Talk:Moira Deeming/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Far right"

I don't want to go to WP:3RRN without attempting at least some discussion about the terms "far right" on the article. I don't know who the subject is, and thus have no opinion, but it seems as though "far right" is appropriate from a quick read of the article. Pinging 120.21.62.129 and Goose121, since you two were reverting each other before I stumbled upon this mess. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the term "far right" is definitely appropriate for her views given the information presented, and furthermore that the use of the term "pro-life" pushes a particular point of view, given that it is only used by advocates of the position. More neutral terminology (i.e. pro/anti-abortion) was already in use in the article, and neither "far right" nor "anti-abortion" are particularly derogatory when they are an accurate description of someone's views. goose121 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, @Goose121: it's a bit much to say that "far-right" is a description rather than a denigration. This edit is clearly unacceptable since it describes Deeming (as well as Finn!) as "far right". The "drifting" comment isn't as egregious, but it still suffers from the mystery of who thinks this: "was viewed". In fact, the ABC attributes the view to Mornington councillor Steve Holland, and so should we. StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Looking at the source, I agree that it didn't explicitly say much about the "drifting", and so removing the paragraph as a whole seems like the right choice.

Another issue which remains, however, is the issue of "pro-life" versus "anti-abortion"; searching the Wikipedia namespace reveals a few similar decisions, where the general consensus seems to be that "pro-life" is WP:POV and "anti-abortion" is preferred, so I believe that the current wording (also introduced by 120.21.62.129) is inadequate and should be changed to what it was before. goose121 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I was gonna bring that up, but couldn't find the right words for it. I'm pretty sure there was a discussion on those exact terms in general, but can't for the life of me remember where it happened. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think maybe the expression that Finn's views were deemed too extreme should be replaced by the claim from the source that he was expelled "after saying abortion should be banned in the state, even for rape survivors," to avoid any issues with interpretation. goose121 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The other twist in this is that Finn himself is running as a candidate for the DLP - see Candidates of the 2022 Victorian state election#Western Metropolitan. So the fact that he's "delighted" doesn't mean much - and Deeming may have been selected specifically to draw votes away from him. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the cited article, it was more Finn's "inflammatory social media posts" than his views on abortion. StAnselm (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The first article cited says "the weekend rally that was gatecrashed by far-right extremists performing Nazi salutes on the steps of parliament." which is contrary to the wording in the Lead.

In the second she condemns the 'far-right extremists '.

The third says "In a post on social media, Deeming, a former teacher and City of Melton councillor, said she was disappointed with Victoria Police for letting masked men into the rally buffer zone.

“Police managed to stop hordes of (trans rights activists), but somehow could only walk masked men past us (as) they did a horrible Nazi salute,” she said on Twitter."

It seems our article is off on totally the wrong foot.

We need to include at the very least the gatecrashing and her condemnation - but actually this attempting to associate people with the Nazis itself is the thing that we need to deal with otherwise we are simply a platform - not an encyclopaedia.

Thoughts please Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No need for thoughts actually. I have realised that the extensive use of the word 'Nazi' will alert the reader to the quality of the article. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am shocked that this article has essentially been used for political reasons, and this is particularly notable given that the Victorian Liberal Leader has been quoted as having used Wikipedia to justify his decision to attempt to remove Moira Deeming from his party. If he is going to remove her based on this article, we had better make sure that this article is seriously good to justify it. And right now it isn't anywhere near at that standard. Right now it is being presented from a very far-left viewpoint without even acknowledging that other viewpoints exist, let alone presenting them. There is nothing neutral about this at all and it needs a whole lot of NPOV fixes. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nazi appears in the article a lot because a rally Deeming helped organised was crashed by...well, by Nazi's. It's not a small deal to have Nazi's gatecrash an event organised and attended by a sitting parliamentarian. This doesn't look good and I doubt she was happy it happened, but it did and now it's probably the most widely reported event in Deeming's career.

