' or whatever, I understand why people would think that, but I think it is more a product of people being made to compete for resources, like a race to the bottom, rather than the fact trans people are taking those positions. Let's look at facts, outside of a few high profile incidents of people taking the piss it is going to be vanishingly rare that being trans is going to be any advantage in applying for a job in the workplace, many people are unlikely to disclose it at all.

It is like complaining that 'an immigrant is taking my job'. So yeah I can see a problem might arise but I don't think it is helpful to blame trans people for this fact or start a race to the bottom type argument of 'they are taking my job' or whatever.

 

[spanglechick]

Ultimately, the shortlist issue isn't neat and tidy, but I'm left with this: it's just a shortlist. There will still be natal women on that list, almost certainly in greater number than trans women. The chances are that a natal woman will get the job most times.

The idea that a man will somehow become trans to exploit this, would be laughable if it wasn't such naked scaremongering. That a man would choose to give up his gender and all the patriarchal adavtages within that, just for a shot at being selected for a job... it's inconceivable. And yet in the wake of Lily Madigan's selection, that was what some were suggesting.

Madigan, by the way, is a bit of a twattock. But she was elected by the members of her local branch. She didn't just turn up and say "I'm a trans woman so you have to give me your job, natal woman" - but people seem to be arguing exactly that.

 

[Edie]

Thanks for the interesting posts, frogwoman — lots to think about there.

There are some issues I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on, regardless of how rational arguments may or may not sound. But the one issue that currently brings me up short is how gender rights legislation and non-legislative policy and procedure butts up against that of sex equality legislation, policies and practices. The question of whether trans women should be eligible for protections aimed at establishing equality between men and women, basically. Things like women-only shortlists (if you believe in such things) and how you deal with things to do with income differentials.

This is a thorny problem, because the anti-discrimination policies and practices are needed because of socialisation and social roles, not personal identity. It’s not clear to what extent such things apply for trans women. If it’s just a matter if granting extra protection then why not? But if it causes loss of opportunity for cis women (for example by opening up the role of women’s officers in the Labour Party), there is a potential contradiction of needs.

Thanks. Said that better than what I could.

See, I get the emotive bit frogwoman And I read and listen to a lot of the vile shit written against trans and a lot of it is hysterical scapegoating, I agree. Needs to be guarded against. (Tbh it’s like the worst of the far right and the worst of the far left have crawled out from under rocks to fight- it’s proper vile).

But all that bollocks aside, what I find is there are no answers given to women’s questions and concerns. So if we say: but what about the issue of statistics? Or what about what political roles created to help redress the gender imbalance in parliament?

And there’s no answers? That doesn’t reassure me.

 

[kabbes]

frogwoman and spanglechick -- you have both responded to my post by personalising the problem, i.e. focusing on questions of blame (i.e. people thinking "a trans woman is taking my job") or intent (i.e. nobody is going to become trans to exploit the system). But I did not intend to raise the issue as one of personal responsibility. It's not about what individuals choose to do or think within the system, it's about the system itself. The reasons women have a hard time in society are generally structural, not about whether individuals are 'good people' or not. Structural problems need structural solutions and various such structural solutions have been tried, and these solutions need good quality data to ascertain their success.

There comes a point where it is hard to talk in abstract terms and concrete examples are needed but the problem with this is that the discussion becomes about that specific concrete example rather than about the issues it raises as a case study. Nevertheless, I'm going to try.

One reason that there is such a division in pay is that as women reach the point they have children, they run up against the various structural walls that exist which stop their career advancement. Society is focused on women being the primary caregiver and is not prepared to give primary caregivers the breaks needed to allow them to maintain the same career trajectory they had before. The problem is exacerbated because girls are generally socialised to put others first and to not push themselves forward unless they are sure of success (men will apply for a job if they meet 50% of the criteria; women won't unless they meet 80%). These various problems then bleed through to create other problems, such as a lack of female role models ("we can't be what we can't see") and assumptions regarding what success looks like ("we want someone just like Jim").

So we need to address these structural issues, and various approaches are taken to this. Now, it is not clear that trans women have these same underlying structural difficulties in obtaining representation at higher levels. Some differences are due to a difference in socialisation during upbringing (the CV issue, for example) and some are due to not facing the same material disadvantages (e.g. bearing children). As such, to allow trans women to take advantage of the solutions focussed on addressing discrimination against women generally is potentially to undermine those solutions.

