# [Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)



## Kate Sharpley (May 30, 2017)

2017 London Anarchist Bookfair will be on Saturday 28th October from 10am to 7pm.
Venue: Park View School, West Green Road, N15 3QR 
Rail/Tube: Seven Sisters (National Rail or Victoria Line) / Turnpike Lane (Picadilly Line) 
Buses: 41:, 67, 230, 341 (get off at stop near junction of Black Boy Lane and West Green Road). 


As always, more details about what's on closer to the time at http://www.anarchistbookfair.org.uk/


----------



## Kate Sharpley (Aug 14, 2017)

Details of meetings are now up at http://www.anarchistbookfair.org.uk/ 
(excuse not cutting and pasting the list)


----------



## rich! (Oct 26, 2017)

once more, the bookfair is next to my house, so I have no excuse 

Anyone doing T-Chances after?


----------



## LDC (Oct 27, 2017)

I'll be there. No clue what you mean by T-Chances though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'll be there. No clue what you mean by T-Chances though?


venue on Tottenham High Road


----------



## chilango (Oct 27, 2017)

at half-term again, so can’t make it again.


----------



## LDC (Oct 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> venue on Tottenham High Road



That sounds good, ended up walking miles last year to a pub. Is it a Weatherspoons?

You going Pickman's?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That sounds good, ended up walking miles last year to a pub. Is it a Weatherspoons?
> 
> You going Pickman's?


It's not a Wetherspoons 

Don't know what I'm up to tomorrow evening, we'll see. Will be at the bookfight


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That sounds good, ended up walking miles last year to a pub. Is it a Weatherspoons?
> 
> You going Pickman's?


T.Chances Venue – Where Artists Thrive & Community Comes Alive


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 27, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That sounds good, ended up walking miles last year to a pub.



What was wrong with the one directly opposite the venue?


----------



## LDC (Oct 27, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What was wrong with the one directly opposite the venue?



Can't remember now, I just followed orders.


----------



## rich! (Oct 27, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What was wrong with the one directly opposite the venue?



As a long-time resident of West Green, I think I've been in it about twice 

T Chances has a charm all its own though, should be a good night there.

Nearest Spoons is at Turnpike Lane, there's also the significantly classier Salisbury on Green Lanes.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 27, 2017)

rich! said:


> As a long-time resident of West Green, I think I've been in it about twice



I agree it isn’t gastro-pub enough for some tastes but given it’s a minute walk away it wins for convenience.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

rich! said:


> As a long-time resident of West Green, I think I've been in it about twice
> 
> T Chances has a charm all its own though, should be a good night there.
> 
> Nearest Spoons is at Turnpike Lane, there's also the significantly classier Salisbury on Green Lanes.


for classier read dearer


----------



## LDC (Oct 27, 2017)

Anyone got any meetings they're keen to get to? (Or are running?)


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2017)

Paul Mason's Anarchist Start-Up Workshop looks good


----------



## LDC (Oct 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Paul Mason's Anarchist Start-Up Workshop looks good



Anarchists for the bomb and a big Navy.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2017)

Seriously though, i do like a DIY film
*Room P5
Main Building - Ground Floor*
*12.30 - 1.15pm*
*Spiridinova - Armed Love (Film)*
The untold story of Maria Spiridonova - an assassin at 18, 11 years in a Siberian labour camp but emerged as the leader of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries locked in a bitter war with the Bolsheviks culminating in the armed insurrection of July 6th 1918.
A film directed by Murray Healy and enacted by some London anarchists determined to restore Maria as one of great revolutionaries of all time. 45 min.


----------



## mihaly (Oct 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Seriously though, i do like a DIY film
> *Room P5*
> *Main Building - Ground Floor*
> *12.30 - 1.15pm
> ...



Due to some late additions in the cabaret room This is now going to start at 12. You'll kick yourselves if you miss the beginning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Paul Mason's Anarchist Start-Up Workshop looks good


Shouldn't that be wind-up?


----------



## andysays (Oct 27, 2017)

rich! said:


> As a long-time resident of West Green, I think I've been in it about twice
> 
> T Chances has a charm all its own though, should be a good night there.
> 
> Nearest Spoons is at Turnpike Lane, there's also the significantly classier Salisbury on Green Lanes.



I'm not much of a pub goer, though I am also a long time resident of West Green (do I know you, I wonder?).

As I came home on the bus this evening, I noticed that the Green Gate pub at the Turnpike Lane end of West Green Road has a couple of posters for the Anarchist Bookfair in the window, so maybe they're hoping to be the venue of choice this year.


----------



## rich! (Oct 27, 2017)

andysays said:


> I'm not much of a pub goer, though I am also a long time resident of West Green (do I know you, I wonder?).
> 
> As I came home on the bus this evening, I noticed that the Green Gate pub at the Turnpike Lane end of West Green Road has a couple of posters for the Anarchist Bookfair in the window, so maybe they're hoping to be the venue of choice this year.


We should arrange to fail to meet up and maintain the mystery 

The Green Gate? What could possibly... 

(I still miss the Silver Lady. And the Queens Head)


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2017)

andysays said:


> I'm not much of a pub goer, though I am also a long time resident of West Green (do I know you, I wonder?).
> 
> As I came home on the bus this evening, I noticed that the Green Gate pub at the Turnpike Lane end of West Green Road has a couple of posters for the Anarchist Bookfair in the window, so maybe they're hoping to be the venue of choice this year.


They desire the red and black pound


----------



## Mation (Oct 28, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Paul Mason's Anarchist Start-Up Workshop looks good


HIs California Carafes are ok, too


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2017)

I've got stuff to do this afternoon, so I can't make the actual Bookfair, but if someone wants to to nominate a pub or other venue for a later meet-up, I might just make that (*not* the crusty punk do at T-Chances on the High Road though...)


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2017)

the Maria Spiridinova film is great. She is a legend... The Lenin quotes they dug out for it are jawdropping, particularly the bit justifying dictatorship. 
Some great casting too!
will be online soon supposedly.

i like this anarcho-birdwatching thing 
not sure what radical examples birds set...shitting on statues? Freegan diet? Squatting trees?


----------



## rich! (Oct 28, 2017)

Ducked home to drop off books and avoid the terf riot.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## shygirl (Oct 28, 2017)

rich! said:


> Ducked home to drop off books and avoid the terf riot.
> 
> Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk



What happened?  I heard that a woman was attacked by a bunch of trans-activists.


----------



## rich! (Oct 28, 2017)

shygirl said:


> What happened?  I heard that a woman was attacked by a bunch of trans-activists.


At least one well known activist has gone very terf to the point of outright hostility to any use of terms like cis. Don't know the details but they were in the middle of it when i left


----------



## shygirl (Oct 28, 2017)

Thanks.  I believe it got physical and the woman was physically attacked.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 28, 2017)

What the fuck is cis, and why should we accept it.  Comfortable with gender assigned at birth, fucking bullshit.  As for TERF, it's a hateful term used to silence women who dare to question the current wave of trans-activism.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 28, 2017)

Right then. The term Terf is new? Errr no it isn't.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 28, 2017)

I didn't say it's new.  But it is fucking shit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 28, 2017)

You implied it is new. It isn't.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 28, 2017)

Whatever.  The hatred behind it is what really matters here, not how frigging new or old it is.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 28, 2017)

Like some  terfs don't 'do' hatred? That hatred doesn't matter? Whatever indeed.


----------



## rich! (Oct 28, 2017)

Interesting wave of historical progress. There's a generation for whom trans/genderqueer/... is the issue they see as worth fighting for. And a generation where the liberals have become conservatives by maintaining what were radical views in their youth and now are mainstream.

Personally, I'm shocked by how many radfem activists want to maintain hard gender boundaries. To the point of it becoming the fight they will destroy their communities over


----------



## rich! (Oct 28, 2017)

Personally, ive gone back to my happy space. The Veggies queue.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 28, 2017)

Yes, some women do hatred.  Years and years of fighting for equality for ALL, just to end up with reactionary, gender-obsessed, delusionary fools demanding  that trans women - who I believe have every right to identify as such without threat of discrimination or violence - should and must be able to be counted as women, as in female-born women, and have access to safe spaces  as refuges, or women-only groups.  These activists are taking us backwards in terms of liberation, not forwards, if you accept the gender as construct argument.

Yes, I have grown to hate this form of trans-activism because it seeks to erase my biology, my right to talk about my body (for fear of upsetting someone who doesn't have a vagina), to say 'pregnant woman' and not pregnant people, not to talk about breast-feeding because it's trans-exclusionary, fuck that shit.  Really, fuck it.

And violence towards trans-women?  Culprit?  Toxic masculinity, men, patriarchy, rigid definitions of gender.   NOT women/feminists.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 28, 2017)

rich! said:


> Interesting wave of historical progress. There's a generation for whom trans/genderqueer/... is the issue they see as worth fighting for. And a generation where the liberals have become conservatives by maintaining what were radical views in their youth and now are mainstream.
> 
> Personally, I'm shocked by how many radfem activists want to maintain hard gender boundaries. To the point of it becoming the fight they will destroy their communities over



rich! feminists don't want to maintain GENDER boundaries at all.  We want equality, we want to eradicate sex-based oppression.  We see gender as something that was foisted on all of us, boys don't cry, girls can't do this or that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 28, 2017)

As usual I missed all of the excitement as it happens when I’ve retired to the pub.


----------



## rich! (Oct 28, 2017)

shygirl said:


> rich! feminists don't want to maintain GENDER boundaries at all.  We want equality, we want to eradicate sex-based oppression.  We see gender as something that was foisted on all of us, boys don't cry, girls can't do this or that.


Ok, i guess the question that seems pertinent is whether someone can discover they have been assigned the wrong gender, and once they discover that should they be excluded from gender-binary safe spaces, or should we define gender-neutral safe spaces that subsume the role that old-skool gendered safe spaces provided?

Because I've personally never felt more included than at places where people start by asking my pronoun, and I'm white-cis-male-presenting.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2017)

This mumsnet thread leads to all the details via twitter links 
Two more women attacked by trans activists | Mumsnet Discussion


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 28, 2017)

No doubt the book fair will have to be moved on again to an even less convenient location. 
Why don’t people have their beefs away from it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2017)

ska invita said:


> This mumsnet thread leads to all the details via twitter links
> Two more women attacked by trans activists | Mumsnet Discussion


All the details. Right. Nothing missing then, no doubts remain


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> No doubt the book fair will have to be moved on again to an even less convenient location.
> Why don’t people have their beefs away from it?



Because the beefs are specific to a non-authoritarian culture?

Geography has fuck all to do with it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 28, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Because the beefs are specific to a non-authoritarian culture?
> 
> Geography has fuck all to do with it.



It didn’t occur to them that there might be a ruck? And that it’s the (unpaid) organisers who will shoulder the consequences. Perhaps if it stops altogether as people can’t be arsed with the grief then everyone will be happy.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 28, 2017)

The ruck, perhaps, comes with the territory. That said, I share your concerns about the consequences.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> All the details. Right. Nothing missing then, no doubts remain


by details i mean the offending flyer, who handed it out and the twitter handles of a couple of the aggressors. The aggression was mainly corralling and shouting (for a couple of hours) but at one point there was a physical attack. Then someone set off the fire alarm, which hopefully won't upset the venue. It would be terrible if the venue got withdrawn.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)




----------



## Geri (Oct 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It didn’t occur to them that there might be a ruck? And that it’s the (unpaid) organisers who will shoulder the consequences. Perhaps if it stops altogether as people can’t be arsed with the grief then everyone will be happy.


 
Well I for one am unlikely to ever bother with it again, after last year's incident with Leila Al Shami being prevented from speaking, and now this. There are too many fucking idiots on the scene.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

Geri said:


> Well I for one am unlikely to ever bother with it again, after last year's incident with Leila Al Shami being prevented from speaking, and now this. There are too many fucking idiots on the scene.


To be fair these idiots not as good idiots as the idiots who thought trying to have a rave in the coronet was a good idea, sparking the 2005 battle of holloway road


----------



## andysays (Oct 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> To be fair these idiots not as good idiots as the idiots who thought trying to have a rave in the coronet was a good idea, sparking the 2005 battle of holloway road



I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with being "fair" to the idiots on both sides of this and similar beefs, like the one at Speakers Corner a few weeks ago.

I suspect that ultimately they don't really give a fuck if their actions jeopardize the future of the Bookfair. To hideously mangle the famous quote



			
				Emma Goldman never said:
			
		

> If I can't deliberately provoke, antagonise and generally cunt off people with different opinions or approachs to myself, then it's not my Anarchist Bookfair


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

andysays said:


> I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with being "fair" to the idiots on both sides of this and similar beefs, like the one at Speakers Corner a few weeks ago.


simple point being every year you have twats fucking about, if it's not this lot next year it will be other twats.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> What the fuck is cis, and why should we accept it.  Comfortable with gender assigned at birth, fucking bullshit.  As for TERF, it's a hateful term used to silence women who dare to question the current wave of trans-activism.


I think TERF is an accurate term...it doesn't have a judgemental component to it. Can you explain how it's hateful? 
...and as for cis its a noun like any other - an accurate descriptor. good luck not "accepting" it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2017)

Starting on Helen Steel -a bad bad move that i do not think will end well for them. That will surely bring things to a head. In london at least.


----------



## Humirax (Oct 29, 2017)

Hi, I am new here. I am an anarchist-communist and was at the bookfair, what I saw of it was awesome. I got there late unforunately. Getting there was a pain in the arse though to be honest, it was out of the way but atleast now I know where it is, unless the venue changes again. Got there in time for the Carne Ross/David Graeber/Lisa Mckenzie talk and they had a woman from the Kurdish People's Assembly there aswell- it was great, really thought provoking and interesting and Martin Lux and Lisa Mckenzie's meeting on Taking it to the Streets was great aswell, that meeting followed the Graeber/Ross one.
That was all I saw of Bookfair meetings, don't think I actually had time to see all of the stalls etc, think I missed some, the stalls were divied up into different buildings instead of being in one big hall. Got my much desired Mark Bray book though (Antifa: The Antifascist handbook- apparently a great read). The only thing that bothered me was the fact that you had 'religious anarchist' stalls, there was also a jewish anarchist stall, and they had a sticker or a badge that had 1 god, no masters on it- didn't sit right with me, then you had catholic worker stall aswell, meanwhile the SPGB stall was left outside. This doesn't make sense as inside you had a Marxist humanist stall- so why exclude the SPGB? I do find it odd what is included and excluded at the bookfair. Anyway, it was still a great bookfair and I'm glad I went.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

Humirax said:


> Hi, I am new here. I am an anarchist-communist and was at the bookfair, what I saw of it was awesome. I got there late unforunately. Getting there was a pain in the arse though to be honest, it was out of the way but atleast now I know where it is, unless the venue changes again. Got there in time for the Carne Ross/David Graeber/Lisa Mckenzie talk and they had a woman from the Kurdish People's Assembly there aswell- it was great, really thought provoking and interesting and Martin Lux and Lisa Mckenzie's meeting on Taking it to the Streets was great aswell, that meeting followed the Graeber/Ross one. That is pretty much all I saw of Bookfair meetings, don't think I actually had time to see all of the stalls etc, think I missed some. Got my much desired Mark Bray book though (Antifa: The Antifascist handbook- apparently a great read). The only thing that bothered me was the fact that you had 'religious anarchist' stalls, there was also a jewish anarchist stall, and they had a sticker or a badge that had 1 god, no masters on it- didn't sit right with me, then you had catholic worker stall aswell, meanwhile the SPGB stall was left outside. This doesn't make sense as inside you had a Marxist humanist stall- so why exclude the SPGB? I do find it odd what is included and excluded at the bookfair. Anyway, it was still a great bookfair and I'm glad I went.


Not sure the sign applied for a stall, chuck

And just ignore the stalls you don't agree with


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 29, 2017)

Humirax said:


> Hi, I am new here. I am an anarchist-communist and was at the bookfair, what I saw of it was awesome. I got there late unforunately. Getting there was a pain in the arse though to be honest, it was out of the way but atleast now I know where it is, unless the venue changes again. Got there in time for the Carne Ross/David Graeber/Lisa Mckenzie talk and they had a woman from the Kurdish People's Assembly there aswell- it was great, really thought provoking and interesting and Martin Lux and Lisa Mckenzie's meeting on Taking it to the Streets was great aswell, that meeting followed the Graeber/Ross one. That is pretty much all I saw of Bookfair meetings, don't think I actually had time to see all of the stalls etc, think I missed some. Got my much desired Mark Bray book though (Antifa: The Antifascist handbook- apparently a great read). The only thing that bothered me was the fact that you had 'religious anarchist' stalls, there was also a jewish anarchist stall, and they had a sticker or a badge that had 1 god, no masters on it- didn't sit right with me, then you had catholic worker stall aswell, meanwhile the SPGB stall was left outside. This doesn't make sense as inside you had a Marxist humanist stall- so why exclude the SPGB? I do find it odd what is included and excluded at the bookfair. Anyway, it was still a great bookfair and I'm glad I went.



Did you speak to the SPGB? They voluntarily set up shop outside every bookfair since they're libertarian socialists. Never seen any animosity directed to them. The bookfair is primarily for extraparliamentary groups (Marxists Humanists are one), but Class War are welcome since they're mostly street theatre. The Jewish Anarchists aren't religious to my knowledge, one was in the Anarchist Federation, which has moving to a world where religion has no sway as a plank. It's more of a racial/cultural thing for them.

I kept out of the confrontation, but it seems some guy attacked the feminists who were hounding Steel.

As for keeping trans women out of refuges, their rates of abuse and self-harm are actually higher than for cis women, so they'd experience it from regular society and then from their supposed comrades at a shelter - which'd be pretty shit. I can see the merit of spaces for people with wombs, but fixating on biology does no service to feminism: gender oppression survived the bourgeois revolution, if environment cannot alter it, patriarchy and hierarchy are inevitable.

Edit: and yeah, the Catholic Workers don't tend to hassle anyone. Though if anything radical feminists should be organising against them.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 29, 2017)

Humirax said:


> . . . meanwhile the SPGB stall was left outside. This doesn't make sense as inside you had a Marxist humanist stall- so why exclude the SPGB? I do find it odd what is included and excluded at the bookfair. Anyway, it was still a great bookfair and I'm glad I went.



The SPGB believe in the conquest of Parliament . . . using the vote, etc. The organizers of the AB have always been firm but polite when turning down the SPGB's request for a stall, and that's fair enough in my opinion. To paraphrase the words of the old pop classic, _'It's their Party and they'll invite who they want to . . ._ "

Of course every year a few 'suspect' stalls slip through the net in contravention of the AB door policy, but that's just the way it is. No need to get hot and bothered about it.


----------



## Humirax (Oct 29, 2017)

imposs1904 said:


> The SPGB believe in the conquest of Parliament . . . using the vote, etc. The organizers of the AB have always been firm but polite when turning down the SPGB's request for a stall, and that's fair enough in my opinion. To paraphrase the words of the old pop classic, _'It's their Party and they'll invite who they want to . . ._ "
> 
> Of course every year a few 'suspect' stalls slip through the net in contravention of the AB door policy, but that's just the way it is. No need to get hot and bothered about it.


I'm not getting 'hot and bothered' about it, just expressing my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 29, 2017)

Humirax said:


> I'm not getting 'hot and bothered' about it, just expressing my thoughts on the matter.



No offence intended. I know a few SPGBers get hot and bothered about it . . . and I know when I used to apply for a stall for the SPGB back in the 2000s I would get a bit pissed off about it but, as I mentioned above, the organizers were always polite and up front about it.


----------



## Humirax (Oct 29, 2017)

I see what you are getting at regarding the SPGB but at the same time Class War have stood in elections and they are allowed in. Anyway, I don't want to bang on about it all day. I take your point.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2017)

Humirax said:


> Hi, I am new here. I am an anarchist-communist and was at the bookfair, what I saw of it was awesome. I got there late unforunately. Getting there was a pain in the arse though to be honest, it was out of the way but atleast now I know where it is, unless the venue changes again. Got there in time for the Carne Ross/David Graeber/Lisa Mckenzie talk and they had a woman from the Kurdish People's Assembly there aswell- it was great, really thought provoking and interesting and Martin Lux and Lisa Mckenzie's meeting on Taking it to the Streets was great aswell, that meeting followed the Graeber/Ross one.
> That was all I saw of Bookfair meetings, don't think I actually had time to see all of the stalls etc, think I missed some, the stalls were divied up into different buildings instead of being in one big hall. Got my much desired Mark Bray book though (Antifa: The Antifascist handbook- apparently a great read). The only thing that bothered me was the fact that you had 'religious anarchist' stalls, there was also a jewish anarchist stall, and they had a sticker or a badge that had 1 god, no masters on it- didn't sit right with me, then you had catholic worker stall aswell, meanwhile the SPGB stall was left outside. This doesn't make sense as inside you had a Marxist humanist stall- so why exclude the SPGB? I do find it odd what is included and excluded at the bookfair. Anyway, it was still a great bookfair and I'm glad I went.


I found the Bray book a disappointing rush job (it uses GCSE texts for it's history of Fascism for example) has many shocking factual errors (two examples: the french state killed hundreds of people in crushing the paris commune apparently - and that red action was a man u football firm) contains serious misreadings of contemporary fascism (i.e the french new right centered on de benoist's ideas are based on biological reductionism when they're based on cultural affirmation) - and most importantly, throughout is the implicit idea that anti-fascism's role is to pressure the state to do something about fascism - the difference is that he doesn't condemn illegal or violent action's role in apply that pressure. With all those problems it's still a better book than Against the Fascist Creep.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

Humirax said:


> I see what you are getting at regarding the SPGB but at the same time Class War have stood in elections and they are allowed in. Anyway, I don't want to bang on about it all day. I take your point.


Think you'll find cw have always stood as a stunt rather than in any belief change can come through parliament


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> This mumsnet thread leads to all the details via twitter links
> Two more women attacked by trans activists | Mumsnet Discussion



Here's an account I trust. Mumsnet are known for their transphobia and I doubt any of them were there. 



> My informant then reported that they didn't see most of the second confrontation, although someone else has reported that a man with a shaved head punched a woman who had objected to the presence of TERFs at the event, but they report that;
> 
> _*"the number of trans people involved was minimal, it was almost entirely random people who simply wanted the TERFs out. Much as I suppose I'm grateful for the fact they stood up to transphobes, they did so in the way of disabled people simply trying to get out. We were there, hoping to see the situation de-escalated, or at least moved outside, but to limited avail." *_
> 
> ...


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2017)

Mumsnet. Well-known transphobes. Right.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 29, 2017)

just to be clear i didnt post the mumsnet link for the narrative, rather for the twitter links included


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Mumsnet. Well-known transphobes. Right.


Site is full of transphobia. Unmoderated. And I have been personally attacked on there.

I didn't say transphobes. I said transphobia.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Site is full of transphobia. Unmoderated. And I have been personally attacked on there.


Why do you even want to post on there?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Why do you even want to post on there?


I don't. They found my blog. Although. As someone who has been a parent why shouldn't I?


----------



## rich! (Oct 29, 2017)

The mayday4women domain on that leaflet was registered on Friday.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 29, 2017)




----------



## LDC (Oct 29, 2017)

Traumatized oppressed people shouting 'fascist' at traumatized oppressed people is always going to end well.

I was there Sea Star, and that article you posted is full of factual inaccuracies.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


>



Presumably she'd by fine if Tory women were there handing out leaflets then.

And no! Don't tell me Helen Steel is a TERF. Another hero bites the dust.


----------



## LDC (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Presumably she'd by fine if Tory women were there handing out leaflets then.



That's an idiotic extrapolation to make.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Don't tell me Helen Steel is a TERF. Another hero bites the dust.


Just to be clear are you saying that anyone who argues that people have the right to distribute the linked leaflet is a TERF?


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2017)

rich! said:


> The mayday4women domain on that leaflet was registered on Friday. ---


Hmm. That seems to be some lewisham council offices. 
Weird, but had it been someone's house I'd ask you what your intention was in posting up that info.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Traumatized oppressed people shouting 'fascist' at traumatized oppressed people is always going to end well.
> 
> *I was there Sea Star, and that article you posted is full of factual inaccuracies*.



Why not give a first hand summary then?


----------



## LDC (Oct 29, 2017)

Argue/disagree (even in some cases just try to discuss) with some trans people = you're TERF/transphobe. Largely not a helpful formula. Pathetic state of what passes for some of anarchism.

It's also not going to end well for many trans people as they're going to find themselves treated worse due to the fucking ridiculous attitudes and behavior of some of their 'comrades'.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> Hmm. That seems to be some lewisham council offices.
> Weird, but had it been someone's house I'd ask you what your intention was in posting up that info.


Prosecute


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Presumably she'd by fine if Tory women were there handing out leaflets then.



Would that be the same Tories who are pushing through this bill?


----------



## LDC (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Prosecute



Prosecute who? What are you on about?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> Hmm. That seems to be some lewisham council offices.
> Weird, but had it been someone's house I'd ask you what your intention was in posting up that info.


[address removed by request]


----------



## rich! (Oct 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> Hmm. That seems to be some lewisham council offices.
> Weird, but had it been someone's house I'd ask you what your intention was in posting up that info.


I'm curious as to who the people behind the organisation are, and why they appear to be working out of a council building.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Prosecute


What? Are you saying the author of the leaflet should be prosecuted because they used what could be their work address? Seriously?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 29, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What? Are you saying the author of the leaflet should be prosecuted because they used what could be their work address? Seriously.



Because it’s a hate crime, I’d wager.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2017)

Lots of groups use the centre what with it being a community resource. It doesn't mean they all work there.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

rich! said:


> I'm curious as to who the people behind the organisation are, and why they appear to be working out of a council building.



Just so you know it's a fucking ridiculous suggestion that you  posted that info in an attempt to cause problems for them in any way. 

I checked them out this morning before heading off to the gym. I also checked out their FB page and have liked it so that I can observe them as I have never heard of Mayday4women before. If I had posted up the info/address would I have been accused of targeting them in a suspicious way?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Prosecute


I wouldn't be demanding prosecutions of anyone involved in any of this nonsense if i was you. I don't think you realise just who you  will be more likely to end up in trouble from it - aside from the idiocy of demanding legal intervention in political disputes.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 29, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Just so you know it's a fucking ridiculous suggestion that you  posted that info in an attempt to cause problems for them in any way.
> 
> I checked them out this morning before heading off to the gym. I also checked out their FB page and have liked it so that I can observe them as I have never heard of Mayday4women before. If I had posted up the info/address would I have been accused of targeting them in a suspicious way?



Tbf it’s publicly available information.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Tbf it’s publicly available information.



Well quite. Which is my point. It puts the snidey comment about rich posting it up into perspective. That and knowing Rich. It's an absurd suggestion.


----------



## rich! (Oct 29, 2017)

And i took a look on streetmap before posting it.

Still curious about the newly created domain with no content but i guess "we're doing a leaflet we need a website" isnt uncommon.


----------



## Mation (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Yes, some women do hatred.  Years and years of fighting for equality for ALL, just to end up with reactionary, gender-obsessed, delusionary fools demanding  that trans women - who I believe have every right to identify as such without threat of discrimination or violence - should and must be able to be counted as women, as in female-born women, and have access to safe spaces  as refuges, or women-only groups.  These activists are taking us backwards in terms of liberation, not forwards, if you accept the gender as construct argument.
> 
> Yes, I have grown to hate this form of trans-activism because it seeks to erase my biology, my right to talk about my body (for fear of upsetting someone who doesn't have a vagina), to say 'pregnant woman' and not pregnant people, not to talk about breast-feeding because it's trans-exclusionary, fuck that shit.  Really, fuck it.
> 
> And violence towards trans-women?  Culprit?  Toxic masculinity, men, patriarchy, rigid definitions of gender.   NOT women/feminists.


What I get from your post is that you don't believe that trans women are women and that you feel very threatened by the idea that anyone should consider them so. They've cancelled Christmas and you can't say anything transphobic anymore without people calling you transphobic.

Is your biology erased by cis women born without a vagina? Are you worried that you can't talk about breast-feeding because it excludes cis women who have never been mothers or who are but haven't breastfed? I suspect not.

I have experiences as a woman that are more common to women than to other genders, and that are shared by some but not all other women (trans or cis). I'm still a woman. The fact that not all women share the same experiences doesn't threaten the fact that I'm a woman.

You don't want equality for all, imo. You want to pull up the drawbridge.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

I'd like to see condemnation for the TERFs who use personal information to attack trans women and our supporters, many of whom are cis women.

Even as I found myself being attacked in exactly this way just a few weeks ago. Unfortunately I don't have access to mass media to whip my supporters up into a frenzy over it.

It seems condemnation only goes one way. Especially as it looks very much like a cis woman who supported trans inclusion was punched by a TERF supporting cis man without a peep about violence against women.


----------



## Mation (Oct 29, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I wouldn't be demanding prosecutions of anyone involved in any of this nonsense if i was you. I don't think you realise just who you  will be more likely to end up in trouble from it - aside from the idiocy of demanding legal intervention in political disputes.


That's a really dodgy bit of advice. Are you really meaning to suggest that someone who believes that an action constitutes hate speech should back off from suggesting that the laws on hate speech should apply, in case they piss off the wrong people?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2017)

Mation said:


> That's a really dodgy bit of advice. Are you really meaning to suggest that someone who believes that an action constitutes hate speech should back off from suggesting that the laws on hate speech should apply, in case they piss off the wrong people?


I'm suggesting that introducing demands for prosecution into this is likely to backfire directly on the people that sea star wishes to support over this and previous incidents.


----------



## Mation (Oct 29, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I'm suggesting that introducing demands for prosecution into this is likely to backfire directly on the people that sea star wishes to support over this and previous incidents.


That boils down to asking for support nicely, rather than doing what's right. The latter might turn out not to be effective but the former never is, if support is conditional on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2017)

Mation said:


> That boils down to asking for support nicely, rather than doing what's right. The latter might turn out not to be effective but the former never is, if support is conditional on it.


It boils down to not opening your own side up to prosecution - an expanded wider prosecution at that-  by making hasty ill-thought through demands for prosecution of your enemies. And in this conflict, it's sea stars side that are the ones with things wide open to prosecution all over the internet. A tit-for-tat front here will surely hurt them more.


----------



## Mation (Oct 29, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It boils down to not opening your own side up to prosecution - an expanded wider prosecution at that-  by making hasty ill-thought through demands for prosecution of your enemies. And in this conflict, it's sea stars side that are the ones with things wide open to prosecution all over the internet. A tit-for-tat front here will surely hurt them more.


I'm not at all sure that that's true, but if you're wanting to offer helpful, pragmatic and impartial advice to a 'side', you might be better to drop the usernames and state the positions you mean instead.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 29, 2017)

Has anyone considered the states involvement in all of this? All looks extremely convenient, and has been happening for the past few years.


----------



## Humirax (Oct 29, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I found the Bray book a disappointing rush job (it uses GCSE texts for it's history of Fascism for example) has many shocking factual errors (two examples: the french state killed hundreds of people in crushing the paris commune apparently - and that red action was a man u football firm) contains serious misreadings of contemporary fascism (i.e the french new right centered on de benoist's ideas are based on biological reductionism when they're based on cultural affirmation) - and most importantly, throughout is the implicit idea that anti-fascism's role is to pressure the state to do something about fascism - the difference is that he doesn't condemn illegal or violent action's role in apply that pressure. With all those problems it's still a better book than Against the Fascist Creep.


Having seen what Bray has to say about anti-fascism and as others have recommended his book, I'm sure (despite some inaccuracies) it is still worth a read.


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 29, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That's an idiotic extrapolation to make.



Not really. The bookfair policy here says nothing about transphobia, but how much shrift would have been given to someone handing out leaflets about the Immigration Act and race realism? 



redsquirrel said:


> Just to be clear are you saying that anyone who argues that people have the right to distribute the linked leaflet is a TERF?



No, they are transphobes, but may be doing it for reasons completely perpendicular to promoting feminism, like this guy. Or maybe they believe every position should be open for debate and discussion at the anarchist bookfair - in which case, good luck having some National Syndicalist stall next to Jewdas and picking up a tome from Rothbard on your way to the Veggie stall. 

They claim the act removes women's legal right to name men as men (i.e. misgender), but that was already in place in the 2010 Equality Act tbf.


----------



## Humirax (Oct 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Think you'll find cw have always stood as a stunt rather than in any belief change can come through parliament


Fair enough, I take your point.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

Do I have a side now? Sorry, i just thought i wanted equal rights as a human being, and as a woman.


I see double standards again. Generally, people seem quite happy to introduce the law into political disputes that stray into the arena of hate speech. But when trans people suggest such a thing we're told we're idiots. Great!

And I have to wonder what prosecutable things "my side" are open to. And what is "my side"?

I actually, naively thought i was protected from hate speech by the law.

Also - I am not and never have been a man. Why the hell do some people want the legal right to claim something to be true that isn't true? And why do others support that position? It's beyond me. I just want to live my life as a woman, and not as some sort of second class woman/ third gender or, worse, be forced to live as a man.


----------



## LDC (Oct 29, 2017)

One of the flashpoints once the conflict had started was the use of cameras. More than one trans-person was filming/taking pictures of people within the Bookfair. When confronted I heard them at least once say 'This is what we do with fascists, we film them to expose them.' 

A good friend of mine was really upset when walking past the row, and stopped to see what was going on, someone (a transwoman) held a camera in her face and said 'You're a TERF, I'm going to put you all over the internet.'


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> They claim the act removes women's legal right to name men as men (i.e. misgender), but that was already in place in the 2010 Equality Act tbf.



Most of the things that leaflet references are already in place under the Equalities Act.

The act, or amendments to the gender recognition act, do not even exist.   No bill has been published and it wasn't in the Queen's Speech.  All that has happened so far is a  consultation has been announced (but not yet published).  The people behind that leaflet seem to be both too late and jumping the gun at the same time.



> The consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, to be published in the Autumn, will look to improve the recognition process and reduce the stigma faced by the trans community. Proposals will include:
> 
> 
> Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community; and
> Proposing options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system.



National LGBT survey - GOV.UK


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 29, 2017)

There was also this select committee report last year.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> I see double standards again. Generally, people seem quite happy to introduce the law into political disputes that stray into the arena of hate speech. But when trans people suggest such a thing we're told we're idiots. Great!