And guys please be mindful of civility. It's not okay to insinuate other editors are acting in bad faith, as per WP:NPA. We are reflecting the sources, not "a very far-left viewpoint" and there is no legitimate reason to infer otherwise. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, Blissyu2 was an indefinitely banned sockpuppet. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-trans" rally

Many (most?) new sites are calling the rally Deeming attended an "anti-trans" rally, but bear in mind that this is not a neutral term. As the ABC notes, "a rump of MPs are angry with Mr Pesutto, and the media, that the rally has been labelled anti-trans rights rather than a women's rights movement". StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree, and this is especially important given that this is a BLP issue. Many right-leaning publications have described it as a "women's right's rally" while left-leaning publications have described it as being an "anti-trans rally". I think that it is important to note both perceptions, but we also need to be aware that briefly some publications falsely described it as a "neo-nazi rally" and we need to note that media are allowed to be biased, and they are biased, but that doesn't mean we have to be. We can and should mention that some outlets describe it as being anti-trans, but, given that there is this dispute about whether it really is, we must not state that as fact. The rally was about women's rights that they allege have been trampled on by trans rights. It was not about bashing trans at all. Some people claim it was, and that has merit, but there is room for people to take both sides and adopt a more neutral tone. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. The rally was expressly anti-trans. Posie Parker is an anti-trans activist, as is mentioned on her Wikipedia page. Every notable attendee was anti-trans, not feminist. There were pro-trans rights counterprotestors. To describe it as anything such is WP:UNDUE weight. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The rally was not anti-trans, standing up for women's rights is not anti-trans. You can't use a Wikipedia page to label "Posie Parker" as "anti-trans", as you are well aware anyone can edit a wikipedia page. Name an attendee that was "anti-trans" and not "standing up for women's rights". Please don't use opinion and innuendo as fact. 116.204.144.164 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We reflect the sources and the sources are very clear that this was an anti-trans rally and this Posie woman is apparently a anti-trans activist. We reflect WP:RELIABLE sources, and that is all. We don't do WP:OR or personal opinion...she's been labeled anti-trans by the media and academia, so that's what we reflect in the article. Of course if you have reliable sources that say otherwise you are welcome to present them and try and build a new consensus. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-trans rally

@Clanrickard, you have now reverted sections of the anti-trans section 4 times in the last 24 hours with this series of edits [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Please discuss here prior to making any further edits to that section. Please note, a belief that you're right or a preference for something else is not grounds for edit warring. TarnishedPath^talk 09:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@UKReason if you wish to discuss the anti-trans rally section, please utilise the talk section here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

Change "anti-trans rally" To "Let Women Speak", a women's rights event"

Change "The rally was attended by independent neo-Nazi groups who repeatedly performed Nazi salutes from the steps of Parliament." To "The rally was intended to allow local women to talk about how their sex-based rights are being impacted by Gender Self ID laws and gender ideology. Six different groups protested at the same time. One, a large group of trans activists, became violent, punched police horses, threw objects at police and assaulted the women's rights activists. Another was a group of neo-nazis who repeatedly performed Nazi salutes from the steps of Parliament. Due to the trans activist's violence the women's rights even had to be cut short."

Change "Deeming described the anti-bullying and inclusion program Safe Schools as "sleazy"." To "Deeming described the Safe Schools program, intended as an anti-bullying and inclusion program but acting as a Trojan horse to promote gender fluidity, promiscuity and homosexuality to school students, as "sleazy". The program was widely panned by parents across the country who saw it as an intrusion on their rights as parents to teach values to their children and the Federal Government ceased its funding of the Safe Schools program in October 2016."

Change "a part of anti-transgender rights activist[11][12] Kellie Jay Keen's speaking tour." To "a part of women's rights activist, Kellie-Jay Keen's "Let Women Speak" tour of Australia and New Zealand."