This is not an easy problem. Right now, there is a certain element of "who cares?" to it, because trans women are such a small minority. But if we are fighting for the right to be who we are, we are surely fighting for a future in which more people feel comfortable declaring themselves to be transgendered? In which case, this may become more of an issue. Furthermore, if we are also fighting for acceptance for trans women who remain quite male in appearance (and "attitude"?), there is an even stronger reason to simultaneously worry about the impact of this on the attempt to compensate for the structural reasons for antipathy towards women.

 

[spanglechick]

frogwoman and spanglechick -- you have both responded to my post by personalising the problem, i.e. focusing on questions of blame (i.e. people thinking "a trans woman is taking my job") or intent (i.e. nobody is going to become trans to exploit the system). But I did not intend to raise the issue as one of personal responsibility. It's not about what individuals choose to do or think within the system, it's about the system itself. The reasons women have a hard time in society are generally structural, not about whether individuals are 'good people' or not. Structural problems need structural solutions and various such structural solutions have been tried, and these solutions need good quality data to ascertain their success.

There comes a point where it is hard to talk in abstract terms and concrete examples are needed but the problem with this is that the discussion becomes about that specific concrete example rather than about the issues it raises as a case study. Nevertheless, I'm going to try.

One reason that there is such a division in pay is that as women reach the point they have children, they run up against the various structural walls that exist which stop their career advancement. Society is focused on women being the primary caregiver and is not prepared to give primary caregivers the breaks needed to allow them to maintain the same career trajectory they had before. The problem is exacerbated because girls are generally socialised to put others first and to not push themselves forward unless they are sure of success (men will apply for a job if they meet 50% of the criteria; women won't unless they meet 80%). These various problems then bleed through to create other problems, such as a lack of female role models ("we can't be what we can't see") and assumptions regarding what success looks like ("we want someone just like Jim").

So we need to address these structural issues, and various approaches are taken to this. Now, it is not clear that trans women have these same underlying structural difficulties in obtaining representation at higher levels. Some differences are due to a difference in socialisation during upbringing (the CV issue, for example) and some are due to not facing the same material disadvantages (e.g. bearing children). As such, to allow trans women to take advantage of the solutions focussed on addressing discrimination against women generally is potentially to undermine those solutions.

This is not an easy problem. Right now, there is a certain element of "who cares?" to it, because trans women are such a small minority. But if we are fighting for the right to be who we are, we are surely fighting for a future in which more people feel comfortable declaring themselves to be transgendered? In which case, this may become more of an issue. Furthermore, if we are also fighting for acceptance for trans women who remain quite male in appearance (and "attitude"?), there is an even stronger reason to simultaneously worry about the impact of this on the attempt to compensate for the structural reasons for antipathy towards women.

I think the desire to personalise the discussion isn't especially problematic, especially when all participants are aware of the basic issues behind all-women shortlists and gender pay gaps etc.

And "how will that work in practice?" Is critical to persuasive writing.

 

[kabbes]

I think the desire to personalise the discussion isn't especially problematic, especially when all participants are aware of the basic issues behind all-women shortlists and gender pay gaps etc.

And "how will that work in practice?" Is critical to persuasive writing.

I’m sorry, but that response just shows you haven’t understood what the problem is. My fault, no doubt.

It’s not about individual decisions. It’s about what group you’re trying to compensate for against discrimination, what that specific discrimination is and why you are choosing that solution to compensate for it. Then it’s about whether this solution also makes sense for application to a different group. The question is not “why shouldn’t trans women benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices?”, it’s “why should they?” Structurally, do those solutions apply in the same way?

 

[weepiper]

I’m sorry, but that response just shows you haven’t understood what the problem is. My fault, no doubt.

It’s not about individual decisions. It’s about what group you’re trying to compensate for against discrimination, what that specific discrimination is and why you are choosing that solution to compensate for it. Then it’s about whether this solution also makes sense for application to a different group. The question is not “why shouldn’t trans women benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices?”, it’s “why should they?” Structurally, do those solutions apply in the same way?

Nail.
It's also a question of 'if they benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices, does that reduce or dissipate the effect of those practices on the group they were designed to help'.

 

[Edie]

I’m sorry, but that response just shows you haven’t understood what the problem is. My fault, no doubt.

It’s not about individual decisions. It’s about what group you’re trying to compensate for against discrimination, what that specific discrimination is and why you are choosing that solution to compensate for it. Then it’s about whether this solution also makes sense for application to a different group. The question is not “why shouldn’t trans women benefit from anti-sex discrimination practices?”, it’s “why should they?” Structurally, do those solutions apply in the same way?