Depends on who they are. Militant anti-fascists wouldn’t call for state actions against the opposition. And this happened at an anarchist event who would likely agree with that position.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> There was also this select committee report last year.



Select committe reports are not law.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 29, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Select committe reports are not law.


I know!


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

Now I understand.  The leaflet seems to be in response to both a private member's bill published by Maria Miller which ran out of time due to the election and no longer exists, and the select committee report.  This bill called for 'gender identity' to become a protected charicteristic under law instead of  '“gender reassignment” as is currently the case.  If you read the committee report this seems to have been recommended for legal reasons, gender identity is probably already covered by the current legislation but would require a test case to establish that with certainty.



> 102.
> Many witnesses proposed that, rather than relying on a test case, the Government
> should instead amend the Equality Act to replace the “gender reassignment” characteristic
> with a broader definition. The EHRC told us that:
> ...



The leaflet seems to be confusing this old bill with the upcoming consultation and assuming that every single recommendation proposed by the committee will be in any new bill that might one day arise.  Which is not very honest of them.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I think TERF is an accurate term...it doesn't have a judgemental component to it. Can you explain how it's hateful?
> ...and as for cis its a noun like any other - an accurate descriptor. good luck not "accepting" it.[/QUOTE
> 
> Here's a few contrasting definitions of TERF I just found on Urban Dictionary:
> ...


----------



## TruXta (Oct 29, 2017)

Urban dictionary? Really?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl do you have stats on attacks on trans women?

Oh: are prisons really a safe space?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> shygirl do you have stats on attacks on trans women?
> 
> Oh: are prisons really a safe space?



Not if they've got screws: Female ex-inmates talk about prison abuse


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> shygirl do you have stats on attacks on trans women?
> 
> Oh: are prisons really a safe space?



Fuck your intellectual snobbery.  I used urban dic to give a sense of the common views of what 'terf' means.

No, I don't have stats, but I'm very aware of the disturbingly high level (no stats either) of violent attacks on women day in and day out in
their homes.  And I refute that I or any other woman who has concerns about trans-women sharing female born women's safe spaces are responsible for violence against trans women. 

If it all means that I don't accept that someone born a male or female who then goes on to transition fully or not becomes the opposite sex, then so be it.  Emperor's new clothes comes to mind. 

I think that trans-women activists need to campaign for safe spaces for trans-women.

I don't claim prisons to be safe spaces, and am aware that prison officers and female prisoners do violently and sexually assault females.  I'm just not comfortable with trans-women being placed in female prisons.   There is currently a trans-woman prisoner in a female prison, and she sadly has been segregated from the other prisoners, which must be terribly isolating.  If there were units in prisons for trans-women, their safety could be better guaranteed.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2017)

And I would support and fight for safe spaces for trans-women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Fuck your intellectual snobbery.  I used urban dic to give a sense of the common views of what 'terf' means.
> 
> No, I don't have stats, but I'm very aware of the disturbingly high level (no stats either) of violent attacks on women day in and day out in
> their homes.  And I refute that I or any other woman who has concerns about trans-women sharing female born women's safe spaces.  If that means that I don't accept that someone born a male or female who then goes on to transition fully becomes the opposite sex, then so be it.  Emperor's new clothes comes to mind.
> ...


Yeh. If you're going to hand out fuck you's please aim them at the right person. As for prisons you preceded that with a bit about access to safe spaces. You explicitly said you were talking about safe spaces *including prisons in your list*. See your post 114. And sort out the quote in it,you missed out a ]


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> And I would support and fight for safe spaces for trans-women.


I don't want your support. I'm a woman and I will not be segregated or treated as "other".


ETA - this represents a roll back of rights. At the moment many trans people are able to go stealth after changing birth certificate and are able to live as their experienced gender with no serious issues. To force trans people - men, women and non-binary people presumably, not just women, into trans only facilities would out them as trans forever and require that we all be documented as trans and carry some sort of identifying documentation - or maybe a bar-code(?).

It would also mean that your feelings are being placed above those who feel that trans women are women and want us to be seen that way, and given the same rights and protections.

I don't think that transitioning would even work as a treatment if we were forced to identify as a third gender or a second class version of our experienced gender. It would be a recipe for abuse, for discrimination and i suspect make life so much harder that the benefits of transitioning would be extremely marginal, maybe non-existent.

Plus, for practical reasons - providing all those extra facilities would be expensive. If there were rape crisis centres for trans women then the facilities for women with wombs (presumably cis women without wombs would be excluded too) would suffer.

And most of us don;t live in safe spaces - we live in the real world of work and having to negotiate landlords, employers, health providers and small minded offcialdom. We already get a huge amount of discrimination, but the thing that keeps me going is that one day i won't have to identify myself as trans any more to anyone and i'll finally get to live as a woman. Enforced segregation - if it was to be enforced - would mean that we never get to that. Life, to be honest, would become intolerable. 

Actually this is so insulting that I can't even deal with it. It's outrageous that someone would think that separate and not equal would work as a policy. I suspect you have no intention of supporting such an unworkable policy but just want trans women away from you. And for what reason? What risk do we pose to cis women? I consistently see a failure to provide evidence that widespread discrimination at huge cost to the state, to charities and other NGO's, to employers, to local authorities, would provide clear benefits to anyone at all. Would only result in the death of trans people, in my opinion.

I'm not stopping short of equality.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 29, 2017)

.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

Do you have a screen shot?

(‘Loading tweet’)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 29, 2017)

Yeah that’s annoying. Hold on. It’s a twitter thread so difficult.

If you click on the Past Tense tweet below it should take you to the thread.

ETA: I wasn’t there, but there is a twitter thread from a trusted comrade who was.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 29, 2017)

```
https://twitter.com/_pasttense_/status/924742739719278594
```


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> There is currently a trans-woman prisoner in a female prison, and she sadly has been segregated from the other prisoners, which must be terribly isolating.  If there were units in prisons for trans-women, their safety could be better guaranteed.



So we need to build 'Units' so that trans women feel safer? What about them feeling isolated, you imply you care about that. How will these trans units you think need building stop people feeling isolated?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

Now you’re just being silly Fozzie


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> ```
> https://twitter.com/_pasttense_/status/924742739719278594
> ```





> *Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!*


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

I assume you mean this person...

Past Tense (@_pasttense_) on Twitter


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> ```
> https://twitter.com/_pasttense_/status/924742739719278594
> ```




Nice one.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 29, 2017)

Yeah see a few posts up - I edited.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 29, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> So we need to build 'Units' so that trans women feel safer? What about them feeling isolated, you imply you care about that. How will these trans units you think need building stop people feeling isolated?



Seperate but equal, yeah ok.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> ```
> https://twitter.com/_pasttense_/status/924742739719278594
> ```


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 29, 2017)

Yeah that one. thanks.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> I think that trans-women activists need to campaign for safe spaces for trans-women.



The rate of transsexuality is usually estimated at around between one in a thousand to about one in 300, thats both male to female and female to male.  Given that hopefully most of these people will never want to use a service such as a refuge then apart from in very big cities this is not a viable option.  This view, even if well intentioned, amounts to saying that transwomen should just do something impossible and then they could have their own safe spaces.  And that's before you even get into the argument that if transwomen are to be accepted as women, then they should be able to access services for women (which in reality they can already in many cases and there's been no outbreak of trans rapists in womens refuges that I'm aware of since a lot of organisations adopted a full inclusion policies).


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2017)

anyone who disagrees with TERFs now being called a "trans activist" clearly.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 29, 2017)

Did I really just read that I just that Helen Steel was called a fascist, accused of filming someone and passing it on to police, as well as being treated like that? Disgusting accusations to make against her.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 29, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Did I really just read that I just that Helen Steel was called a fascist, accused of filming someone and passing it on to police, as well as being treated like that? Disgusting accusations to make against her.



what more would you expect from spoilt brats?


----------



## YouSir (Oct 29, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Did I really just read that I just that Helen Steel was called a fascist, accused of filming someone and passing it on to police, as well as being treated like that? Disgusting accusations to make against her.



Ongoing too, people still arguing it on Twitter.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. If you're going to hand out fuck you's please aim them at the right person. As for prisons you preceded that with a bit about access to safe spaces. You explicitly said you were talking about safe spaces *including prisons in your list*. See your post 114. And sort out the quote in it,you missed out a ]



I said 'fuck your snobbery' not 'you'.   

You're right, prisons are not safe spaces, per se, but they arguably become less safe if/when they have to be shared with people who were born as men and still possibly pose a risk to women.  Bear in mind that most trans women do not transition physically.  The prisoner who is currently segregated in a female prison committed rape.  She is not segregated because of anything she's done whilst in prison, and I don't know the reason for her segregation.  Perhaps the prisoners protested about someone who had raped two girls, who transitioned whilst in prison, being placed in a female prison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> I said 'fuck your snobbery' not 'you'.
> 
> You're right, prisons are not safe spaces, per se, but they arguably become less safe if/when they have to be shared with people who were born as men and still possibly pose a risk to women.  Bear in mind that most trans women do not transition physically.  The prisoner who is currently segregated in a female prison committed rape.  She is not segregated because of anything she's done whilst in prison, and I don't know the reason for her segregation.  Perhaps the prisoners protested about someone who had raped two girls, who transitioned whilst in prison, being placed in a female prison.


I've said nothing about your use of urban dictionary so fuck you, chuck.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> anyone who disagrees with TERFs now being called a "trans activist" clearly.



This mirrors anyone who disagrees with trans activists being called TERFs.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 29, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Ongoing too, people still arguing it on Twitter.



People just believe what they want nowadays. The battle of the narrative. Fake news.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 29, 2017)

Funny old world, isn't it?


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> I don't want your support. I'm a woman and I will not be segregated or treated as "other".
> 
> 
> ETA - this represents a roll back of rights. At the moment many trans people are able to go stealth after changing birth certificate and are able to live as their experienced gender with no serious issues. To force trans people - men, women and non-binary people presumably, not just women, into trans only facilities would out them as trans forever and require that we all be documented as trans and carry some sort of identifying documentation - or maybe a bar-code(?).
> ...



I have no problem with trans-women. I just happen not to agree that trans-women are women in the sense that women who are born female are.   Equality laws and sex-monitoring were established to address issues of sex-based discrimination, inequality and lack of opportunity and the GRA threatens to obscure this. 

Anyway, what is a woman?  I'm intrigued to know what it 'feels' like to be a woman (other than as a gender stereo-type).   I liked playing with boys and wearing boys' clothes when I was little, and playing dolls with my girlfriends, but that doesn't mean that I knew what it was to be a boy any more than I did about being a girl.   I learnt how to 'be' a girl because society had it all worked out and applied rigidly.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This mirrors anyone who disagrees with trans activists being called TERFs.



not even disagree, you only need to hesitate.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Oh the irony of the trans-activists today calling Helen Steel and the other women fascists, whilst imposing their own nasty fascism on others.  What a joke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

Was there a picket of T-Chances?


----------



## YouSir (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Oh the irony of the trans-activists today calling Helen Steel and the other women fascists, whilst imposing their own nasty fascism on others.  What a joke.



'Fascist TERF cunt' was one I just saw. I'm well aware of my own ignorance on the issue but some of the abuse that seems to be going on is just obscene.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

I really don’t think the activsts in question have any insight into their behaviour. No awareness of how it alienates those who might otherwise support them.  

Peak trans indeed


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Oh the irony of the trans-activists today calling Helen Steel and the other women fascists, whilst imposing their own nasty fascism on others.  What a joke.



They’re daft calling Helen Steel fascist but to label them as such is also incorrect.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

Perhaps a distinction should start to be drawn between people who have concerns, questions, or anxieties about issues relating to transgenderism and 'terfs' who really believe trans-women do not have the right to exist.  This is an organised and sometimes violent movement that has hounded transwomen ever since they began to emerge in feminist spaces.  And whilst this is only really a small number of radical feminists they are well represented in the media, often have well read blogs and have been able to cause real damage to trans people.

Perhaps the most insiduous aspect of this is that many myths, created by terfs, have slipped into normal discourse including on here at times.  Studies which claimed to show transwomen retain male patterns of criminality but in reality show no such thing are repeatedly cited.  Reactionary doctors who believe in reparation therapy are lauded as experts. Select committee reports and defunct bills are presented as new laws. If a transperson commits a violent crime this is used to attack all transpeople.  Crackpot pseudo-scientific theories on trangenderism are presented as facts.   That terfs (by which I mean those with the most extreme views) seem not to care that the studies they spout don't show what they say they do, or that statistics don't back up their fear mongering suggests that this is an ideological campaign, which is not interested in the truth, which believes transpeople have no right to exist at best and should be relentlessly attacked at worst.  And this of course is what many of them openly believe, but realising this belief is unpopular they have created a wall of misinformation in an attempt to draw other feminists to their position.  And it works.  So when the first group I mentioned, of questioning/concerned people, repeat what transpeople know to be misinformation then they are assumed to be part of the second group, or why would they be repeating what is often little more than a slur?  And then a big row breaks out that should probably never have happened.

A way round this might to start challenging that misinformation, for people to carefully check scary stories they might have read about transpeople for accuracy, but also a  rejection and condemnation by all those who support the right of transgender people to exist of the small number of trans exclusionary radical feminists who seem to operate as little more than an obsessive hate group. 

Anyway probably a bit of a derail, but just a thought.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

What do you mean by: ‘believe that trans-women do not have the right to exist’ smokedout ?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What do you mean by: ‘believe that trans-women do not have the right to exist’ smokedout ?



They believe transwomen are delusional, rapists in disguise, sexual fetishists, male oppressors attempting to colonise womenhood or mentally ill and should be treated as such, not given any rights or treatment.


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 29, 2017)

> I could also attach screen shots of the most hateful, abusive, violent, (even murderous) statements by some trans-women/activists, but I'm sure you've seen them before. But to be honest, it distresses and frightens me. I am fearful of being attacked by some of these activists, in a way that I feared being attacked on anti-fa or Irish demos back in the day. I never ever would have expected to be fearful of attack from supposed liberals.



Well, hopefully you won't bump into many liberals at the Anarchist Bookfair.



> It is a lie that the many women/feminists who are worried about the GRA, and what it will mean for girls and women in the future, are in any way anti-trans rights. It is a lie that we are responsible for the murders or violence against trans women. Let us not forget either that female born women are murdered at a rate of 2 per week in the UK. There were no murders of trans women in 2016. But we are accused of causing the murder of trans women when we, quite reasonably, imo, say that we're not comfortable with the idea that trans-women have access to all of our safe spaces. And we're not talking 'bathrooms' here. We are talking about changing rooms, refuges, prisons, women-only hostels/shelters, etc. Women have been attacked in refuges and homeless shelters by trans-women, albeit mainly in the US. I am NOT saying that all trans-women are violent (though we know that men are responsible for most violent crime, and a study (in Sweden I think) into levels of crimes committed by trans-women, even those relatively few who do actually transition) show no decrease in the incidences of violence).



Someone quoted 3 women killed per week in the US in a twitter debate (due to domestic violence I suppose) and I found that trans individuals make up 1% of the population with 26 murders so far this year. Assuming no more trans murders this year (one can hope!), that's 156 women killed in a population of 161m, a rate of 0.0001 a year, while 26 in a population of 3.23m would be 0.0008 a year, if my math's not off. Anyway, no, you're not directly responsible for the murder of trans women, any more than the perfectly regular people concerned with forced busing were responsible for lynch mobs. But the problem is one of structural violence and at the moment, trans people, particularly trans women, especially trans women who are sex workers, are at the forefront of it. I, personally, am not doing much to combat that. I've been to the sex worker memorial day twice, other than that the only actual political thing I've been involved in recently has been leafleting a factory demanding higher wages (with the AWW). Don't think it detracts from the broader anarchist argument. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to request spaces where there are no adults with penises, but we'll see I suppose.



> Equality laws and sex-monitoring were established to address issues of sex-based discrimination, inequality and lack of opportunity and the GRA threatens to obscure this.



Somehow I doubt it, these statistics are pretty well tabulated.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps a distinction should start to be drawn between people who have concerns, questions, or anxieties about issues relating to transgenderism and 'terfs' who really believe trans-women do not have the right to exist.  This is an organised and sometimes violent movement that has hounded transwomen ever since they began to emerge in feminist spaces.  And whilst this is only really a small number of radical feminists they are well represented in the media, often have well read blogs and have been able to cause real damage to trans people.
> 
> Perhaps the most insiduous aspect of this is that many myths, created by terfs, have slipped into normal discourse including on here at times.  Studies which claimed to show transwomen retain male patterns of criminality but in reality show no such thing are repeatedly cited.  Reactionary doctors who believe in reparation therapy are lauded as experts. Select committee reports and defunct bills are presented as new laws. If a transperson commits a violent crime this is used to attack all transpeople.  Crackpot pseudo-scientific theories on trangenderism are presented as facts.   That terfs (by which I mean those with the most extreme views) seem not to care that the studies they spout don't show what they say they do, or that statistics don't back up their fear mongering suggests that this is an ideological campaign, which is not interested in the truth, which believes transpeople have no right to exist at best and should be relentlessly attacked at worst.  And this of course is what many of them openly believe, but realising this belief is unpopular they have created a wall of misinformation in an attempt to draw other feminists to their position.  And it works.  So when the first group I mentioned, of questioning/concerned women, repeat what transpeople know to be misinformation then they are assumed to be part of the second group, or why would they be repeating what is often little more than a slur?  And then a big row breaks out that should probably never have happened.
> 
> ...



Sorry, which 'terfs' have ever said that trans-women shouldn't exist or should be relentlessly attacked.  Stop peddling these lies.  It's one thing to disagree with these views but it's quite another to mis-represent them.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

smokedout said:


> They believe transwomen are delusional, rapists in disguise, sexual fetishists, male oppressors attempting to colonise womenhood or mentally ill



That’s not really believing they don’t have a right to exist though is it?




smokedout said:


> They believe transwomen should not be given any rights .



Really?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Sorry, which 'terfs' have ever said that trans-women shouldn't exist or should be relentlessly attacked.  Stop peddling these lies.  It's one thing to disagree with these views but it's quite another to mis-represent them.



Perhaps you should read some of these quotes from The Transexual Empire, probably one of the most influential books amongst this group: 



> Rape, of course, is a masculinist violation of bodily integrity. All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves. However, the transsexuality constructed lesbian-feminist violates women’s sexuality and spirit, as well. Rape, although it is usually done by force, can also be accomplished by deception. It is significant that in the case of the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist, often he is able to gain entrance and a dominant position in women’s spaces because the women involved do not know he is a transsexual and he just does not happen to mention it.





> “the issue of transsexualism has profound political and moral ramifications; transsexualism itself is a deeply moral question rather than a medical-technical answer. I contend that _the problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence_.”


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 29, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps you should read some of these quotes from The Transexual Empire, probably one of the most influential books amongst this group:



Which again isn’t the same as saying transwomen don’t have the right to exist, or that they are all rapists (in the literal, legal sense)


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Which again isn’t the same as saying transwomen don’t have the right to exist, or that they are all rapists (in the literal, legal sense)



Well no, not in the literal legal sense, but in the sense that they use the term rapist, alongside an ongoing campaign which attempts to distort facts and statistics to show that transwomen accessing woman only spaces are probably secretly rapey men.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 30, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Funny old world, isn't it?



hilarious


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 30, 2017)

The second tweet down pretty much sums up my views. I think a lot of the claims in that leaflet are, at best, overstated, at worst, false and transphobic. But the blanket dismissal, and sometimes physical confrontation, of anyone who doesn't agree 100% with your position is both stupid and shit.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Which again isn’t the same as saying transwomen don’t have the right to exist, or that they are all rapists (in the literal, legal sense)


The author of that quote is literally saying that trans people have no moral right to exist.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

It's difficult to be totally clear what the quote says, as it's a single sentence taken completely out of context. For contrast, the author Janice Raymond says on a page of her website called Fictions and Facts about The Transexual Empire that _What this means is that I want to eliminate the medical and social systems that support transsexualism and the reasons why in a gender-defined society, persons find it necessary to change their bodies - _which is quite different to saying that transexuals have no right to exist or should have no rights.

It's a bit rich cautioning people against selectively quoting and twisting data for ideological purposes then doing exactly that a post or two later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's difficult to be totally clear what the quote says, as it's a single sentence taken completely out of context. For contrast, the author Janice Raymond says on a page of her website called Fictions and Facts about The Transexual Empire that _What this means is that I want to eliminate the medical and social systems that support transsexualism and the reasons why in a gender-defined society, persons find it necessary to change their bodies - _which is quite different to saying that transexuals have no right to exist or should have no rights.
> 
> It's a bit rich cautioning people against selectively quoting and twisting data for ideological purposes then doing exactly that a post or two later.


all quotes are by definition selective


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's difficult to be totally clear what the quote says, as it's a single sentence taken completely out of context. For contrast, the author Janice Raymond says on a page of her website called Fictions and Facts about The Transexual Empire that _What this means is that I want to eliminate the medical and social systems that support transsexualism and the reasons why in a gender-defined society, persons find it necessary to change their bodies - _which is quite different to saying that transexuals have no right to exist or should have no rights.
> 
> It's a bit rich cautioning people against selectively quoting and twisting data for ideological purposes then doing exactly that a post or two later.


It's a roundabout way of saying exactly the same thing, only couched in less obvious terms.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

no it isn't.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 30, 2017)

This is worth a read, good thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> This is worth a read, good thread.




Thanks for linking to that. A good read indeed. I have been thinking a lot about why I don't have the same level/sense of suspicion. I'm not sure what the answer is... That leaflet was awful in approach...scaremongering and suspicion promoting. A massive turn off and I am not surprised that people feel defensive as a response to that kind of narrative.

shygirl

I think the twitter thread linked to above is worth your time.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> no it isn't.


Fucking well is. According to the argument in question trans people are literally the product of a medical social arrangement put in place by the patriarchy to further suppress women's emancipation. So it follows that a moral call to dismantle that system is a moral call to eliminate transsexualism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's a bit rich cautioning people against selectively quoting and twisting data for ideological purposes then doing exactly that a post or two later.



There is no context that could make 'all transsexuals are rapists' an OK thing to say.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's difficult to be totally clear what the quote says, as it's a single sentence taken completely out of context. For contrast, the author Janice Raymond says on a page of her website called Fictions and Facts about The Transexual Empire that _What this means is that I want to eliminate the medical and social systems that support transsexualism and the reasons why in a gender-defined society, persons find it necessary to change their bodies - _which is quite different to saying that transexuals have no right to exist or should have no rights.
> 
> It's a bit rich cautioning people against selectively quoting and twisting data for ideological purposes then doing exactly that a post or two later.



That's not selective quoting, the quote is what the book said, this is what she said on her website over 30 years later when she realised, as I discussed, that this kind of thing isn't palatable anymore and a new strategy is needed.  And note eliminate the _medical_ and social systems, not eliminate gender,   but do it now, under patriarchy, dismantle any support or rights for transpeople.  Raymond has also been blamed for plating a large part in elimating what little funding there was for trans healthcare in the US (and later lying about her role in that).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2017)

Just a general point: being a celebrity activist doesn't necessarily mean you're not also a dickhead. It certainly doesn't mean your opinions should be taken more seriously than anyone else's.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just a general point: being a celebrity activist doesn't necessarily mean you're not also a dickhead. It certainly doesn't mean your opinions should be taken more seriously than anyone else's.



Does your ‘general point’ have any relevance to the thread?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Does your ‘general point’ have any relevance to the thread?



For some reason he doesn’t want to name said activist but I assume he means Helen Steel.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

Supportive of her on the spycops thread - sneering at her as a _celebrity  activist_ on this one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just a general point: being a celebrity activist doesn't necessarily mean you're not also a dickhead. It certainly doesn't mean your opinions should be taken more seriously than anyone else's.


i've known hs for more than 25 years and it's a fucking shit way to describe her to say she's a celebrity activist. don't be a twat, sf.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2017)

If Helen Steel had been taking videos and sending them to the police (I have no idea if this actually happened) then that's a bad thing to do no matter who she is or what she's done in the past. Conversely if she's been attacked, lied about or otherwise mistreated than that would still be a bad thing regardless of who she was.

Why say 'how dare they do this to (insert name here)' when 'how dare they do this to anyone' is enough?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If Helen Steel had been taking videos and sending them to the police (I have no idea if this actually happened) then that's a bad thing to do no matter who she is or what she's done in the past. Conversely if she's been attacked, lied about or otherwise mistreated than that would still be a bad thing regardless of who she was.
> 
> Why say 'how dare they do this to (insert name here)' when 'how dare they do this to anyone' is enough?



So you’re basing your sneer on something that you don’t even know happened or not?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If Helen Steel had been taking videos and sending them to the police (I have no idea if this actually happened) then that's a bad thing to do no matter who she is or what she's done in the past. Conversely if she's been attacked, lied about or otherwise mistreated than that would still be a bad thing regardless of who she was.
> 
> Why say 'how dare they do this to (insert name here)' when 'how dare they do this to anyone' is enough?


yeh. i think i can say without fear of contradiction that if there was anyone in london who wouldn't take videos and send them to the police, that person would be helen.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank Those accusations of Helen seem to be bullshit from where I am reading. It seems like stuff that was thrown at her because she stood up for those handing out the leaflets, or their right to hand them out at least. Helen got it in the neck because she became the next best target after those handing out the leaflets left/were hounded out.

Seriously, if Helen had been involved in any of the things she was suddenly accused of you'd think it would have been highlighted before now wouldn't you?

I am not into hero-worship of anyone so accept your point that just because someone has done 'good' in one context doesn't make them above criticism where they do fuck up or where one may disagree with their position in other contexts but I don't think we need go there with HS on the basis of what was thrown at her at the weekend.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> SpookyFrank Those accusations of Helen seem to be bullshit from where I am reading. It seems like stuff that was thrown at her because she stood up for those handing out the leaflets, or their right to hand them out at least. Helen got it in the neck because she became the next best target after those handing out the leaflets left/we hounded out.
> 
> Seriously, if Helen had been involved in any of the things she was suddenly accused of you'd think it would have been highlighted before now wouldn't you?


someone would have noticed


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2017)

Videos being send to the cops by Helen? FFS, can we stop the wild inaccurate speculation please and stick to the facts and issues raised, it's complicated and controversial enough without inventing things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Videos being send to the cops by Helen? FFS, can we stop the wild inaccurate speculation please and stick to the facts and issues raised, it's complicated and controversial enough without inventing things.


not to mention that helen has some experience in libel cases


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Videos being send to the cops by Helen? FFS, can we stop the wild inaccurate speculation please and stick to the facts and issues raised, it's complicated and controversial enough without inventing things.



TBF no-one on this thread is inventing things. These are things HS was accused of at the weekend. Clearly bullshit though yes. Fucking shitty tactics, but calling people 'shills' to discredit them is nothing new.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2017)

Dumb arsed move attacking Helen. Interesting to see previously sane people constructing completely daft and dangerous sylogisms.


----------



## rich! (Oct 30, 2017)

On a small point, the double sided leaflet suggests that both gay and queer politics are "male sectors who profit from the elimination of human rights for females" which seems pretty much like it falls under "homophobia".


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2017)

Life was a tad simpler when it was Sam Ambreen and her crew of cunts chanting "kill ALL Men" at the bookfair.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

rich! said:


> On a small point, the double sided leaflet suggests that both gay and queer politics are "male sectors who profit from the elimination of human rights for females" which seems pretty much like it falls under "homophobia".



Do you think the flyer is homophobic?


----------



## rich! (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you think the flyer is homophobic?


I think that statement seems homophobic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Life was a tad simpler when it was Sam Ambreen and her crew of cunts chanting "kill ALL Men" at the bookfair.


bet you never thought you'd be nostalgic for that


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If Helen Steel had been taking videos and sending them to the police (I have no idea if this actually happened) then that's a bad thing to do no matter who she is or what she's done in the past. Conversely if she's been attacked, lied about or otherwise mistreated than that would still be a bad thing regardless of who she was.


Yes but in the absence of _*any*_ evidence whatsoever that an individual has sent videos to the police, lied or mistreated anyone it's both sensible and comradely to take the word of that individual as valid. Particularly if that individuals past conduct/history shows them to be trustworthy and solid.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Life was a tad simpler when it was Sam Ambreen and her crew of cunts chanting "kill ALL Men" at the bookfair.



Not heard of her. Done some googling. She seems a bit dim


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Not heard of her. Done some googling. She seems a bit dim


It was a right laugh when she popped up on here.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

TruXta said:


> It was a right laugh when she popped up on here.



Christ that was a tough read


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 30, 2017)

ETA a useful clarification before people go into one:


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


>



oh this will end well


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 30, 2017)

Posted yet?



> ...As we’re mainly class struggle and housing activists, albeit with some green tinges, we ‘re not well versed in the ins and outs of the dispute that some radical feminists have with transgender people and their supporters. On that basis, we admit that we’re not equipped to offer a definitive opinion on the rights or wrongs of this dispute until we’ve done a lot more reading and research. However, if I was a curious newcomer to the bookfair and was a witness to what went on with the confrontations, my reaction would have been ‘what the ***k is going on here?’ and my response would have been to walk out and dismiss the idea of anarchism as a viable political option.
> 
> Seriously, is this the face we want to show to newcomers, particularly new contacts we may want to bring along and especially to anyone from the estates surrounding the bookfair venue? We recognise that there are serious issues between radical feminists on the one hand and transgender people and activists on the other that need to be debated but there has to be a better way of achieving this than disrupting a bookfair. What happened from mid afternoon onwards hasn’t done the movement any favours at a time where we have to be focused on drawing in as many people as possible…



What should an anarchist bookfair set out to achieve?


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2017)

Has one fucking person got hold of the Freedom Press Twitter account? Or are these statements collective Freedom Press positions? And what did they do, surely if you post something like that about the police calling it's sensible to then say you told them nothing...?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Has one fucking person got hold of the Freedom Press Twitter account? Or are these statements collective Freedom Press positions? And what did they do, surely if you post something like that about the police calling it's sensible to then say you told them nothing...?


tweet them back and ask. or phone 07952 157742 and offer solidarity


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Has one fucking person got hold of the Freedom Press Twitter account? Or are these statements collective Freedom Press positions? And what did they do, surely if you post something like that about the police calling it's sensible to then say you told them nothing...?



Did you see Fozzie Bear’s edit?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Has one fucking person got hold of the Freedom Press Twitter account? Or are these statements collective Freedom Press positions? And what did they do, surely if you post something like that about the police calling it's sensible to then say you told them nothing...?



I think the second tweet makes their position clear.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think the second tweet makes their position clear.



Probably helpful for you to edit in the 2nd tweet to avoid confusion.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 30, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Probably helpful for you to edit in the 2nd tweet to avoid confusion.
> 
> View attachment 119175



I thought I'd done that .

Apologies if people can't see it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I thought I'd done that .
> 
> Apologies if people can't see it.



Can see it now. obviously posting at the same time.


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Did you see Fozzie Bear’s edit?



No, but I have now. Still, probably a slightly ill-thought out tweet imo. Although that might teach me (again...) to hold my horses a bit.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2017)

TruXta said:


> It was a right laugh when she popped up on here.


I think she expected a safe space, where no one challenged her bigotry and bullshit. She stayed for about a day.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

TopCat said:


> I think she expected a safe space, where no one challenged her bigotry and bullshit. She stayed for about a day.



Was she 17 when she posted on here. 

A wee bit self obsessed it seems


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Was she 17 when she posted on here.
> 
> A wee bit self obsessed it seems


No, she is a grown woman. Huge entitlement. No radical output, just being an utter shit on the interweb.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2017)

TopCat said:


> I think she expected a safe space, where no one challenged her bigotry and bullshit. She stayed for about a day.


I can't recall exactly. Think Laurie P lasted a smidgeon longer?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

Isn’t Laurie an actual journalist though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Isn’t Laurie an actual journalist though?


Masquerading as such I hear


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Masquerading as such I hear


Successfully so, by the looks of it.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Successfully so, by the looks of it.



It’s nothing to be proud of


----------



## TruXta (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It’s nothing to be proud of


Being a journalist or being LP?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Being a journalist or being LP?



Quite


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

I'm not sure Penny is a journalist really, not any more. People pay her to write, but they do it directly - she's pulling in 4 grand a month on her Patreon. No need to bother pitching articles to the press anymore (this is why she's largely disappeared recently IMO)


----------



## inva (Oct 30, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Posted yet?
> 
> 
> 
> What should an anarchist bookfair set out to achieve?


for info, i guess their piece has been edited since? first bit you quoted now reads:


> As we’re mainly class struggle and housing activists, albeit with some green tinges, we’re not well versed as to why TERFs have such a problem with transgender people and target them in the way they do. Having said that, we’re doing some reading up on the matter and the more we read, the more baffled we are as to why TERFs were given free rein at the bookfair given the number of anarchists who see their presence as provocative.


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2017)

People need to have a think about this use of TERF. I'm not saying they aren't people that fall into this category, but labeling long term anarchist women who want to (either personally or defending the freedom of others to) discuss issues relating to themselves and trans-women/men as such is not helping anyone except those that want to disrupt things and silence sensible discussion.


----------



## Athos (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> People need to have a think about this use of TERF. I'm not saying they aren't people that fall into this category, but labeling long term anarchist women who want to (either personally or defending the freedom of others to) discuss issues relating to themselves and trans-women/men as such is not helping anyone except those that want to disrupt things and silence sensible discussion.



Some people have an interest in silencing sensible discussion.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure Penny is a journalist really, not any more. People pay her to write, but they do it directly - she's pulling in 4 grand a month on her Patreon. No need to bother pitching articles to the press anymore (this is why she's largely disappeared recently IMO)


We had only to stuff her mouth with gold.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> We only had to stuff her mouth with gold.


yep - we'll still have to put up with the books and the publicity she does for them, but the rest of the time she's too busy producing content for her subscribers (five of whom pay $3000 a year for the privilege) to bother writing for the rest of us.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 30, 2017)

inva said:


> for info, i guess their piece has been edited since? first bit you quoted now reads:


Not inconsiderably changed, it seems!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> yep - we'll still have to put up with the books and the publicity she does for them, but the rest of the time she's too busy producing content for her subscribers (five of whom pay $3000 a year for the privilege) to bother writing for the rest of us.


Parents, gotta luv 'em.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

inva said:


> for info, i guess their piece has been edited since? first bit you quoted now reads:


Quick turnaround - experts and shouty now maybe.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

It's incredible how much knowledge you can pick up on twitter in an afternoon.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 30, 2017)

Bit disappointing given who (I think) it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Bit disappointing given who (I think) it is.