Change "On 18 March 2023, Deeming spoke at the anti-trans "Let Women Speak" rally [12] in Melbourne which was independently attended by the neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network and its leader Thomas Sewell as well as Nathan Bull, a neo-Nazi son of a police officer.[28] The neo-Nazis repeatedly engaged in Nazi salutes and carried far-right extremist banners, directed at a counter protest of the "Let Women Speak" rally, which had been organised by LGBTQ+ rights activists.[29]" To "On 18 March 2023, Deeming spoke at the "Let Women Speak" rally in Melbourne in support of women's rights to female-only spaces and female-only sports. The event was also independently attended by a large group of trans activists and by the neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network and its leader Thomas Sewell as well as Nathan Bull, a neo-Nazi son of a police officer. The trans activists engaged in violent assaults on police and their horses, as well as several of the women's rights activists. The neo-Nazis repeatedly engaged in Nazi salutes and carried far-right extremist banners, directed at a counter protest of the "Let Women Speak" rally, which had been organised by trans activists. BronW8 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree that the Nazi slant we have inadvertently(?) ended up with in the Article suggests guilt by association and misrepresented.

The Anti Trans thing i reference in my reply to @RoadSmasher420 It's very difficult to pin anyone down to specifics but I'll stick my neck out here and say that it seems 'Anti Trans' is anything that doesn't fully accept that a 'Trans woman' is, in every way, a 'Woman'. In that sense the term is appropriately applied to Deeming.

I'd say that applies to the rally as a whole and as it is the main thrust of Let Women Speak it's fair to describe it as an Anti Trans rally.

You could say (with that definition) the same of World Athletics (and many others) attitude to Trans Athletes (see Guardian Article). Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How do I get a consensus? These facts are easily verifiable via media reports and better reflect the truth of the situation. It's biased to call someone an 'anti-trans activist' when they describe themselves as a 'women's rights activist'. BronW8 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources (such as those listed in the article) specifically designate the rally as "anti-trans" rather than "pro-women's rights".

Terrorists call themselves freedom fighters; China calls itself a democracy. Is it biased to correctly describe them as what they are? RoadSmasher420 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's really how things, groups, people are perceived at any given time. The Lehi (militant group) or Irgun, We even have several articles on the IRA, some reflection on how we view the same organisation at different times.

What is 'Anti Trans' today?

It's very difficult to pin anyone down to specifics but I'll stick my neck out here and say that it seems 'Anti Trans' is anything that doesn't fully accept that a 'Trans woman' is, in every way, a 'Woman'. In that sense the term is appropriately applied to Deeming. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we agree to leave the Anti-Trans bit but include a bit that makes it clear than the organisers and participants at the rally do not consider themselves anti-trans but pro-women?. Also the notion that Neo-Nazis were also at the same rally as Deeming is denied by her. She says they came along but were separate from the main rally. This should at least be added. It is entirely unfair to slyly infer Deeming has anything to do with Neo-Nazis. Clanrickard (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clanrickard, the citations currently in use in the article:

• [5] - "Over the weekend, Mr Bull was photographed performing a Nazi salute on the steps of parliament alongside fellow NSN members during an anti-trans rally in Melbourne, a move which was strongly condemned by Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews". Clearly in this source the neo-nazis are reported as attending the same rally.
• [6] - the article's title is "Moira Deeming vows to fight expulsion push over involvement in protest attended by neo-Nazis". Clearly this source reports that the neo-Nazis attended the same protest. The only reference to "gate-crashing" is quote from Deeming and is obviously her opinion, not material fact.

