What’s disheartening for me is the number of dopers who read an incredibly one sided article full of accusations–noticeably lacking in actual facts but brimming with incredible logical leaps supported by a lengthy list of quotes from exactly one side of the argument. Seems no other viewpoints were sought.
The one fact that seems to be established is that a statute of an early suffragist was marked with anti-gay slogans during a trans-rights protest by a person or persons unknown. From this information we are asked to conclude that trans gendered people object so strongly to women having been given the right to vote a hundred years ago that they are vandalizing statues now. Having accepted that logical deduction, we must further conclude that anti-trans activists are supporters of human rights while pro-trans activists want to restrict the rights of women.
@xtenkfarpl may have been a little slow realizing this but their sense of fairness eventually forced them to see through it. That is to be commended. It’s difficult to recognize our own errors and correct them but it’s essential.
“On a statue of suffragette Millicent Fawcett, “f** rights” and a heart were painted on the banner and “trans rights are human rights” was sprayed on the pedestal bearing a memorial to South African military leader and statesman Jan Christian Smuts.”
Some of the feminist ‘gender critical’ groups that were celebrating this judgement have adopted suffragette colours and iconography, so it wouldn’t entirely surprise me if the statue was targeted deliberately. But given six other statues were also graffitied, it may just have been because it was there.
I don’t think we can conclude the slogan was anti-gay. The actual sentiment is pro-gay rights, and ‘reclaiming’ slurs is a thing.
It looks to me as if you can maybe get access by allowing ads and cookies?
I don’t like to do that. But that’s a personal preference: I prefer to keep that stuff off my computer.
I think that much of what shows up on Yahoo ‘news’ (and many other feeds) should be treated with a large grain of salt, and one should certainly double-check it against other sources.
There again, where can you go to find ‘objective news’ nowadays?
But we are getting into a quite different discussion with that, I think, much off the OP.
Neither do I, but I did consider it possible that it could be a jab at the subset of trans-exclusionary feminists who have been active in pursuing this judgment.
To answer the OP, it really just boils down to the fact that some transgender activists don’t like it when a woman is defined as “cisgender woman.” That’s it.
Your comment appears to be chastising dopers in general for not having read more than one article about the story. How did you establish this to be the case?
I also got the impression you were talking about Dopers in general, and I was by no means intending to endorse the rest of your comment. I don’t think the linked article drew the conclusions you outlined. And I don’t believe the Dopers replying were rushing to judgement, either.
It’s really fucking annoying that The Independent doesn’t know the difference between a suffragist and a suffragette. Fawcett was decidedly the former.
Thank you - yeah, far from rushing to conclusions, I am still actually confused about who might have left the graffiti and what were their motives, and whether ‘fag rights’ is a case of a slur being used in earnest, in trolling, or being reclaimed
I must say I am really sorry for having opened this Pandora’s box.
My guess would be that SDMB readers are rather less likely than average to jump to conclusions based on unreliable evidence. Apart from the occasional brainfart such as committed by Yours Truly.
All in all though, this seems like a storm in a teacup. There’s graffitti all over the place, it’s not worth getting worked up about. Let’s move on.
