Mridul Wadhwa - Male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

No.
This is how you answer a yes/no question. Thanks again for reminding me about your diversionary tactics.

So answer the question Mollygo should women be exempt from this?

So good you said it 3 times. Thank you trisher for reminding me again about your diversionary tactics.

Am I not being clear? There does not need to be abuse, there does not need to be bad behaviour, anyone can be refused service that has always been the position. Regardless of the gender of the licensee, the customer's race religion, sexual orientation, gender, natal sex or the colour of their underwear they DO NOT have to be served.

Mollygo

Thanks trisher for reminding you about your diversionary tactics.

Sorry, meant to put ‘reminding me about your diversionary tactics’.

Thanks trisher for reminding you about your diversionary tactics.

It's a simple question Mollygo the licensee has always had the right to refuse to serve anyone, should women somehow be exempt from that?
The language on Twitter is a completely seperate issue. People say all sorts on there. It's a minefield, You can choose to ignore it, believe everything or do what Mary Beard does and engage with the abuser. Do I support that abuse, of course not.

trisher

Chewbacca the licensee's right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason has always existed. Are you suggesting that because these are women the law should be different for them?

I think everyone has pointed out that no, we do not think that a landlord has to (or should have to) serve anyone. In fact, it has been said that this is a good thing, and anyone 'bad-mouthing' transexual customers should be evicted.

That is not what is being discussed, however. It is the vilification of anyone who disagrees with the idea that men can simply call themselves woman and become female to which people are objecting, along with the hate speech (and violence) that so often accompanies that vilification.

Thanks for the reminder of trisher’s diversionary tactics ‘*chewbacca*.

Chewbacca the licensee's right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason has always existed. Are you suggesting that because these are women the law should be different for them?

Correct, any pub can refuse to serve anyone. But that's just a digression as to what's going on here isn't it. You have resolutely defended these men, who present as women, and railed at the supposed bigotry they face. But here we are; a man who says he's a woman, refers to natal women as terfs and cunts and pledges that they won't be served in his bar ever again for no other reason than he disagrees with their opinions on sexuality. How bigoted is that? It will be interesting to see if his employers agree with him once they've concluded their investigations.

Sorry Mollygo there doesn't need to be bad behaviour a licensee can refuse to serve anyone without giving a reason. It's how something like Pubwatch works. You behave badly in one you are banned from them all. The licensee doesn't have to serve anyone.

You’re missing the point trisher.
I know how keen you are on people reading the whole article. No one has disagreed that landlords can eject people for behaving badly but you seem to think existing is the same thing.

It is though and always has been a Landlord's right to refuse to serve anyone under any circumstances. They do not need to give a reason. They can ban anyone on the basis of their behaviour on the premises or at any other time.
It's a commonly misperceived idea that you have the right to be served in a pub. You haven't. www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2009/10/27/Pub-licensee-s-right-to-reject-custom
So if the licensee considered someone's behaviour unacceptable they can be barred. You do wonder though why if she was such an anti-trans activist the woman wanted to use that pub. In my experience the ethos of such pubs iis usually widely known.

As I have said many times you may believe what you like, you may not inflict those beliefs on someone else. The evidence of the lack of consideration is self-evident on this thread.

Oh the irony!

A group of women go into a bar. A "trans woman" takes exception to one of them because he believes that she has strong beliefs about natal women's rights. He throws her and her friends out of the bar, even though non of the group has behaved badly or caused any problems there. He calls the police on them and goes public with his statement that terfs will be barred from the pub in future. He follows that up with abusive and crude tweets.

you may not inflict those beliefs on someone else. is increasingly a one way privilege.

Chewbacca I wasn't suggesting that the 'terfs' were behaving badly. I was responding to the diversionary tactic of moving the conversation to one about the rights of landlords to evict drunken idiots. They do, of course, have that right, and should exercise it if there is any instance of discriminatory abuse.

Having cleared that up, however, it is important to note that it is not just in cases of the hypothetical drunken and ignorant people mentioned by trisher that the term 'terf' is used.

In my experience it is often used against tolerant, lefty, middle-aged to older feminists who have spent their lives supporting women of all sexualities, but draw the line at being erased, and are past the age of having any more flying frogs to give.

GagaJo

I couldn't have less interest in your personal life.