The Age does state that the event was gate crashed by the neo-nazis, however I'm reading this as an editorial stance after seeking comment from Deeming. Two out of the Three of the sources used in the section do not refer to event as being gate crashed by neo-Nazis in the article voice and refer to the neo-Nazis as attending the same event. The material stays as per a consensus of the reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 23:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added other sources to the anti-trans rally section:

• [7] - "The Victorian Liberal Party this morning expelled renegade MP Moira Deeming who helped promote an anti-transgender rights rally on the steps of State Parliament that attracted neo-Nazis."
• [8] - has heading "Liberal MP Moira Deeming set to be expelled over role in violent Melbourne anti-trans rally" and from the article "The rally was attended by members of the National Socialist Movement who repeatedly performed the Nazi salute and held signs calling transgender people offensive names, sparking violent clashes with hundreds of counter-protesters." TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a really emotion-based response that isn't grounded in fact and steers dangerously close to slander. Moira Deeming is a well respected politician who attended a peaceful women's rights rally. That rally was gate crashed by other fringe and radical groups like trans activists, Antifa and neo nazis. I object to this mischaracterisation of her as part of a coordinated leftist attack on freedom and the rights of women. BronW8 (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing "emotional-based" about an analysis of the reliable sources and what they actually say. You can refer to their words which I've quoted in black and white. TarnishedPath^talk 04:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@BronW8 - The general answer to your question is that building consensus on Wikipedia is a complicated process with different approaches that you can read about by following that link. For something as contentious is this topic could potentially become, it is better to build consensus HERE on the talk page before editing the article directly. (Or requesting others to do it for you in the case of protected pages) PianoDan (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. 115.64.125.157 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Key facts should not be removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@HiLo48 you have reverted a relevant update relating to major news of the day covered by all major Australian media outlets. I have included citations from the ABC where they have clearly stated the event was gate-crashed by neo-Nazis and that Moira Deeming has lodged a defamation case against her former boss. You are removing the name of the actual rally also published in the ABC source and removed other relevant and key neutral facts which clearly demonstrates that you have a bias. You are suppressing relevant information from the public. Regardless of personal opinion on the candidate, facts like this should not be removed especially when a defamation case has been lodged with the Federal Court. That is a serious concealment of information the public has the right to know about and there is no justification for such unproffesional actions. 136.154.23.253 (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah first of all, you're gonna stop with the allegations of bias/"unproffesional" actions against other editors or "suppression" or what have you. WP:CIVILITY is a requirement, not a request. As was highlighted in the edit summary of this, the source still refers to it as an "anti-trans" rally, as do an infinite amount of sources. If you were perhaps adding the name beside it rather than removing the fully sourced details, sure, that might work, but removing the information backed by sources won't wash. As for the "hijacked" question, it's said in the edit summaries that it only says this in the title of the source and still says that it was attended by these groups. Whether or not it was hijacked seems to be in dispute. If it's well sourced that it was hijacked, I wouldn't have a problem with adding this, but it'd need to be shown by multiple credible sources. But again, if you're going to propose changes like this, you would be wise to do it on the talk page rather than repeatedly re-inserting your own version, which is classed as edit warring. Sound good? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@ HiLo48 you seem to have missed the fact that much of the media including the ABC has referred to the neo-Nazis as hijacking and gatecrashing and the rally as Let Women Speak on December 5. The citation from the ABC appeared in an edit I saw last night. It has since been removed as has the information that a defamation case was launched today by Moira Deeming. However, I have managed to find this on many different sources. Why was it removed from here? 121.200.5.250 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources refer to the event as an anti-trans rally. We go with what the reliable sources say around here. On your question of it being gate crashed. This wasn't some birthday party, it was an event held in public and the majority of the reliable sources used in the article refer to the neo-nazis as attending or being attracted to the event (mostly attending). Per the defamation case WP:RECENTISM applies here, particularly as this is a WP:BLP and the material you're trying to insert concerns two living people. I strongly advise you that you need to cease your current edit warring or you will find yourself before noticeboards. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of your claim that the vast majority of sources refer to it as anti-trans, currently the vast majority of sources including ABC, The Age and Yahoo News for example, are calling it by the official name 'Let Women Speak' and the vast majority of sources are stating that the 'Let Women Speak' rally was gate-crashed by neo-Nazis including the ABC and The Age. The current page is inaccurate in so many ways. It was NOT attended by neo-Nazi groups but a SINGLE group of neo-Nazis who gate-crashed the event. It has been established that they were not a part of the rally. So much more has happened since and reported by major outlets (sources) yet it continues to be removed like there is a need for the public to be kept in the dark by editors on this Wikipedia page. 120.21.92.243 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You're acting like this was some sort of birthday party held on private property. It wasn't. It was a publicly advertised event and neo-nazis attended. Reliable sources say as much. You're going nowhere with your arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No point debating with this guy. Its obvious that he doesnt understand how to navigate through difficult and contentious issues in a non dogmatic and @. He's either naive or an activist, and looking at his profile i sense its a bit of both. Better just cut loose from this decaying pseudo-encyclo. 2A00:23C5:5996:6001:B443:4461:4E5A:7FE8 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Two things - Who is "this guy"? And please read WP:NPA. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moira Deeming article edits.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to know why some person seemns to have the right, to blatantly spread misinformation about Moira Deeming, a member of the Liberal Party in the State of Victoria Australia. She is accused of holding an "anti trans rally", when it was NOT. It was a rally for woman's safety and was titles "Let Women Speak" . There have been numerous attempts tro rectify this and make the article on Deeming more accurate yet this lie about the rally seems to perpetuate? Skyfox Gazelle (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times if you care to look through the talk archives (look above). Reliable sources state that it was an anti-trans rally and therefore so do we. As per your claim that the article states that she organised the rally, that is simply not the case. The article states that she spoke at the rally which was organised by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. Perhaps you should go read the relevant sections again. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What are your so called “reliable sources”? My sources were the Australian Womens Forum Moira Deeming herself in an e mail and Sky News. Or are only left leaning “sources” allowed? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to allow all points of view? The rally was titled “Let Women Speak” like Ms Gains has, with the physical injustices in woman's sports. Do biological women now have no voice?? Yes it was opposed to allowing any biological man who simply states he’s now a woman, to enter change rooms and toilets where young biological girls are present. It’s an opposite view… that’s not illegal. Skyfox Gazelle (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Expect this comment to be the subject of a noticeboard report when I have time later tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to allow all points of view? This is a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources have to say on a topic; if they don't report a particular point of view then Wikipedia does not either.