The met?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> People need to have a think about this use of TERF. I'm not saying they aren't people that fall into this category, but labeling long term anarchist women who want to (either personally or defending the freedom of others to) discuss issues relating to themselves and trans-women/men as such is not helping anyone except those that want to disrupt things and silence sensible discussion.



I'm not sure turning up with a load of leaflets which lie and scare-monger about possible new legislation and call proposals to simplify the gender recognition process part of 'rape culture' is a particularly good way to start a sensible discussion either.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

It’s annoying that all the public online bun fights happen on twitter nowadays given I find it too irritating to even look at.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

> The argument from trans advocates seems to be that men who want to identify as women are upset by not being acknowledged as women, therefore we must accept that they are women. But if women tell you that we are upset by being called ‘cis’ that’s just our tough luck. So right from the start that looks like male privilege to me.
> 
> It is the appropriation of the word ‘women' by males which has then required the invention of another term 'cis' to distinguish between males who call themselves women and women who were born female. Women never got asked if we were happy to have this word appropriated by men. Men just took - a classic example of the socialised male sense of entitlement.
> 
> All in all, forcing women to accept a new definition of our reality so that some men can call themselves women just replicates the gender norms of male domination and female submission and it cannot be considered not remotely progressive. It prevents women from accurately describing and fighting the sexism endemic in our society.



This was posted on Helen's (public) facebook page two weeks ago by the way.  It therefore seems unlikely that she intervened in this purely on the grounds of defending free speech as has been suggested.  Elsewhere on her page she admits to becoming a 'little fixated' on this issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> This was posted on Helen's (public) facebook page two weeks ago by the way.  It therefore seems unlikely that she intervened in this purely on the grounds of defending free speech as has been suggested.  Elsewhere on her page she admits to becoming a 'little fixated' on this issue.


Could you provide the 'fixated' quote please?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Could you provide the 'fixated' quote please?





> It may appear that I have been a little fixated on this issue recently! That is because there is an ongoing campaign to silence women's voices on this issue, despite the fact it affects our lives. If the bullying (which has included violence and threats of violence against women) and silencing succeeds then the changes will go through unopposed and they will have a serious impact on women's lives.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> This was posted on Helen's (public) facebook page two weeks ago by the way.  It therefore seems unlikely that she intervened in this purely on the grounds of defending free speech as has been suggested.  Elsewhere on her page she admits to becoming a 'little fixated' on this issue.



I don’t see why she isn’t allowed this view, or why it makes her a ‘fascist’.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

And that other bit was written  by Helen?


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> This was posted on Helen's (public) facebook page two weeks ago by the way.  It therefore seems unlikely that she intervened in this purely on the grounds of defending free speech as has been suggested.  Elsewhere on her page she admits to becoming a 'little fixated' on this issue.



She was also involved (not just present but physically involved) in the ruckus at Speakers Corner a few weeks ago, easily identifiable in at least one of the videos posted on the relevant thread here at the time.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> And that other bit was written  by Helen?



yes, theres quite a bit of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> She was also involved (not just present but physically involved) in the ruckus at Speakers Corner a few weeks ago, easily identifiable in at least one of the videos posted on the relevant thread here at the time.


Are you sure of this?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> This was posted on Helen's (public) facebook page two weeks ago by the way.  It therefore seems unlikely that she intervened in this purely on the grounds of defending free speech as has been suggested.  Elsewhere on her page she admits to becoming a 'little fixated' on this issue.


Every fucker has been forced to have a corner on this. If helen was involved in the mayday group and doing more than defending a right to a dissenting opinion a  reckon a few things on facebook where you can't avoid it might be produced.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

That would be speakers corner where some women met as a redirection point and got attacked.


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Are you sure of this?



I recognised her immediately at the time. I've known her for about 20 years, so yes, I'm as sure as I can be given the imperfect nature of the film.

She was the one apparently dragging someone away in a headlock or similar. If anyone can find the video on the original thread then maybe others who know her can have a look and see if they recognise her.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

She posted that she was there so it's hardly a secret that she attended.



> *Helen Steel*
> 25 September ·
> I signed this letter to say violence has no place in the transgender debate. I witnessed the attack on a woman by some trans activists, I went to Speakers Corner after hearing that day about the attempts to prevent women meeting to discuss issues which affect their lives. Whatever your views on transgender politics, women have the right to discuss theirs without the threat of violence trying to silence them. We will not be silenced.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> I recognised her immediately at the time. I've known her for about 20 years, so yes, I'm as sure as I can be given the imperfect nature of the film.
> 
> She was the one apparently dragging someone away in a headlock or similar. If anyone can find the video on the original thread then maybe others who know her can have a look and see if they recognise her.



Fuck off saying the feminists were the aggressors ffs. They organised a redirection point for a new meeting (previous one had been pressured into cancelling) and people turned up to have a pop at them. 
This isn’t antifascism.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> I recognised her immediately at the time. I've known her for about 20 years, so yes, I'm as sure as I can be given the imperfect nature of the film.
> 
> She was the one apparently dragging someone away in a headlock or similar. If anyone can find the video on the original thread then maybe others who know her can have a look and see if they recognise her.


I watched it and most certainly did not recognise her trying to drag away her mate after the attack.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

So there was unfinished business with helen then?


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fuck off saying the feminists were the aggressors ffs. They organised a redirection point for a new meeting (previous one had been pressured into cancelling) and people turned up to have a pop at them.
> This isn’t antifascism.



I'm not saying the feminists were the aggressors; I'm not saying HS was an aggressor.

I'm saying she was not only present but was physically involved in what went on. And if anyone can find the video that was posted (I can't remember the thread title ATM), I will happily point her out so that you and anyone else can make their own minds up.


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I watched it and most certainly did not recognise her trying to drag away her mate after the attack.



Dragging her mate away is perhaps a better description, but that's who I'm talking about.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> I'm not saying the feminists were the aggressors; I'm not saying HS was an aggressor.
> 
> I'm saying she was not only present but was physically involved in what went on. And if anyone can find the video that was posted (I can't remember the thread title ATM), I will happily point her out so that you and anyone else can make their own minds up.



Surely it exists at the start of the original thread (and a million places all over twitter)


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Surely it exists at the start of the original thread (and a million places all over twitter)



Like I said, I can't remember the name of the original thread which it appeared on. If anyone wants to remind me, then please do and I'll have another look.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Like I said, I can't remember the name of the original thread which it appeared on. If anyone wants to remind me, then please do and I'll have another look.



Sorry yeah, here it is:

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Sorry yeah, here it is:
> 
> Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?



Thanks, I'll have a look now

ETA it's 59 pages, so it may take a while...


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2017)

This is all so fucking shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

What the fuck does it even have to do with anarchism?

A 84-85 style split is surely in the pipe.


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2017)

I think you might be right butchersapron

Edinburgh and Merseyside AF statement of disassociation from the Bookfair...
Statement of Dissociation from the London Anarchist Bookfair


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

Found it! It's from post 406 on page 14 of the original thread. I'm not tagging in the original poster because I don't think they're involved in the current thread.



HS is wearing dark jacket and trousers, blue shirt and green rucsac. She enters screen from the right at about 0.16 and drags someone else away. She's also visible in the background from about 0.34 onwards. It's easier to see if you watch at 1/4 speed.

I'm not saying anything about the rightness or wrongness of her actions on that occasion or on Saturday, but I'm as sure as I can be that it's her.

As butchers said above, there may have been unfinished business with her, although I have no idea what happened on Saturday other than what I've read here, and have no idea who any of the other people involved were.

ETA in fact, she's also visible in the still pic before you start the video


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Thanks, I'll have a look now
> 
> ETA it's 59 pages, so it may take a while...



I though get the videos happened really early on - especially given that’s what the thread was about.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Found it! It's from post 406 on page 14 of the original thread. I'm not tagging in the original poster because I don't think they're involved in the current thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Women were attacked for wanting a meeting to discuss what it means to be women. Let that sink in.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 30, 2017)

Edinburgh and Merseyside AF link to this statement from the Empty Cages Collective as well:


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Women were attacked for wanting a meeting to discuss what it means to be women. Let that sink in.



Once again, I'm simply saying that she was present and involved on that occasion, not passing any judgement about what happened then or on Saturday


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think you might be right butchersapron
> 
> Edinburgh and Merseyside AF statement disassociation from the Bookfair..
> Statement of Dissociation from the London Anarchist Bookfair


I am glad to hear the af has branches on Merseyside and in Edinburgh

Curious their London brethren have not added their weight to this boycott


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Dragging her mate away is perhaps a better description, but that's who I'm talking about.


That wasn't her.


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That wasn't her.



Are you sure? How are you sure? How well do you know her?

She and I have lived in the same part of Tottenham for 20 years and I have known her in various contexts, met and talked to her one-on-one and in various groups regularly and frequently in that time. I'm sure it's her.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Are you sure? How are you sure? How well do you know her?
> 
> She and I have lived in the same part of Tottenham for 20 years and I have known her in various contexts, met and talked to her one-on-one and in various groups regularly and frequently in that time. I'm sure it's her.


Because a) i know her too and b) the person who it was has talked at length about it, and was identified by the enemy - all in that thread you went back and took it from.


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Because a) i know her too and b) *the person who it was has talked at length about it, and was identified by the enemy - all in that thread you went back and took it from*.



Can you expand on this bit, I'm not sure if I read all the thread after the first 20 odd pages.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Can you expand on this bit, I'm not sure if I read all the thread after the first 20 odd pages.


The person that you think is HS has been IDed as someone else - by all sides.


----------



## andysays (Oct 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The person that you think is HS has been IDed as someone else - by all sides.



Where? If this is covered in that thread, maybe you can provide a link


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Where? If this is covered in that thread, maybe you can provide a link


No, i don't think that i can be bothered. Take it or leave it. Half of the fucking thread was about who that person was and why she was a terf ffs.


----------



## rich! (Oct 30, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Posted yet?
> 
> 
> 
> What should an anarchist bookfair set out to achieve?



I'm from the estates nearby. That was a quiet party.


----------



## rich! (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Found it! It's from post 406 on page 14 of the original thread. I'm not tagging in the original poster because I don't think they're involved in the current thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd read that as intervening to drag someone away from being whelped on by other people.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Edinburgh and Merseyside AF statement of disassociation from the Bookfair...
> Statement of Dissociation from the London Anarchist Bookfair




With this kind of thing happening I think the odds of the collective calling it a day are going up dramatically by the second.

As to those above starting off their statement with "in recent years the London Anarchist Bookfair (LABF) has has been plagued with incidents of racism, misogyny, transphobia, abelism and other forms of bigotry. " that seems really strong. What does that refer to exactly? Such an accusation should be backed up clearly.

The only other disquiet I'm aware of is around Active's Religion Is Stupid banner ....this post has been very widely shared today  
- the many comments in that depress me.

My gut reaction is theres a massive lack of baseline solidarity here. It must feel good to be so self-righteous about everything.

Yes there should probably be better transparent guidelines and procedures but I cant imagine the collective wanting to have to police them. I expect the reaction will be fuck it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

> As to those above starting off their statement with "in recent years the London Anarchist Bookfair (LABF) has has been plagued with incidents of racism, misogyny, transphobia, abelism and other forms of bigotry. " that seems really strong. What does that refer to exactly? Such an accusation should be backed up clearly.


Is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

ska invita said:


> With this kind of thing happening I think the odds of the collective calling it a day are going up dramatically by the second.



What do you think has happened? And why are they so important that the collective will give up?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

As idpol murders itself from within naturally the book fair should go down with it.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> I recognised her immediately at the time. I've known her for about 20 years, so yes, I'm as sure as I can be given the imperfect nature of the film.
> 
> She was the one apparently dragging someone away in a headlock or similar. If anyone can find the video on the original thread then maybe others who know her can have a look and see if they recognise her.


I watched the footage. Grainy, disjointed. I watched the best two versions. Each pushing a different narrative with arrows and freeze frame and so on. I didn't recognise Helen.


----------



## LDC (Oct 30, 2017)

Don't like the Anarchist Bookfair cos people can be nasty to you and the politics are messy and imperfect? Better not have a revolution then, as rumour has it they're even a bit more tricky.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> Found it! It's from post 406 on page 14 of the original thread. I'm not tagging in the original poster because I don't think they're involved in the current thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





andysays said:


> Found it! It's from post 406 on page 14 of the original thread. I'm not tagging in the original poster because I don't think they're involved in the current thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have this wrong. You're out on a limb.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

This is interesting.  The claims made in that leaflet about the proposed new laws are based on recommendations made by the Women's and Equalities Commission.  The Government responded to that report in July 2016.  

They rejected changing the protected charicteristic of 'gender transition' to 'gender identity'.

They also rejected the proposal to end the exemption for those with a gender recognition certificate which allows providers of women only services or employment to not employ or admit trans-women in some cases, although they said they would keep the matter open to review.

They rejected lowering the age at which a gender recognition certificate can be granted from 18 to 16.

These are three of the key issues that people have been protesting about.  Despite being called Tory laws (when they were actually recommendation from a cross party committee), the Tories have said no.

On changing gender recognition to a self identifying model they say:



> In line with Government’s commitment to furthering transgender equality, we will
> keep these issues under consideration. The Government will review the Gender
> Recognition Act to determine whether changes can be made to improve it in order to
> streamline and de-medicalise the gender recognition process.



They then announced a review into the Gender Recognition Act.  Then there was an election and a new minster who has simply announced that:



> The consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, to be published in the Autumn, will look to improve the recognition process and reduce the stigma faced by the trans community. Proposals will include:
> 
> 
> Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community; and
> ...



So the idea a man will simply be able to declare he is a women and then have the right to work in a women's refuge is not true.  There is no evidence that is the case and the government have previously rejected the suggestion.  There will possibly be some simplification of the Gender Recognition Act and possibly a removal of the need to provide reams of medical evidence.  Thats if it ever happens at all which it might not because it's not a popular policy within their own party.  

That leaflet is a lie, presumably designed to stir up hatred and division.  I have no problem at all with people being prevented from handing out shit like that at the bookfair.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Don't like the Anarchist Bookfair cos people can be nasty to you and the politics are messy and imperfect? Better not have a revolution then, as rumour has it they're even a bit more tricky.



Hobby horse time, I know, but The idpol crowd don’t care for revolution. If they do, I’m yet to see it expressed in their politics. It buys into the jockeying for position under Capital. Whilst I understand why they would do that it isn’t a progressive position.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> This is interesting.  The claims made in that leaflet about the proposed new laws are based on recommendations made by the Women's and Equalities Commission.  The Government responded to that report in July 2016.
> 
> They rejected changing the protected charicteristic of 'gender transition' to 'gender identity'.
> 
> ...



Happen as maybe, but no platform attacks against feminists?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2017)

Ee


----------



## shygirl (Oct 30, 2017)

I


smokedout said:


> This was posted on Helen's (public) facebook page two weeks ago by the way.  It therefore seems unlikely that she intervened in this purely on the grounds of defending free speech as has been suggested.  Elsewhere on her page she admits to becoming a 'little fixated' on this issue.



That's a really good piece by HS, thanks for sharing.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 30, 2017)

their logo is a pregnant woman surrounded by a chain but it says freedom wtf thats the least freedom image


----------



## shygirl (Oct 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> I'm not saying the feminists were the aggressors; I'm not saying HS was an aggressor.
> 
> I'm saying she was not only present but was physically involved in what went on. And if anyone can find the video that was posted (I can't remember the thread title ATM), I will happily point her out so that you and anyone else can make their own minds up.



You'd need to look at a couple of versions, as one was edited from what I've been told.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> their logo is a pregnant woman surrounded by a chain but it says freedom wtf thats the least freedom image



You’re looking at it back to front.


----------



## Athos (Oct 30, 2017)

Edit: Fuck it - experience has told me this issue can't be sensibly discussed here.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> their logo is a pregnant woman surrounded by a chain but it says freedom wtf thats the least freedom image


It's because women are oppressed (the chain) because of our female biology (the pregnant woman) and they want freedom from that being used to oppress us. Innit.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 30, 2017)

HS was a signatory to the following letter:

Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

shygirl said:


> HS was a signatory to the following letter:
> 
> Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters



Yeah she linked to this in a FB post of hers I linked to earlier about why she attended the speakers corner rally/pre meeting meet.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't like the leaflet; the language seems to me to be unnecessarily antagonistic, and, in my opinion, the content is not accurate in its interpretation/characterisation of some of the issues.
> 
> But, a lot of your criticism of it is inaccurate, too.  The government hasn't rejected the things you say it has.  Quite the opposite; it agreed to keep them under consideration.  Part of that consideration is the ongoing consultation process in respect of possible reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.  During which process, there's no reason to think that any of the recommendations in the Women and Equalities Committee's Report on Transgender Equality are no longer 'on the table'.  Ultimately, they may well be implimented by the (Tory) government (indeed, that certainly appears to be the general direction of travel).



Yes it has rejected them, in the response to the committee report which I linked to.  That doesn't mean they may never do it, or that no no other government will ever do it, but they are not what is on the table, we don't know what's on the table, if anything, beyond a simplification of applying for a GRC

Select Committees make recommendations all the time.  To present these recommendations as Tory laws is a fucking lie, especially when all we know is that the Tories have rejected some of the more controversial* proposals within the last 18 months.  (^not that controversial as it happens as the committee report makes clear, just a bit of tinkering with laguage to clarify, but probably not change in practice, anti-discrimination laws).



> To my mind, all of those issues have the potential to impact on women, such that women (including trans women, of course) have a legitimate interest in discussing them.  To what extent would you defend the actions of those who seek to prevent women having this discussion (including stopping them distributing such material)?  Do you think it's right that, as it appears hapened in this incident (and the Speakers' Corner one), women should be physicallly attacked for refusing comply unquestioningly with the demands of those born with male biology and socialised as boys/men, in respct of matters which impact on their interests as women.
> 
> I think trans women are women.  But I can see why many women consider that statement anathema to feminism, and why those who do are deeply suspicious of anyone who'd seek to deny them the right to discuss the question of what it means to be a woman.



Who physically attacked who at the bookfair, or even if anyone was physically attacked, is currently unclear.  And of course women have the an interest in discussing these issues.  That doesn't necessarily follow that a Green Party Parliamentary Candidate has the right to distribute dishonest literature designed to whip up hatred against a marginalised group at an anarchist fucking bookfair.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 30, 2017)

weepiper said:


> It's because women are oppressed (the chain) because of our female biology (the pregnant woman) and they want freedom from that being used to oppress us. Innit.



probably shouldnt get pregnant then init. I thought the pill ended biological oppression?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

weepiper said:


> It's because women are oppressed (the chain) because of our female biology (the pregnant woman) and they want freedom from that being used to oppress us. Innit.



That is okay and powerful iconography  but that leaflet was seriously dodgy... The truth and legitimate concerns obscured by a scaremongering tone and polarised suspicion.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> probably shouldnt get pregnant then init. I thought the pill ended biological oppression?


Fuck no. The pill is part of biological oppression


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> That is okay and powerful iconography for those that don't see contraception as an option but that leaflet was seriously dodgy... The truth and legitimate concerns obscured by a scaremongering tone and polarised suspicion.



I thought your position was based on expressions of experiences?


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 30, 2017)

if they really wanted to convey freedom with the logo image the woman shoulda been breaking the chain then it'd imply strength as well and there would be no need for the awkward wording

thats just how I'd improve it about 60% their 'designer' should be sacked.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 30, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Fuck no. The pill is part of biological oppression



choose life.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

From a materialist pov I can understand the ‘Terf’ position. From the opposite that calls experience in it seems only some experiences are valid. This is the point I don’t understand.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

Constructing an argument that _she had it coming. Look at at what she thinks._


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

.


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t see why she isn’t allowed this view, or why it makes her a ‘fascist’.



She's allowed that view and it's pretty clear it doesn't make her a fascist. However, it is a transphobic view. Issues such as this can be used by employers to set segments of the working class against each other. The IWW were involved in this campaign in Sheffield 2 years ago, for example. Fact is, trans women receive more abuse and have worse quality of life outcomes than cis women. They're also more of a minority, but that doesn't mean that they're not being used as a linchpin. 5% of the population of England are Muslims - how well do you think a leaflet pointing out that "Islam is not a race" would have gone down at the bookfair? 



LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Don't like the Anarchist Bookfair cos people can be nasty to you and the politics are messy and imperfect? Better not have a revolution then, as rumour has it they're even a bit more tricky.



Oh yeah, absolutely, but equally there's no point investing energy into an organisation which won't lead to any sort of revolutionary outcomes. I've recommended London AFed sit tight until the conveners release a statement, but won't be attending the next meeting in person so I'll have to wait and see what everyone says.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

This will be resolved and then anarchism can go back to it's usual role.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Which, dare I say it, are misogynist positions.


FFs, can you get your paws off my leading question - you wally


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

gamerunknown said:


> She's allowed that view and it's pretty clear it doesn't make her a fascist. However, it is a transphobic view. Issues such as this can be used by employers to set segments of the working class against each other. The IWW were involved in this campaign in Sheffield 2 years ago, for example. Fact is, trans women receive more abuse and have worse quality of life outcomes than cis women. They're also more of a minority, but that doesn't mean that they're not being used as a linchpin. 5% of the population of England are Muslims - how well do you think a leaflet pointing out that "Islam is not a race" would have gone down at the bookfair?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, absolutely, but equally there's no point investing energy into an organisation which won't lead to any sort of revolutionary outcomes. I've recommended London AFed sit tight until the conveners release a statement, but won't be attending the next meeting in person so I'll have to wait and see what everyone says.



These are shibboleths. Like having a critique of immigration makes you a racist.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 30, 2017)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

gamerunknown said:


> She's allowed that view and it's pretty clear it doesn't make her a fascist. However, it is a transphobic view. Issues such as this can be used by employers to set segments of the working class against each other. The IWW were involved in this campaign in Sheffield 2 years ago, for example. Fact is, trans women receive more abuse and have worse quality of life outcomes than cis women. They're also more of a minority, but that doesn't mean that they're not being used as a linchpin. 5% of the population of England are Muslims - how well do you think a leaflet pointing out that "Islam is not a race" would have gone down at the bookfair?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, absolutely, but equally there's no point investing energy into an organisation which won't lead to any sort of revolutionary outcomes. I've recommended London AFed sit tight until the conveners release a statement, but won't be attending the next meeting in person so I'll have to wait and see what everyone says.


Traditionally there is 2 people in the liverpool  group - five at best across the whole of Scotland.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I thought your position was based on expressions of experiences?


 Has the behaving like a baiting, arsehole come along with your deliberate name change or were you actually always this boring?

Asking for a friend because I seriously don't give a fuck.


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> These are shibboleths. Like having a critique of immigration makes you a racist.



Sure, plenty of working class people would want to end immigration and are happy to support a state which deports people, prevents them from entering it, or deprives them of rights which are only granted to the working class subject as a citizen. I'd say their reasons for doing so are primarily cultural and secondarily to preserve relative advantages in wealthy states in comparison to poor neighbours. However, anarchism has its roots in the international workingmen's association, where it was recognised that capitalism is global and that if it is to be challenged, it's to be challenged based on international networks of working class solidarity. If someone brought leaflets to the bookfair claiming race is a biological fact and that the Immigration Act of 2014 wasn't sufficient protection for indigenous workers, I don't think the response would be hearty acclaim for rigorous debate.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2017)

Athos said:


> Edit: Fuck it - experience has told me this issue can't be sensibly discussed here.


It's interesting to see the reaction around Helen Steel, people making it all about who she is because she's liked and respected so she can't as easily be binned  beyond the pale for her 'terfism' like Greer and co.  I've read every thread about trans stuff on here and tried to educate myself best as I can online but am too scared to try to articulate any opinions or questions about it all.  I'm not usually that shy so maybe its indicative of a toxicity in the air where discussion / debate has become difficult for all but a brave few. It costs me nothing at all to call people by the pronouns they prefer so that's easy, but all that amounts to (without being able to understand what someone means when they say they were assigned male at birth but actually they're a woman) is politeness.Politeness without understanding is shaky ground, its not real solidarity.


----------



## albionism (Oct 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> This was posted on Helen's (public) facebook page two weeks ago by the way.  It therefore seems unlikely that she intervened in this purely on the grounds of defending free speech as has been suggested.  Elsewhere on her page she admits to becoming a 'little fixated' on this issue.


There's quite a bit of Transphobic crap on her FB page.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

albionism said:


> There's quite a bit of Transphobic crap on her FB page.



Such as?


----------



## shygirl (Oct 30, 2017)

weepiper said:


> It's because women are oppressed (the chain) because of our female biology (the pregnant woman) and they want freedom from that being used to oppress us. Innit.



Add to that recent guidance issued by the  BMA to medical staff to refer to 'pregnant 'people', not pregnant women.  

Then this (apologies for the article source):

Theresa May insists 'pregnant women' term 'acceptable' after Government's transgender request to UN

The FCO submitted a request to the UN that the term 'pregnant people' replace 'pregnant women' so as not to exclude trans-men based on ONE 'specific case'.   World gone mad.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 30, 2017)

gamerunknown said:


> She's allowed that view and it's pretty clear it doesn't make her a fascist. However, it is a transphobic view. Issues such as this can be used by employers to set segments of the working class against each other. The IWW were involved in this campaign in Sheffield 2 years ago, for example. Fact is, trans women receive more abuse and have worse quality of life outcomes than cis women. They're also more of a minority, but that doesn't mean that they're not being used as a linchpin. 5% of the population of England are Muslims - how well do you think a leaflet pointing out that "Islam is not a race" would have gone down at the bookfair?
> 
> *Fact is, trans women receive more abuse and have worse quality of life outcomes than cis women* - evidence please.


----------



## albionism (Oct 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Such as?




Go and have a look. It ain't necessarily all coming  from herself,
but she ain't pulling people up on their transphobic crap either.
She seems well aligned with the leafleteers and their viewpoint,
not just "defending their right to free speech."


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 30, 2017)

albionism said:


> Go and have a look. It ain't necessarily all coming  from herself,
> but she ain't pulling people up on their transphobic crap either.



Yeah I’m not going to trawl through her FB to see if she might or might not have made transphobic comments


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 30, 2017)

Unsubcribes from thread


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Add to that recent guidance issued by the  BMA to medical staff to refer to 'pregnant 'people', not pregnant women.
> 
> Then this (apologies for the article source):
> 
> ...



The BMA issued guidance to BMA employees, not medical staff, suggesting that the term pregnant people is a way of using more inclusive language which takes into account transmen and intersex people. 

The FCO made that point to ensure that trans men who become pregnant have the same human right not to be executed as pregnant women.

Like I said previously, its a good idea to check the accuracy of trans scare stories otherwise some people might think you have another agenda.


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 31, 2017)

See here, here and here. Take these figures with a pinch of salt though, small sample sizes and subpopulations will have more volatility than large. There are some challengable figures on average lifespan for instance. 

The recommendation in DSM5 for treating gender dysphoria is social, medical and legal transition to the desired gender for the person experiencing it.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 31, 2017)

With respect, I think you're missing the point.  I understand the reason behind this thinking, and I totally get that a trans-man might feel excluded by the term 'pregnant woman', and wouldn't wish for anyone to feel that way.  I would hope that once that their wishes to be called a pregnant person would be respected.  But to take away the female-ness of pregnancy for millions of women to save the feelings of a tiny group of people is just plain wrong.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 31, 2017)

The above post was in response to Smokedout's ast post.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2017)

shygirl said:


> With respect, I think you're missing the point.  I understand the reason behind this thinking, and I totally get that a trans-man might feel excluded by the term 'pregnant woman', and wouldn't wish for anyone to feel that way.  I would hope that once that their wishes to be called a pregnant person would be respected.  But to take away the female-ness of pregnancy for millions of women to save the feelings of a tiny group of people is just plain wrong.



Good job no-one has done that then.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

How come 'phobic' is the term for trans and islama but not for other, older things. Once someone's defined as having a phobia you can't start a conversation that might lead to better understanding can you, they're just irrationally afraid, end of, irreprable condition, door neatly closed at the outset.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 31, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Good job no-one has done that then.



No, but Theresa May and her government attempted to.   How could this even be considered an acceptable thing to do?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2017)

shygirl said:


> No, but Theresa May and her government attempted to.   How could this even be considered an acceptable thing to do?



What making sure that human rights considerations did not exclude trans-men? Yeah what bastards. Of all the things to be pissed off at the tories about 

If human rights laws were drafted using the term pregnant women then trans men who were pregnant might not be protected. Sometimes precision of language is important to prevent unintended consequences.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Yes it has rejected them, in the response to the committee report which I linked to.  That doesn't mean they may never do it, or that no no other government will ever do it, but they are not what is on the table, we don't know what's on the table, if anything, beyond a simplification of applying for a GRC
> 
> Select Committees make recommendations all the time.  To present these recommendations as Tory laws is a fucking lie, especially when all we know is that the Tories have rejected some of the more controversial* proposals within the last 18 months.  (^not that controversial as it happens as the committee report makes clear, just a bit of tinkering with laguage to clarify, but probably not change in practice, anti-discrimination laws).
> 
> ...



I edited my post, because it's not possible to have a sensible discussion of these issues here.  So I don't really want to get into a debate about it.  Suffice to say we understand the government's response very differently.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 31, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> choose life.


Choose changes in mood, mood swings and depression, breast pain or tenderness, breast enlargement, fungal infections and cystitis, migraine or headaches, feeling nauseous and vomiting, stomach problems and diarrhoea, irregular bleeding, skin rash and acne, hair loss, changes in body weight, high or low blood pressure, low libido. Or choose risking pregnancy every time you fancy a shag, because men don't like how condoms feel.


----------



## newbie (Oct 31, 2017)

bimble said:


> too scared to try to articulate any opinions or questions about it all.


this post on Reddit, from someone who was there, makes a similar point.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

newbie said:


> this post on Reddit, from someone who was there, makes a similar point.


for the record there werent 30-60 people, more like 8 - the rest were rubber neckers and people trying to diffuse the situation


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> for the record there werent 30-60 people, more like 8 - the rest were rubber neckers and people trying to diffuse the situation


Defuse. Diffusing it would be spreading it.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Defuse. Diffusing it would be spreading it.


what a stupid language


----------



## newbie (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> for the record there werent 30-60 people, more like 8 - the rest were rubber neckers and people trying to diffuse the situation


that's interesting and not what I've read elsewhere. So... a couple of leafletters or those defending leafletting, a couple of randomly involved stallholders, an organiser/collective member or two, a few (how many?) defusers and something up to 50 or so rubber neckers who merely watched without being part of a _mob_?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

newbie said:


> that's interesting and not what I've read elsewhere. So... a couple of leafletters or those defending leafletting, a couple of randomly involved stallholders, an organiser/collective member or two, a few (how many?) defusers and somewhere around 50 or so rubber neckers who merely watched without being part of a _mob_?


yes. Most people watched in silence, depressed looks on their faces. A couple of old hands tried to calm things down. The "mob" was 7 or 8 people, i guess all from that empty cage lot? (can't remember exact name)


----------



## newbie (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> yes. Most people watched in silence, depressed looks on their faces. A couple of old hands tried to calm things down. The "mob" was 7 or 8 people, i guess all from that empty cage lot? (can't remember exact name)


thanks, that does put a slightly different complexion on the reports I've read elsewhere.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

i can see why it would appear otherwise as it looked like a big circle. Often it was blocking movement so people bunched up. When the regular Out Out Out shouting took place it was just that small group who were vocal.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 31, 2017)

It's possible that the perception of who was part of the "mob", and who was a bystander might be different from where you were standing.

This has just been published on the main AFED site:
AFed Trans Action Faction* statement in response to events at London Anarchist Bookfair 2017


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> for the record there werent 30-60 people, more like 8 - the rest were rubber neckers and people trying to diffuse the situation



Were the rubber neckers shouting 'World Star'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It's possible that the perception of who was part of the "mob", and who was a bystander might be different from where you were standing.
> 
> This has just been published on the main AFED site:
> AFed Trans Action Faction* statement in response to events at London Anarchist Bookfair 2017


Not sure I'd take for myself the right to say people I disagree with at the Bookfair aren't anarchist. Surprised that's on the af site


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It's possible that the perception of who was part of the "mob", and who was a bystander might be different from where you were standing.
> 
> This has just been published on the main AFED site:
> AFed Trans Action Faction* statement in response to events at London Anarchist Bookfair 2017


perhaps. I was standing 5 metres away...its not that big a hall..and it went on for at least 2 hours in fits and starts, moving location slightly as people moved/pushed around. That link says Large Group... Vague. Certainly only around 8 were vocal. I cant know what onlookers made of it or whose side they took. Most people (me included) couldn't tell/hear exactly what was happening as theres a lot of chat din in the room anyway, so there was a lot of question asking and hearsay. Considering how every time the Out Out Out chant went up (regularly) and only that small core group took part my impression is most people hadn't taken a strong position. I would describe the broader mood in the room as bafflement. my impression anyhow, for what it's worth.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This has just been published on the main AFED site:
> AFed Trans Action Faction* statement in response to events at London Anarchist Bookfair 2017





> We call on the bookfair collective to implement a policy that specifically excludes anti-trans stalls and literature, as well as ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all oppressed people at the bookfair.



Is anyone aware of an existing policy from other similar organisations that does this? Id be interested to read the wording.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Is anyone aware of an existing policy from other similar organisations that does this?



Have a police force for behaviour? Saudi I guess.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 31, 2017)

Argh...that MayDay4Women twitter account isn't helping... 

This is the quality of the stuff they retweet.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

Here's Bay Area (San Fran)'s Anarchist Bookfair


> *BAABF Statement of Mutual Responsibility*
> This statement has been developed by the Bookfair collective to provide information and suggestions for Bookfair goers to make the event a functional space for most people. As anarchism is about collective responsibility, Bookfair participants are responsible for their own conduct and to look out for each other at the Bookfair.
> 
> Inevitably, with large, open-access, public events like the Bookfair, there will be people present who are sexist, racist, homophobic, or oppressive in many other ways. Thus, we cannot guarantee a safe space, only ask that you keep this statement in mind, practice security culture, and do your part to make the Bookfair a valuable event for our community.
> ...


--

I imagine most existing policies are similarly non-specific. People like AFed Trans Action Faction are asking for "a policy that *specifically* excludes anti-trans stalls and literature" - I can imagine this is a very hard thing to word as peoples perceptions of what counts as anti-trans will be different.

