Aug 9, 2019
TERFs Out! Manchester — 27.07.2019
Earlier last month, Sisters Uncut Manchester discovered that a TERF group called ‘Make More Noise’ (MMN) were organising a private event, with notoriously bigoted speakers such as Posie Parker, in Manchester on 27th July. Some members had been aware of extensive TERF networks in Manchester, but thus far, they had kept relatively underground. This was to be one of the first, if not the first, attempt by TERFs to create a public presence in Manchester. As such, we decided it was an urgent necessity that we disrupt it. This article is an account of the action we undertook, with the aim of both responding to TERF narratives already proliferating about the day’s events, and also to suggest what we and other organisers might learn from these events going forward.
The first challenge was working out where it was to be held; MMN were highly secretive about the location of the event. Whilst trying to find out this location, we became aware that another TERF group, Greater Manchester ReSisters, were planning a protest at the People’s History Museum (PHM) in coordination with the evening meeting. The Museum was collecting objects from the public for an exhibition commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre (“Disrupt? — 200 years of dissent”) but had rejected some transphobic material submitted by TERF groups. When we spoke to the PHM, they said that the TERF demonstration did not concern them “so long as it wasn’t violent”. As such, we suspect that their initial refusal to include TERF material was more so as to avoid controversy than out of antagonism to their views. ReSisters, however, insisted that in doing this, the PHM were ‘erasing history’ and ‘silencing women’s voices’.
Almost immediately, we changed plan. This was to be public transphobic presence in the streets, and therefore more urgent than a private meeting of people already involved in or approximate to TERF causes. The threat of recruitment and the safety of trans people present became a much higher risk. We only found out about the protest at the PHM two days before the event. Fortunately, most of our plan remained basically the same. The preparation undertaken before the action was basically making signs and banners, and going through our safeguarding procedures. All this could stay the same. The only thing that changed was the location. Though those of us who participated did feel some anxiety — some of us had never been involved in confrontational demonstrations before — this was not a result of a lack of preparation. That said, as a first action for the newly active group, there were things that we had not considered and that can be improved upon for future events.
We announced our action on social media at around 8pm the day before, and posted reminders on the morning too. On the day, the weather was dismal. We met at 1pm, an hour before ReSisters’ scheduled demonstration, a short distance away from the PHM, so we could arrive in a group and assess the situation. When we left for the Museum at around twenty to two, we were in a group of 8. Upon arrival, ReSisters were nowhere to be seen. This meant that we were able to take up positions in the only area at the entrance to the PHM that was sheltered from the rain. We unfurled our banner — reading ‘Transphobia Kills Women’ — and waited.
GM ReSisters’ claim that our decision to stand near the entrance to the PHM was made as a way of “positioning [ourselves] as siding with [the PHM]” is false. It was raining heavily all day, and we decided the best option would be to arrive early so that we could secure a spot that would provide shelter from the rain. Sisters Uncut made no previous coordination with the PHM, aside from one member informing the reception staff that the protest and counter-protest would be happening, which they already knew. We were not there to stand in solidarity with the PHM, we were there to show that public displayal of hatred towards trans people, especially trans women, will not go uncontested in our city.
Over the next half an hour or so, more people joined us, with our final numbers at 27 people in total — a mix of trans, cis, various genders, and racially diverse. Most people seemed to be in their twenties, but there were some older and younger people present also. Only 3 of those present were already involved in Sisters Uncut Manchester. Given that aside from Sisters Uncut members, we had only been able to give people 18 hours notice, at most, this turn out was impressive, demonstrating not only a pre-existing opposition to TERF ideology in Manchester, but a potential base for further feminist mobilisation in the city. Whilst it is true that people come to one-off protests for different reasons than they get involved in long-term organising projects, nor can we ignore the role this action might play in directing socially diffuse anti-transphobia sentiment into more concrete radical feminist organising.