Of the sources you mention: what you claim Moira Deeming said in a private email is totally unverifiable; even if she has made a public statement she is clearly not independent and if independent reliable sources contradict her then we are going to go with them. I'm not sure who you mean by "Australian Womens Forum": if you are referring to Women's Forum Australia then they are a campaign group mostly known apparently for their own anti-trans campaigning. Why should they be considered a reliable source here? Finally, Sky News Australia was discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in 2022. The conclusion was that their opinion pieces are unreliable, and as for their news content: "it would be prudent to exercise caution when citing Sky News AU, and it probably should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims". None of this outweighs the mainstream coverage which unequivocally characterises the rally as anti-trans.

If you want to make the case that we should add mention of some sources describing the rally as "for women's safety" or some other descriptor, it would really help if you were more precise about what your sources actually are: just saying "Sky News" without linking to a particular article or clip really doesn't help! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

just passing through. it needs to be changed to be a woman's rally not this misogynist tainted talking point about it being against trans. if it's an anti-trans rally with reliable sources why isn't it labeled with any? 204.69.3.4 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The claim of it being an "anti trans rally" is supported by three mainstream sources, The Age, The Guardian, and Channel 7, all normally regarded as very reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

no, you need to actually cite the purpose of the rally as being called anti-trans as the reliable source. how thick can everyone be?

Trans "Everyone went to an anti-Me birthday party on Sunday!"

ABC: Omg that's terrible!

Trans "Yes! They didn't invite me at all!

ABC: This just in! Kid holds BDay party totally against Trans!

Kid: Hey, that's not fair. I didn't invite him but I'm not against him!

