A couple of weeks ago I travelled to Brighton for a meeting organised by A Woman’s Place UK (WPUK). Not the “transphobic hate group supported by the far right” WPUK, because that group doesn’t exist outside the febrile imaginations of blustering trans activists. I’m talking about the campaign that was launched back in September 2017, prompted by the assault on me at Speakers’ Corner, “to ensure that women would be able to meet and discuss issues of genuine concern and legitimate relevance to them”. This is a notion so offensive to the virtue-signalling, anti-feminist identifarians of the trans cult that they have since targeted almost every meeting that has been held for that purpose, whether organised by WPUK or by the indomitable Venice Allan. I keep a full list of those meetings with details of disruption attempts here.
There was no respite from their despotic activities at Brighton. The local Friends Meeting House was booked as the original venue and to the absolute shame of their governing committee, they cancelled at short notice. With astounding arrogance they declared that they didn’t think a meeting of this kind “will enhance the wider debate or mutual understanding blah blah blah more likely to aggravate the situation.” Yes, Quakers of Brighton, allowing women a voice is aggravating to misogynists. If you think the solution is to give in to the bullies trying to silence us, think again. The response of WPUK to the Quakers’ statement can be seen here.
The venue of the relocated meeting was kept secret until about two hours before it was due to start. Nevertheless, by the time I arrived – on my own and over an hour early – at the excellent Jury’s Inn Brighton Waterfront, there was already a large crowd of trans activist protesters there, chanting and haranguing anyone entering the hotel.
I walked through them. As I did so, a young woman thrust a leaflet at me and started preaching. I took the leaflet from her, quietly told her to fuck off, then entered the building.
I was shaking.
It’s not pleasant to have to run the gauntlet of the kind of people who hate feminists so much that they will devote such a huge effort into trying to stop us meeting, trying to drown out our voices, abusing us, gaslighting us, applauding and defending violence against us. I had no reason to assume that this lot were any different from the ones I had encountered at Speakers’ Corner and Tottenham Court Road.
They stood outside both the front and back entrances to the hotel, chanting their harebrained slogans, oblivious to the discomfort and disturbance they were causing to hotel guests, diners and staff alike, concerned only that their feelings shouldn’t be hurt, that their “values” – for want of a better word – shouldn’t be offended.
But it was fantastic to get safely inside and be welcomed by so many friendly faces. I still can’t get used to people I’ve never met before knowing who I am, laughing and waving away my proffered ID. As more and more people arrived, I realised many felt as angry as I did at the attempts to intimidate us and as relieved to get through it. Here’s footage I took from the hotel foyer.
It’s a shame that things turned nasty during the Q&A session, thanks to a handful of trans allies, none of whom engaged with anything that had been said by any of the speakers. I don’t condone heckling people who have the courage to stand up and say something they know will be unpopular but on this occasion I felt these individuals had brought the hostility on themselves. To any trans activists and allies with a mind to attend any future meetings and who would prefer to be afforded courtesy and respect, allow me to offer some suggestions:
1. Try some respect yourself! Don’t bring your mates to stand outside shouting at people and expect those same people to be nice to you when you stand up and rant in the meeting.
2. If you want to be taken half-seriously, don’t flaunt the fact that you’re pandering to transgender ideology by introducing yourself as “cisgender”, especially when it’s flaming obvious what sex you are. Most people at those meetings haven’t drunk the kool-aid, and we do not take kindly to seeing qualifiers put on womanhood and being reduced to a category of it.
3. Most if not all the attendees are there because they are interested and concerned about transgenderism and the effect it’s having everywhere, particularly in relation to children and to sex-segregated spaces. This means they will have done some preliminary reading at the very least. They will be very familiar with what is possibly the most frequent attempt at serious argument by trans allies, which is about the alleged attempted suicide rate of young transgender people. Bringing it up yet again is not going to suddenly make us start going along with the male entitlement to colonise womanhood that is a core part of transgender ideology.
The same, by the way, goes for other canards with respect to violence and murder. In contrast to the professed sentiments of many online trans activists, we do not support violence nor are we responsible for the murders of transgender people and we are not going to be emotionally blackmailed into supporting an agenda that hurts women and children because of what violent men do.
4. Finally, listen to the speakers and use the Q&A time as it is meant to be used. I really felt that the trans allies who spoke had not listened to a word that had been said and were just using the time to soapbox their own cause, which was very rude and only made many audience members angry and frustrated. While I’m sure there were a few who had some sympathy with them, I’m also sure their intervention won them no new friends and had zero impact on changing anyone’s mind.
I’m not going to defend the general behaviour of Julie Burchill’s disruptive little mate, Zoe, who sat in the audience being far too vocal throughout the meeting, even though she was enthusiastic in her praise for the speakers. Her heckling during the Q&A only made things worse and gave the trans allies ammunition. However, I will defend her for the question fired out while one of the trans allies was ranting. She said:
“Can I identify as black?”
“That’s racist!” came the response from one or more of the trans allies, spectacularly missing the point which, for the benefit of anyone else who seriously didn’t get it, I explain on my page dedicated to bad arguments by the trans cult. Can you identify as black if you’re white?
Soon afterwards, the group of them left the meeting room, uninterested in hearing any responses from the panel of speakers to anything they’d said.
After the meeting, I went to the loo and found the stickers Handmaids ‘R’ Us had put up. I bet they felt really naughty and subversive putting up nonsensical stickers in the toilet of a posh hotel and the irony that they were trying to shut up genuine feminists who do indeed include all women in our feminism but aren’t prepared to submit to male entitlement and don’t sink to using hate speech, would have been lost on them.