It was at some point in this period that Sisters Uncut found out about a Free Tommy Robinson protest happening in the Arndale Centre in the city, with around 50–100 far-right protesters intimidating local people. GM ReSisters suggested in their account that Sisters Uncut considered GM ReSisters “a greater threat” and that “far right racists would have to wait”. We at Sisters Uncut are anti-fascists and anti-racists, and we want to ensure the safety of all of our members and those who protest in solidarity with us. To suggest that a small group made up of mostly women and non-binary people, many of whom were people of colour, face up to a large group of violent racists is ridiculous and also dangerous from an organising perspective.
Though ReSisters’ arrival was not on schedule, it seems that they did send some people ahead to assess the situation. Alongside the rain, this may explain their delay, since we do not believe they expected a counter-demonstration. If our presence there put them off, they did their best to hide this when they eventually arrived at quarter to three, by attempting to make fun of our chants and to engage us in discussion. In our safeguarding guidelines for the event, we had asked that people not engage with individual antagonism from TERFs; it had not specified what to do if they attempted to have ‘conversations’ with us. As such, some members of the protest had engaged them in this discussion, but all throughout were firm and insistent that this was not a matter of debate. As such, most of them gave up trying to talk to us up close relatively quickly. Whilst in this case no members of the protest were harmed by this close-quarters engagement, some trans participants did report that it caused considerable anxiety for them, since the safeguarding guidelines had led them to believe that they wouldn’t have to be so close to TERFs themselves. As such, we should prepare clearer guidelines for future actions.
The ReSisters group had around 10 members. The impression that they did not anticipate a counterdemo was reinforced by the fact that they had not prepared any chants, but rather, attempted to read out a 5–6 page speech. We are unsure of the precise contents of this speech, since we insistently chanted over them, making sure that not a word of it was audible. This is not ‘silencing women’, whatever TERFs may insist, since TERFs are not representative of all women; not only does such a claim already assume that ‘women’ and ‘trans people’ are two entirely separate groups without any overlap, but many cis women recognise that TERF ideology requires narrowly circumscribing women’s role in society, reinforcing the patriarchy. This solidarity between cis women and trans people was dramatically exemplified by the fact that the cis women present demonstrating in defense of trans rights already outnumbered the TERFs there that day. Precisely because transphobia kills women, including cis women, it is necessary that outspoken transphobes should not be allowed to broadcast their bigotry in public without opposition. As feminists we know that free speech for marginalised people means opposition to reactionaries and their allies.
GM ReSisters also claimed that they “were wholly non-threatening, whereas they [Sisters Uncut and those demonstrating with us] were not” and suggested that the trans rights movement has “come from the top down from people with a lot of money”. When the first small group of three people from GM ReSisters arrived, we began chanting and shouting and did not interact with them. However, when the larger group of around 8 arrived, they instantly began to go up to members of our group and start hassling them. One woman was speaking to a group of our protesters for around ten minutes, repeatedly misgendering people in our group, and even at one point calling them “fascists”. Multiple members of GM ReSisters were directly walking up to one of our group and asking her whether she was Lily Madigan (while misgendering her), taunting her and asking why she was covering her face, all the while one of their members was filming our group. When we did initiate interaction with the group, it was largely to disrupt their photos with trans flags, and using our megaphone to drown out their arguing with members of our group and getting them to leave. We were in no way threatening. Sisters Uncut is a grassroots group, our funding comes largely from donations, and the Manchester branch largely uses what little money we have in running the group. TERF groups have had the vast support of all sections of the British media, support from all political parties regardless of political ideology, as well as trade unions. The claim that there is a “trans lobby” is unfounded, and harks back to homophobic ideas of a “gay lobby” that were present during the 1980’s when Section 28 came into law in the UK.
In a similar attempt to paint trans solidarity as a kind of ‘mindless regressiveness’, GM ReSisters described our protesters as having “many defiant and contemptuous expressions, and a kind of exultant victoriousness” while at the same time stating that there was “very little joy” or “sense of togetherness”. These two statements directly contradict each other. Trans members of our group did feel anxious before the action due to our call-out being so short notice, and with the reputation that TERFs have of doxxing and intimidating trans people. However there was a strong sense of support and solidarity among a group of people who had largely just met for the first time, and we are sure that this group will only grow stronger as time goes on.