I think London ABF currently also has a policy along the lines of the above: "If groups have been accepted to table at the Bookfair, we will not ban any books or publications from their stalls."

New York has this;


> *SAFE SPACE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES.*
> Creativity and organizing first and foremost requires safety. We cannot tolerate unsafe behaviors and people. We value respect, trust, honest communication and an atmosphere of cooperation in the workplace. Bullying, yelling, intimidation, sexism including sexual harassment, racism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, lying, ageism or any form of disrespectful dehumanizing behaviors WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Any form of hateful hostility or malicious slander and other destructive behaviors have no place in an anarchist community or collective.
> 
> If we have to explain to you the concept of basic respect then the NYC ABF is clearly not the place or project for you. Anyone who violates safe space guidelines or undermines purpose the NYC ABF will be told to unequivocally and unceremoniously to fuck off.  We have a clear mission to fullfill, therefore we will not allow anyone to compromise it for any reason.



Ultimately it requires a judgement call to be made by organsiers, and its really hard to do with within an arguing crowd.  Obviously if you can see twitter accounts like the one above it makes it a lot easier!!

ETA: " Bullying, yelling, intimidation...WILL NOT BE TOLERATED" ...can see problems arising from that too as what if the yelling and intimidation is done against someone who is perceived as breaking another of the rules


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 31, 2017)

Maria MacLachlan is trying to get people who were present to talk to the cops:

1. 


2.


This would be funny if it wasn't so utterly depressing and wretched.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 31, 2017)

Mayday's approach is...


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 31, 2017)

Oh ffs!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Is anyone aware of an existing policy from other similar organisations that does this? Id be interested to read the wording.


How's about a simple 'don't be a wanker' policy?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

we have one of those here, it seem to have..._ limited_ utility.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> we have one of those here, it seem to have..._ limited_ utility.


People dont tend to attack each other phyically over arguments on Urban.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Only because Garf missed the plane.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Mayday's approach is...
> 
> View attachment 119218


I think that is technically accurate in that there is a case open on the Speakers Corner thing and any inquiries currently being made about the bookfair incident are part of that rather than any new complaint.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Only because Garf missed the plane.


I was tempted to lamp Garf for his bullshit but decided it would be wanker   ish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> we have one of those here, it seem to have..._ limited_ utility.


Yeh. I can see the design of any longer policy resulting in greater fractiousness and not less as all manner of twats would want input and create all sorts of disturbance when they're dismissed summarily


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I think that is technically accurate in that there is a case open on the Speakers Corner thing and any inquiries currently being made about the bookfair incident are part of that rather than any new complaint.


i think the thing being pointed out was the use of the word men in the tweet (?).


----------



## LDC (Oct 31, 2017)

_Viz _called and want the storyboard for their next issue back.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I can see the design of any longer policy resulting in greater fractiousness and not less as all manner of twats would want input and create all sorts of disturbance when they're dismissed summarily


The policy making meeting would be infested with people arguing that others should keep their mouths shut because of privilage.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I think that is technically accurate in that there is a case open on the Speakers Corner thing and any inquiries currently being made about the bookfair incident are part of that rather than any new complaint.



Were they all _men_ then? That's a very deliberate use of the descriptor men.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

TopCat said:


> The policy making meeting would be infested with people arguing that others should keep their mouths shut because of privilage.


It would be heaven for the intersectionalistas and hell for everyone else


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> _Viz _called and want the storyboard for their next issue back.


It's not as funny as it used to be


----------



## LDC (Oct 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It's not as funny as it used to be



Nor are we Pickman's, nor are we.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Nor are we Pickman's, nor are we.


Dunno about that, lots of funny peculiar stuff goes on here


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

This is the current London ABF Respect statement on their website:

*Aggressive, abusive and oppressive behaviour*
Considering the amount of people who now pass through the bookfair, very few incidents occur, although inevitably with large open access events, you are always going to get some anti-social people. This may include people who are sexist, racist, homophobic or oppressive in many other ways, too many to list. Where such incidents occur, it is up to the movement as a whole to deal with; not just the bookfair collective. *As the bookfair collective we will try and deal with any issues brought to our attention in a calm, non aggressive and open minded way. We ask that others take this same approach and try not to “enflame” any situation, which, as we have found in the past, just escalates things. *Within meeting spaces, both meeting goers and meeting organisers are responsible for dealing with aggressive, abusive or oppressive individuals.

*Banning individuals*
The bookfair is a free, open access, public event and we do not want to make it the role of the bookfair collective to ban individuals from the bookfair. It is up to the movement as a whole to develop ways to deal with anti-social people within the movement. We would hope that if a known individual was oppressive then accountability processes would already be in place by the people who knew the said individual. If not, we cannot and will not act as judge, jury and police force.
However, saying that, we will do our best to deal with situations arising at the bookfair and we reserve the right to ask anybody to leave the event. This may be cops, fascists or certain journalists but it could also be any individual acting in what we consider to be an excessively inappropriate manner.

--------

This is the thing, there were repeated attempts by organisers and other people present ("the movement") to deal with the issue "in a calm, non aggressive and open minded way." Even if the Empty Cage crew are considered 100% right in terms of the political debate around Mayday and their shit leaflet, from what I could see Empty Cage were acting in an "enflaming" way and refusing attempts to de-escalate and resolve the situation. It makes the situation somewhat impossible to deal with, and technically - from what I could tell - they are in breach of the existing policy. I think the "enflaming" way they acted is what created a trigger response support of Helen in that tweet.

Seems very likely to me that if the bookfair is to continue they will need to put a policy specifically around anti-trans issues and make a commitment to policing them. I do wonder if they are prepared to do that though (especially the policing bit), and especially in the atmosphere of a social media pile-on


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 31, 2017)

bimble said:


> i think the thing being pointed out was the use of the word men in the tweet (?).


My ffs was the whole thing - because of the word men and because i read the tweet as pro the police investigation - ie potentially going against anarchist principles, inviting police harassment of trans people and political radicals,  inflaming the situation further, and putting HS and her comrades between a rock and a hard place -  rather than ska's hopefully correct reading that its a factual statement.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 31, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Choose changes in mood, mood swings and depression, breast pain or tenderness, breast enlargement, fungal infections and cystitis, migraine or headaches, feeling nauseous and vomiting, stomach problems and diarrhoea, irregular bleeding, skin rash and acne, hair loss, changes in body weight, high or low blood pressure, low libido. Or choose risking pregnancy every time you fancy a shag, because men don't like how condoms feel.



gross.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 31, 2017)

Looks like andysays may well have been right -  HS retweeted this earlier:


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

Apols then andy.


----------



## LDC (Oct 31, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It's possible that the perception of who was part of the "mob", and who was a bystander might be different from where you were standing.
> 
> This has just been published on the main AFED site:
> AFed Trans Action Faction* statement in response to events at London Anarchist Bookfair 2017



Do AFed have any idea how fucking ridiculous and impossible to enforce and pointless even just this sentence on their statement sounds? Not to mention embarrassing that a load of supposed revolutionaries are so angry and upset at basically a bit of shouting, some light shoving, and a few leaflets stuck on the wall.

"We call on the bookfair collective to implement a policy that specifically excludes anti-trans stalls and literature, as well as ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all oppressed people at the bookfair."

Who gets to decide on what's "anti-trans" then? "Ensure the safety and wellbeing of all oppressed people"... that'll be everyone then, especially women (including of course the radfems they hate so much). And WTF does ensuring "wellbeing" even mean, keeping them happy?

I hope the Bookfair organisers tell them to fuck right off.

IMO they should just keep on doing what they're doing and anyone making demands can just fuck off and do something else that day in a space where their safety and well being _is_ ensured. And I hope they do let us all know where that is when they find it.

On a nicer note I thought the Bookfair seemed really well attended this year, and the meetings all seemed full and buzzing, and I think the new venue really works well. Thanks to the Bookfair collective!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 31, 2017)

We know from previous incidents at the Bookfair that people who make these demands do not do so on the basis of wanting to help with their implementation.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Apols then andy.



Thanks. Apologies accepted.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 31, 2017)

Even more demands at the end of this:
Response to London Anarchist Bookfair 2017

(Signed by 15 or so groups including London ABC, Sisters Uncut, English Collective of Prostitutes, etc).


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

Open letter here:
Response to London Anarchist Bookfair 2017

*Signatories:

Artists Against Prisons
Base – Publication
English Collective of Prostitutes
Haringey Anti-Raids
Jacob V Joyce
Jewdas
London ABC
London Queer Picnic
North London Food Not Bombs
Members of 56a Infoshop Collective
Objects of Desire
Sorry You Feel Uncomfortable
Sisters Uncut – South East London
SWARM (Sex Worker Advocacy and Resistance Movement)
Queer Strike
Women of Colour in the Global Women’s Strike
*
There'll be more of that to come i expect


----------



## rich! (Oct 31, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> On a nicer note I thought the Bookfair seemed really well attended this year, and the meetings all seemed full and buzzing, and I think the new venue really works well. Thanks to the Bookfair collective!



Agree completely. Last year was the first time I've been for a while, and that venue with the space outside for chilling along with enough flat space for stalls was fantastic.

Which reminds me i was going to send a letter of thanks to the school...


----------



## krink (Oct 31, 2017)

Like some others, I'm still trying to figure all this stuff out so can anyone answer this quick question: who came up with the acronym "Terf"? Where did it come from? Thanks.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

krink said:


> Like some others, I'm still trying to figure all this stuff out so can anyone answer this quick question: who came up with the acronym "Terf"? Where did it come from? Thanks.


seems legit (backed up elsewhere online)
TERF: what it means and where it came from – The TransAdvocate


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2017)

Radical feminists themselves according to this interview.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2017)

yeah, that too


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Does it matter that much where it came from? Words change meaning with useage, and it's certainly a slur now however it was originally coined.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 31, 2017)

Seems legit


----------



## LDC (Oct 31, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Even more demands at the end of this:
> Response to London Anarchist Bookfair 2017
> 
> (Signed by 15 or so groups including London ABC, Sisters Uncut, English Collective of Prostitutes, etc).



That's full of even more unfair and unrealistic demands.

"When a space allows for transphobia and trans-misogyny to go unchecked, and furthermore, when it allows racist imperialism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny and ableism to ingratiate themselves as part of the culture of the Bookfair."

Can someone give me examples of where these have ingratiated themselves into the culture of the Bookfair then?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Does it matter that much where it came from? Words change meaning with useage, and it's certainly a slur now however it was originally coined.


dont really agree. the meaning is exactly the same. To be Trans Exclusionary is (to some) the slur not the term.
What possible alternative term for trans exclusionary radical feminists could there be?


----------



## krink (Oct 31, 2017)

So a word that came from radical feminism that wasn't really a slur at first but now is used by some (and received by others) as a slur. Is that about right?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> dont really agree. the meaning is exactly the same. To be Trans Exclusionary is (to some) the slur not the term.
> What possible alternative term for trans exclusionary radical feminists could there be?


I dunno. I'd imagine many radical feminists aren't that keen on defining themselves quite so tightly. Why not ask one of them?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> I dunno. I'd imagine many radical feminists aren't that keen on defining themselves quite so tightly. Why not ask one of them?


not all radical feminists are trans exclusionary, so quite. radical feminist does not equal trans exclusionary radical feminist. but once someone has shown themselves to be trans exclusionary and a radical feminist then i think the label becomes completely justified and accurate, surely.
I appreciate of course that if someone is spitting " ugly terf cunt" at you, as is said to have happened here, then it very much becomes part of an insult.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> dont really agree. the meaning is exactly the same. To be Trans Exclusionary is (to some) the slur not the term.
> What possible alternative term could there be?



‘Exclusionary’ in what sense?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ‘Exclusionary’ in what sense?


from the sisterhood for a start. do you really need this explaining?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I appreciate of course that if someone is spitting " ugly terf cunt" at you, as is said to have happened here, then it very much becomes part of an insult.


this and similar is the only context I've really heard it in. It isn't really used in any other context, except to insult or dismiss IME.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> this and similar is the only context I've really heard it in. It isn't really used in any other context, except to insult or dismiss IME.


when talking about this faultline with others you have to use it to describe those with the position...personally ive never used it inflected with insult. The interview linked above has it exactly right: " Since it’s become in more common usage, no doubt there are some people that use it as a slur. The same thing happened to “radical feminist” and also to “feminist” – any group-identifying word can and will be used as a slur by those who find that group challenging, but that doesn’t mean that the word is fundamentally/always/only a slur."


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

andysays said:


> Thanks. Apologies accepted.


Me too, sorry.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Does it matter that much where it came from? Words change meaning with useage, and it's certainly a slur now however it was originally coined.


What, like cis?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That's full of even more unfair and unrealistic demands.
> 
> "When a space allows for transphobia and trans-misogyny to go unchecked, and furthermore, when it allows racist imperialism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny and ableism to ingratiate themselves as part of the culture of the Bookfair."
> 
> Can someone give me examples of where these have ingratiated themselves into the culture of the Bookfair then?


No one who has ever been and has a brain and any kind of concience would assert this.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

TopCat said:


> No one who has ever been and has a brain and any kind of conscience would assert this.


i count about 6 of the signatories who were definitely at the fair this weekend - there may be more...i am quite shocked that people would make such a serious claim and not substantiate it. The detail is likely left out as I think "allows racist imperialism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny ... to ingratiate themselves as part of the culture of the Bookfair" all refers to the Active banner that says religion is (murderous sexist) shit (or whatever it is that it says) remaining being allowed to be hung up! Thats pretty much the claim made by signatory Jacob V Joyce in his much shared facebook post (posted here a couple of pages back).

Can't help but notice that despite signing a letter which demands "a commitment to continue the “no cameras” and “no filming” rule without exception given" Jacob thought it was okay to post a photo of J Active taken at the bookfair on facebook and let it go viral.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

TopCat said:


> What, like cis?


Yeah, although not to the same extent.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

TopCat said:


> What, like cis?


like liberal
like anarchist


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> i count about 6 of the signatories who were definitely at the fair this weekend - there may be more...i am quite shocked that people would make such a serious claim and not substantiate it. The detail is likely left out as I think "allows racist imperialism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny ... to ingratiate themselves as part of the culture of the Bookfair" all refers to the Active banner that says religion is (murderous sexist) shit (or whatever it is that it says) remaining being allowed to be hung up! Thats pretty much the claim made by signatory Jacob V Joyce in his much shared facebook post (posted here a couple of pages back).
> 
> Can't help but notice that despite signing a letter which demands "a commitment to continue the “no cameras” and “no filming” rule without exception given" Jacob thought it was okay to post a photo of J Active taken at the bookfair on facebook and let it go viral.


I handed out out thousands of in yer face anti religious stickers at the bookfair in the past.
Now we have supposed anarchists defending religion. A sorry state.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> i count about 6 of the signatories who were definitely at the fair this weekend - there may be more...i am quite shocked that people would make such a serious claim and not substantiate it. The detail is likely left out as I think "allows racist imperialism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny ... to ingratiate themselves as part of the culture of the Bookfair" all refers to the Active banner that says religion is (murderous sexist) shit (or whatever it is that it says) remaining being allowed to be hung up! Thats pretty much the claim made by signatory Jacob V Joyce in his much shared facebook post (posted here a couple of pages back).
> 
> Can't help but notice that despite signing a letter which demands "a commitment to continue the “no cameras” and “no filming” rule without exception given" Jacob thought it was okay to post a photo of J Active taken at the bookfair on facebook and let it go viral.



Yeah the thing about the photo stuck out to me too. Odd.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Anarchists and liberals think of themselves as anarchists and liberals though, even if those words are sometimes used as insults. I Don't know any radical feminists who'll take on 'terf' tho.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

The late great anarchist Anthony and others helped me make and hand out these. 

Disclaimer:The Dulwich Hamlet sticker is nothing to with the others, not mine.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Anarchists and liberals think of themselves as anarchists and liberals though, even if those words are sometimes used as insults. I Don't know any radical feminists who'll take on 'terf' tho.


thats because they've hidden the trans-exclusionary bit into their personal definition of "woman"....it no longer needs saying after that.

(as to Cis, do I think of myself as Cis? Not often, but if prompted to stop and think, does my gender identity match my birth sex, then yes, I think of myself as cis. )


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

TopCat said:


> The late great anarchist Anthony and others helped me make and hand out these.
> 
> Disclaimer:The Dulwich Hamlet sticker is nothing to with the others, not mine.


Yeh, the religion is stupid bit's round 12 years auld


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

TopCat said:


> I handed out out thousands of in yer face anti religious stickers at the bookfair in the past.
> Now we have supposed anarchists defending religion. A sorry state.


Yeh this is a new strain of anarchism, gods and masters/mistresses


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

That the bookfair has gone on so long is testement to the patience and commitment of the organisers. 
Plus from attendees a goodly dose of tolerance (not respect mind you) for the odd, the opposing and the bat shit crazy. I mean Green Anarchist used to have a stall. 
There has  been regular trouble too over the years. I never have heard though until now anarchists calling for the bookfair to be stopped or trying to stampede the organisers into an impossible corner.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> thats because they've hidden the trans-exclusionary bit into their personal definition of "woman"....it no longer needs saying after that.
> 
> (as to Cis, do I think of myself as Cis? Not often, but if prompted to stop and think, does my gender identity match my birth sex, then yes, I think of myself as cis. )


Labelling again. I lately think of the court official who labelled me a Father of a mixed race child. She couldn't understand why I was so vexed.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Anarchists and liberals think of themselves as anarchists and liberals though, even if those words are sometimes used as insults. I Don't know any radical feminists who'll take on 'terf' tho.



They tend to call themselves gender critical feminists and expect everyone else to use that term with all the baggage it implies (Which is that to be critical of gender you have to be trans exclusionary)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 31, 2017)

If any good can come out of this it’s the idpol crowd boycotting it. But they won’t. They’ll continue to turn up with their disputes.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

This sort of tactic grates.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh this is a new strain of anarchism, gods and masters/mistresses


The new mantra,"You can't speak, do as you'r e told".


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 31, 2017)

TopCat said:


> The new mantra,"You can't speak, do as you'r e told".



With thought police patrolling the grounds to ensure compliance.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 31, 2017)

krink said:


> Like some others, I'm still trying to figure all this stuff out so can anyone answer this quick question: who came up with the acronym "Terf"? Where did it come from? Thanks.



Though not an explanation of it's provenance, here are some examples of the kind of violence and abuse that so-called 'terfs' attract from the trans community/activists:

TERF is a slur


----------



## shygirl (Oct 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> from the sisterhood for a start. do you really need this explaining?





ska invita said:


> from the sisterhood for a start. do you really need this explaining?



It's not a club.


----------



## shygirl (Oct 31, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Yeah the thing about the photo stuck out to me too. Odd.



Not really, seems increasingly like what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Not really, seems increasingly like what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.


Non-binary Anatidae.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Though not an explanation of it's provenance, here are some examples of the kind of violence and abuse that so-called 'terfs' attract from the trans community/activists:
> 
> TERF is a slur



Perhaps take a look at the twanzphobic blog or the history of death threats and sometimes violent attacks on transwomen by some radical feminists that date back to the 70s and you might get some idea where this animosity came from.

TERF hate and Sandy Stone – The TransAdvocate


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

Im sorry but anyone with even a superficial knowledge of this diapute, and with no agenda, would accept there has been unpleasant comments and behaviour from both sides. The key differences, terfs started it and trans activists dont get to do this in the national press like burchill, bindel amd greer.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

It's undeniable there's bad behaviour on all sides - part of the reason for that is the entrenched positions (yep, on both sides) people are forced into by the tenor of the argument. 

No-one is winning right now, and everyone is losing.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 1, 2017)

TopCat said:


> This sort of tactic grates.




What’s going on there?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 1, 2017)

Practice for the annual annoying olympics.


----------



## krink (Nov 1, 2017)

apols if my language is clumsy but is this more or less right;

a trans woman is a person who was born male
a trans man is a person who was born female

As someone who has no prior knowledge of all this it's sometimes very difficult to filter out the bias and opinions etc from the stuff i've been reading online. I just want to understand it as it clearly massively important to those involved.


----------



## krink (Nov 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> No-one is winning right now, and everyone is losing.




that's my impression so far


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's undeniable there's bad behaviour on all sides - part of the reason for that is the entrenched positions (yep, on both sides) people are forced into by the tenor of the argument.
> 
> No-one is winning right now, and everyone is losing.


1) there are more than two sides

2)


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 1, 2017)

krink said:


> apols if my language is clumsy but is this more or less right;
> 
> a trans woman is a person who was born male
> a trans man is a person who was born female
> ...



They often prefer to be described as 'assigned (fe)male at birth, rather than 'born', but you've essentially got the direction of travel right.


----------



## krink (Nov 1, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> They often prefer to be described as 'assigned (fe)male at birth, rather than 'born', but you've essentially got the direction of travel right.



ok got it, thanks


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Im sorry but anyone with even a superficial knowledge of this diapute, and with no agenda, would accept there has been unpleasant comments and behaviour from both sides. The key differences, terfs started it and trans activists dont get to do this in the national press like burchill, bindel amd greer.



Women/feminists have supported trans rights going way back into the 70's.  There wasn't hostility until trans women started to demand access to our most private places, blaming us for the all the violence they endured (like it wasn't fucking raging, vile men attacking them), and reaching the point where it is now anathema to talk about our cunts, tits, periods (oh, and don't complain about period pain, else you'll be told you're ungrateful and they would give anything to experience periods), breast-feeding, giving birth, all in case we might hurt their feelings.  So no, it didn't start with feminists as you assert.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 1, 2017)

Edit: I actually don't want to get into this. Shouldn't have posted.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 1, 2017)

If having a womb is essential to being a woman, where does that leave biological women born without one? And so on...


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Why shouldn't transwomen have access to women's domestic violence and rape services. Unless you don't think they are women then I personally don't see what the problem is. If a man wants to rape, he's highly unlikely to pretend to be trans to do it.
> 
> I don't recognise the picture you paint around discussing periods and child birth. I have had conversations with women and femmes about how difficult it can be in certain circumstances when the female experiences is equated with things such as childbirth which isn't experienced by all women, even those who are cis. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being mindful of someone's feelings, who for whatever reason, is unable to carry a child. Just like I'd be sensitive to a person who had just experienced a miscarriage, or who simply didn't want kids. This is pretty basic 'don't be a dick' stuff.



But, imo, they're not women as in female-born women.  They're trans-women.  And yes, trans-women, as I said earlier in the thread, have raped and assaulted girls and women in safe spaces, mainly from what I can gather, in the US.  And yes, I do believe there are and will be men who will claim to be trans in order to have easier access to intimate spaces.

Re: your 2nd para, of course it is, no disagreement there whatsoever.  That's very different to women being told we're exclusionary on a broader, not personal level if and when we talk about these things.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Women/feminists have supported trans rights going way back into the 70's.  *There wasn't hostility until trans women started to demand access to our most private places, blaming us for the all the violence they endured (like it wasn't fucking raging, vile men attacking them), and reaching the point where it is now anathema to talk about our cunts, tits, periods (oh, and don't complain about period pain, else you'll be told you're ungrateful and they would give anything to experience periods), breast-feeding, giving birth, all in case we might hurt their feelings.*  So no, it didn't start with feminists as you assert.



How often have you been in or are you in situations where this actually happens?


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

It's more than just one organ or part, it's the whole and it's the experience of sex-based inequality and oppression that millions of women experience world-wide, day in and day out.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 1, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s going on there?


Activist-writer Kristian Williams was a speaker at this event in Portland, Oregon in 2014. A bunch of people were there to disrupt the event having taken exception to an article he had written, and it snowballed from there.

The OP of this Libcom thread is quite useful:

Disruption of Kristian Williams speech in Portland

ETA:

Here's a U75 thread from the time:

American anarchists meaninglessly devour themselves at Portland Conference


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 1, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Activist-writer Kristian Williams was a speaker at this event in Portland, Oregon in 2014. A bunch of people took exception to an article he wrote, and it snowballed from there.
> 
> The Libcom summary is quite useful:
> 
> ...



Ta


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> It's more than just one organ or part, it's the whole and it's the experience of sex-based inequality and oppression that millions of women experience world-wide, day in and day out.


This. A woman born without a womb is still going to grow up experiencing the sex based oppression that comes with being assigned 'female'.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> It's more than just one organ or part, it's the whole and it's the experience of sex-based inequality and oppression that millions of women experience world-wide, day in and day out.


Fair enough, but an appeal to something that distinguishes "real" women from trans women rather begs the question of what separates one from the other.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> But, imo, they're not women as in female-born women.  They're trans-women.  .


But this is not allowed to say, you must at least talk as if you see no difference between people who have lived all their lives as women in this society and been socialised from birth as women and people who haven't, otherwise you're a terf.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

I've not personally been in situations where I or other women have been closed down, but have read lots of comments from trans activisists (one of whom I worked with) which argue that talking about women's biology is trans-exclusionary.  You really couldn't make it up.

Fwitw, I'm 55, bi-sexual, grew up spending a lot of time with my older brother who is gay in gay spaces, have a friend who is trans (who doesn't agree with the trans activism we're discussing here).


----------



## TruXta (Nov 1, 2017)

weepiper said:


> This. A woman born without a womb is still going to grow up experiencing the sex based oppression that comes with being assigned 'female'.


So it's not really about biology as such, but the gender assignment? Genuinely just trying to understand the POV here.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> But this is not allowed to say, you must at least talk as if you see no difference between people who have lived all their lives as women in this society and been socialised from birth as women and people who haven't, otherwise you're a terf.



I'm a woman fighting for women's rights.  I don't recognise your 'terf' term, but if you feel that's what I am, then you carry on.  I'm really not scared of the name.  It's the threats of violence, never, ever seen, as far as I can remember, in leftist circles I've moved in, that frightens me.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

TruXta said:


> So it's not really about biology as such, but the gender assignment? Genuinely just trying to understand the POV here.



It's about both, you can't seperate them.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2017)

TruXta said:


> So it's not really about biology as such, but the gender assignment? Genuinely just trying to understand the POV here.


It's tied together. The gender assignment is decided by the biology I guess.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl just to be clear, i was not trying to disagree with you or call you a bad name in my post above, sorry if it came out garbled. What I meant is that i think it's brave in this climate just to express the view that there is a difference between people who have lived their whole lives as women and people who have not.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> shygirl just to be clear, i was not trying to disagree with you or call you a bad name in my post above, sorry if it came out garbled. What I meant is that i think it's brave in this climate just to express the view that there is a difference between people who have lived their whole lives as women and people who have not.


You see, why should it be brave? It's so obviously true  of course there is a difference and I refuse to have anyone tell me off for believing it.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 1, 2017)

weepiper said:


> It's tied together. The gender assignment is decided by the biology I guess.


Except when it's not. Thanks for the reply though. And to you, shygirl.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> I'm a woman fighting for women's rights.  I don't recognise your 'terf' term, but if you feel that's what I am, then you carry on.  I'm really not scared of the name.  It's the threats of violence, never, ever seen, as far as I can remember, in leftist circles I've moved in, that frightens me.


surprised you've not seen threats of violence in leftist circles. i well remember the rcp trying to attack anarchists in altab ali park at the end of the 1991 afa march through the east end

not to mention there have been fewer bookfairs at which there's been no real or threatened violence than where there has. and it's all too often people bringing outside beefs to the bookfair.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> I'm a woman fighting for women's rights.  I don't recognise your 'terf' term, but if you feel that's what I am, then you carry on.  I'm really not scared of the name.  It's the threats of violence, never, ever seen, as far as I can remember, in leftist circles I've moved in, that frightens me.



Sorry Bimbe, I mis-read your post.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> surprised you've not seen threats of violence in leftist circles. i well remember the rcp trying to attack anarchists in altab ali park at the end of the 1991 afa march through the east end



Ah yes, the RCP.  Sorry for that omission.  Tbh, I was never a party member, found all of it too restrictive.  Only orgs I was part of were Troops Out and umbrella orgs.   Rigid doctrine is not for me, one cos my brain can't handle it, and two because it's too compromising having to tow (toe?) a party line.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Except when it's not. Thanks for the reply though. And to you, shygirl.


It is though. Even babies born intersex are assigned a gender based on which sex their bodies are most like. We're socialised into our gender according to our bodies. It's not just a womb or just a vagina or just ovaries or just a vulva. Or anything that you can magically 'make' a person a woman with just by medically constructing for them. It's growing up with all of the gender expectations that go with the body.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

weepiper said:


> It is though. Even babies born intersex are assigned a gender based on which sex their bodies are most like. We're socialised into our gender according to our bodies.



Yes, that's the very premise of the challenge to gender as a social construct.  We are told how we can/can't be depending on our biology.  So the notion of 'feeling like a woman' is, to me, really odd, because we all learn how to be women and men according to the gender imposed upon us.  Not sure if that makes sense.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> surprised you've not seen threats of violence in leftist circles. i well remember the rcp trying to attack anarchists in altab ali park at the end of the 1991 afa march through the east end
> 
> not to mention there have been fewer bookfairs at which there's been no real or threatened violence than where there has. and it's all too often people bringing outside beefs to the bookfair.



Why were the RCP trying to attack attack anarchists? (Apologies for derailing the thread.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

imposs1904 said:


> Why were the RCP trying to attack attack anarchists? (Apologies for derailing the thread.)


fucked if i know


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 1, 2017)

There isn't a single unified experience of being socialised as a woman though? 

There will be all sorts of social variables like class, ethnicity, geography etc?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> There isn't a single unified experience of being socialised as a woman though?
> 
> There will be all sorts of social variables like class, ethnicity, geography etc?


We're all oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of our sex. Some of us are more oppressed than others.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> surprised you've not seen threats of violence in leftist circles. i well remember the rcp trying to attack anarchists in altab ali park at the end of the 1991 afa march through the east end
> 
> not to mention there have been fewer bookfairs at which there's been no real or threatened violence than where there has. and it's all too often people bringing outside beefs to the bookfair.



And the actual attack at Clapton.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 1, 2017)

weepiper said:


> We're all oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of our sex. Some of us are more oppressed than others.



OK yes, absolutely. 

And additionally women are discriminated against and oppressed because of their gender? (Some more than others).


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> OK yes, absolutely.
> 
> And additionally women are discriminated against and oppressed because of their gender? (Some more than others).


The gender is the oppression.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 1, 2017)

weepiper said:


> The gender is the oppression.



In that people/society extrapolate from the biological aspects to create the social construct which is the gender?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 1, 2017)

I


Fozzie Bear said:


> There isn't a single unified experience of being socialised as a woman though?
> 
> There will be all sorts of social variables like class, ethnicity, geography etc?



Apart from being recognised as female/assigned female and treated as such (ie discrimination).

"There's no universal experience" is the sort of thing you could say about anything and serves to pull movements apart.

"There isn't a single unified experience of being a worker either. There are all so many different variables depending on geography, ethnicity, occupation, class (even business owners say they work)."

The fact there's no universal experience of how you are discriminated against doesn't negate the discrimination. 



Fozzie Bear said:


> OK yes, absolutely.
> 
> And additionally women are discriminated against and oppressed because of their gender? (Some more than others).



Not exactly. Women are discriminated against and oppressed because of their recognised/assigned sex by the social rules and rituals decided upon by society (gender- feminie and masculine). Those rules and rituals aren't innate. They are imposed. Sometimes subtlely, sometimes coercively sometimes violently.

Gender is a system. As a woman you "have" a gender in the same way you "have" a class. It's not like you can choose it. Or aspire your way out of it. Once you are recognised as female your place in society is known and you are fucked (and sometimes literally).


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Yes, that's the very premise of the challenge to gender as a social construct.  We are told how we can/can't be depending on our biology.  So the notion of 'feeling like a woman' is, to me, really odd, because we all learn how to be women and men according to the gender imposed upon us.  Not sure if that makes sense.


That's the nub of it for me, that I just can't get at what people mean when they say they feel like a woman, or were assigned the wrong gender. I'm told that it's not about a bunch of accumulated ideas around femininity, ideas that far as I can tell feminists have been fighting to get free of being defined by for generations, but I'm clueless as to what it is about. It's really hard to talk about this stuff but I think that's what 'gender critical' means, rejecting the whole idea of there being these essential attributes that make a person's 'soul' (for want of a better word) female or male.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> In that people/society extrapolate from the biological aspects to create the social construct which is the gender?



Some of it is and some of it isn't. The reproductive value of females is what is sought after (which is why historically old and infertile women are deemed less valuable as people). The rest of it (the ideas of worth and capability) is the gender. So in our culture it's the costumes, notions of pink and blue, acceptable jobs and so forth. Note the gender isn't innate. And it isn't "expressed by us". To say that gender is somehow innate to women and that it's "performative" or "expressed" is actually part of the problem and serves to reinforce our submissive status. The notion that women feel a gender is a sexist one. 

Rather we have to confirm to gender to because conforming is often easier than fighting.

I hope I'm making sense. I am on my phone. So sorry for typos.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> I've not personally been in situations where I or other women have been closed down, but have read lots of comments from trans activisists (one of whom I worked with) which argue that talking about women's biology is trans-exclusionary.  You really couldn't make it up.
> .



So you haven't experienced it but know of some trans activists that think that way?

You were very emphatic in this post though, as if it is literally happening everywhere!



> Women/feminists have supported trans rights going way back into the 70's. There wasn't hostility until trans women started to demand access to our most private places, blaming us for the all the violence they endured (like it wasn't fucking raging, vile men attacking them), and reaching the point where it is now anathema to talk about our cunts, tits, periods (oh, and don't complain about period pain, else you'll be told you're ungrateful and they would give anything to experience periods), breast-feeding, giving birth, all in case we might hurt their feelings. So no, it didn't start with feminists as you assert.



Also, on the point of _feminists having been supportive going back to the 70's and there not having been hostility until x, y, z_...that's another blanket statement which isn't true for all isn't it?

I understand the fears some people have, it just isn't at all helpful to post this stuff up like you've been there, seen it, got the t-shirt and know it's like that for all.

It clearly isn't and it is just as polarising as trans activists being dogmatic in the way you have experienced SOME as being.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 1, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I
> 
> 
> Apart from being recognised as female/assigned female and treated as such (ie discrimination).
> ...



thanks for this and to weepiper too. 

(I think that it is difficult to have these conversations in the current climate and we are probably all being a bit guarded? I certainly am. Sorry if any of this comes across as weird.)