Bang on

 

[frogwoman]

It doesn't have to be an either or thing though? I agree with a lot of this but I don't necessarily see it as trans women 'taking advantage of the system' ? Women are systematically discriminated against, that is not going to change regardless of these laws. I don't see that these changes will have much effect. Patriarchy is really far reaching so the idea that a small number of trans women might benefit from a change in the law at 'the expense' of women is kind of irrelevant, because it is not just about jobs or shortlists or whatever, it's about a whole system. Men have been benefiting at the expense of women for thousands of years. It's like saying that you are worried that trying to address discrimination against gay people will take attention away from discrimination against another group such as idk disabled people. I don't see why these issues can't be worked out on a case by case basis and I don't see why this is an either or thing. The chance that trans women might benefit from changes that are 'meant' to benefit women is kinda neither here or there when it doesn't challenge the whole system regardless .

but my point in bringing up the far right isn't to call people transphobic, it is to point out that the people who are actually involved in producing this narrative are the people who actually do want to take rights away from women. Shit like abortion rights and is far more dangerous in terms of the effects of confining women to the home, but I have actually seen people say that views on abortion are just 'an opinion' and the more important issue is trans people. I think this attitude is really dangerous because the people who are involved in voting in so called 'bathroom bills' and so are on are the same people who are restricting access to things like birth control and abortion in the usa, there is a very real possibility that things like roe vs wade will be overturned, and I see this as vastly worse for women than the concept that a trans woman might take advantage of some scheme intended to help cis women. Some of the people saying this stuff are saying that some of the PC language used should be a reason to cut funding to things like charities that help women. I see that as vastly more of a problem.

 

[frogwoman]

And re the whole debate about whether trans women are actually women, the thing is not whether they are women or not, but the fact that some people don't even seem to see them as people at all and seem to completely dehumanise them. For example in this video



This is just humiliation of people based on their looks, I don't see this as adding to a debate at all. I'm sure some of the people in the audience really are concerned with privacy and what have you but can you really watch this and not see the transphobia in her statements? And well meaning people that actually are not naturally transphobic are being manipulated to agree with this and accept it as normal.

 

[Edie]

It is transphobic. It doesn’t add anything to the debate.

What’s your point? That women shouldn’t raise concerns then?

 

[Edie]

Personally, I’m waiting for shygirl to come back and let us know what she thought of the event.

Did she feel it was transphobic?
What issues were discussed?
Were any solutions discussed?

 

[ddraig]

They won't say it's transphobic as they were supporting and promoting it
it didn't kick off

I literally got moved out of my seat after offering some of them seats in the pub afterwards, was teetering half on the edge then got surrounded by more getting way too close so I had to leave

 

[Athos]

And re the whole debate about whether trans women are actually women, the thing is not whether they are women or not, but the fact that some people don't even seem to see them as people at all and seem to completely dehumanise them. For example in this video



This is just humiliation of people based on their looks, I don't see this as adding to a debate at all. I'm sure some of the people in the audience really are concerned with privacy and what have you but can you really watch this and not see the transphobia in her statements? And well meaning people that actually are not naturally transphobic are being manipulated to agree with this and accept it as normal.

Quite apart from being deliberately and gratuitously unkind, to criticise anyone for a perceived failure to meet stereotypical beauty standards seems an odd thing for a feminist to do.

 

[Athos]

... but my point in bringing up the far right isn't to call people transphobic, it is to point out that the people who are actually involved in producing this narrative are the people who actually do want to take rights away from women. Shit like abortion rights and is far more dangerous in terms of the effects of confining women to the home, but I have actually seen people say that views on abortion are just 'an opinion' and the more important issue is trans people. I think this attitude is really dangerous because the people who are involved in voting in so called 'bathroom bills' and so are on are the same people who are restricting access to things like birth control and abortion in the usa, there is a very real possibility that things like roe vs wade will be overturned, and I see this as vastly worse for women than the concept that a trans woman might take advantage of some scheme intended to help cis women. Some of the people saying this stuff are saying that some of the PC language used should be a reason to cut funding to things like charities that help women. I see that as vastly more of a problem.

I'm not sure I buy that; it's like saying all Brexit voters share UKIP's aims. It's possible for political enemies to be aligned on some issues without implying anything more. Although I do wince at the decision to actually work together. I think it shows some have lost a sense of perspective over this issue.

 

[weepiper]

They won't say it's transphobic as they were supporting and promoting it
it didn't kick off

I literally got moved out of my seat after offering some of them seats in the pub afterwards, was teetering half on the edge then got surrounded by more getting way too close so I had to leave

RADFEMS EXCLUDED ME FROM MY SEAT