At half three, we noticed that some of the TERFs were inside talking to PHM staff. Some scouting revealed that they were attempting to persuade the staff to accept their material after all. Some members of our protest went inside and also started conversation with staff, alongside the TERFs, attempting to get the staff to accept some of our placards. The PHM accepted both sets of material; it seems that all submissions are assessed by an internal board. ReSisters had previously stated through their own internal communication that the museum would not accept any material that was “hostile to certain groups.” We appreciate that the staff were just doing their job, and attempting to keep what was a potentially volatile situation under control, and based on previous communications, we did not expect them to favour us over ReSisters. That said, we hope that the internal board will recognise that the objective dangers of TERF ideology are not a matter of debate, and will make the right call about what material to display in the exhibition.
By four, they weren’t making fun of us anymore. They had been stood in the rain for over an hour and had barely managed to get an audible word out. Tired, discouraged, and frustrated — not to mention wet — they left. We stayed for 20 minutes or so to make sure they had not just hid around the corner, ready to come back, before retreating inside for cups of tea and pints in the PHM cafe.
Overall, this action can be called a great success. Our aim was to effectively prevent TERFs from spreading their bigotry and to demonstrate at this crucial first public TERF event in the city that their organising here will not go unopposed. Both of these objectives were met, and given the last minute nature of this action and the weather that day, the turnout of support for trans people suggests that there is a basis of support here that can be relied upon in the future also. However, we should not rest easy in our “exultant victoriousness”. There were a number of safeguarding questions we had not anticipated, and consistent numbers do not prepare us for 1) future violence from TERFs, and 2) TERFs calling the police on us (which TERF groups have been known to do in other places). Both of these possibilities would pose significant risks to our members and supporters, many of whom face significant marginalisation and cannot rely on respectability, from the public or from the police. If we are to maintain a necessary level of safety at future actions, we will not only require clearer guidelines on engagement, but training in de-escalation, active bystander work, and police liaison. Other Sisters Uncut groups have had a designated person for police liaison for their actions, and this seems well-advised, not as cooperation with the police, but simply as a limited measure to ensure that any inevitable police presence can be managed as best as possible by the group.
Further, this concern for safety does not only apply to procedure at actions, but translates to a wider strategy of care and community support that should characterise all of our work as feminists. Whilst this action was a success, this should not be automatically taken to mean that anti-TERF action should become a focus of our attention. For a start, many trans participants in the counterdemo reported significant exhaustion following the action, and constant engagement with TERF mobilisation without other actions seems likely to contribute to burn-out. This suggestion has been reinforced by communication with Sisters Uncut Edinburgh, who also noted that a focus on anti-TERF work led to a tendency to be purely ‘reactive’, simply attempting to respond to TERF mobilisations, drawing energy away from building positive campaigns and support networks. This problem does not require a withdrawal from trans struggles as such, but simply a different approach. There is a wide variety of positive trans solidarity work and support for trans people that can be done that does not involve direct confrontation with TERFs — indeed, such work might even be seen as ‘offensive’ struggles, in contrast to the purely defensive work of opposing public TERF presences. But the wider support networks and mobilisations such positive work will create seem likely to make our direct action against TERFs (when undertaken) more effective, since it will come from a more stable base of support.
Similarly, it has been noted that much of the work towards this action was undertaken by trans members of the group. If this were to become a pattern, it would create an unfair distribution of labour and risk in our anti-TERF action. As well as being unfair in and of itself, and reflective of a gendered division of labour in society that hurts all marginalised people, it would exacerbate the risk of burn-out that’s already been noted. This risks forcing trans people to back away from our organising. As such, in future, we should try and ensure that labour and risk is more fairly distributed, with people less directly affected by an issue (whether this be anti-TERF work, or work around racism or migration, or domestic violence, or whatever) taking direction from those more directly impacted.
It is our hope that this successful action may not be only a successful action, but also part of a wider feminist mobilisation in Manchester, forging strong connections between trans struggles in the city and wider struggles against domestic, sexual, gendered, and state violence, and the power structures, institutions, and cultures that faciliate this violence. As we chanted at the protest, “Women united will never be defeated.”