"There's no universal experience" isn't really where I am coming from. But yes there isn't a single unified experience of being a worker - and yet, working class people share common interests.

I think where I am going with this is that trans women and women who are socialised as women from birth can and do have some shared interests.

What I think is frustrating about the current arguments is that the focus is purely on the areas where their interests are perceived as being opposed.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Women/feminists have supported trans rights going way back into the 70's.  There wasn't hostility until trans women started to demand access to our most private places, blaming us for the all the violence they endured (like it wasn't fucking raging, vile men attacking them), and reaching the point where it is now anathema to talk about our cunts, tits, periods (oh, and don't complain about period pain, else you'll be told you're ungrateful and they would give anything to experience periods), breast-feeding, giving birth, all in case we might hurt their feelings.  So no, it didn't start with feminists as you assert.



Since you probably haven't bothered to read the link as your mind is made up


> At this time, within the Collective, I was planning on converting the living room of the house next door to be a school so that we could teach women to record, so that there would be a lot of women with engineering skills. In the meantime, we’re getting hate mail about me. After a while the hate mail got so vicious that Sandy, who worked in the mail room, made a decision to not pass that mail along to me. This was vile stuff. A lot of it included death threats. They would let me know about the death threats after a while. The death threats were directed at me, but there were violent consequences proposed for the Collective if they didn’t get rid of me.
> 
> The more hate mail that arrived, the more we could perceive that there was organizing going on, outside of the Collective, that had to do with transphobia and with isolating trans people wherever they popped up. I was not alone.
> 
> ...





> We did, in fact, go to Seattle, but we went as probably the only women’s music tour that was ever done with serious muscle security. They were very alert for weapons and, in fact, Gorgons did come and they did have guns taken away from them.
> 
> I was pants-wetting scared at that event. I was terrified. During a break between a musical number someone shouted out “GORGONS!” and I made it from my seat at the console to under the table the console was on at something like superluminal speed. I stayed under there until it was clear that I wasn’t about to be shot… Not that it would have done me any good to be under there.




Or from a cis-gendered radical feminist who was active at this time



> *Robin Tyler:* Yes, _Harrison & Tyler_ were performers and we defended Beth Eliot. Robin Morgan came up with this horrible speech and when Beth went on stage to play her guitar and sing, [TERFs] started threatening her. Patty [Harrison] and I jumped on stage and we got hit, because they came onto the stage to physically beat her.
> 
> *Williams:* Oh my god!
> 
> “I charge [Beth Elliott] as an opportunist, an infiltrator, and a destroyer—with the mentality of a rapist. And you women at this Conference know who he is. Now. You can let him into your workshops—or you can _deal_ with him.” – Excerpt from Robin Morgan’s speech, prior to the TERF violence



These were not intimate women's spaces by the way.  They were trans-inclusive musical events.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

Opinion | What Makes a Woman?
Just putting this article here because it expresses far better than I could basically where I think the fault lines are that will have to somehow be dealt with if there's any hope of people not just shouting at eachother in hope of making the other 'side' go away.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> But, imo, they're not women as in female-born women.  They're trans-women.  *And yes, trans-women, as I said earlier in the thread, have raped and assaulted girls and women in safe spaces*, mainly from what I can gather, in the US.



Can you provide some evidence of this please.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 1, 2017)

What ever happened to the days when the anarchists were all about overthrowing the state?


----------



## TopCat (Nov 1, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s going on there?


Intersectionalists shutting down an anarchist conference because they had a beef with a speaker. 
A really irritating tactic. It causes many to just give up in despair. 

I ask, who benefits?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Intersectionalists shutting down an anarchist conference because they had a beef with a speaker.
> A really irritating tactic. It causes many to just give up in despair.
> 
> I ask, who benefits?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

weepiper said:


> This. A woman born without a womb is still going to grow up experiencing the sex based oppression that comes with being assigned 'female'.



Now we're in an age where some people are gender transitioning in childhood then wouldn't this also largely apply to someone has been seen as female for almost their whole lives?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Nov 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> thanks for this and to weepiper too.
> 
> (I think that it is difficult to have these conversations in the current climate and we are probably all being a bit guarded? I certainly am. Sorry if any of this comes across as weird.)
> 
> ...



What i've found really depressing about this whole thing was that from.my personal experience, while the wider feminist movement has been polarised on certain issues for a much longer time, i felt until the last 2-3 years there was a coexistence of views and real attempts to understand each other within the more feminist parts of the anarchist movement. 

So on the sex work/porn issue, various feminist groups i was part of dissolved in acrimonious disputes with pro and anti factions picketing or banning each other, whereas at the anarchist bookfair i could visit an anti-porn feminist stall, a sex workers union stall, and a stall organising sending porn to prisoners - all sides would have robust arguements with each other but wouldn't try to deny each other a place there. P 

At the anarcha feminist events i went to (open to all women and all trans people), until recently,  i felt there was a real effort to tease out the similarities and differences in our experiences as cis women, trans women, trans men, non binary people and find common cause without preventing important discussions. In the last couple of years i've found that polarisation and acrimony have been really increasing though.

I'm also not 100% sure how relevant violence that happened in the crazier end of the US lesbian separatist movement in the 1970s is to whats happening within the UK anarcha/socialist feminist movement now. I think thats part of the polarising process - any woman who queries certain trans activist demands is influenced by/just as bad as the most transphobic feminist, and any trans women who speaks up is assumed to be as bad as the most angry transactivists on the internet, even if both have a shared belief in anarchism and experience in the class struggle.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I
> 
> Not exactly. Women are discriminated against and oppressed because of their recognised/assigned sex by the social rules and rituals decided upon by society (gender- feminie and masculine). Those rules and rituals aren't innate. They are imposed. Sometimes subtlely, sometimes coercively sometimes violently.
> 
> Gender is a system. As a woman you "have" a gender in the same way you "have" a class. It's not like you can choose it. Or aspire your way out of it. Once you are recognised as female your place in society is known and you are fucked (and sometimes literally).


Some of it is and some of it isn't. The reproductive value of females is what is sought after (which is why historically old and infertile women are deemed less valuable as people). The rest of it (the ideas of worth and capability) is the gender. So in our culture it's the costumes, notions of pink and blue, acceptable jobs and so forth. Note the gender isn't innate. And it isn't "expressed by us". To say that gender is somehow innate to women and that it's "performative" or "expressed" is actually part of the problem and serves to reinforce our submissive status. The notion that women feel a gender is a sexist one. 

Rather we have to confirm to gender to because conforming is often easier than fighting.

I hope I'm making sense. I am on my phone. So sorry for typos.

These 2 posts by FabricLiveBaby! - far better than I can express.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

I really like this point made in the article linked above: 

She says that as a result of the long fight of feminists against strict binary gender codes,  "thousands of women once confined to jobs as secretaries, beauticians or flight attendants now work as welders, mechanics and pilots. [..]  *In fact, it’s hard to believe that this hard-won loosening of gender constraints for women isn’t at least a partial explanation for why three times as many gender reassignment surgeries are performed on men. Men are, comparatively speaking, more bound, even strangled, by gender stereotyping."*

I like that, think its an interesting observation.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> I'm also not 100% sure how relevant violence that happened in the crazier end of the US lesbian separatist movement in the 1970s is to whats happening within the UK anarcha/socialist feminist movement now. I think thats part of the polarising process - any woman who queries certain trans activist demands is influenced by/just as bad as the most transphobic feminist, and any trans women who speaks up is assumed to be as bad as the most angry transactivists on the internet, even if both have a shared belief in anarchism and experience in the class struggle.



I think that's a fair and reasonable point but I also think people should be aware that there is a history to this, and that many of those people are still active against trans people and responsible for a lot of the myths and scare mongering that exists today - deliberately because their objection goes way beyond having a problem with transwomen entering women's spaces, they are opposed to transsexuals full stop.  Their propanganda, seeping into more mainstream views, is one of the reasons I suspect that this dispute endures and I think their tactics and agendas should be exposed and those with more moderate views should actively seek to distance themselves from them.  Just as those on the other side should actively seek to distance themselves from some of the virulent and sometimes mysoginist attacks by the most extreme trans-activists and their supporters - and just as a last point, it seems to me it is often non-trans supporters of trans rights, rather than transpeople themselves, who have been responsible for this.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Some of it is and some of it isn't. The reproductive value of females is what is sought after (which is why historically old and infertile women are deemed less valuable as people). The rest of it (the ideas of worth and capability) is the gender. So in our culture it's the costumes, notions of pink and blue, acceptable jobs and so forth. Note the gender isn't innate. And it isn't "expressed by us". To say that gender is somehow innate to women and that it's "performative" or "expressed" is actually part of the problem and serves to reinforce our submissive status. The notion that women feel a gender is a sexist one.
> 
> Rather we have to confirm to gender to because conforming is often easier than fighting.
> 
> I hope I'm making sense. I am on my phone. So sorry for typos.



Wouldn't you accept that there is a possibility, given the testimony often offered by transpeople of feeling their body is wrong, that there might be some sort of 'sex' identity in the brain which has nothing to do with gendered behaviour but which might be mis-matched, or mis-wired in some people.  We don't know that much about brains after all and the evidence suggests, although far from proves, that there might be some kind of biological basis for transgenderism.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think that's a fair and reasonable point but I also think people should be aware that there is a history to this, and that many of those people are still active against trans people and responsible for a lot of the myths and scare mongering that exists today - deliberately because their objection goes way beyond having a problem with transwomen entering women's spaces, they are opposed to transsexuals full stop.  Their propanganda, seeping into more mainstream views, is one of the reasons I suspect that this dispute endures and I think their tactics and agendas should be exposed and those with more moderate views should actively seek to distance themselves from them.  Just as those on the other side should actively seek to distance themselves from some of the virulent and sometimes mysoginist attacks by the most extreme trans-activists and their supporters - and just as a last point, it seems to me it is often non-trans supporters of trans rights, rather than transpeople themselves, who have been responsible for this.



If it's true that there are women who are simply anti-trans sexuals, then I would not side with them.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> If it's true that there are women who are simply anti-trans sexuals, then I would not side with them.



Yet on this thread you have propagated some of the myths they started.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> If it's true that there are women who are simply anti-trans sexuals, then I would not side with them.



How are you already assessing that people are not? You have posted very emphatic statements about what the issues are but then admitted to never having experienced them save for one actual encounter yourself. You've been asked to back up some of your claims about the sexual predatory exploitation of safe spaces by transwomen but haven't.

It's not helpful.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> How are you already accessing that people are not? You have posted very emphatic statements about what the issues are but then admitted to never having experienced them save for one actual encounter yourself. You've been asked to back up some of your claims about the sexual predatory exploitation of safe spaces by transwomen but haven't.
> 
> It's not helpful.



I haven't seen you ask other posters if they've had direct experience, what's with the constant challenging?


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Most of the stuff I've read about sexually predatory exploitation of safe spaces by transwomen is from the US which i think I mentioned.  I'm happy to provide those links.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Do we all have to have direct experience of stuff in order to have a views on it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> I haven't seen you ask other posters if they've had direct experience, what's with the constant challenging?



I have, and/or others have asked so I don't need to repeat those asks.  Also just so we are clear I am asking you because of what you have posted. I am asking for clarity to understand your position, not to pick on you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Do we all have to have direct experience of stuff in order to have a views on it?



Has anyone said that you need to? You've been asked what your direct experiences are given your seeming strength of feeling and self-assuredness. I want to understand why I don't have the same level of 'fear' as you seemingly do.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

I think my position is pretty clear, not sure how much clearer I could have been really.   I've not seen you challenge other posters for saying broadly similar things to what I've said.  I didn't provide evidence of attacks on girls and women in safe/intimate spaces granted, but I don't think I've dithered on anything else.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Most of the stuff I've read about sexually predatory exploitation of safe spaces by transwomen is from the US which i think I mentioned.  I'm happy to provide those links.



go on then.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Most of the stuff I've read about sexually predatory exploitation of safe spaces by transwomen is from the US which i think I mentioned.  I'm happy to provide those links.


Feel free. Another poster asked.


smokedout said:


> Can you provide some evidence of this please.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> I think my position is pretty clear, not sure how much clearer I could have been really.   I've not seen you challenge other posters for saying broadly similar things to what I've said.  I didn't provide evidence of attacks on girls and women in safe/intimate spaces granted, but I don't think I've dithered on anything else.



Has anyone accused you of dithering? 

As for challenging/targetting you as you seem to be implying now...I don't think I am. I've asked you honest questions because you have made some very emphatic statements and they didn't chime with my experience. Feel free not to answer if that doesn't suit you, obviously.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Has anyone said that you need to? You've been asked what your direct experiences are given your seeming strength of feeling and self-assuredness. I want to understand why I don't have the same level of 'fear' as you seemingly do.



Oh, I see.  My strength of feeling comes from years and years and years, from my earliest years, of fighting sex-based oppression.  Of welcoming and benefiting from some of the gains we have made for women.   An absolute determination not to see the protections  we fought for whipped away from us if the GRA is ratified, alongside the proposals for the UK census, both of which could undermine the accuracy of data on inequalities experienced by female-born women.  Sorry if I'm not expressing it well.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> go on then.



FWIW during my lunch break today I tried to find some...almost everything I found was about sexual abuse and assault/murder of transwomen. It is on the rise too.

I did though come across an article that said there have been 27 reported cases since 1999 where transwomen were accused of sexual assault or abuse. I couldn't find where this statistic came from however, nor much evidence to support it. I think it was a huffington post article


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Oh, I see.  My strength of feeling comes from years and years and years, from my earliest years, of fighting sex-based oppression.  Of welcoming and benefiting from some of the gains we have made for women.   An absolute determination not to see the protections  we fought for whipped away from us if the GRA is ratified, alongside the proposals for the UK census, both of which could undermine the accuracy of data on inequalities experienced by female-born women.  Sorry if I'm not expressing it well.



The GRA amendments have not even been written let alone ratified and no-one including you and quite possibly including the government has any idea what is likely to be in it other than some change in the procedure for obtaining a gender recognition signature and introducing a new gender neutral category.

Have you given up on the links you promised?


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The GRA amendments have not even been written let alone ratified and no-one including you and quite possibly including the government has any idea what is likely to be in it other than some change in the procedure for obtaining a gender recognition signature and introducing a new gender neutral category.
> 
> Have you given up on the links you promised?



No, I'm working at the same time.   You timing me or summat?


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Oh, and it does involve another search.  I assure you I haven't made them up


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Transgender violence - This never happens! Gallery | Fair Play for Women


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Transgender violence - This never happens! Gallery | Fair Play for Women



None of those examples bar the person with a penis who demanded the right to be naked in a changing room used by young girls was convicted of a crime that took place in a womans space - except the first one, who wasn't really transgender.  So your claims of "sexually predatory exploitation of safe spaces by transwomen" remains unsubstantiated.

It would be statistically astonishing if no-one transgender had ever been convicted of a sexual offence.  Lots of non transgender women have been convicted of sex offences after all.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

Think about what you are doing, would you be comfortable making sweeping claims about an ethnic group or sexual minority based on a handful of crimes committed by some of that group?


----------



## shygirl (Nov 1, 2017)

Of course not.  

Rutita asked for evidence of predatory sexual exploitation of girls' and women's spaces by trans women.  I've provided a link to some.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Of course not.
> 
> Rutita asked for evidence of predatory sexual exploitation of girls' and women's spaces by trans women.  I've provided a link to some.



Which of those examples involved someone transsexual being convicted of a sexual crime that took place in a woman's safe space?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 1, 2017)

It's awfully handy that someone has gone to the trouble of compiling a page listing all the reported sexual crimes they could find that have been committed by transwoman.  I wonder what type of website might do something similar except using muslims, or gay men.  And what their agenda might be for doing it.


----------



## gamerunknown (Nov 1, 2017)

weepiper said:


> This. A woman born without a womb is still going to grow up experiencing the sex based oppression that comes with being assigned 'female'.



But surely sex based oppression is independent from gender assignment?



weepiper said:


> It is though. Even babies born intersex are assigned a gender based on which sex their bodies are most like. We're socialised into our gender according to our bodies. It's not just a womb or just a vagina or just ovaries or just a vulva. Or anything that you can magically 'make' a person a woman with just by medically constructing for them. It's growing up with all of the gender expectations that go with the body.





FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Some of it is and some of it isn't. The reproductive value of females is what is sought after (which is why historically old and infertile women are deemed less valuable as people). The rest of it (the ideas of worth and capability) is the gender. So in our culture it's the costumes, notions of pink and blue, acceptable jobs and so forth. Note the gender isn't innate. And it isn't "expressed by us". To say that gender is somehow innate to women and that it's "performative" or "expressed" is actually part of the problem and serves to reinforce our submissive status. The notion that women feel a gender is a sexist one.
> 
> Rather we have to confirm to gender to because conforming is often easier than fighting.
> 
> I hope I'm making sense. I am on my phone. So sorry for typos.



I agree that gender is foisted on people in a patriarchal hierarchical system. But by claiming that certain people will ineluctably be part of an oppressor class due to their biology, any potential for vindicating ourselves from that society is nullified. The patriarchy becomes indomitable. If it is extant society which causes such relations between sexes, then altering society becomes possible and we can discuss the means to do so - such as having a social revolution. Then we can take stock of our surroundings and assess which people will be likely to assist us and which not in such a scenario. Strict demarcations of acceptable behaviours for people based on the sex they were born into seems to be a reactionary position to me.



bimble said:


> Opinion | What Makes a Woman?
> Just putting this article here because it expresses far better than I could basically where I think the fault lines are that will have to somehow be dealt with if there's any hope of people not just shouting at eachother in hope of making the other 'side' go away.





bimble said:


> I really like this point made in the article linked above:
> 
> She says that as a result of the long fight of feminists against strict binary gender codes,  "thousands of women once confined to jobs as secretaries, beauticians or flight attendants now work as welders, mechanics and pilots. [..]  *In fact, it’s hard to believe that this hard-won loosening of gender constraints for women isn’t at least a partial explanation for why three times as many gender reassignment surgeries are performed on men. Men are, comparatively speaking, more bound, even strangled, by gender stereotyping."*
> 
> I like that, think its an interesting observation.





smokedout said:


> Wouldn't you accept that there is a possibility, given the testimony often offered by transpeople of feeling their body is wrong, that there might be some sort of 'sex' identity in the brain which has nothing to do with gendered behaviour but which might be mis-matched, or mis-wired in some people.  We don't know that much about brains after all and the evidence suggests, although far from proves, that there might be some kind of biological basis for transgenderism.



I agree with the author of the article that claiming one's brain results in a given "gender" does nothing to foster emancipatory politics. But I also feel that there are lacunae in the view on several counts. First of all, there are various ways in which male sexuality is chaperoned to a greater extent than females. Trans women receive more abuse than cis women (or to my knowledge, trans men, though this could be because of a very small sample size). I believe this is a combination of their sex and gender. Gay and bisexual men are also more likely to be raped or physically attacked than straight men. In fact, trans people are more likely to be at risk of sexual violence than cis, so the article including the tidbit of never experiencing the feeling of "being too weak to fight back" is a little myopic.

Although, the one comment by the author discussing "transracial" identity is incendiary. I can't think of any reason for embracing trans people while stigmatising cultural appropriation. I know it's a position to be excoriated for, but I'm tortured by the thought of a logically consistent approach.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The GRA amendments have not even been written let alone ratified and no-one including you and quite possibly including the government has any idea what is likely to be in it other than some change in the procedure for obtaining a gender recognition signature and introducing a new gender neutral category.



Equally, you don't know the detail. But, even if it is 'just' what you suggest, you don't seem to acknowledge what that might mean. If the 'change in procedure' is to de-medicalise it, such that gender becomes legally defined by self-identification alone, that's a radical change. It would redefine womanhood; no longer would a woman be a adult female human (with a few well-defined exceptions); instead, it would be anyone who says they're a woman. I can't tell whether you fail to see the significance of that for all women, or whether your downplaying of it is disingenuous.


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

This is quite one of the shittest, out of order, and most pathetic things I've ever seen in the 'movement'...



(Short video of some pricks burning an Anarchist Bookfair banner in 'protest' at events of the weekend.)

A close long term anarchist friend of mine last night told me if it came to pinning colours to the mast, she'd pin hers to the 'TERFs' side. I disagreed and said that was both not needed and also not OK.

Watching this video makes me think she might have a point. When you find yourself burning the same banners as fascists it might be time to seriously reflect on your politics. Seriously, what fucking (...insert insult of choice here...). FFS.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2017)

One of those jackets is very familiar...seen before on another video on this thread. It's the same twits doing this isn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> This is quite one of the shittest, out of order, and most pathetic things I've ever seen in the 'movement'...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeh. not sure children would do that, they're always being told never to play with fire. it would be nice if people didn't describe people they abominate as children. there are so many better insults out there.


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> One of those jackets is very familiar...seen before on another video on this thread. It's the same twits doing this isn't it?



I'd like to think that the number of anarchists who'd burn an anarchist bookfair banner would be very small, so yeah, I guess it most likely is.

I feel really sorry for the Bookfair organisers tbh, it's a really hard job and loads of work, and this must be pretty depressing to be given this much grief. I wouldn't blame them if they just said, 'Fuck it, that's it, we're not doing it again.'

It'd be nice if people would just be a bit more generous of spirit, have a bit of humility, and realize we're (mostly) all a bit flawed and fucked up and have some shit ideas and actions sometimes, rather than jumping to the worst possible conclusions about everyone and everything.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 2, 2017)

How about imbecilic cunts?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> How about imbecilic cunts?


works for me


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

If this was happening at a different point in struggle, I can see this causing the State to rub its hands in glee.

COINTELPRO eat your hearts out.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> This is quite one of the shittest, out of order, and most pathetic things I've ever seen in the 'movement'...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wankers


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> If this was happening at a different point in struggle, I can see this causing the State to rub its hands in glee.
> 
> COINTELPRO eat your hearts out.



COINTELPRO.

The middle of that portmanteau is redundant here surely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> If this was happening at a different point in struggle, I can see this causing the State to rub its hands in glee.
> 
> COINTELPRO eat your hearts out.


why? surely better, from the state's pov, to cause trouble and dissent to prevent the ability to build on the state's troubles.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 2, 2017)

I think Chilango means it is dumb.


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> why? surely better, from the state's pov, to cause trouble and dissent to prevent the ability to build on the state's troubles.



OK, I guess I meant they're most likely not that bothered at the moment and the dissent would have more impact at other times, but yeah take the point. Give me a break, it's early Pickman's!


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 2, 2017)

monty python meets the young ones.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> OK, I guess I meant they're most likely not that bothered at the moment and the dissent would have more impact at other times, but yeah take the point. Give me a break, it's early Pickman's!


from sun tzu's art of war:



23) seems appropriate. not of course that we are united, and we're certainly not taking our ease now.


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think Chilango means it is dumb.



I meant that there's not much *intelligence* at work here on "our side" for the state to *counter.*


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2017)

Please note: I removed the address that was referred to earlier as I received this email:



> an address has been shared in this thread. The safety of the people in the building is compromised as a result. Please remove these posts immediately. This information is not in the public domain



I pointed out that the info was in the public domain but my first response with these sort of emails is to always remove the address first...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 2, 2017)

Reply thanking them for confirming its accuracy.


----------



## krink (Nov 2, 2017)

class war (at least on twitter) are another anarchist group who have taken a side in this 



Spoiler: for those who like guessing games



they're with the anti-terf peeps


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> This is quite one of the shittest, out of order, and most pathetic things I've ever seen in the 'movement'...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lordy, aside from the serious daftness, choosing L7 for the music in 2017...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 2, 2017)

krink said:


> class war (at least on twitter) are another anarchist group who have taken a side in this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unsurprising given one of the people allegedly involved in the Hyde Park incident is also allegedly a member/involved with CW.


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Lordy, aside from the serious daftness, choosing L7 for the music in 2017...



For the full satirical double take it really should have been


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 2, 2017)

If I was them I'd have put music by one of the numerous excellent trans artists on the soundtrack.

Amateurs.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> If I was them I'd have put music by one of the numerous excellent trans artists on the soundtrack.
> 
> Amateurs.


Anohni - Hopelessness


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Where the fuck is any level of humility, solidarity, and understanding from some of these trans-activists? 

Do they realize that these spaces have been carved out by women over thousands of years of struggling against patriarchy? They've been hard fought for, resisted every step of the way by men, and are build on the bones of murdered, raped, enslaved and tortured women throughout countless generations.

Is it so completely incomprehensible and impossible to engage constructively with the fact that some women might _at the very least _be wary and wanting some discussion about giving them up entirely at the recent demands of a small number of male-to-female trans activists?


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It'd be nice if people would just be a bit more generous of spirit, have a bit of humility, and realize we're (mostly) all a bit flawed and fucked up and have some shit ideas and actions sometimes, rather than jumping to the worst possible conclusions about everyone and everything.



We're dealing with zealots, seemingly incapable of empathising with vast swathes of a community to which they aspire to belong (women).  So the chances of them behaving that way to event organisers are pretty much negligible!  We need to resist them, instead.


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 2, 2017)

Burning of the bookfair banner may seem extreme, and juvenile... but if, say, this had been homophobic leafletting with prominent activists defending free speech, I'd probably happily lend my lighter to start burning things. I think many people fail to begin to comprehend the deep sense of hurt that this kind of aggressive leaflet engenders. To some extent I understand the political / ideological TERF view - but there are real, hurting oppressed people who are/see themselves as the victims of those views and they are going to respond to that and not always in the most sensible of ways. 

Six months ago I was probably at least sympathetic to the TERF viewpoint and but as time marches on it seems clearer and clearer that on one side is a rigid theoretical view (often presented by people comfortably ensconced in academia) brandishing all sorts of theoretical possibilities of future harm to women and on the other are people who face some of the worst discrimination and prejudice going.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Where the fuck is any level of humility, solidarity, and understanding from some of these trans-activists?
> 
> Do they realize that these spaces have been carved out by women over thousands of years of struggling against patriarchy? They've been hard fought for, resisted every step of the way by men, and are build on the bones of murdered, raped, enslaved and tortured women throughout countless generations.
> 
> Is it so completely incomprehensible and impossible to engage constructively with the fact that some women might _at the very least _be wary and wanting some discussion about giving them up entirely at the recent demands of a small number of male-to-female trans activists?



It's almost as if these people who have been socialised as men expect their demands to trump women's interests.


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Burning of the bookfair banner may seem extreme, and juvenile... but if, say, this had been homophobic leafletting with prominent activists defending free speech, I'd probably happily lend my lighter to start burning things. I think many people fail to begin to comprehend the deep sense of hurt that this kind of aggressive leaflet engenders. To some extent I understand the political / ideological TERF view - but there are real, hurting oppressed people who are/see themselves as the victims of those views and they are going to respond to that and not always in the most sensible of ways.
> 
> Six months ago I was probably at least sympathetic to the TERF viewpoint and but as time marches on it seems clearer and clearer that on one side is a rigid theoretical view (often presented by people comfortably ensconced in academia) brandishing all sorts of theoretical possibilities of future harm to women and on the other are people who face some of the worst discrimination and prejudice going.



That's no more an accurate characterisation than someone suggesting all those on the other side support violence towards women. The reality is that many ordinary women question what's being increasingly forced upon them (even if they're often too scared to do so openly).


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's almost as if these people who have been socialised as men expect their demands to trump women's interests.



Indeed. One of the most unpleasant moments on Saturday was seeing a young trans-women aggressively screaming "ugly TERF cunt" in the face of a much older and smaller cis-woman. Not very thinly veiled misogyny. And they wonder why some people might be concerned/scared about giving up cis-women only spaces?!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Burning of the bookfair banner may seem extreme, and juvenile... but if, say, this had been homophobic leafletting with prominent activists defending free speech, I'd probably happily lend my lighter to start burning things. I think many people fail to begin to comprehend the deep sense of hurt that this kind of aggressive leaflet engenders. To some extent I understand the political / ideological TERF view - but there are real, hurting oppressed people who are/see themselves as the victims of those views and they are going to respond to that and not always in the most sensible of ways.
> 
> Six months ago I was probably at least sympathetic to the TERF viewpoint and but as time marches on it seems clearer and clearer that on one side is a rigid theoretical view (often presented by people comfortably ensconced in academia) brandishing all sorts of theoretical possibilities of future harm to women and on the other are people who face some of the worst discrimination and prejudice going.


yeh. i've posted earlier about people reaching for insults based around youth. how does that make young people think we view them, when we associate acts we dislike with people younger than us?


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 2, 2017)

Don't you realise how calling for transpeople to show humility and not be demanding is so very reminiscent of how white people complained of 'uppity blacks' or the way groups like Outrage! were presented as shrill extremists? Look - I'm absolutely not saying there isn't bad behaviour on both sides of this debate but perhaps I find it much easier to put myself in the shoes of the trans activists, remembering how people responded to gay rights protests in the 80s.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Don't you realise how calling for transpeople to show humility and not be demanding is so very reminiscent of how white people complained of 'uppity blacks' or the way groups like Outrage! were presented as shrill extremists? Look - I'm absolutely not saying there isn't bad behaviour on both sides of this debate but perhaps I find it much easier to put myself in the shoes of the trans activists, remembering how people responded to gay rights protests in the 80s.


i'm not calling for transpeople to show humility


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not calling for transpeople to show humility


Sorry Pickmans - I was referring to Lynne / Athos.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2017)

krink said:


> class war (at least on twitter) are another anarchist group who have taken a side in this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That statement was put out before the stolen banner vid was posted. I doubt there is 100% support subsequently.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Sorry Pickmans - I was referring to Lynne / Athos.


I dont think either of those posters did either? Or were you politically paraphrasinģ?


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Sorry Pickmans - I was referring to Lynne / Athos.



I've not asked for trans people to show humility; I've asked for a tiny minority of Trans Rights Activists to stop physically assaulting women for daring to consider the question of 'what is a woman'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Athos said:


> I've not asked for trans people to show humility; I've asked for a tiny minority of Trans Rights Activists to stop physically assaulting women for daring to consider the question of 'what is a woman'.


thank you for the clarification


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Yeah but the thing is it's not as simple as an oppressed group of people demanding equal rights and freedoms in society as it was with the examples that people give re: black/POC and gay rights struggles.

It's a group of people demanding access to an oppressed group's (cis-women's) spaces and hard fought autonomy. Some understanding by trans-activists that this is controversial and should be at least open to discussion is the least I think that should be expected.

Maybe humility is a bad choice of word, but can you see how people are feeling attacked by this, especially in the context of a wider anti-feminist and growing men's rights/alt-right backlash? And I'm excluding the worst of the radfems, but plenty of left-wing feminist and anarchist cis-women want this debate to happen, and you have trans-women saying no, to even discuss it is transphobic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah but the thing is it's not as simple as an oppressed group of people demanding equal rights and freedoms in society as it was with the examples that people give re: black/POC and gay rights struggles.
> 
> It's a group of people demanding access to an oppressed group's (women's) spaces and hard fought autonomy. Some understanding by trans-activists that this is controversial and should be at least open to discussion is the least I think that should be expected.
> 
> Maybe humility is a bad choice of words, but can you see how people are feeling attacked by this? And I'm excluding the worst of the radfems, but plenty of feminist and anarchist women want this debate to happen, and you have trans-women saying no, to discuss it is transphobic.


tbh some understanding by 'terfs' that this is controversial and should be open to discussion should also be expected.


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah but the thing is it's not as simple as an oppressed group of people demanding equal rights and freedoms in society as it was with the examples that people give re: black/POC and gay rights struggles.
> 
> It's a group of people demanding access to an oppressed group's (women's) spaces and hard fought autonomy. Some understanding by trans-activists that this is controversial and should be at least open to discussion is the least I think that should be expected.
> 
> Maybe humility is a bad choice of words, but can you see how people are feeling attacked by this? And I'm excluding the worst of the radfems, but plenty of feminist and anarchist women want this debate to happen, and you have trans-women saying no, to discuss it is transphobic.


If I was a transperson I don't think I'd see it as 'demanding access' though. I think I'd absolutely see it as part of my fight for equal rights. But yes, I get what you're saying, but I can't see how that leaflet is a particularly helpful contribution to such a debate.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2017)

I personally have never found the rad fem viewpoint helpful. Spent my life being cunted off by them in fact. 
Never lamped anyone at the bookfair for selling SCUM though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

TopCat said:


> I personally have never found the rad fem viewpoint helpful. Spent my life being cunted off by them in fact.
> Never lamped anyone at the bookfair for selling SCUM though.


always next year mind.


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Yeah, and I largely agree, I think putting up leaflets about trans stuff in the toilets is for many reasons a very provocative and not very useful thing to do. But it's tricky, if they'd been a meeting requested to discuss this can you imagine how that might have gone? How does this stuff get discussed?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 2, 2017)

I’d love to know how many of the players using the book fair as a platform for their beefs are actually anarchists. Because being a trans activist or feminist doesn’t automatically make you one.


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Lordy, aside from the serious daftness, choosing L7 for the music in 2017...



L7 was the best bit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, and I largely agree, I think putting up leaflets about trans stuff in the toilets is for many reasons a very provocative and not very useful thing to do. But it's tricky, if they'd been a meeting requested to discuss this can you imagine how that might have gone? How does this stuff get discussed?


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2017)

It gets discussed but in the teeth of opposition from people who see discussion as the same as violence


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 2, 2017)

I suppose, what mostly angers me about this 'debate' is that TERF ideology has given people who really should know better permission to be bigoted and prejudiced, sometimes overtly and other times through simply 'othering' transpeople in their language and failure to understand their experience. Some real life examples - recently I watched a local prominent green campaigner screw her face up in disgust after having a conversation with a transwoman - later I overheard her quoting bits and pieces of TERF-like views on gender to someone. In my local gay-ish bar, I heard a group of lesbians loudly complaining about the presence of transpeople 'in our space' - this is a bar mostly full of straight people, albeit lesbian owned and associated with lesbians. It's horrible. And then people wonder why trans-activists get angry and won't have a calm rational debate.


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’d love to know how many of the players using the book fair as a platform for their beefs are actually anarchists. Because being a trans activist or feminist doesn’t automatically make you one.



Yeah, that was one of my thoughts too. Some of the people I know going on about this have nothing to do with anarchist politics and never have, and are now using this as a stick to beat the Bookfair and anarchists in general.