But getting heavily involved in something in which you have zero contact or personal interest in any way, is inappropriate. Particularly when it is so damaging for a vulnerable group. Very similar to the accusations you're making of someone else.

There is no need to be rude - I wasn't shoving my 'credentials' in your face like some people do - you did ask. As I have said, though, I do not discuss my personal life online, particularly on an open board that can be read by anyone.

This is a discussion board, and I am discussing. That doesn't count as being 'heavily involved' in my book, and nothing I do is damaging to other people, whether I see myself as part of their 'group' or not.

I have no idea where your notion that all LGBTQ people think alike comes from, though. If you have any evidence of that, I would love to see it, as it runs entirely contrary to both basic sense and my own experience.

Anyway, if only those with direct personal experience of every aspect of the subject under discussion were able to comment, we would, on this thread, be limited to Asian transgender lesbian counsellors - possibly who had also been raped. Whilst it is possible that someone fits that rather niche brief, the odds are that they would be talking to themselves rather than discussing.

As a matter of interest, would your theory that only those from particular communities have a right to an opinion mean that our hypothetical poster couldn't comment on the post about the barman who thinks that 'terfs' are 'non-people' unless by an increasingly unlikely coincidence they also worked in a bar'?

Exactly Peaseblossom and you have to wonder why someone would want to conceal their sex identity in any such circumstances. If a person asks, they should be given a truthful answer.

“Getting involved and in something in which you have zero contact and no personal interest”

Umm, I think every female has a personal interest in the erosion of a right to say who touches her body in an intimate way. Doesn’t she?

And how can she exercise her right if the identity of the person touching is deliberately concealed from her.

I agree that people who behave badly in pubs deserve to be ejected, and I also agree that abusing transpeople should not be tolerated.

But the group of women in the Edinburgh pub were not abusing anyone. If you'd read the article in the Edinburgh News, you would have known that. For those of you who did not; a group of natal women pre booked 2 tables at The Doctor pub. The manager of the pub, a transgender woman, recognised that one of the women as an feminist activist. One her return from the toilet, she was approached and told that the party must leave. At no point was a complaint about their behaviour relayed and staff continued to serve them. When the group raised their objections, because there had been no time limit on their booked table, the manager called the police to eject them. The manager then tweeted several offensive posts, one of them saying that terfs will be barred from the pub in future. So, a group of natal women can be barred from a public area if a man, who says he's a woman, doesn't like them or their opinions.

“You may believe what you like, you may not inflict those beliefs on anyone else”????

As I have said many times you may believe what you like, you may not inflict those beliefs on someone else. The evidence of the lack of consideration is self-evident on this thread where MW has been misgendered so many times. She has a passport where she is named as a woman. Why does it inflict on your beliefs to accord her some respect and call her "she"?
As I said TERF isn't a term I would use. There's nothing radical (in it's true political sense) or feminist about them. They are just reactionary bigots masquerading as feminists

I couldn't have less interest in your personal life.

But getting heavily involved in something in which you have zero contact or personal interest in any way, is inappropriate. Particularly when it is so damaging for a vulnerable group. Very similar to the accusations you're making of someone else.

trisher

If you abuse or denigrate anyone in any public house the landlord and staff have the right to remove you, whatever the reason. I have no doubt that there are women who are abusive, particularly after a few drinks. Why should the staff be expected to serve them? If you don't like the atmosphere, the staff or the clientele then don't drink there.
You may be offended by the term TERF but transpeople are offended by being misgendered. And some women recognise that transwomen are amongst us and have been with us in every battle we've fought so we really don't regard them as a problem.
TERF isn't a term I would use but then I don't believe hatred and discrimination has any place in feminism.

I agree that people who behave badly in pubs deserve to be ejected, and I also agree that abusing transpeople should not be tolerated.

If the term TERF were kept to describe lairy transphobes I would be far less concerned (if at all), but as you well know, it is not - it is used to describe anyone who might suggest that sex is a biological fact, and can be changed at will.

GagaJo

Just, if you're not Doodledog, you're basing your opinion on something you have no experience of and speaking for people you have no contact with. Which makes it totally theoretical.

Whereas you are a transgendered lesbian?

I am not going to be pressured into discussing my private life online. That way madness lies.