This seems a bit paradoxical to me?
They are attacking a symbol of a champion of a formerly disenfranchised group of people who now have an equal right to vote. What are they thinking?
Just making that click bait.
Getting in the news is better than being ignored.
It is impossible to reply accurately under current SDMB rules.
I’m enough of a cynic to consider that these are faux trans activists, just as there were rabble rousers in the MAGA opposition who smashed windows and set fires during the Black Lives Matter protests and claimed themselves to be “antifa.”
Not quite sure what you mean?
Of course, there is the Oscar Wilde quote “There is only one thing worse than being talked about. And that is NOT being talked about”…
Ah, I see you edited before I replied. Quite.
Oh great, now we’ll never hear the end of how awful all pro- trans rights people are.
The graffiti saying ‘trans rights are human rights’ seems to align with what trans rights protestors are protesting about; the graffiti on the actual statue of Millicent Fawcett - which says ‘Fag rights’, doesn’t. Or am I missing something? I don’t think that’s a trans rights protest slogan, is it?
Moderating:
If you believe that is true, then your remedy is to say nothing at all. And if you wish to dispute the rules as they are currently written, the place to do that is ATMB, not in this thread. Drop it here.
I must admit I have not seen an image of the actual graffiti.
Does anyone have one?
But it does seem to me that a champion of formerly disallowed rights is an odd target for protest by people who feel disadvantaged today? That’s the only thing that struck me.
Speaking as a fairly strong liberal myself who believes that government should absolutely not legislate personal morality or sexual behaviour.
It’s in the article you linked
I’m not entirely surprised that statues of feminist heroes might be the target of trans protest, given that the court ruling in question was cheered on by TERF groups.
So it is, I hadn’t noticed. Given that, it seems more like a troll rather than a statement by any extremists. Hopefully sane people will ignore it.
It may be a piece of anti-trans graffiti. There is a tendency for bigots to lump all categories of people that they see as ‘sexual deviants’ into one big category, so using that slur to lash out at trans people would fit.
Big crowd!
Revolutions tend to eat their own.
It kinda just looks like that’s what was there, so that’s what got defaced. There were a lot of feelings going around that day, and angry crowds (whatever they’re angry about) aren’t well known for their discretion and tact.
Acyually this is an object lesson to everyone, especially me, about not going off half cocked and checking one’s sources.
While it is obviously true that the statue was defaced, there does not seem to be any reliable evidence that this was done by ‘Trans activists’ as the headline claims.
The headline in question comes from The Telegraph. Which, decades ago, was considered a serious and reliable newspaper, on a par with The Times for example. But these days it seems to have rather degenerated into a right wing propaganda rag.
This is popularly known as the ‘Teatowel Statue’ since it looks like what she’s holding up.
The one of Jan Christian Smuts looks like he’s having a crafty fart.
Note that by “defaced” the Telegraph appears to means “drew on with chalk” which—irrespective who the perpetrators of this heinous act turn out to be—I would describe as perhaps, ah, a little precious of a term for them to be using in this context.
It seems more likely the tagger chose that historical statue to further highlight the ongoing fight for equal rights for LGBTQ people. Shine a light on this historical struggle of a 100+ years ago and link it to the current struggle experienced by trans people.
I don’t see it as a diss to early feminists.