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’d love to know how many of the players using the book fair as a platform for their beefs are actually anarchists. Because being a trans activist or feminist doesn’t automatically make you one.



I'd be interested as to how many of those involved in the wider twitter based/IDpol culture (a crude lumping together, but I can't be more precise right now) identify as anarachists - and why. 

I'd also be interested in seeing what the @ orgs general positions are on this.

'cos I'm not seeing much common ground between this _soi dissant_ (thanks again Laurie) anarchism, and mine.

Maybe I need to rethink my own political identity frankly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> I'd be interested as to how many of those involved in the wider twitter based/IDpol culture (a crude lumping together, but I can't be more precise right now) identify as anarachists - and why.
> 
> I'd also be interested in seeing what the @ orgs general positions are on this.
> 
> ...


disant. one s. doesn't rhyme with pissant.


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I suppose, what mostly angers me about this 'debate' is that TERF ideology has given people who really should know better permission to be bigoted and prejudiced, sometimes overtly and other times through simply 'othering' transpeople in their language and failure to understand their experience. Some real life examples - recently I watched a local prominent green campaigner screw her face up in disgust after having a conversation with a transwoman - later I overheard her quoting bits and pieces of TERF-like views on gender to someone. In my local gay-ish bar, I heard a group of lesbians loudly complaining about the presence of transpeople 'in our space' - this is a bar mostly full of straight people, albeit lesbian owned and associated with lesbians. It's horrible. And then people wonder why trans-activists get angry and won't have a calm rational debate.



Yeah totally, and I think _everyone_ needs to be really careful and self reflective about why they hold the positions they do in this, as of course some of even the less extreme views might (will?) have a element of prejudice in them, and I think that's especially true on the anti-trans side (for want of a better term).


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> disant. one s. doesn't rhyme with pissant.



Blame Laurie.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> Blame Laurie.


i do blame her, for leading you astray among other things.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> disant. one s. doesn't rhyme with pissant.



Or as they'd say in Quebec:

Il est pissant, ce gars-là!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Or as they'd say in Quebec:
> 
> Il est pissant, ce gars-là!


oui, bien sûr


----------



## Athos (Nov 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I suppose, what mostly angers me about this 'debate' is that TERF ideology has given people who really should know better permission to be bigoted and prejudiced, sometimes overtly and other times through simply 'othering' transpeople in their language and failure to understand their experience. Some real life examples - recently I watched a local prominent green campaigner screw her face up in disgust after having a conversation with a transwoman - later I overheard her quoting bits and pieces of TERF-like views on gender to someone. In my local gay-ish bar, I heard a group of lesbians loudly complaining about the presence of transpeople 'in our space' - this is a bar mostly full of straight people, albeit lesbian owned and associated with lesbians. It's horrible. And then people wonder why trans-activists get angry and won't have a calm rational debate.



But, again, that's conflating two very different things: abuse and legitimate debate. With a bit of good will and some self-reflection, that could be worked around. 

What's more difficult, is the point at which they meet/overlap.  Whether e.g. it's transphobic to query whether a trans woman is a woman, and, if it is, could that, nevertheless, be justified by the importance of doing so to tackle misogyny?


----------



## krink (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> I'd also be interested in seeing what the @ orgs general positions are on this.



I've only seen three that I'd heard of, freedom books, afed and class war. all supporting trans anti-terf people and against bookfair bods.


----------



## krink (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> Maybe I need to rethink my own political identity frankly.



i thinks butchers or someone said (possibly joking) it's going to be like the mid 80s split and i think it might just be!


----------



## rich! (Nov 2, 2017)

editor said:


> Please note: I removed the address that was referred to earlier as I received this email:
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that the info was in the public domain but my first response with these sort of emails is to always remove the address first...



Just checking - was this my post citing the registered holder of the web domain?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 2, 2017)

Statement from Helen Steel.


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2017)

krink said:


> i thinks butchers or someone said (possibly joking) it's going to be like the mid 80s split and i think it might just be!



What mid-80s split was butchersapron referring to?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> What mid-80s split was butchersapron referring to?


THE mid-80s split


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

Fucking great statement.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

"refusing to validate other people's belief systems is not the same as threatening to harm them" is spot on. 
A lot of people would argue (very angrily) against the idea that its a belief system that's being discussed here though.


----------



## krink (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> What mid-80s split was butchersapron referring to?



 might be another of my frequent senior moments, hang on...


----------



## LDC (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm assuming he means the post-miner's strike 'lifestyle/class' split?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> What mid-80s split was butchersapron referring to?



The Clash?


----------



## krink (Nov 2, 2017)

page nine, around posts 250-ish. i took it as meaning it's like the time mid 80s, things like the DAM and their involvement with the miners strike was a big topic as opposed to the hippy bollocks that was very popular.  i might be talking shite, carry on


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'm assuming he means the post-miner's strike 'lifestyle/class' split?


This period was my heyday, hayday hade(?)
Whatever. 
Anyway was there a movement split? There was us (Class War) and Red Action and there was a bunch of ineffectual wankers. We did stuff. The rest postured a lot. Now CW postures along with the rest and RA are no more.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> "refusing to validate other people's belief systems is not the same as threatening to harm them" is spot on. A lot of people would argue (very angrily) against the idea that its a belief system that's being discussed here though.



Well, that and the way she seems to portray it as entirely the fault of a "baying mob" (nice language, speaking of dehumanising word use) of trans people and pretty much absolves the leafletters of any responsibility for deliberately going to an event where they knew there'd be a large and militant trans presence to hand out texts which were, charitably, highly inflammatory. 

Like if you want to call for dialogue fair play, but maybe don't do that and in the same breath insult people and deny that them being pissed off has any validity.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

Rob Ray she's obviously chosen a 'side' in this mess and is being quite open about that. Your post seems to suggest she should be neutral somehow which seems a bit odd given that she's made her views fairly clear.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

She spent a couple of hours backed up against a wall with people screaming abuse at her last weekend, and a week of fallout since. It's admirable she's managed to keep such a lid on it tbh.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> She spent a couple of hours backed up against a wall with people screaming abuse at her last weekend, and a week of fallout since. It's admirable she's managed to keep such a lid on it tbh.



I've no idea how those currently inhabiting the banner burning/no platform edge of the trans community see their position developing once/if it moves from what I suppose is a politically small, London based milieu, and into the wider social sphere? but they may find they need to change the term TERFs to TEFs (that's F for female, and not necessarily a _politically feminist_ one at that).


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm not sure how you got that particular "seems" bimble, because nowhere did I suggest that she was or needed to be neutral.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> I've no idea how those currently inhabiting the banner burning/no platform edge of the trans community see their position developing once/if it moves from what I suppose is a politically small, London based milieu, and into the wider social sphere? but they may find they need to change the term TERFs to TEFs (that's F for female, and not necessarily a _politically feminist_ one at that).


Or maybe the term 'gender critical' will gain traction soon, instead of the whole thing being about exclusion from some club named Women.

The Trans Women Who Say That Trans Women Aren’t Women


----------



## crossthebreeze (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Or maybe the term 'gender critical' will gain traction soon, instead of the whole thing being about exclusion from some club named Women.
> 
> The Trans Women Who Say That Trans Women Aren’t Women
> 
> ...


I have not finished the article, so have nothing sensible to add, but one of the trans women interviewed is called Helen Highwater which is an ace name.


----------



## gamerunknown (Nov 2, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah but the thing is it's not as simple as an oppressed group of people demanding equal rights and freedoms in society as it was with the examples that people give re: black/POC and gay rights struggles.
> 
> It's a group of people demanding access to an oppressed group's (cis-women's) spaces and hard fought autonomy. Some understanding by trans-activists that this is controversial and should be at least open to discussion is the least I think that should be expected.
> 
> Maybe humility is a bad choice of word, but can you see how people are feeling attacked by this, especially in the context of a wider anti-feminist and growing men's rights/alt-right backlash? And I'm excluding the worst of the radfems, but plenty of left-wing feminist and anarchist cis-women want this debate to happen, and you have trans-women saying no, to even discuss it is transphobic.



There are plenty of historical examples of the exact same thing happening - the working class as a whole are exploited, queer people struggled to get recognition and access to working class spaces. Black women wanted to have their experiences of sexism recognised. Oppression or exploitation do not inoculate oneself from further exploitation or oppression. 



Magnus McGinty said:


> Statement from Helen Steel.



I don't know of any trans people who call themselves "trans identifying". That term is exclusively used by "gender critical" feminists to my knowledge. As for whether we think people shouldn't be able to question our ideology, sure. How dare we not welcome Police Liaison Officers to the Anarchist Bookfair to debate the relative merit of anarchism with us?


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

gamerunknown said:


> Although, the one comment by the author discussing "transracial" identity is incendiary. I can't think of any reason for embracing trans people for  while stigmatising cultural appropriation. I know it's a position to be excoriated for, but *I'm tortured by the thought of a logically consistent approach*.



Have you come up with any answer to this quandry yet ?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 2, 2017)

gamerunknown said:


> How dare we not welcome Police Liaison Officers to the Anarchist Bookfair to debate the relative merit of anarchism with us?



Are they barred then? Because nobody questioned if I was one or not.


----------



## gamerunknown (Nov 3, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Are they barred then? Because nobody questioned if I was one or not.



Didn't say they were barred, but the respect policy is as follows:




			
				Respect said:
			
		

> However, saying that, we will do our best to deal with situations arising at the bookfair and we reserve the right to ask anybody to leave the event. This may be cops, fascists or certain journalists but it could also be any individual acting in what we consider to be an excessively inappropriate manner.



Would it be authoritarian of us to request that the police not monitor the anarchist bookfair? 



bimble said:


> Have you come up with any answer to this quandry yet ?



Nope.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 3, 2017)

A statement in solidarity with the London Anarchist Bookfair Collective. From some friends of the Bookfair


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 3, 2017)

> We are left to wonder whether anarchist practice has become so inculcated by ‘customer service’ culture that even the Bookfair is attended by consumers forgetting the fundamental essence of DIY, self-organisation and self-regulation of events.
> 
> The Bookfair Collective operates on the principle that it is not for the small collective that organises it to take on defining and enforcing a rigid policy on safety and behaviour; it is for the wider movement that takes part in the Bookfair to do so, along anarchist principles of opposing centralized authority with dispersed and grassroots responsibility.
> 
> Points raised in the open letter call for a radically different event, with a much more centralized program, organized or tightly overseen by the collective. If we as a movement, decide that this is what we want, many more of us will need to commit time and energy to organising and supporting this annual event.


Good statement, and this part needs to be read again and again by a few people


----------



## LDC (Nov 3, 2017)

Yeah, the other thing I like about the statement is it gives a kick up the arse to people (including me) that have been going for years and leaving it all to the collective. Totally going to help out setting up/taking down or doing some other stuff on the day next year.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 10, 2017)

Well, if people want to have a 2018 bookfair it'll require more than helping out - the collective just put out a statement saying they won't be doing it next year.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> Well, if people want to have a 2018 bookfair it'll require more than helping out - the collective just put out a statement saying they won't be doing it next year.


Shit, but can't blame them


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> Well, if people want to have a 2018 bookfair it'll require more than helping out - the collective just put out a statement saying they won't be doing it next year.


have you a link please Rob?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> Well, if people want to have a 2018 bookfair it'll require more than helping out - the collective just put out a statement saying they won't be doing it next year.


Yeh. Have you a link?


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 10, 2017)

> As many people know there was an incident towards the end of the 2017 London Anarchist Bookfair. Many statements have been written both supporting and condemning the organisers of the event.
> 
> At first, as in previous years, we were inclined to not respond to these statements. However, because of the claims being made, and our views about future bookfairs we feel, unfortunately, that we need to respond. We have produced two statements. The first is a statement about the events on the day. The second is a response to a statement being circulated and signed by a number of groups critical of the Bookfair and its organisers.
> 
> ...


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

Anarchist Bookfair

two statements there in fact


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2017)

Their response to the open letter is eviscerating.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

Definition of EVISCERATE
(im sure i wasnt the only one)


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

"AFem 2014 was an attempt to make an event similar to the Bookfair without cis-men and with a safer spaces policy. Having seen the result, does anyone wonder why the organisers of that event (many more than we are) didn’t feel they had the energy to do another one?"

I vaguely remember hearing about this, but does anyone recall it clearly/have a link for what happened? Id appreciate it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2017)

there's some chat about it on the 2014 anarchist bookfair thread (although it's not always clear whats chat about afem and what's chat about the bookfair) 

London Anarchist Bookfair Saturday 18th October 2014


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 10, 2017)

There's differing takes, the AFEM collective's is here:

On the TERFs in our midst


----------



## crossthebreeze (Nov 10, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> There's differing takes, the AFEM collective's is here:
> 
> On the TERFs in our midst


I didn't go to AFEM2014 in the end (or the bookfair that year) for various reasons, but I was peripherally involved in some of the initial organising for it, and basically got bored with the seemingly endless bad-tempered arguments about who should be included (ie other anarchafeminist events i had been to until then had always been all women and all trans people, but some people did not want trans men involved (even trans men who had not yet transitioned), saying this undermined trans women, but there was pretty much every permutation of identity being argued for and against) that I decided to focus on other things instead, and in the lead-up I thought the resulting gender inclusion policy was pretty meaningless and illogical, and I could well see that someone on one side or another was going to kick off in some way.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Nov 10, 2017)

Anyway, those are very good statements, and I don't blame them for not wanting to do another event.  I hope it pushes everyone to just take a bit of thought on this.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

*


crossthebreeze said:



			Anyway, those are very good statements, and I don't blame them for not wanting to do another event.  I hope it pushes everyone to just take a bit of thought on this.
		
Click to expand...

*
you would think so, but some of the arrogance Ive read in attacks on the bookfair makes me doubt it. There are a lot of self-assured posturers out there these days.

Theres been a mushrooming of bookfairs in the UK in recent years - mainly anarchist, but not all. I think this has big implications for all of them. The massive irony is that the London Anarchist Bookfair is so well organised, works so hard to be inclusive, and on such an impressive scale, and yet it is they that are packing it in. Really hope its for one year only as the knowledge the collective have in putting this on cant be easily replicated - years and years in the making.

The London A Bookfair is an insittution now I guess, but its (clearly) such a fragile one. Like so much of left organisations. I think I said it earlier in the thread but people have attacked the fair as if it were the state. Zero understanding of the reality of the work. As mentioned in the solidarity letter too many are "inculcated by ‘customer service’ culture that even the Bookfair is attended by consumers ". 

From the response to the open letter this stands out to me 


> What hurts us most is we know a lot of you. A number of the signatories to the open letter are groups we know and have worked with over the years; sometimes many, many years. Yet not one of you has tried to contact us as individuals or as the Bookfair collective to ask our views before you signed the open letter, even though some people appear not to have read all of it before signing. We thought of many of you as friends. We were obviously wrong. We guess it’s easy to sign a statement. It’s a lot harder to actually talk to people and try to work things out.


the lack of solidarity, baseline mutual respect is one thing, but the inability to even attempt an interpersonal dialogue on something so important, but rather drop bombs from social media... 


Rob Ray said:


> There's differing takes, the AFEM collective's is here:
> 
> On the TERFs in our midst


thanks. well I guess it really was an ‘introduction to anarchafeminism’. Introduction by fire


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2017)

ska invita said:


> The London A Bookfair is an insittution now I guess, but its (clearly) such a fragile one. Like so much of left organisations. I think I said it earlier in the thread but people have attacked the fair as if it where the state. Zero understanding of the reality of the work. As mentioned in the solidarity letter too many are "inculcated by ‘customer service’ culture that even the Bookfair is attended by consumers ".



...and if the bookfair can be wrecked, then other components of the movement can be too.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

chilango said:


> ...and if the bookfair can be wrecked, then other components of the movement can be too.


a couple of agent provacateurs could run riot.


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2017)

ska invita said:


> a couple of agent provacateurs could run riot.



The two responses that spring to mind are equally worrying:

Maybe they already have.

Or maybe they don't need to.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

chilango said:


> The two responses that spring to mind are equally worrying:
> 
> Maybe they already have.
> 
> Or maybe they don't need to.


yeah was just thinking the same 
I think Dont Need To is by far the bigger threat though


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 10, 2017)

So that unresolved argument from AFem basically surfaced at the book fair and killed it. Can the argument even be resolved? I recommend it occurs away from civilisation.


----------



## Red Sky (Nov 10, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So that unresolved argument from AFem basically surfaced at the book fair and killed it. Can the argument even be resolved? I recommend it occurs away from civilisation.



Leave the primmos out of this.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 10, 2017)

ska invita said:


> you would think so, but some of the arrogance Ive read in attacks on the bookfair makes me doubt it. There are a lot of self-assured posturers out there these days.



I think the truly terrifying thing is that some people will think this is a victory. There were a bunch of comments from young shouty types on twitter along the lines of "the bookfair's politics have always been trash" after this year. 

If you do all your politics on social media (or conversely are a green party member who came to the Bookfair to dish out provocative leaflets) then I doubt the Bookfair closing will matter to you very much at all.

Both statements from the collective are great.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think the truly terrifying thing is that some people will think this is a victory. There were a bunch of comments from young shouty types on twitter along the lines of "the bookfair's politics have always been trash" after this year.


some of those people are now online say stuff like "sigh" , "quitters" " cant take a bit of cirticism" etc. "we'll make our own fair" lol. I actually dont think most of these people give a shit about anarchism, and just see it as a vague liberal/lefty space.



Fozzie Bear said:


> Both statements from the collective are great.


i agree


----------



## ddraig (Nov 10, 2017)

link 
London Bookfair ‘won’t happen in 2018’ -in-2018/


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 10, 2017)

Have been watching this unfold, but also reluctant to comment on it. I don't have the inclination to say much really other than its very disappointing obviously to see the collective decide to give bookfair a miss next year - can only hope it'll be just a temporary year out but frankly who blames them. Really sad of state of affairs.

As someone who has been aligned to both feminist and trans groups/politics over the years (especially for a period where some of us were making some good progress on uniting, in some cases, oppositional ideological ground to focus more on common experiences of oppression from patriarchy/capitalism/class), it's been immensely depressing to see where this stuff finds itself again. Two particular extremes of the worse facets of identity politicking, played out mostly on social media and now increasingly spiralling out into hostile public spats and battles with fuck all consideration for comrades and groups around them trying to keep up momentum in creating alternative spaces and political movements.

Frankly I'm fucking sick of both particular wings of rad fem AND trans politics in the last few years especially constantly playing this game of upping the ante, using dubious tactics online and off with outing people, threatening behaviour, having fuck all respect for other political organising, fearmongering, increasingly hardline demands that will never be reconciled, and all round petty, individualist, and divisive bullshit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Frankly I'm fucking sick of both particular wings of rad fem AND trans politics in the last few years especially constantly playing this game of upping the ante, using dubious tactics online and off with outing people, threatening behaviour, having fuck all respect for other political organising, fearmongering, increasingly hardline demands that will never be reconciled, and all round petty, individualist, and divisive bullshit.



This. I have thought about posting stuff recently that actually made me feel grubby by association...on both sides wtaf? :/


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Have been watching this unfold, but also reluctant to comment on it. I don't have the inclination to say much really other than its very disappointing obviously to see the collective decide to give bookfair a miss next year - can only hope it'll be just a temporary year out but frankly who blames them. Really sad of state of affairs.
> 
> As someone who has been aligned to both feminist and trans groups/politics over the years (especially for a period where some of us were making some good progress on uniting, in some cases, oppositional ideological ground to focus more on common experiences of oppression from patriarchy/capitalism/class), it's been immensely depressing to see where this stuff finds itself again. Two particular extremes of the worse facets of identity politicking, played out mostly on social media and now increasingly spiralling out into hostile public spats and battles with fuck all consideration for comrades and groups around them trying to keep up momentum in creating alternative spaces and political movements.
> 
> Frankly I'm fucking sick of both particular wings of rad fem AND trans politics in the last few years especially constantly playing this game of upping the ante, using dubious tactics online and off with outing people, threatening behaviour, having fuck all respect for other political organising, fearmongering, increasingly hardline demands that will never be reconciled, and all round petty, individualist, and divisive bullshit.



Hard to imagine a more powerful way of dividing groups and organisations which are dependent on solidarity.


----------



## LDC (Nov 10, 2017)

FFS, really, really angry and sad about this. I hope those fuckers that behaved so badly on the day are fucking embarrassed, as are those that signed the open letter to the @ Bookfair. Absolutely politically destructive fuckers.

I hope the @ Bookfair collective take one year off and organise another in 2019, by which time half those pricks would have given up on politics.

Seriously, the state of anarchist politics in 2017, what a fucking mess.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 10, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> FFS, really, really angry and sad about this. I hope those fuckers that behaved so badly on the day are fucking embarrassed, as are those that signed the open letter to the @ Bookfair.



I doubt it. I imagine they're reveling in it.



> Seriously, the state of anarchist politics in 2017, what a fucking mess.



These people have NOTHING to do with anarchism. Nothing.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 10, 2017)

This just in from Maria MacLachlan.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 10, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 120237 This just in from Maria MacLachlan.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 10, 2017)

Meanwhile from the other side of the park...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2017)

FFS. ffs. ffs. errr... ya. ffs.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> I doubt it. I imagine they're reveling in it.
> 
> 
> 
> These people have NOTHING to do with anarchism. Nothing.



For them, I am sure that this is their politics. Subcultural squabbling.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2017)

Next time they should do a decoy bookfair across town for these cunts to go to and scream at each other at.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> View attachment 120239 View attachment 120240 Meanwhile from the other side of the park...



Same one that openly celebrated Mark Fisher's suicide then claimed that she was a victim when people were upset with her for it.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 10, 2017)

Such a pity. I've only been twice, both times with my children, the eldest was a baby at the first, and my youngest a baby at the second, with the eldest going to the kids space, where I hung out too for a bit. It was really important to me that there was somewhere for the kids and it was the kids I thought about when I first read about what happened because I couldn't help but imagine how frightening it would've been for mine. The description of the kids crying because they thought there was a fire was very upsetting.


----------



## LDC (Nov 10, 2017)

Seriously, (I mean even ignoring the by dickheads) _for_ dickheads?! Nice way to write off the over 2,000 people that go every year. Like WTF kind of attitude is that? Seriously weird and fucked up.


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2017)

The discussion over on Libcom is really dispiriting and shows how corrosive all this has become over the last few years.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> These people have NOTHING to do with anarchism. Nothing.


Worth remembering Edinburgh and Merseyside AF branches threw their hats in the ring on this as did AFed Trans Action Faction....I see Freedom will be saying something about all this on Monday according to their website, and if i were betting Id expect there'll be criticism for not denouncing transphobia in the bookfair statement.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 11, 2017)

We'll be discussing it Monday night, which doesn't necessarily mean we'll have an agreed statement same day.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 11, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> We'll be discussing it Monday night


good luck!


----------



## LDC (Nov 11, 2017)

chilango said:


> The discussion over on Libcom is really dispiriting and shows how corrosive all this has become over the last few years.



Yeah, with a few exceptions the Libcom thread is horrendous. Think there's been some pretty shocking behaviour and jumping to conclusions and positions from a number of people and groups about this. And over the 'Religion is Stupid' banner.

Stavvers is a nasty fucked up arsehole of the highest order.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2017)

Poverty is increasing but the hot topic is who should be allowed / banned from middle class spaces. Leave the cunts to it.


----------



## LDC (Nov 11, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Poverty is increasing but the hot topic is who should be allowed / banned from middle class spaces. Leave the cunts to it.



Yeah on some level I agree, but I think the Bookfair not happening is a real political step backwards (I mean not like setting the revolution back or owt, but just generally a retrogressive step in the public side of anarchist/communist visibility). Surrendering these spaces to shit politics is really problematic I think, and like someone said up thread, if this can be ruined, then anything can.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Poverty is increasing but the hot topic is who should be allowed / banned from middle class spaces. Leave the cunts to it.


No, the hot topic is people having such a go at comrades that they withdraw from an activity they've done and done well for years


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 11, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> <snipped>


Fucking idiots. Both of them. Illustrating very nicely stethoscope 's point


----------



## J Ed (Nov 11, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah on some level I agree, but I think the Bookfair not happening is a real political step backwards (I mean not like setting the revolution back or owt, but just generally a retrogressive step in the public side of anarchist/communist visibility). Surrendering these spaces to shit politics is really problematic I think, and like someone said up thread, if this can be ruined, then anything can.



I wonder whether stuff like this is partly the result of power being less legibile in our time than it has been before. Increasingly we imagine our world and the relations within it as being that of a series of individuals and disputes centre around the interpersonal relations between those individuals or groups of individuals, and that becomes the territory on which battles are fought.

It also makes me think about just how, to me, non-political these disputes seem these days. Particularly in the whole radfem vs 'anti-cis' trans group stuff but on a whole range of other things, it seems like there are no ideas which are being fought over and there is nothing that anyone can do to win over people in other groups or even non-aligned bystanders. Everything is already decided as far as who is on which side, the only thing which is happening is that various previous grievances are being aired and acted upon, and during the course of that new ones are being generated.

What is the point in any of it?


----------



## LDC (Nov 11, 2017)

J Ed said:


> What is the point in any of it?



Two bald (one cis/one trans) men arguing over a comb?


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Two bald (one cis/one trans) men arguing over a comb?



They’re not even talking about the comb. Just fighting over who’s the baldest.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking idiots. Both of them. Illustrating very nicely stethoscope 's point



Most of these with media (Guardian, New Statesman, etc.) and social media prominence, and regardless of whether they have come out with vocal pro or anti trans positions, all seem to be ultimately liberals and will happily throw any radical left/anarchist politics under a bus when it comes down to it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2017)

As will a fair few ‘anarchists’ by the looks of things.


----------



## krink (Nov 11, 2017)

Anarchists for Corbyn and now anarchists for censorship. I'm glad anarchism is in such great shape at the moment to easily withstand these negative trends


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2017)

I see Sisters Uncut have featured heavily here. Have they come full circle from attacking alleged abusers of women to become abusers of women?


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 11, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Worth remembering Edinburgh and Merseyside AF branches .



Given that Butchers said (IIRC) Merseyside AF translates to a couple of people in the Liverpool group and 5 across Scotland...unless I have that/this wrong...there’s more on this board representative of pissed off anarchists.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 11, 2017)

And, at the risk of further opprobrium, what’s the more important? People with some analysis of power dynamics at their point of entry to anarchism or this individualism? (That leads to “I wanna fuck up some terfs”)

Fuck it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 11, 2017)

And whilst I understand the pragmatics, it remains that the quarrel is about a parliamentary law.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 12, 2017)

Richard Seymour wades in, pointlessly:
Anarchist Bookfair | Richard Seymour on Patreon


----------



## chilango (Nov 12, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Richard Seymour wades in, pointlessly:
> Anarchist Bookfair | Richard Seymour on Patreon



Why? What’s it got to do with him?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 12, 2017)

chilango said:


> Why? What’s it got to do with him?



I guess he needs to keep his patreon patrons happy with #content that shows he is an authority on all the things.


----------



## chilango (Nov 12, 2017)

I’m finding patreon a very weird development.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2017)

Remember when people used to do things for free? This has turned into a sort of collective sugar daddy thing. People asking for money for talking to their mates for an hour.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 12, 2017)

chilango said:


> I’m finding patreon a very weird development.



Yes. Probably one for the commentariat thread...


----------



## ska invita (Nov 12, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Richard Seymour wades in, pointlessly:
> Anarchist Bookfair | Richard Seymour on Patreon


 not sure if pointless...i agree completely with the spirit of that and this is where the conversation needs to go: A recognition of the fragility of left organising, some self reflection as to how to act when disagreements arise, some perspective  on what is at stake etc. He even picked up that all the claims of racism, imperialistic culture etc had zero evidence,(the banner no doubt) also useful.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 12, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I see Sisters Uncut have featured heavily here. Have they come full circle from attacking alleged abusers of women to become abusers of women?


They have a history.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 14, 2017)

_"Can we all please calm it down a bit",_ say insurrectionists:
‘The loneliness of the crowd’ – Another reflection on the events at this year’s London Anarchist Bookfair (UK)


----------



## LDC (Nov 14, 2017)

That was surprisingly sensible from 325!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 14, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> _"Can we all please calm it down a bit",_ say insurrectionists:
> ‘The loneliness of the crowd’ – Another reflection on the events at this year’s London Anarchist Bookfair (UK)



I thought that was quite a good statement but I thought this sentence seemed a bit oddly placed and didn't really understand why it was included.

"After the 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair, attendees directed their antagonism towards a state target, with a protest at Eurostar for its role in the border politics in Calais and the imprisonment of migrants who had walked through the Channel Tunnel."


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I thought that was quite a good statement but I thought this sentence seemed a bit oddly placed and didn't really understand why it was included.
> 
> "After the 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair, attendees directed their antagonism towards a state target, with a protest at Eurostar for its role in the border politics in Calais and the imprisonment of migrants who had walked through the Channel Tunnel."


rather a comparison  with this year's clusterfuck


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 14, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I thought that was quite a good statement but I thought this sentence seemed a bit oddly placed and didn't really understand why it was included.
> 
> "After the 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair, attendees directed their antagonism towards a state target, with a protest at Eurostar for its role in the border politics in Calais and the imprisonment of migrants who had walked through the Channel Tunnel."



I think they're saying that anarchist energies should be put into that sort of thing and not shouting at Helen Steel or throwing hissy fits on twitter.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I thought that was quite a good statement but I thought this sentence seemed a bit oddly placed and didn't really understand why it was included.
> 
> "After the 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair, attendees directed their antagonism towards a state target, with a protest at Eurostar for its role in the border politics in Calais and the imprisonment of migrants who had walked through the Channel Tunnel."



Are they trying to make the comparison between legitimate and illegitimate targets?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 14, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think they're saying that anarchist energies should be put into that sort of thing and not shouting at Helen Steel or throwing hissy fits on twitter.



Ah ok. That makes a bit more sense to me now.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2017)

Only just spotted that Hydra Books is a signatory to the _open letter_


----------



## LDC (Nov 14, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Only just spotted that Hydra Books is a signatory to the _open letter_



I'm surprised at who did. Including some people who I'd have thought would have a better position.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 14, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Only just spotted that Hydra Books is a signatory to the _open letter_



Also Salvage Collective, who are Richard Seymour's lot, no? I think a bunch of people signed up in the last week or so.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Nov 14, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I see Sisters Uncut have featured heavily here. Have they come full circle from attacking alleged abusers of women to become abusers of women?


Depends what day it is, how much they have had to drink mixed with a cock tail of whatever and then they go off on an escapade. Nthing plannedno responsibility, just go and do whatever you feel. Rich kids exerting their privilege.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 14, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Depends what day it is, how much they have had to drink mixed with a cock tail of whatever and then they go off on an escapade. Nthing plannedno responsibility, just go and do whatever you feel. Rich kids exerting their privilege.


I never read them like that. They have done some well planned and properly organised stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'm surprised at who did. Including some people who I'd have thought would have a better position.


Or at least waited to check the facts


----------



## ddraig (Nov 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Or at least waited to check the facts


this!
someone involved in something i help with suggested adding the name of the org to it and i objected on those grounds and that no one from it was there!


----------



## nardy (Nov 16, 2017)

Anarchism. What a brilliant idea. If only more people realised the concept, its time would come on a wave of popular public opinion.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2017)

nardy said:


> Anarchism. What a brilliant idea. If only more people realised the concept, its time would come on a wave of popular public opinion.


Trolling. Never a good idea when there's a grown up debate going on.


----------



## LDC (Nov 18, 2017)

Brighton ABC statement from their Facebook page (sorry don't have link)...

"Despite the threat of the loss of an event that has provided the single greatest opportunity for our fundraising activities for our prisoner support work over the past two decades, Brighton Anarchist Black Cross fully supports the stance of the London Anarchist Bookfair Collective in the face of a torrent of unfair and largely misplaced criticism. If people have chosen to continue to passively 'consume' the Bookfair each year whilst failing to actively engage in the creation of this event, then they have only themselves to blame when their snipping from the sidelines about their poor 'consumer experience' results in the Bookfair Collective calling it a day.

This is going to directly impact on our prisoner support work. We are a very small group, which nevertheless often provides quite significant material aid for comrades behind the bars. The fact that there is not going to be an Anarchist Bookfair next year in London is going to very severely impact our abilities to offer further support to anarchist and other political prisoners (including trans prisoners) and hinder our work on other anti-prison projects, such as printing literature, etc. We hope that the signatories of the open letter are fully aware of the real consequences their actions are already having on groups like ours."

ABC - News


----------



## ska invita (Nov 21, 2017)

freedom statement
Freedom Collective Statement on the London Anarchist Bookfair


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 21, 2017)

They don't really address any of the points raised in the response to the open letter.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

I’m divorcing myself from anarchism. Idpol wankyness.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

How do Freedom et al square the circle that what they’re all squabbling over is state legislation? And they’re willing to take a dump over self organisation (the book fair) to do it?
Fucking pretenders.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 21, 2017)

If “smash the state”is overridden by “smash the terfs” it ain’t no Freedom I’m particularly interested in either. 

But I wouldn’t stop calling myself an anarchist over such bollocks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2017)

ska invita said:


> freedom statement
> Freedom Collective Statement on the London Anarchist Bookfair


i see the freedom sign now says bookshop & publishing house.

publishing house? 

someone's up themselves. don't like it


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

Small c communist. Libertarian communist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Small c communist. Libertarian communist.


but a big l libertarian i see


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> but a big l libertarian i see



Capitalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Capitalism.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m divorcing myself from anarchism. Idpol wankyness.



Fucking LOL  ..and there was the rest of us being blamed for being objectionable, ruinous  bastards and being invited to join the ranks of those that 'know'... The worm turns really quickly around here. Turns out no one is perfect afterall eh? Like most have us already know.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking LOL  ..and there was the rest of us being blamed for being objectionable, ruinous  bastards and being invited to join the ranks of those that 'know'... The worm turns really quickly around here. Turns out no one is perfect afterall eh? Like most have us already know.



She’s off again. 

Pulls up deckchair.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> She’s off again.
> 
> Pulls up deckchair.



He thinks he is relevant again.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> He thinks he is relevant again.



I’m being erased!

Anyway, carry on


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking LOL  ..and there was the rest of us being blamed for being objectionable, ruinous  bastards and being invited to join the ranks of those that 'know'... The worm turns really quickly around here. Turns out no one is perfect afterall eh? Like most have us already know.