I had a drink in the bar then left through an exit not guarded by the mob, who were still ranting outside. I didn’t feel safe until I was well away from them.
The next day on Twitter I got into a squabble with a few of the protesters and their mates, who mentioned the alleged “racism” and insisted that the protest had been “peaceful” because to them, peaceful means just “non-violent”. Shouting through a megaphone until late in the evening and disturbing people trying to enjoy their dinner or get an early night’s sleep is absolutely peaceful, of course, and one can’t imagine why the hotel lost business because of it, as they claimed. Here’s the WPUK organisers account of what happened.
There are no depths to which these people will not sink. One of the allegations made by several transcultists the next day was that somebody attending our meeting had gone out and aggressively threatened one of the protesters and been “removed by police”. Here is the only evidence offered in support that particular piece of hogwash. In spite of the person being “threatened” apparently cheerfully using a smartphone to film, I’ve yet to see any videos or pics apart from this one.
What that pic shows is a man who was probably disturbed by the racket while dining in the hotel. There is nothing to suggest he had anything to do with our meeting and I am absolutely certain he wasn’t in attendance. He would have stood out like a sore thumb if he had been. And, of course, he wasn’t “removed by police”, he was simply told to move along. I did ask those tweeting this pic why the man’s face was fuzzed out but got no answer. If there’d been anything to suggest he was really a “gender crit” as the batty Teresa Clark (see screenshot, right) calls us, they would have relished “doxing” him.
The worst thing though was seeing a screenshot of what appeared to be a Facebook page, on which someone was boasting that they’d been spitting at the protesters heads from behind on their way into the hotel to attend our meeting. I was mortified that any feminist would behave like that. I’m quite embarrassed to admit that I can still be taken in by bad people and I was taken in by that screenshot. It turned out to be fake. Seriously, trans activists really will sink that low.
According to a report entitled Social Media Attacks on WPUK:
My experience of the Brighton protesters both at the event and online afterwards was somewhat traumatising, all things considered. I’m sure they’ll be delighted to hear that because basic human decency isn’t their strong suit – hating, bullying, intimidating and lying is what they do best. But on the plus side, the nastier they get, the more people they propel towards peak trans, the more people want to meet and talk and fight back and the more I put on this website. So up yours, bullies.
“Is it therefore not more logical to assert that they are more likely to be violent and abusive if they are unable to become that which they feel they are than when they are that which they are meant to be, and as such your support rather than segregation would be more effective.”
Sir, thank you for explaining the situation.
It appears women are at fault for not submitting to intimidation, abuse or assault. As women persist with this difficult behaviour, they will understandably become subject to greater violence and intimidation. It all becomes so crystal clear now you have pointed out that the beatings shall continue until morale has improved.
I hereby undertake to cower in the corner just as soon as hell freezes over and beg your indulgence to include this short piece as coursework for the following:
University of Life. Foundation certificate in Gender Studies.
Module 2: Identifying Abusive Behaviour using the Duluth Model MSGNY 101 (30 points)
‘the male entitlement to colonise womanhood that is a core part of transgender ideology.’
’emotionally blackmailed into supporting an agenda that hurts women and children because of what violent men do.’
‘genuine feminists who do indeed include all women in our feminism but aren’t prepared to submit to male entitlement and don’t sink to using hate speech’,
Having read your piece I find myself wondering if you are actually aware of your own confusion and that just because you can write a bit using straplines and buzzwords does not make you right or even close to accurate!
Whilst I will concede that ‘trans’ activists can and have been overly emotional and perhaps ill considered in some behaviour you feminists must take some of the responsibility for the causing of this overreaction by using lines such as I picked out from this piece alone above.
How can you claim that rans women are not real women and attempt to segregate them in public spaces from ‘real’ women and then claim to be inclusive ( quote taken above) and call being trans ‘Male entitlement” which is as far away from feminism as you can possibly get.
I see there is no mention anywhere of trans males and the fact that many of these people are ‘lesbians’ and are as aggressive, if not more so in some cases, than gen men…… I don’t see you trying to segregate them out of your public toilets, All I can see, ON BOTH SIDES, is people with something lacking in their lives needing something to fill the void and get a kick out of being ‘right on’.
Science and specifically genetics is continually researching and has proven that the huge majority of trans females are not merely ‘identifying’ as female but are female brained and are but for one chromosome essentially female but was born in a male body, and take steps brought about by science and technology to rectify this.
Is it therefore not more logical to assert that they are more likely to be violent and abusive if they are unable to become that which they feel they are than when they are that which they are meant to be, and as such your support rather than segregation would be more effective.
There are many steps a person has to go through before they can completely transform and a major factor in this is psychoanalysis and assessment by highly regarded specialists in their field, and I find incredulity in your assertions that you know better than these professionals and that even after becoming the woman or man that a person feels they should be that they would be violent or abusive???
It is pure logic to assume that becoming the female they feel they should be and after undergoing rigorous analysis and hours of painful surgery and years of hormone replacement therapy that they would feel complete and happy and therefore less likely to be violent and abusive is it not? So your argument(s) do not add up, all people can see, and are reacting to is transphobic rhetoric and confused feminist right wing drivel.
What is it that you are afraid of really? Its not like trans women are a threat to ‘womanhood’ is it? As yet they are unable to carry a foetus or procreate in the traditional way and they want to be feminists and support feminist causes like the women they are, but you are putting them off and forcing an apartheid, shame on you.
Thank you for your remarkable comment. I have responded to it on my blog here:
How confused am I!