TarnishedPath: Too bad! ABC reported on it! 204.69.3.4 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So the crux is essentially that you just don’t agree with the reliable sources? Yeah, I don’t see any reason for us to change what’s written on the article. We go by reliable sources here, not the heated opinions of random IP addresses. GraziePrego (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Echoing TarnishedPath- it is 100% correct for us to follow reliable sources, which completely contradict what you're asserting. In addition, your edits to the article were completely unsourced AND clearly written with a strong POV in a particular direction. Both of those combined mean reverting your edits was appropriate. GraziePrego (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

how is "anti trans" not a strong particular direction? i didn't see that person's edits (I hate comparing the old stuff it's clunky). but you all ARE in a strong direction misinformation loop. astonishing!

the rally is for "let women speak" and you all are now speaking for them, telling them to stfu. astonishing! 204.69.3.4 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Kinda interesting that the moment a particular account is banned, an IP pops up repeating the same points! Astonishing! GraziePrego (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

i hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of liberal women hitting "peak trans" in the past year. and I just heard about this guy's apology this morning on KJK's podcast graciously accepting the apology. See what passes for robust thinking, stringent fact reporting and honesty? "Kinda interesting... insinuation insinuation insinuation".

GraziePrego, you are protecting misinformation with "particular direction" yet your idea of a strong refutation is "kinda interesting ... insinuation insinuation insinuation."

Women are waking up. Peak trans I just found out they called it. Liberal women. Yes, they are waking up. We go all our lives being warned and SEEING the nefarious, creepy things men will do to have access to us, but we are not allowed to notice all the straight men (who have no macho aversion to wearing a dress) waltzing in to our spaces?

If you're a woman (a real one) you defend this propaganda at your own peril. If you're a real woman, when you hit peak trans, I will welcome you with a hug.

. 204.69.3.4 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if that account was banned, I really hope it was for legitimate reasons not out of feelings or because a woman was deemed "not nice or very lady like". The irony. 204.69.3.4 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is what is happening, I guarantee it:

MOST men think it's their duty to protect their team at all costs, esp protecting the women from themselves. On both sides, men consistently think the best idea of "helping" is force & violence. They use the legal system, throw objects, verbally assault, bash, hit, shoot, smash, etc. Both sides do it. And both sides are the ones who end up making a good cause look violent, wrong, dishonest etc. Conservative men think bricks through windows is an ace idea. Liberal men plot to attack a Supreme Court Justice and actually wants a medal for publicly turning himself in. ALL of them assume their presence is of course wanted, needed, expected, and their right. MOST of them are offended if you don't want their "help".

The "Let Women Speak" rally got gate crashed by NeoNazi MEN. MEN! Kellie Jay Keen (I just began watching her) has repetitively side-eye commented about "podcast bros" who come to her women's events looking for soundbites and other things they can capitalize on for themselves and steal credit from women for who is actually trying to push back on trans identifying men (XY) from stealing women's rights. Because once again, they are men and assume their presence is wanted, needed, expected and their right. MOST offended if you say no thank you.

And because all the newspapers say anti-trans and neo-Nazi (due to propaganda only, not an actually sussed out fact), the liberal men "saviors" without actually citing the REAL source (LWS themselves) have decided they know the full story and they will protect all.

Fellow women, left/right whatever, you ignore all these signs at your own peril. These men will get a republican elected again just in time to strike at abortion for the 2nd fatal blow. And do these boys care? No. They don't actually know what women are fighting for. They see it all as intellectual hypotheticals and "may the best man with the best fight win".

MOST men, right AND left accuse women of exaggerating when the women's needs and rights clash with "But I want it!"

At your own peril. 204.69.3.4 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

sorry: This should read:

"And because all the newspapers say anti-trans (due to propaganda only, not an actually sussed out fact) and Neo-Nazi..."

The sidebar is about the purpose of the rally being propaganda. The NN actually did show up. They weren't invited or wanted, needed, anything, they could have fucked right the fuck off no one would have cared, it's what the women would have wanted if anyone bothered to ask.

. 204.69.3.4 (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM GraziePrego (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.