Scarf in Suffragette colours not allowed in Scottish Parliament.

I hope you never do wheest Volver, surely we’re all entitled to have our say. I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others, that’s life. But I just wish you wouldn’t be sarcastic, it undermines your arguments, even the ones I agree with!

Nor will this female wheesht. 🤣🤣🤣

A bit of background on the use of suffragette colours:

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2022.2032788

"Women wearing the purple, green and white colours of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) or dressed in Edwardian costumes with suffrage sashes stood outside the Scottish Parliament in September 2021 demanding First Minister Nicola Sturgeon listen to them; judges have been asked to rule on whether handkerchiefs in the same colours should be banned from court (September 2018); Twitter accounts incorporate the colours in the profiles of users with names such as “Sister Suffragette” or “Northern Suffragette” or use the personas of real-life suffragettes such as “Emily Wilding Davison”. Photographs of Emmeline Pankhurst being arrested or suffragettes in court are presented on social media to illustrate claims that women’s rights are once more under threat in the UK—that women are being persecuted by the police as the suffragettes were (see for example Dana Vitalosova 2020). In Scotland, a woman was taken to court charged with sending offensive tweets, including an image of a bow in suffragette colours (charges were discontinued in October 2021)."

Yes thanks growstuff. I had forgotten about that one. Was that the suffragette ribbon round a tree one where they had to drop the charges?

There was more to it than that one incident. My guess is that the women who were told to remove their scarves had a good idea that they would be banned and would make headline news. They are the ones who have linked the colours to their own movement. Therefore, they could be interpreted as political symbols. You need to read the article.

I know the case growstuff. I remember the pictures of machine guns that were tweeted in response.

IrishDancing

I hope you never do wheest Volver, surely we’re all entitled to have our say. I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others, that’s life. But I just wish you wouldn’t be sarcastic, it undermines your arguments, even the ones I agree with!

Thanks IrishDancing.

Sometimes I explain at great length why 2+2=4. Other people often come on the thread to explain why 2+2=4. I repeat the bit about 2+2=4. Then somebody else completely ignores that and says that surely 2+2=5? That they know for a fact that 2+2=5.

The only remaining option is sarcasm. Sorry.

I think Joanna Cherry was on the legal team but it's possible I am mixing up cases, there have been a lot of them.

Galaxy

I know the case growstuff. I remember the pictures of machine guns that were tweeted in response.

There's much more than just one case.

I am aware of the whole issue Growstuff honestly.

Galaxy

You what now?
Ok I will stand up.
I frequently find the comments made by those who oppose gender critical viewpoints, quite homophobic, the ones where people say lesbians should be more polite about saying they dont want to sleep with men. Sometimes I challenge them, sometimes I dont.

Can you show me an example?

I would have called that out had I seen it here

Intersectional feminists believe strongly in our right to choose as I said in my comment.

In the absence of an example from these threads

women get to choose who they are intimate with

I'd happily tell someone that with shouting and possibly swearing

But I think you know that already too

Strange convo really eh?

What's behind it do you think?

It was a thread last week I think, I did report which I dont do often as it conflicts with my dislike of control of speech. It was deleted. Theres lots of it. Lesbians shouldnt say they dont sleep with transwomen because they dont sleep with men. They should 'be kind'.
I say I dont like control of language but if I was made ruler of the world I would ban that phrase

What are you wanting to make your name with? Closing down Gransnet ? Was that your aim when you started I know of people who no longer participate because of you and others have been banned because of your indirect involvement.
Where I live you would be told "To hold your wisht and give your a.......a chance.

Ah, well, I didn't see that, I go through phases is staying the duck away from these threads

Wouldn't it be best to save your anger for those who actually do hold those views galaxy instead of assigning them to me in some way?

This is the issue on these threads

It's best not to scapegoat others who are inclusive to trans people just because they are all that is usually available

No?

I find the use of the suffragette colours by an organisation supporting gender critical feminists a bit acquisitive and rather ignorant. For the suffragettes each colour had a significant meaning, green for hope, white for purity (wanting the vote was seen as sac-religious) and purple, some said for the king, some say for strength, and Emmeline Pankhurst said "For the Royal Blood which runs through every suffragettes veins" I doubt if any of those things are applicable to GCFs.

Nor should it be assumed that all suffragettes agreed. Some did not want universal suffrage only votes for women on the same basis as men. So not really people campaigning for equality, many working class men did not have the vote. The extremists were not welcome by the leaders of the movement. EWD was ignored and the first history written after WW1 omitted many of the acts of arson and bombs.

So it seems that the earliest feminists were just as fractured as we are today.