What are you going on about?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

I’ve screengrabbed it it’s that good.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’m being erased!
> 
> Anyway, carry on



Only if you continue to needlessly, arrogantly and dismissively bait in a way that invalidates you. 

Anyway, you carry on.


----------



## LDC (Nov 21, 2017)

That's quite a shit statement, makes a point to condemn transphobia which is fine, but it avoids any discussion or taking a position on all the issues and criticisms against the bookfair, apart from an unexplained quip about ongoing exclusion of marginalised groups from the bookfair.

And can we give the personal back and forth a miss please?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking LOL  ..and there was the rest of us being blamed for being objectionable, ruinous  bastards and being invited to join the ranks of those that 'know'... The worm turns really quickly around here. Turns out no one is perfect afterall eh? Like most have us already know.



This doesn’t make sense and the reason is because you don’t understand what you think you’re getting one over on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This doesn’t make sense and the reason is because you don’t understand what you think you’re getting one over on.


The wyrm turns


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This doesn’t make sense and the reason is because you don’t understand what you think you’re getting one over on.



Of course it makes sense. You are far too nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I don't like them anymore to see how ridiculous your post is. You have been telling others off like your shit don't stink for a good while now... Please do tell us all why you are so fabulous and others are so shit.


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2017)

I’m just glad that when Rutita1 speaks on behalf of  ‘the rest of us’ and ‘us all’ I’m pretty sure she’s not including me.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita, you posted an unprovoked dig at another poster, and have proceeded to complain about other posters making ‘unnecessary’ digs, then ‘liked’ a post calling for all to get back on topic, then went and posted another personal dig.

Are you able to give it a rest Rutita1 ? For one evening maybe?


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2017)

err.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Of course it makes sense. You are far too nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


You're channelling pengaleng


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're channelling pengaleng



Where is peng? They ok?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Where is peng? They ok?


I do hope so, pengaleng's a perennially fine poster


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Rutita, you posted an unprovoked dig at another poster, and have proceeded to complain about other posters making ‘unnecessary’ digs, then ‘liked’ a post calling for all to get back on topic, then went and posted another personal dig.
> 
> Are you able to give it a rest Rutita1 ? For one evening maybe?



I can... if you yourself can back the fuck off and not misrepresent what I do and don't post here on an 'evening'.

I have noticed that you yourself have graduated to making actual comments in the last few days rather than simply attacking others which you have done for a good while. I wasn't going to mention it, but hey, if the mud slinging is on...hope your eye also enjoys a hit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> View attachment 121019
> 
> err.



Says another mr sneery, snippy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I can... if you yourself can back the fuck off and not misrepresent what I do and don't post here on an 'evening'.
> 
> I have noticed that you yourself have graduated to making actual comments in the last few days rather than simply attacking others which you have done for a good while. I wasn't going to mention it, but hey, if the mud slinging is on...hope your eye also enjoys a hit.


Some digs necessary I see


----------



## LDC (Nov 21, 2017)

Fucking hell this whole thing is really depressing - the bookfair I mean, not this thread, although some people seem to be trying their best to make it shit as well.


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2017)

What is it about this faultline (“terfs” v trans rights activists ) that makes it so powerfully devisive that everything around it gets trashed? Or is it just a symptom of the time where people can’t debate rationally anymore and disagreement is seen as personal attack.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Says another mr sneery, snippy.


that's all the effort it's worth sometimes. not much point typing out a lengthy explanation why someone's being a bit of a dick when it's that obvious.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> that's all the effort it's worth sometimes. not much point typing out a lengthy explanation why someone's being a bit of a dick when it's that obvious.



Feeling is absolutely mutual.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Feeling is absolutely mutual.



Yes there’s lots of people on here you’re not fond of. 

But perhaps you can open up about those feelings on another thread. 

Might also be worth you reflecting on why you get the same comments from different posters too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I’m just glad that when Rutita1 speaks on behalf of  ‘the rest of us’ and ‘us all’ I’m pretty sure she’s not including me.



Fuck off princess. Feel relevant and suitably adhered and attended  to now? Good.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes there’s lots of people on here you’re not fond of.
> 
> But perhaps you can open up about those feelings on another thread.
> 
> Might also be worth you reflecting on why you get the same comments from different posters too.




Uff. Is that it? There are far more that I appreciate and am fond of. So there you go. Good Shit try.


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2017)

What is wrong with you?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> What is wrong with you?



What is right with you? 

What a silly question? You had no reason to get involved but you did and I am supposed to listen and feel belitted by what it is to be you and your judgements?

What is wrong with you?


----------



## kenny g (Nov 21, 2017)

Absolute bollocks.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 21, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Fucking hell this whole thing is really depressing - the bookfair I mean, not this thread, although some people seem to be trying their best to make it shit as well.


one bit of good news, hopefully thats the last of the statements and open letters


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 21, 2017)

Maybe but I don't think it will be long till the next instalment in this saga and we have another load of them


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2017)

You’ve got this obsession with people trying to belittle you Rutita1 . It’s a bit odd. I just have a problem with your habit of speaking for some imaginary ‘us’, which you do quite a lot.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> You’ve got this obsession with people trying to belittle you Rutita1 . It’s a bit odd. I just have a problem with your habit of speaking for some imaginary ‘us’, which you do quite a lot.



I have no such obsession princess but you crack on thinking you are having an impact and winning around here. Dare I say it's odd? 

The 'us' I referred to in my post to MM is obvious to those of us that he has sneered and pointed at recently.

You keep at this though.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 21, 2017)

ska invita said:


> one bit of good news, hopefully thats the last of the statements and open letters



When I began to read Freedom's statement, I thought they were going to say that they'd organise an anarchist bookfair in london next year


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Of course it makes sense. You are far too nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I don't like them anymore to see how ridiculous your post is. You have been telling others off like your shit don't stink for a good while now... Please do tell us all why you are so fabulous and others are so shit.



This isn’t the general forum.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I have no such obsession princess but you crack on thinking you are having an impact and winning around here.
> 
> The 'us' I referred to in my post to MM is obvious to those of us that he has sneered and pointed at recently.
> 
> You keep at this though.



Princess?


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2017)

Yeah I dunno. It’s her name for me.


----------



## LDC (Nov 21, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> When I began to read Freedom's statement, I thought they were going to say that they'd organise an anarchist bookfair in london next year



I wonder if anyone is going to get one together? It's a massive undertaking to do anything approaching the usual scale, something I think lots of people are clueless about. It'd be pretty easy to have a shit small one though.

Seriously can you lot with this bollocks personal shit fuck off and do it somewhere else? It's fucking embarrassing and disruptive to a sensible discussion.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> .
> 
> Seriously can you lot with this bollocks personal shit fuck off and do it somewhere else? It's fucking embarrassing and disruptive to a sensible discussion.


Done.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yeah I dunno. It’s her name for me.



I wonder where it’s situated on the wheel of oppression.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I wonder if anyone is going to get one together? It's a massive undertaking to do anything approaching the usual scale, something I think lots of people are clueless about. It'd be pretty easy to have a shit small one though.
> .



I imagine a few events are watching and wondering what this means for them.


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> When I began to read Freedom's statement, I thought they were going to say that they'd organise an anarchist bookfair in london next year


they've helpfully highlighted to opportunity for someone else to step up. 

...anyone?


----------



## chilango (Nov 21, 2017)

As far as the Freedom statement goes....

Tbh I was disappointed to see them rush straight into the condemnflation that seems all pervasive these days.

Like whenever there’s a terrorist attack all we see is a queue of people trying to condemn it more strongly than the person before them. Analysis and discussion is lost behind this moral grandstanding.

...and so it seems with the bookfair debacle.

Beyond that, I was also disappointed to see how much the language/tone/vocabulary being used echoes that of the current social media based activism.

But I s’pose that’s the audience the statement is written for.


----------



## Lorca (Nov 21, 2017)

well, i guess anyone who does organize one next year is gonna have to be as clear as they possibly can how to best manage this sort of conflict, i don't particularly envy them that


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 21, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> When I began to read Freedom's statement, I thought they were going to say that they'd organise an anarchist bookfair in london next year



It's more than a bit of a poison chalice now though....


ska invita said:


> freedom statement
> Freedom Collective Statement on the London Anarchist Bookfair



It reads as half written to me. Like someone set out with full and clear intentions and then thought...'that'll do..'

Those leaflets were awful/piss poor however the response to those and other tactics need discussing IMO. 

It's all out anarchy and 'by any means necessary' meaning violence as a means of protest and no platforming or it isn't.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 21, 2017)

It would be a shame not to have a bookfair in 2018 but I think anyone that takes it on is going to have to deal with a lot more than simply organising the event and dealing with the criticisms of the various open letter writers.... Might it be seen as a bit of a betrayal by the bookfair collective also?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2017)

What we need is for the state and police to sort it. Because that’s who’s sorting the trans vs terfs debate on both of their terms, isn’t it?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 21, 2017)

chilango said:


> As far as the Freedom statement goes....
> 
> Tbh I was disappointed to see them rush straight into the condemnflation that seems all pervasive these days.
> 
> ...



The future is a passive aggressive Facebook post stamping on a human face. Forever.


----------



## Athos (Nov 21, 2017)

Edit: Fuck it, I can't be arsed.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What we need is for the state and police to sort it. Because that’s who’s sorting the trans vs terfs debate on both of their terms, isn’t it?



Well the ‘terfs’ aren’t generally anarchists; and expecting police to ‘sort out’ harassment and assault is, er, quite normal.

I’m not sure what your point is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Well the ‘terfs’ aren’t generally anarchists; and expecting police to ‘sort out’ harassment and assault is, er, quite normal.
> 
> I’m not sure what your point is.



Well then you either don’t understand irony, or anarchism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well then you either don’t understand irony, or anarchism.


Or both


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Well the ‘terfs’ aren’t generally anarchists; and expecting police to ‘sort out’ harassment and assault is, er, quite normal.
> 
> I’m not sure what your point is.


Yeh. You've not caught on the opposition anarchists have to the state


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> It would be a shame not to have a bookfair in 2018 but I think anyone that takes it on is going to have to deal with a lot more than simply organising the event and dealing with the criticisms of the various open letter writers.... Might it be seen as a bit of a betrayal by the bookfair collective also?


Have you read the BC statement?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 22, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you read the BC statement?



Yeah when it first came out along with the others.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Yeah when it first came out along with the others.


They don't suggest or imply people organising a bookfair would be betraying them. Whatever gave you such a notion?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 22, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> They don't suggest or imply people organising a bookfair would be betraying them. Whatever gave you such a notion?



It was a question not a statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> It was a question not a statement.


yeh. what prompted you to ask the question? what gave you the idea that they might feel betrayed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

seems to me they're not fussed if people do a bookfair next year. but i suspect the earliest a bookfair might be organised is 2019


----------



## Athos (Nov 22, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> It's more than a bit of a poison chalice now though....
> 
> 
> It reads as half written to me. Like someone set out with full and clear intentions and then thought...'that'll do..'
> ...



Please would you explain what you mean in the last paragraph?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 22, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 121056
> seems to me they're not fussed if people do a bookfair next year. but i suspect the earliest a bookfair might be organised is 2019



Thanks for quoting that. I don't actually remember reading that in the statement. It's good to hear that they would be cool with whoever, if anyone, gives it a go next year.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 22, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. You've not caught on the opposition anarchists have to the state



Well yes, the point being that ‘terfs’ tend not to be anarchists/opposed to the state. So their getting the police involved isn’t really ironic (or particularly unreasonable given the events).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Well yes, the point being that ‘terfs’ tend not to be anarchists/opposed to the state. So their getting the police involved isn’t really ironic (or particularly unreasonable given the events).


i think it would be wholly unreasonable for anyone on the left to get the police involved in a to-do like this


----------



## rich! (Nov 22, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it would be wholly unreasonable for anyone on the left to get the police involved in a to-do like this



Didn't some of the TERFs involved  give police statements?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2017)

rich! said:


> Didn't some of the TERFs involved  give police statements?


Not to mention at least one of the Clapton fans. Not really reasonable in either case


----------



## LDC (Nov 23, 2017)

Something from Dave Douglass as well...

Northern Voices: SORRY END TO A GREAT INSTITUTION


----------



## rich! (Nov 23, 2017)

There's a statement from HSG on their mailing list but I'm embarrassed on their behalf so won't post it up unless they put it on a public site.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2017)

rich! said:


> There's a statement from HSG on their mailing list but I'm embarrassed on their behalf so won't post it up unless they put it on a public site.


out of interest what is HSG?


----------



## Stig (Nov 23, 2017)

ska invita said:


> out of interest what is HSG?


Haringey solidarity Group


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 23, 2017)

rich! said:


> There's a statement from HSG on their mailing list but I'm embarrassed on their behalf so won't post it up unless they put it on a public site.



Oh you tease


----------



## LDC (Nov 23, 2017)

rich! said:


> There's a statement from HSG on their mailing list but I'm embarrassed on their behalf so won't post it up unless they put it on a public site.



Can't be as bad as half the statements put out by other people/groups.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 23, 2017)

chilango said:


> As far as the Freedom statement goes....
> 
> Tbh I was disappointed to see them rush straight into the condemnflation that seems all pervasive these days.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I found the Freedom statement a bit surprising. I'm not even an anarchist and I can see there's potentially a lot of interesting debate to be had about how to collectively self manage conflict. A 'safer spaces' policy is one way, and Freedom seem to be effectively buying into that, but without even noting that there might be other ways to deal with conflict, that the Bookfair Collective might have deliberately chosen another path, and that there might be something up for debate.

I realise I have little personal investment in this debate but as an outsider I'd say not many people have come out of it looking good, and mostly because of an unwillingness to really engage in discussion.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2017)

I think the bookfair collective come out of it very well.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think the bookfair collective come out of it very well.


I dunno. It's easy to say 'we don't have time to address these things, feel free to get involved and address them', but the reality is the terf wars are the most toxic thing going in London activism right now, have resulted in numerous conflicts, the end of various groups, and I think a previous conflict at a bookfair. The idea the BC was taken by surprise by a big hoo-ha over this issue, or were 'too busy' to think how to respond over the last three years did not strike me as particularly plausible - or if true is pretty stupid. It's like the Maldives saying they've been too busy to think about climate change.

I am left with the impression that they did somewhat pick up a side (i.e. comments many would interpret as transphobic are permitted 'free speech' while outright racism, for example, would not be tolerated) but they were not straightforward and open about their position.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I dunno. It's easy to say 'we don't have time to address these things, feel free to get involved and address them', but the reality is the terf wars are the most toxic thing going in London activism right now, have resulted in numerous conflicts, the end of various groups, and I think a previous conflict at a bookfair. The idea the BC was taken by surprise by a big hoo-ha over this issue, or were 'too busy' to think how to respond over the last three years did not strike me as particularly plausible - or if true is pretty stupid. It's like the Maldives saying they've been too busy to think about climate change.
> 
> I am left with the impression that they did somewhat pick up a side (i.e. comments many would interpret as transphobic are permitted 'free speech' while outright racism, for example, would not be tolerated) but they were not straightforward and open about their position.


_trans. _the bookfair collective are either partial, liars, dishonest or stupid.

i've known members of the bookfair collective since my days as a callow youth in haringey anti-poll tax union and i have always known them to be upright, upfront and honest. so you can fuck right off with your accusations of dishonesty, partiality and stupidity.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> _trans. _the bookfair collective are either partial, liars, dishonest or stupid.
> 
> i've known members of the bookfair collective since my days as a callow youth in haringey anti-poll tax union and i have always known them to be upright, upfront and honest. so you can fuck right off with your accusations of dishonesty, partiality and stupidity.


They may well have drifted into the position they took, but they did take a position. Do you see how it looks strange to say they were too busy to address the trans debate and the impact of that on the bookfair?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Yeah, I found the Freedom statement a bit surprising. I'm not even an anarchist and I can see there's potentially a lot of interesting debate to be had about how to collectively self manage conflict. A 'safer spaces' policy is one way, and Freedom seem to be effectively buying into that, but without even noting that there might be other ways to deal with conflict, that the Bookfair Collective might have deliberately chosen another path, and that there might be something up for debate.
> 
> I realise I have little personal investment in this debate but as an outsider I'd say not many people have come out of it looking good, and mostly because of an unwillingness to really engage in discussion.


im not as well read as others but earlier in the year i was reading some colin ward anecdotes about being involved with Freedom in the 60s and the debates that took place, via the letters page, amongst friends, and elsewhere. One thing that struck me was the high level of intellectual engagement with the issues of the day.

Whats happened here is a big deal I think, not just because the bookfair has stopped, but because there are some larger theoretical knots to work through and some anarchism in practice points to really flesh out and rally behind - points that will come up again and again in the near future. I'll do my best to try to get to grips with those on my own but I would look to the likes of freedom to lead from the front, and on that level the statement really disappointed me. Some links to anti-terf articles dont really cut it for me. Maybe this wasnt the time or place. Seems to me their main concern was to underline that Freedom is in no way transphobic, and to distance themselves from the bookfair collective to some degree.

I note at the end it was signed by "Freedom Collective (majority)", and I can imagine that the Minority named in absence meant there was some kind of  fractious debate about all this. I might be making up stories in my head here but i felt the statement had an undertone that was bad tempered and fed up after a painful meeting. No point airing dirty laundry here - I don't really want to know the details - but I do have some sympathy with that. Its a very frustrating situation. That said, beyond statements of support or criticism, I would like to read more thought out analysis. So many anarcho talking points: self-policing, freedom of speech, inclusivity, fragility of organising, conflict resolution, anti-religious banners (  ) etc etc

Also, further to your point brainaddict of "unwillingness to really engage in discussion", i wonder how much the statements etc go in engaging debate with those who disagree with them. My impression is that nothing really gets heard in the trenches.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2017)

It seems a reasonable position to take - _addressing the debate_ appears to take up an unlimited amount of time and energy. Strategically not having the time to address it is just fine IMO.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> They may well have drifted into the position they took, but they did take a position. Do you see how it looks strange to say they were too busy to address the trans debate and the impact of that on the bookfair?


have you ever noticed how run off their feet the bookfair collective are? they facilitate things, or rather they have facilitated things, for numerous organisations both formal and informal. they've done all the hard graft and logistics to get the day arranged. there's 101 things for them to do before they get onto the actual political grievances of potential attendees


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> It seems a reasonable position to take - _addressing the debate_ appears to take up an unlimited amount of time and energy. Strategically not having the time to address it is just fine IMO.



I have the time, but not the inclination.

I simply don’t want to “address the debate” because there’s an awful lot of people acting like dicks and it’s incredibly toxic. Fuck that. At this point I no longer care which side is “right” or what to do about “it”. I’m staying well out of it. I expect others are too.

Of course, I’m no longer an active member of the scene. More a retired observer. So it’s easy for me to do this.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

The leaflet was vile, homophobic and transphobic.

Trans people are in the civil rights stage where white liberals are their biggest enemy.

A well known activist has fallen for what we now call terf propaganda.

Own goals abound.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2017)




----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> A well known activist has fallen for what we now call terf propaganda.


How patronising. If you're talking about Helen Steel here's her statement again, I don't get the impression she's been 'duped' by anyone. 
SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> Trans people are in the civil rights stage where white liberals are their biggest enemy.



Go on...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2017)

chilango said:


> Go on...


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> The leaflet was vile, homophobic and transphobic.
> 
> Trans people are in the civil rights stage where white liberals are their biggest enemy.
> 
> ...



Is this a ‘which of these statements is true?’ game?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

chilango said:


> Go on...






			
				Martin Luther King said:
			
		

> First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is this a ‘which of these statements is true?’ game?



Well, I felt all of them were, but YMMV.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

bimble said:


> How patronising. If you're talking about Helen Steel here's her statement again, I don't get the impression she's been 'duped' by anyone.
> SOLIDARITY WITH HELEN STEEL



The activist was  defending the rights of people to promote homophobic and transphobic hate speech. Read the first paragraph on page 2 of the M4W leaflet.


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> [MLK quote]



What the fuck has that got to do with handing out leaflets/stopping people handing out leaflets at an Anarchist book fair???


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> The activist was  defending the rights of people to promote homophobic and transphobic hate speech. Read the first paragraph on page 2 of the M4W leaflet.



How are you defining hate speech?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

chilango said:


> What the fuck has that got to do with handing out leaflets/stopping people handing out leaflets at an Anarchist book fair???



It was a reference to the on-going issues around trans rights campaigns and campaigners and the reactions to those campaigns from some people identifying as liberals .


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> How are you defining hate speech?


Much the same way as I define pornography. You?


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> Much the same way as I define pornography. You?



Come on. You're the one asserting hate speech. What do you mean by that term?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> Come on. You're the one asserting hate speech. What do you mean by that term?



In this case, the assertion that the creation of transgender rights will eliminate the human rights of women, and the statement that the transgender politic is the anti-female politic. Plus of course "and as such receives blanket support from all male sectors who profit from the elimination of human rights for females: the state, the conservative politic, the liberal politic, the gay politic, the 'queer' politic".

So that's directing hate against identifiable minority groups by claiming that they (a) seek to remove the rights of women, (b) profit from the removal of women's rights, (c) cannot have rights without women's rights being eliminated.

The factsheet from the ECHR is pretty informative on this stuff:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf


----------



## LDC (Nov 24, 2017)

If people are reducing this to just being about a trans vs terf conflict they're mistaken imo.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> In this case, the assertion that the creation of transgender rights will eliminate the human rights of women, and the statement that the transgender politic is the anti-female politic. Plus of course "and as such receives blanket support from all male sectors who profit from the elimination of human rights for females: the state, the conservative politic, the liberal politic, the gay politic, the 'queer' politic".
> 
> So that's directing hate against identifiable minority groups by claiming that they (a) seek to remove the rights of women, (b) profit from the removal of women's rights, (c) cannot have rights without women's rights being eliminated.
> 
> ...



Whilst I don't agree with the leaflet, it's a stretch to describe it as hate speech (which you still haven't defined).


----------



## nyxx (Nov 24, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> If people are reducing this to just being about a trans vs terf conflict they're mistaken imo.



Do you think it is valid to direct any attention to the leaflets which caused the controversy, or not?

Indeed, have you even read the material in question?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> Whilst I don't agree with the leaflet, it's a stretch to describe it as hate speech (which you still haven't defined).



I believe that it represents hate speech. I'm sure there's a definition somewhere if you want to have a legal argument with someone about whether or not it is precisely hate speech. I'm not sure why you don't think it's hate speech - it directs hatred against a group on the grounds of a property of the group and a statement about their collective intentions - which would seem to me to be hate speech?


----------



## LDC (Nov 24, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Do you think it is valid to direct any attention to the leaflets which caused the controversy, or not?
> 
> Indeed, have you even read the material in question?



Yes thanks. Have read the leaflets, was at the bookfair, and witnessed the mess and am involved in some of the ongoing discussions. And yes, valid to criticize the leaflets, but reducing the conflict to just being about trans/terf politics is missing the more complex dynamics that have been bubbling along both in and out of the bookfair for a while.

Did you miss the issues raised about the "Religion is Stupid" banner for example? Do you think that's a distinctly separate thing, or something that has common underlying perspective that might also overlap with the other issues?


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2017)

For me, it’s more about the character of “the scene, wider activism and it’s fellow travellers in recent years.

The book fair incident is just the latest in a increasing line of these types of spectacles.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> I believe that it represents hate speech. I'm sure there's a definition somewhere if you want to have a legal argument with someone about whether or not it is precisely hate speech. I'm not sure why you don't think it's hate speech - it directs hatred against a group on the grounds of a property of the group and a statement about their collective intentions - which would seem to me to be hate speech?



What does "directs hate" mean? Because I suspect that the authors would say that their position isn't an expression of hatred of trans people.   They see women as adult female humans, and argue that, if you redefine that group to include  some males, women (as they see them) cease to exist as a group; a consequence being that, as a group, they cease to have rights.   Whether or not you agree with that line of thought, it's hard to say it's unequivocally hate speech.  And there's compelling arguments (based on the right to freedom of expression) not to expand the definition of hate speech to marginal cases.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> And there's compelling arguments (based on the right to freedom of expression) not to expand the definition of hate speech to marginal cases.


Which is why I referred you to the ECHR factsheet on hate speech.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> Which is why I referred you to the ECHR factsheet on hate speech.



Which doesn't take us anywhere.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> I believe that it represents hate speech. I'm sure there's a definition somewhere if you want to have a legal argument with someone about whether or not it is precisely hate speech. I'm not sure why you don't think it's hate speech - it directs hatred against a group on the grounds of a property of the group and a statement about their collective intentions - which would seem to me to be hate speech?



Do you know what virtue signalling is?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> What does "directs hate" mean? Because I suspect that the authors would say that their position isn't an expression of hatred of trans people.



Yes, they say they have trans friends even. I suspect they are equivocating and some of them do in fact want to stir up hatreds. Do your "suspect" and my "suspect" cancel each other out?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Do you know what virtue signalling is?



Yes, thanks.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> Yes, thanks.



Which is what you’re doing. Fair play that you’re aware you’re doing it.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Which is what you’re doing. Fair play that you’re aware you’re doing it.



I also aspire to "champagne socialist".


----------



## nyxx (Nov 24, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yes thanks. Have read the leaflets, was at the bookfair, and witnessed the mess and am involved in some of the ongoing discussions. And yes, valid to criticize the leaflets, but reducing the conflict to just being about trans/terf politics is missing the more complex dynamics that have been bubbling along both in and out of the bookfair for a while.
> 
> Did you miss the issues raised about the "Religion is Stupid" banner for example? Do you think that's a distinctly separate thing, or something that has common underlying perspective that might also overlap with the other issues?



How is actually debating the content of the leaflets “reducing the debate”? Is there a context in which you do think it’s acceptable to discuss them?
What are you actually getting at with the first post I quoted anyway - is the actual incident and specific campaign group which sparked this off somehow off limits except in specific circumstances now?
I can’t see what else you mean by it, given the placing of it, but if I’ve misunderstood you please elaborate.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> I also aspire to "champagne socialist".



I wasn’t accusing you of that.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I wasn’t accusing you of that.


No, but if I'm virtue signalling I might as well go the whole hog.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> Yes, they say they have trans friends even. I suspect they are equivocating and some of them do in fact want to stir up hatreds. Do your "suspect" and my "suspect" cancel each other out?



No. They demonstrate perfectly that it's a grey area. In your opinion, in such grey areas, would you rather see unpalatable opinions criminalised, or free speech permitted?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> No. They demonstrate perfectly that it's a grey area. In your opinion, in such grey areas, would you rather see unpalatable opinions criminalised, or free speech permitted?



So far the only people who have called the police were the leafleters.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> So far the only people who have called the police were the leafleters.



 They're the ones who've been assaulted.  But, that wasn't the question. What would you prefer?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> They're the ones who've been assaulted.  But, that wasn't the question. What would you prefer?


I don't have to have a preference, thanks.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> I don't have to have a preference, thanks.



That's fine. Unlike the organisers of the bookfair you have the luxury of being able to sit on the fence.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> That's fine. Unlike the organisers of the you have the luxury of being able to sit on the fence.



OK, even if I insert "bookfair" in that sentence you still aren't making a great deal of sense.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> OK, even if I insert "bookfair" in that sentence you still aren't making a great deal of sense.



Ok. We can pretend that if you like.


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> Ok. We can pretend that if you like.



Perhaps you could clearly state your position then? At the moment it just seems you're playing "Socratic shits and giggles" with a string of questions that make me think you're about to try and prove the existence of God.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> Perhaps you could clearly state your position then? At the moment it just seems you're playing "Socratic shits and giggles" with a string of questions that make me think you're about to try and prove the existence of God.



That the leaflet is not 'hate speech' as you claimed. And that, as such, the organisers of the bookfair behaved reasonably on the day, in the circumstances. And that the criticism of them is unjustified. And that such criticism has harmed the anarchist (and broader radical left) movement.

What's yours?


----------



## rich! (Nov 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> That the leaflet is not 'hate speech' as you claimed. And that, as such, the organisers of the bookfair behaved reasonably on the day, in the circumstances. And that the criticism of them is unjustified. And that such criticism has harmed the anarchist (and broader radical left) movement.
> 
> What's yours?



Fair enough. I'd go with "leaflet is hate speech", "leafleteers were trolling and have admitted as much elsewhere", "the organisers fucked up in their response because of understandable loyalty to an old colleague", and I'd actually agree with your very last statement but I'd broaden it to "the entire incident has harmed..."


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Do you think it is valid to direct any attention to the leaflets which caused the controversy, or not?
> 
> Indeed, have you even read the material in question?


Oh dear 

It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than pipe up and prove yourself one, as you have here 

FYI - the leaflets did not cause the controversy


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> OK, even if I insert "bookfair" in that sentence you still aren't making a great deal of sense.



You’re a prick. You only went because it was literally on your doorstep and the pub over the road didn’t suit your middle class tastes so you advised against that to fellow nobheads.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2017)

rich! said:


> Fair enough. I'd go with "leaflet is hate speech", "leafleteers were trolling and have admitted as much elsewhere", "the organisers fucked up in their response because of understandable loyalty to an old colleague", and I'd actually agree with your very last statement but I'd broaden it to "the entire incident has harmed..."



Ok. Leaving aside that those statements turn on the question of what is 'hate speech', which you've declined to clearly define, what response would you have liked from the organisers? To what extent ought they to police the expression of unpopular opinions?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2017)

Why bother? Someone who snootily suggests pubs other than the local one has no business in class politics.


----------



## nyxx (Nov 25, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Do you think it is valid to direct any attention to the leaflets which caused the controversy, or not?
> 
> Indeed, have you even read the material in question?





Pickman's model said:


> Oh dear
> 
> It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than pipe up and prove yourself one, as you have here
> 
> FYI - the leaflets did not cause the controversy



Someone who asserts that the content of the leaflets which sparked this controversy are not worth examining that would make for a damn fine specimen of a complete fool.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

Are the drinks not good enough rich! or is it the clientele you don’t like?


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You’re a prick. You only went because it was literally on your doorstep and the pub over the road didn’t suit your middle class tastes so you advised against that to fellow nobheads.



Thank you. I consider myself blessed.


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Are the drinks not good enough rich! or is it the clientele you don’t like?



You've taken the pub comment to heart. Since it's under discussion, I don't particularly like any of the beer they serve, and the only person I know who drinks there is the last landlord of my local, now long closed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Someone who asserts that the content of the leaflets which sparked this controversy are not worth examining that would make for a damn fine specimen of a complete fool.


The leaflets symptoms of an ongoing controversy, sweetling


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> You've taken the pub comment to heart. Since it's under discussion, I don't particularly like any of the beer they serve, and the only person I know who drinks there is the last landlord of my local, now long closed.


And all the anarchists who supped there


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> You've taken the pub comment to heart. Since it's under discussion, I don't particularly like any of the beer they serve, and the only person I know who drinks there is the last landlord of my local, now long closed.



Probably. You’re taking some bullshit middle class political position which is making me think of your other comments and what they mean in that context.


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Athos said:


> Ok. Leaving aside that those statements turn on the question of what is 'hate speech', which you've declined to clearly define, what response would you have liked from the organisers? To what extent ought they to police the expression of unpopular opinions?



I have no particular view on what the BF organisers should or shouldn't have done in terms of managing their event. Hence not joining in that part of the discussion. 

I have discovered I have a strong view on people who distribute what I believe is hate speech. I'm still somewhat surprised by the amount of ignoring the leaflet content that's going on.


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Probably. You’re taking some bullshit middle class political position which is making me think of your other comments and what they mean in that context.



I'm curious as to why my position is bullshit?


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And all the anarchists who supped there



Who were there on that day, not on the other 364, which are probably the ones I'm referring to...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> I'm curious as to why my position is bullshit?



What’s your position on class politics? Rather than this crap you’re going on about.


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What’s your position on class politics? Rather than this crap you’re going on about.



I wasn't talking about class politics and haven't engaged with that at all here and don't particularly intend to. 

I was talking about the disruption of the bookfair by a group distributing leaflets that were expected to be disruptive, and the fallout from that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> I wasn't talking about class politics and haven't engaged with that at all here and don't particularly intend to.
> 
> I was talking about the disruption of the bookfair by a group distributing leaflets that were expected to be disruptive, and the fallout from that.



Why were you at the book fair then if you have no position on class politics?
Because it’s those people who have thrown it under a bus. And you should fuck off as far as I’m concerned.


----------



## Athos (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> I have no particular view on what the BF organisers should or shouldn't have done in terms of managing their event. Hence not joining in that part of the discussion.
> 
> I have discovered I have a strong view on people who distribute what I believe is hate speech. I'm still somewhat surprised by the amount of ignoring the leaflet content that's going on.



Are people ignoring the content? Or, rather, focusing on resolving the practical dilemma that content posed for the organisers (of which you've opted out, whereas they couldn't)?  Anyway, I"m concentrating on the Ashes, now, so I'll say goodnight to this thread.


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Why were you at the book fair then if you have no position on class politics?
> Because it’s those people who have thrown it under a bus. And you should fuck off as far as I’m concerned.



"Anarchist" bookfair, rather than "Marxist" bookfair, I thought.

Anyway, thanks for your kind wishes. I have no idea what I've done to deserve them but I will treasure them as the kisses of angels.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> "Anarchist" bookfair, rather than "Marxist" bookfair, I thought.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for your kind wishes. I have no idea what I've done to deserve them but I will treasure them as the kisses of angels.



Don’t you run a business and employ people?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

Politics isn’t a fashion statement.


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

Can't work out how to double quote, but Magnus McGinty said:

"Why were you at the book fair then if you have no position on class politics?"

...and then you said...



rich! said:


> "Anarchist" bookfair, rather than "Marxist" bookfair, I thought.



I'd be interested to see you elaborate on that please because it reads very much like you think class is solely a Marxist issue?


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Don’t you run a business and employ people?



...wage ratio about 2, 90% of the shares in the hands of employees, anyone who's been there for more than 3 years is a shareholder, ethical review of work we do...


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Someone who asserts that the content of the leaflets which sparked this controversy are not worth examining that would make for a damn fine specimen of a complete fool.



But nobody, least of all I, said that. I said _reducing_ it to being _solely_ about the leaflets was a mistake.


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

.


----------



## nyxx (Nov 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The leaflets symptoms of an ongoing controversy, sweetling



Do you really think that interspersing all your “points” with insults, derogatory comments & patronising taunts makes them appear stronger?