Most people know I'm an intersectional feminist.

You have just addressed the entire group of GC feminists VS, I think that might be doing exactly what you are complaining about.
We had a long conversation about it once VS.

Yammy

What are you wanting to make your name with? Closing down Gransnet ? Was that your aim when you started I know of people who no longer participate because of you and others have been banned because of your indirect involvement.
Where I live you would be told "To hold your wisht and give your a.......a chance.

OK, no sarcasm then.

Why do you think you have the right to day those things to me Yammy? Do you think I want to close down Gransnet? With no hint of sarcasm, that it bizarre. Why would you think that?

We, as individuals do not "get others banned". People get themselves banned by being rude and insulting, or with unacceptable behaviour.

The accusation that some people don't participate any more because of person x comes up every now and again, but with no justification or proof.

Your final sentence goes some way to showing who is really the unpleasant person here.

Now please stop badgering me.

That's where we differ Glorianny, I would fight for the right of VS to knit and wear her rainbow suffragette scarf.

I know I’m risking offending some posters and risking being banned, but

VioletSky

GC feminists must not presume to speak for or represent all feminists.

Where have you read that claim?
Evidence please.

What exactly is the difference between a feminist who supports females e.g. me, and someone you call a GC feminist?

Actually feminists don’t, presume to speak for or represent all feminists
They represent females and if some females choose not to be spoken for or represented, that’s their choice and feminists don’t criticise them for that.
It doesn’t mean that they want be represented by any other group who choose not to represent females.

Galaxy

You have just addressed the entire group of GC feminists VS, I think that might be doing exactly what you are complaining about.
We had a long conversation about it once VS.

Making it personal rather than general is entirely the opposite galaxy

No?

To befaor, there are probably GC feminists who don't do the things I described and do call that stuff out

Shame that doesn't happen here

I have to agree with volver there

People get themselves banned by their own behaviour and holding a grudge against anyone or blaming others for that is a bit baffling really

volver

Yammy

What are you wanting to make your name with? Closing down Gransnet ? Was that your aim when you started I know of people who no longer participate because of you and others have been banned because of your indirect involvement.
Where I live you would be told "To hold your wisht and give your a.......a chance.

OK, no sarcasm then.

Why do you think you have the right to day those things to me Yammy? Do you think I want to close down Gransnet? With no hint of sarcasm, that it bizarre. Why would you think that?

We, as individuals do not "get others banned". People get themselves banned by being rude and insulting, or with unacceptable behaviour.

The accusation that some people don't participate any more because of person x comes up every now and again, but with no justification or proof.

Your final sentence goes some way to showing who is really the unpleasant person here.

Now please stop badgering me.

Why should I maybe I enjoy it as much as you appear to do? I do know of people who have left because of you, do you really think I would stoop so low as to name them?
Why not shock us and be pleasant for a change? Women should stick together if we are ever going to get fully acknowledged equality which we have been trying to do for the last 100 years.

Galaxy

That's where we differ Glorianny, I would fight for the right of VS to knit and wear her rainbow suffragette scarf.

I don't think I commented anything about anyone knitting or wearing a scarf. Just that using the colours was acquisitive which of course it is. If someone wants to be acquisitive they are entitled to be so.
I would prefer people to understand the significance of each colour and not assume they were randomly chosen. And that the idea that the WSPU was some sort of equal rights organisation should be better understood. There were organisations fighting for universal suffrage but the suffragettes were not.

I may wait in vain for the evidence, or an answer, but I’ll ask again, risking being reported for doing so.
VS
GC feminists must not presume to speak for or represent all feminists.

Where have you read that claim?
Evidence please.

What exactly is the difference between a feminist who supports females e.g. me, and someone you call a GC feminist?

VS It's fine to state the obvious, such as women should be able to choose sexual partners, but when everything else you say contradicts that (eg that TWAW) then saying that is a bit pointless, and sounds like you haven't understood the situation. Logically, if TWAW, then a lesbian who goes on a dating site (of the sort where the assumption is that the point of the meeting is to have sex) and unwittingly hooks up with one, but then refuses to have sex when she realises the truth of the situation is being transphobic. You can't have it both ways. She would have done had the TW been a woman, and it is because she doesn't accept that a male bodied person with a penis is a woman that she refuses, so her refusal is discrimination against transwomen.

It is only if you accept that TWATW, and that many of them will have to accept that those of their number who are also heterosexual males will not be attractive to most lesbians that your concession that women should be allowed to 'choose who they are intimate with' is possible, which is not compatible with your oft-proclaimed position that TWAW.