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Can't work out how to double quote, but Magnus McGinty said:
> 
> "Why were you at the book fair then if you have no position on class politics?"
> 
> ...




I wasn't aware a position on class politics was a requirement for attending the bookfair. I haven't stated a position on class politics.

And I was being slightly facetious there - I am aware class is a major issue in most strands of anarchism but I come to it more from an analysis of power if I had to explain how I got there.


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> I am aware class is a major issue in most strands of anarchism but I come to it more from an analysis of power if I had to explain how I got there.



And what is class if not an analysis of the power differences that make capitalism possible?


----------



## nyxx (Nov 25, 2017)

I did ask you to elaborate on that but it seems you’ve missed that & piled in on someone else’s attack instead... re read the post you were quoting & you’ll see it was in response to “pickmans model”


LynnDoyleCooper said:


> But nobody, least of all I, said that. I said _reducing_ it to being _solely_ about the leaflets was a mistake.


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And what is class if not an analysis of the power differences that make capitalism possible?


Fair point.


----------



## nyxx (Nov 25, 2017)

...contd, to “LynneDoyleCooper”
What I asked of you, is copied here for ease of reference:



nyxx said:


> How is actually debating the content of the leaflets “reducing the debate”? Is there a context in which you do think it’s acceptable to discuss them?
> What are you actually getting at with the first post I quoted anyway - is the actual incident and specific campaign group which sparked this off somehow off limits except in specific circumstances now?
> I can’t see what else you mean by it, given the placing of it, but if I’ve misunderstood you please elaborate.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And what is class if not an analysis of the power differences that make capitalism possible?



Lots to say on how terribly transphobic these anarchists are - but now what? He discouraged people from using a local business to align with his prejudices. What are cunts like this doing at the book fair?


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Lots to say on how terribly transphobic these anarchists are - but now what? He discouraged people from using a local business to align with his prejudices. What are cunts like this doing at the book fair?



Lots to say on the intervention in the bookfair by a transphobic green party member and their colleagues. Can't see where I said all the anarchists are transphobes.

I suggested *other* pubs and gave reasons. Sorry if that fails some test which I wasn't aware of. You've really got a bee in your bonnet about that. Are you the landlord or in some other way losing out from people not spending money in that particular pub?

Also, nice use of language there. Choice insult.

Presumably you'll be operating the thought police at any future radical events to ensure people not aligned with your views are prohibited?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 25, 2017)

rich! said:


> Lots to say on the intervention in the bookfair by a transphobic green party member and their colleagues. Can't see where I said all the anarchists are transphobes.
> 
> I suggested *other* pubs and gave reasons. Sorry if that fails some test which I wasn't aware of. You've really got a bee in your bonnet about that. Are you the landlord or in some other way losing out from people not spending money in that particular pub?
> 
> ...



My issue is that you’re not part of the class struggle so any comment by yourself is irrelevant. This is true for most people that attend the book fair and pretend to be working class so don’t feel hard done by. It died years ago from you tourist cunts.


----------



## rich! (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My issue is that you’re not part of the class struggle so any comment by yourself is irrelevant. This is true for most people that attend the book fair and pretend to be working class so don’t feel hard done by. It died years ago from you tourist cunts.



Oh fine, no worries. I've never pretended to be working class - that would be fecking stupid - and out of courtesy of course I wouldn't attend an event like the one you seem to want it to be.

Personally, I find the existence of an event where a wide range of radical/anarchist thought and material is present and available to be a great thing, and I try and support the various organisations there as best I can within my other constraints. But, y'know, I'm a "tourist c***" so I'm irrelevant to whatever it is you're trying to do.


----------



## Sue (Nov 25, 2017)

Oh you guys. If I can be arsed tomorrow when sober I may just try and explain exactly how annoying this whole discussion has got. #mansplaining.

Otoh, meh.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Can't work out how to double quote, but Magnus McGinty said:


Use +Quote button in bottom RHC


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My issue is that you’re not part of the class struggle so any comment by yourself is irrelevant. This is true for most people that attend the book fair and pretend to be working class so don’t feel hard done by. It died years ago from you tourist cunts.



Why not stop with the class policing and let a discussion happen.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 25, 2017)

So, it would be helpful to the discussion if people wouldn't mind spelling out what they think is being played out upon the peg of this debate*. I don't really understand what's going on politically.

* conflict not debate


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Do you really think that interspersing all your “points” with insults, derogatory comments & patronising taunts makes them appear stronger?


Yeh. You refuse, I see, to deal with the substance of my posts and seem to desire solely to discuss their form.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My issue is that you’re not part of the class struggle so any comment by yourself is irrelevant. This is true for most people that attend the book fair and pretend to be working class so don’t feel hard done by. It died years ago from you tourist cunts.


Eh? How do people stop being part of the class struggle? I was under the impression everyone's in it, some on the side of the boss class and others opposing them.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2017)

For me, it raises questions about the tone and form that (some) activism is taking. Some thoughts springing to the top of my mind include:

This reminds me of stuff I’ve encountered over the years in the NUS. Something about these kind of arenas being “safer” for those seeking to indulge in grandstanding? 
It’s very inward facing. And entirely negative.
The impact of social media - especially Twitter on the tone of contributions and the forming of groups and setting of lines.
Statements. So many fucking statements.
Condemnflation and increasingly prescriptive forms of writing.
...but they’re just thoughts. Of mine. As an observer from a distance. They’re not new to this incident. There've been other examples, increasingly, over recent years. I think both the commentariat thread and the idpol thread also touch on some of this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Someone who asserts that the content of the leaflets which sparked this controversy are not worth examining that would make for a damn fine specimen of a complete fool.


Yeh. I didn't say the contents not worth examining - you're telling lies, my lovely. Your apparent belief that there was no controversy before these leaflets, that these leaflets form the sole bones of contention, that there was no 'terf'/trans beef before: it's bollocks.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 25, 2017)

Books are a distraction from the abolition of class society and the inclusion of the word book in the event name was always going to attract the wrong sort. Maybe just have an Anarchist Fair, Magnus can bring his pigeons.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> Books are a distraction from the abolition of class society and the inclusion of the word book in the event name was always going to attract the wrong sort. Maybe just have an Anarchist Fair, Magnus can bring his pigeons.


We could have a shooting gallery and coconut shy


----------



## newbie (Nov 25, 2017)

chilango said:


> Condemnflation


that's a great, and very apposite, word


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> We could have a shooting gallery



Radical suggestion Pickman's model. About time anarchism got with the programme on drugs legalisation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Radical suggestion Pickman's model. About time anarchism got with the programme on drugs legalisation.


I'm thinking rifles not needles, pg. But I'll meet you halfway with a dreyse needle gun


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 25, 2017)

Well, dirty needles cause problems for both so...yeah.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 25, 2017)

chilango said:


> For me, it raises questions about the tone and form that (some) activism is taking. Some thoughts springing to the top of my mind include:
> 
> This reminds me of stuff I’ve encountered over the years in the NUS. Something about these kind of arenas being “safer” for those seeking to indulge in grandstanding?
> It’s very inward facing. And entirely negative.
> ...



Thanks. 

As an outsider, that's how it appears to me too. I was wondering if I was missing something.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 25, 2017)

I am interested in bimble 's question about why this faultline?   “terfs” v trans rights activists


----------



## nyxx (Nov 25, 2017)

Mis-quoting both what I posted in response to you and what I posted in the first place.
I’ll engage with you again when you can be bothered to read my words properly and take them as they are rather than invent additions to them.



Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I didn't say the contents not worth examining - you're telling lies, my lovely. Your apparent belief that there was no controversy before these leaflets, that these leaflets form the sole bones of contention, that there was no 'terf'/trans beef before: it's bollocks.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I am interested in bimble 's question about why this faultline?   “terfs” v trans rights activists



I’m gonna speculate wildly here...

Both sides “punch above their weight” via social media, enabling an escalation that wouldn’t have been physically possible in the good old days.

#Ciswhitehetmen probably make up a significant proportion of the “scene” still. Add in a strain of liberal politics here and there and generous lashings of middle class guilt and you’ve got the recipe for hesitation, prevarication and an audience for the dispute who are pretty shaky about how to engage with it.

It could’ve, probably has in the past,and probably still will, also flare up around other aspects of identity politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Mis-quoting both what I posted in response to you and what I posted in the first place.
> I’ll engage with you again when you can be bothered to read my words properly and take them as they are rather than invent additions to them.


I haven't misquoted you: and if you're not aiming your comments at me then don't quote me. I've not added or subtracted from your words, so pls stop lying about it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2017)

I think there's a similar faultline - if not as visible right now - around the accommodation of reactionary religion by some in the left (hence the other, smaller flare up about the anti-religion stall)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It died years ago from you tourist cunts.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think there's a similar faultline - if not as visible right now - around the accommodation of reactionary religion by some in the left (hence the other, smaller flare up about the anti-religion stall)


Yeh. That banner's round 11, 12 years auld. It's been there years. The time to object to it was when it was first displayed, not once it's become a fixture. And if religion is so big and intelligent it should be able to take a banner like that in its stride. Btw it wasn't an anti-religion stall as such it was active distribution


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

chilango said:


> I’m gonna speculate wildly here...
> 
> Both sides “punch above their weight” via social media, enabling an escalation that wouldn’t have been physically possible in the good old days.
> 
> ...



And I'd add that it involves a load of people that are genuinely fucked over and traumatized, and who see the other 'side' as being partly complicit (or at least excusing) in that trauma.


----------



## bimble (Nov 25, 2017)

It looks to me like maybe there's also a bit of a generational split going on here as well, like the old (last 40+ years or so) ideas around what gender is and what woman means were more collective socially defined categories seen as imposed from outside by a society that needs changing and the new ideas are different, holding that its up to each individual to define themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. That banner's round 11, 12 years auld. It's been there years. The time to object to it was when it was first displayed, not once it's become a fixture. And if religion is so big and intelligent it should be able to take a banner like that in its stride. Btw it wasn't an anti-religion stall as such it was active distribution


They should put up their brexit one.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And I'd add that it involves a load of people that are genuinely fucked over and traumatized, and who see the other 'side' as being partly complicit (or at least excusing) in that trauma.



It does seem very boundaryless to me, spilling all over the place, pulling people in, excluding others. It's very dramatic.


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> It does seem very boundaryless to me, spilling all over the place, pulling people in, excluding others. It's very dramatic.



Yeah, and there's totally a pattern where some traumatized people re-enact their trauma in various other situations in a really un-boundaried and quite destructive way. (Not to put it all down to that at all of course.)


----------



## bimble (Nov 25, 2017)

^ not helped by the 'pick a side' rhetoric thrown about with abandon, including on here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

bimble said:


> ^ not helped by the 'pick a side' rhetoric thrown about with abandon, including on here.


The auld bushist 'if you're not with me, you're against me'


----------



## Thora (Nov 25, 2017)

bimble said:


> It looks to me like maybe there's also a bit of a generational split going on here as well, like the old (last 40+ years or so) ideas around what gender is and what woman means were more collective socially defined categories seen as imposed from outside by a society that needs changing and the new ideas are different, holding that its up to each individual to define themselves.


Definitely a generational split.  I think the cut off is whether you know what Tumblr is


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

I'm really wary of thinking this is a generational split rather than a political one as it feels like a way of subtly painting 'older people' as wrong and out dated, as well as papering over the politics at the heart of the dispute.

I think while these politics might be more be more common in the 'youth', it's not as much as it can seem, and anyway there's good reasons why it might be more common among people who've grown in a markedly different political time than some folks in their 30s/40s and upwards have.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'm really wary of thinking this is a generational split rather than a political one as it feels like a way of subtly painting 'older people' as wrong and out dated, as well as papering over the politics at the heart of the dispute.
> 
> I think while these politics might be more be more common in the 'youth', it's not as much as it can seem, and anyway there's good reasons why it might be more common among people who've grown in a markedly different political time than some folks in their 30s/40s and upwards have.


it's not generational

from observation on the day there's auld 'terfs' and young 'terfs': and the age distribution of people opposed to them seemed to me equally broad.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2017)

It's a class thing.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2017)

Obviously class.

But also.

There is a generational aspect to it though. Of sorts.

But this isn’t strictly an age thing but rather in terms of “generations of struggle” (clumsy I know). 

Anarchism has been vulnerable to this in the UK for ages because of the weakness of continuity amongst groups and orgs. 

Attrition and the pressures/responsibilities of daily life tend towards a significant proportion of activists dropping off/out as they grow older.

Replaced by newer (usually - but not necessarily at all - younger) activists just starting out.

Much Anarchist activism has been temporally self-contained, with less “passing on” of stuff going on than the Marxist left has traditionally been able to do with the larger presence of organisations they have had. Until recently. Now the the rest of the left is in the same position of having to start again every few years.

So the current crop of activists - who weren’t around for the 80s or 90s and can probably trace their antecedents to the student protests of, what? 2011/12?, are developing tactics and strategies heavily seduced by the “now”. Social media, occupy, etc. with little inherited from the experience of previous waves and few structures from which to do so. 

Ironically the Bookfair was one of the main means through which to try and maintain a thread of continuity within the movement(s).

Maybe?


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2017)

...and of course, now activists can seek out and find other activists with a very narrow line of agreement or whatever online.

Previous generations faced a far greater onus on getting on with the much broader range of views that represented what could be gathered together in the back room of a pub.

Outside London at least.

Which is why most of the spats that did happen, happened in London. Generally.

Plus disputes perpetuated  in the journals and organs that only came out a few times a year were much slower burning iirc.


----------



## JimW (Nov 25, 2017)

Isn't it only apparently generational due to the retreat of the working class over these last decades, i.e. these sort more prominent as our voices have been marginalised?

ETA As in, not seen as a force in society more so no even pandered to by liberal types?


----------



## bimble (Nov 25, 2017)

When people are saying its a class thing you don't mean that one side is working class & the other isn't but that all involved are middle class twits?


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

chilango said:


> Obviously class.
> 
> But also.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's what I meant, a generational thing in terms of how people see politics rather than a simple generational/age thing.


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

bimble said:


> When people are saying its a class thing you don't mean that one side is working class & the other isn't but that all involved are middle class twits?



I think it's largely a class thing, in that it's partly how people see the bigger political picture and social change, and there's two conflicting dynamics broadly. This is basically at the heart of the discussion on the ID politics thread.


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

chilango said:


> So the current crop of activists - who weren’t around for the 80s or 90s and can probably trace their antecedents to the student protests of, what? 2011/12?, are developing tactics and strategies heavily seduced by the “now”. Social media, occupy, etc. with little inherited from the experience of previous waves and few structures from which to do so.



Yeah, totally, it feels like there was quite a gap of 'new activity' between 2003-2009 or so, and then the next generation (for want of a better term) got involved through the student struggles of 2010/2011 and much of the conflicting issues revolve around that generation and the politics and perspectives they brought with them, especially in London.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, totally, it feels like there was quite a gap of 'new activity' between 2003-2009 or so, and then the next generation (for want of a better term) got involved through the student struggles of 2010/2011 and much of the conflicting issues revolve around that generation and the politics and perspectives they brought with them, especially in London.


I don't recognise this gap which omits e.g. the anti-war movement, the g8 in Scotland, the ayn, the g20 etc.


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't recognise this gap which omits e.g. the anti-war movement, the g8 in Scotland, the ayn, the g20 etc.



I did think at the early end it included much of the anti-war movement of 2002/2003 though. (When was the massive anti-war demo in London, as that felt like 'the end' of the movement to some extent.)

Anyway, it wasn't that I felt there wasn't things happening in that gap, but to me the G8 and the other things you mentioned were largely involving people already active, rather than a wave of 'new people'. (And also felt like 'the end' of the wave of large mobilizations of earlier years.)

Anecdotally from the people I chat to many involved in the ideological clashes were alluding to do date their involvement from 2010/11 student wave.

But like I said, more a feeling from personal interactions than absolute fact.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't recognise this gap which omits e.g. the anti-war movement, the g8 in Scotland, the ayn, the g20 etc.



The anti-war movement peaked in 2003 iirc. and because of its size and the a to b marching scope of most of its activities doesn’t really provide any solid link between the activism of the 90s to early 00s and the stuff from this decade imo.

Perhaps the G8 and the G20 stuff provide a continuity of sorts between the summit hopping of the turn of the millennium and the occupy wave. But it’s a slender thread.

But then I was out of the country for the decade so I’m perhaos not best placed to comment


----------



## LDC (Nov 25, 2017)

If we can just blame students and the internet for this mess things would be much easier.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2017)

An example of what I’m talking about would be in in a University city where I was once active we set up an anarchist group largely in isolation. One had previously existed up until a couple of years before, but all its members had dropped out or moved on. When our group similarly disintegrated after a few years none of us remained for the next group which followed a year or two later. 

Probably 15 -20 year’s of activity across the 3 groups but not a single activist (or structure) in common. 

Though I suspect a few old Trots had engaged with all three.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I did think at the early end it included much of the anti-war movement of 2002/2003 though. (When was the massive anti-war demo in London, as that felt like 'the end' of the movement to some extent.)
> 
> Anyway, it wasn't that I felt there wasn't things happening in that gap, but to me the G8 and the other things you mentioned were largely involving people already active, rather than a wave of 'new people'. (And also felt like 'the end' of the wave of large mobilizations of earlier years.)
> 
> ...


Forgetting the schoolchildren who came out against the war, for example. Frankly I'd be better pleased if as many people out in the August of '11 had found their way into the movement as came from the student demos


----------



## campanula (Nov 25, 2017)

Mmm - don't recall significant gaps either...although I do remember the wholesale decamping to environmentalism (Climate Camp et al) which certainly influenced  the emergent political awareness of my offspring.
I did come of age (politically) in the 70s - the heyday of (sometimes uneasy) alliances and coalitions   reproductive rights, wages for housework,, Stonewall, unionism and housing rights)...and even then, the fracture lines between, say, the Grunwick workers and the blatant profiteering of scummy landlords were being submerged in an increasingly individualistic, therapy fixated floating of the identity galleon. Thatcher certainly kickstarted another round of a more materialist analysis ( recognisable, to this wc single parent vaguely hippified waster) The feminist movement was my first bewildering betrayal, mind. Cycles round though.


----------



## rich! (Nov 26, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> It's a class thing.


Sorry, what part of the argument between transgender people and feminists is a class thing? Genuine question because I totally dont get this.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 26, 2017)

Made the guardian..

Transgender rights row intensifies as book fair is cancelled


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 26, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Made the guardian..
> 
> Transgender rights row intensifies as book fair is cancelled


Which predictably presents it as a consumer rights issue


----------



## Nice one (Nov 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i've known members of the bookfair collective since my days as a callow youth in haringey anti-poll tax union and i have always known them to be upright, upfront and honest. so you can fuck right off with your accusations of dishonesty, partiality and stupidity.



putting aside the very large elephant in the room, when a young female immigrant woman of colour was systematically bullied by a group of white males (when she was part of a long running anarchist institution) the only person who stood up for her was the main organiser of the bookfair.

Given that the anarchist scene seem aggrieved over excluding persecuted minortities i think it's time that this woman's story needs to be made very public. And all those involved, however partial, need to be confronted.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2017)

Tell the story then.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Made the guardian..
> 
> Transgender rights row intensifies as book fair is cancelled



I can't tell if people are being misquoted or if what they are saying is just nonsense.
Eg)
"A 27-year-old anarchist and trans person who hosted a talk at the fair said she was disappointed in the decision of the organisers, which she said reflected their inability to show a united front against leafleteers.
“But I’m disappointed in so many people criticising them into that position too,” she added.
“The book fair situation shows the need for people to pick a side – that not picking a side is just not good enough. ."


----------



## LDC (Nov 26, 2017)

rich! said:


> Sorry, what part of the argument between transgender people and feminists is a class thing? Genuine question because I totally dont get this.



Sure butchersapron will be along to say what he meant by it, but for me while this doesn't explain _all _the nuance of individual disputes and disagreements that fall under the trans/radfem conflict, underneath this row (and is mirrored by a wider ideological battle) are two fundamental ways of understanding the world; a materialist anarchist/communist class perspective that's rooted in solidarity, collective struggle, and freedom - or a identity politics outlook that's rooted in individual difference and rights.

It's related to the destruction of class as a political category, a surge in individualism, the unquestioning support for State multiculturalism on the left, a lack of collective memory of mass struggle, a disillusionment with the possibility of social change, etc.

Urgh, too early and not enough coffee to be doing this.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 26, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> This doesn't explain _all _the nuance of individual disputes and disagreements that fall under the trans/radfem conflict, but for me underneath this row (and is mirrored by a wider ideological battle) are two fundamental ways of understanding the world; a materialist anarchist/communist class perspective that's rooted in solidarity, collective struggle, and freedom - or a identity politics outlook that's rooted in individual difference and rights.
> 
> It's related to the destruction of class as a political category, a surge in individualism, the unquestioning support for State multiculturalism on the left, a lack of collective memory of mass struggle, a disillusionment with the possibility of social change, etc.



how does that explain the first groups to criticise the bookfair were bristol af, edinburgh af, class war, libcom, and other class struggle anarchy group subsequently coming out in support of the critical bookfair statement?

The argument that this is somehow a more elaborate version of lifestyle anarchism v class struggle anarchism doesn't fit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Sure butchersapron will be along to say what he meant by it, but for me while this doesn't explain _all _the nuance of individual disputes and disagreements that fall under the trans/radfem conflict, underneath this row (and is mirrored by a wider ideological battle) are two fundamental ways of understanding the world; a materialist anarchist/communist class perspective that's rooted in solidarity, collective struggle, and freedom - or a identity politics outlook that's rooted in individual difference and rights.
> 
> It's related to the destruction of class as a political category, a surge in individualism, the unquestioning support for State multiculturalism on the left, a lack of collective memory of mass struggle, a disillusionment with the possibility of social change, etc.
> 
> Urgh, too early and not enough coffee to be doing this.


Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if many positions on this were determined at least as much by who is mates / enemies with who as the actual politics of the thing


----------



## LDC (Nov 26, 2017)

Nice one said:


> how does that explain the first groups to criticise the bookfair were bristol af, edinburgh af, class war, libcom, and other class struggle anarchy group subsequently coming out in support of the critical bookfair statement?
> 
> The argument that this is somehow a more elaborate version of lifestyle anarchism v class struggle anarchism doesn't fit.



Like I said, I don't think it explains the whole thing (and I'm simplifying it for brevity), and some political groups and people have reconciled the two perspectives for sure. But there's also a current within anarchism that has taken on identity politics wholesale, and some of the people from that are in some of those groups.

And while some elements are more complex I think one of the differences that goes with the dispute is a difference in how different perspectives are regarded and discussed. So, one of the things that I see as a difference between the perspectives is one where some tendencies have an expansive view of the world where it's possible to differ but still be on the same side, whereas the other is much more closed and protective of its boundaries.

I also agree with Pickman's model that this has a huge chunk of personal connections related shit going on as well.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2017)

Nice one said:


> how does that explain the first groups to criticise the bookfair were bristol af, edinburgh af, class war, libcom, and other class struggle anarchy group subsequently coming out in support of the critical bookfair statement?
> 
> The argument that this is somehow a more elaborate version of lifestyle anarchism v class struggle anarchism doesn't fit.



From a distance (it must be stressed) it appears that plenty of ostensibly “class struggle” groups have either - as LynnDoyleCooper says above - either collectively or via weight of individuals within them taken up elements of stuff in common with idpol in varying degrees. 

It may be that newer activists - often those within the most “energy” - have come from the same source as those pushing idpol.

It may be - as seems to be the case with groups like Plan C - there is already a theoretical commitment to some of the same “subjects” as the idpol crowd. Even if coming from a autonomish rather than liberal perspective?

I don’t know what’s going on in the AF or CW, perhaps someone involved wants to explain?

I’ve heard nothing from the IWW or SolFed yet.

Whatever, I don’t think all this started with the bookfair incident. Nor is it confined to anarchism.

But I do think the Anarchist movement here (and it’s fellow travellers) is small enough, and weak enough right now, to take a real big hit from all of this. 

Does that matter anymore?


----------



## LDC (Nov 26, 2017)

And so many of these anarchist groups are tiny (a few people, a handful at most) it's quite easy for them to have a couple of people really influence the outlook.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2017)

...and as far as the personal connections stuff. Absolutely. As has always been the case. Hence my point above about most earlier spats being based in London. Usually (though not always) the only place with a big enough scene to accommodate personal disputes without the scene collapsing.

I do wonder (repeatedly I know!) whether the ease of communication and building personal profiles and networks online has now enabled the geographical diffusion if personal based disputes.

Regardless, that’s here to stay. For better or worse.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And so many of these anarchist groups are tiny (a few people, a handful at most) it's quite easy for them to have a couple of people really influence the outlook.



The whole point of the national orgs (IMO) is to provide a continuity, a “line”... a counter-balance to the ever changing responsiveness of the more ad hoc groups that appear and fade like mushrooms on an autumn morning... “let a thousand fungi bloom” - if they fall prey to a handful of people’s “whims” then what’s the point in them?

I think I’ve had too much coffee.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2017)

Most sections of most anarchist federations are really just a facebook page sharing stuff they have been sent, a poorly maintained blog and one person animating a tiny group of people - four or five at most. Their name appended to a statement has no real weight. It doesn't represent a generational change, the birth of a new theoretical movement or approach or anything beyond what has annoyed them this week.


----------



## Athos (Nov 26, 2017)

Also, I'm sure that some of the endorsements of the open letter don't reflect unanimity within the group whose view the signature purports to represent.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 26, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Why not stop with the class policing and let a discussion happen.



Fair enough, I’d had a drink and was wound up by it all which isn’t the best situation for discussion.



Sue said:


> Oh you guys. If I can be arsed tomorrow when sober I may just try and explain exactly how annoying this whole discussion has got. #mansplaining.
> 
> Otoh, meh.



I’d like to hear it if you still want to.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Most sections of most anarchist federations are really just a facebook page sharing stuff they have been sent, a poorly maintained blog and one person animating a tiny group of people - four or five at most. Their name appended to a statement has no real weight. It doesn't represent a generational change, the birth of a new theoretical movement or approach or anything beyond what has annoyed them this week.



and yet they managed to put an end to the anarchist bookfair (the last, in fact the only, visible sign the uk had an anarchist movement at all). That's a mighty bit of class power for a couple of facebook pages. 

I think it was four afed groups who produced and signed the letter of disassociation - which shouldn't have been enough for the bookfair people to throw the towel in (two other anarchy groups signed the open letter), it was probably the deafening silence of every other anarchy group in the country failing to show support that killed it. As faultlines go that's pretty emphatic. 

What do you think annoyed those four af groups that week to make such a move?


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> it was probably the deafening silence of every other anarchy group in the country failing to show support that killed it.



Absolute bollocks.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Absolute bollocks.



are you involved in now or never?


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> are you involved in now or never?



Not quite sure what you're trying to say there because as seven words on their own they make no sense, but as far as the bookfair goes I'm pretty sure, from knowing people who have been long term supporters of it, that the organisers would have had plenty of support from individual anarchists and groups who have been regular attenders and who see the bookfair as perhaps the only platform they have to get their message across to lots of people. And these same people and groups would have seen the destruction of the bookfair as being caused by the triumph of individual identity politics arguments over anarchism. Your representation of anarchism as being the sole preserve of two facebook pages and a dog does a massive disservice to those who have stood up for noble anarchist causes for years. And that's why you're talking bollocks.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 27, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Not quite sure what you're trying to say there because as seven words on their own they make no sense, but as far as the bookfair goes I'm pretty sure, from knowing people who have been long term supporters of it, that the organisers would have had plenty of support from individual anarchists and groups who have been regular attenders and who see the bookfair as perhaps the only platform they have to get their message across to lots of people. And these same people and groups would have seen the destruction of the bookfair as being caused by the triumph of individual identity politics arguments over anarchism. Your representation of anarchism as being the sole preserve of two facebook pages and a dog does a massive disservice to those who have stood up for noble anarchist causes for years. And that's why you're talking bollocks.


Nah its more that those groups who signed the statement condemning the bookfair organisers represented at best three people and a dog.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 27, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Nah its more that those groups who signed the statement condemning the bookfair organisers represented at best three people and a dog.


The current tally on the open letter

*Adam Ma’anit
anarchwaethus
Andrea L
Architectural Workers
Artists Against Prisons
Base – Publication
Bridget Hart
Brighton Anti-Raids
Brighton Solfed
Bristol People of Colour Collective
CHARMPIT
East End Sisters Uncut
English Collective of Prostitutes
Enragés
Fiona Broadhurst
Fourth Wave: London Feminist Activists
Giz Medium
Global Women’s Strike
Haringey Anti-Raids
Hydra Books
Jacob V Joyce
Jamie Scott
Jewdas
Kevin Sanders
London ABC
London Queer Picnic
Members of 56a Infoshop Collective
Mental Health Under Capitalism
North London Food Not Bombs
Objects of Desire
Payday (a network of men working with the Global Women’s Strike)
Salvage Collective
Silver Press
Simon Barron
Sisters Uncut – North London
Sisters Uncut – South East London
Sorry You Feel Uncomfortable
STRIKE Magazine
Stephanie Webber
SWARM (Sex Worker Advocacy and Resistance Movement)
Trans Survival Trans Defence
Queer Strike
Queerspace East
Will Sharkey
Women of Colour in the Global Women’s Strike*


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> The current tally on the open letter
> 
> *Adam Ma’anit
> anarchwaethus
> ...


Which open letter's this? With all the statements I'm a little confused


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

And what happened to Edinburgh Antifa/Anarchists who I thought started the ball rolling iirc?


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Not quite sure what you're trying to say there because as seven words on their own they make no sense, but as far as the bookfair goes I'm pretty sure, from knowing people who have been long term supporters of it, that the organisers would have had plenty of support from individual anarchists and groups who have been regular attenders and who see the bookfair as perhaps the only platform they have to get their message across to lots of people. And these same people and groups would have seen the destruction of the bookfair as being caused by the triumph of individual identity politics arguments over anarchism. Your representation of anarchism as being the sole preserve of two facebook pages and a dog does a massive disservice to those who have stood up for noble anarchist causes for years. And that's why you're talking bollocks.



you've got 2 public statements of criticism signed by groups. One is a statement of disassociation signed by several anarchy groups. The other is a open letter signed by a collection of groups and individuals (only two i recognise as anarchy groups). That's a total of 7 anarchy groups unhappy with the anarchist bookfair (all as it happens class struggle anarchist groups - i don't know if that has significance, you'd have to tell me).

On the other side one group Now or Never, an anarchist magazine from Norfolk publically stated their support for the bookfair organisers (maybe there has been more i don't know).

It wasn't my representation.

Question is would the bookfair organisers have thrown in the towel if they had known they had the public support, however critically, of the vast majority of the existing, active anarchy groups. That's the silence that is deafening.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Which open letter's this? With all the statements I'm a little confused


Response to London Anarchist Bookfair 2017


----------



## LDC (Nov 27, 2017)

I personally think that no Bookfair next year was the only position (and I think the right decision) the organisers could have taken given the circumstances as any Bookfair in 2018 would have ended up in a confrontation and been a disaster.

And even ignoring those political circumstances them not doing one for personal reasons would have been just as understandable position as who's going to want to put themselves through the inevitable vitriol they'd get for going ahead?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 27, 2017)

Magnus>>>


LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Edinburgh and Merseyside AF statement of disassociation from the Bookfair...
> Statement of Dissociation from the London Anarchist Bookfair


link not loading for me but im on a really shit computer atm


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

There’s too many wankers on the left. They’re mostly interested in attacking others on the left than actually engaging with the class, afaict.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> and yet they managed to put an end to the anarchist bookfair (the last, in fact the only, visible sign the uk had an anarchist movement at all). That's a mighty bit of class power for a couple of facebook pages.
> 
> I think it was four afed groups who produced and signed the letter of disassociation - which shouldn't have been enough for the bookfair people to throw the towel in (two other anarchy groups signed the open letter), it was probably the deafening silence of every other anarchy group in the country failing to show support that killed it. As faultlines go that's pretty emphatic.
> 
> What do you think annoyed those four af groups that week to make such a move?


They didn't. You, in your role of pop-bitch anarchist gossiper, should know this. As part of your multi-year anarchist-huff did you not argue that all anarchist groups were full of class fakers and so had no real existence - and non league football is now where it's at? Now they are expressions of class power apparently.

Don't 'i think' - get it right or don't say it. The lack of public vocal support can quite easily be put down to the lack of experience as to how  respond to stuff like this - or understanding of expectations - or even the methods used to publicise  this condemnation. Maybe not. But to assume as you do is ridiculous and quite probably a result of a political life spent only where there are formal organisations and positions and you revolve around it - negatively for you.

What annoyed those groups? I've just argued that i'm not sure they're groups at all.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> The current tally on the open letter
> 
> *Adam Ma’anit
> anarchwaethus
> ...



I wish all these groups the best in organising what will obviously be a successful alternative to the bookfair next year and for many years after.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't. You, in your role of pop-bitch anarchist gossiper, should know this. As part of your multi-year anarchist-huff did you not argue that all anarchist groups were full of class fakers and so had no real existence - and non league football is now where it is? Now they are expressions of class power apparently.
> 
> Don't 'i think' - get it right or don't say it. The lack of public vocal support can quite easily be put down to the lack of experience as to how  respond to stuff like this - or understanding of expectations - or even the methods used to publicise  this condmenation.. Maybe not. But to assume as you do is ridiculous and quite probably a result of a political life spent only where there are formal organisations and positions and you revolve around it - negatively for you.
> 
> What annoyed those groups? I've just argued that i'm not sure they're groups at all.





You've made a career out of london anarchist gossip. Tell me about your anarchism. This happened on your watch. Your class struggle. Where is it now?

I haven't spoke to an anarchist in 5 years.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> are you involved in now or never?


He thinks you may be involved in a Norwich anarchist group and is ready to deploy some gossip against you. Possibly followed up by some vague suggestions of you not being from a w/c background and him really knowing what's going on.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> You've made a career out of london anarchist gossip. Tell me about your anarchism. This happened on your watch. Your class struggle. Where is it now?
> 
> I haven't spoke to an anarchist in 5 years.


The huff speaks. Every anarchist thread - the goss -_ i know more than you. I know you're not really w/c. I love soccer. No, football! Def football._


----------



## Athos (Nov 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The lack of public vocal support can quite easily be put down to the lack of experience as to how  respond to stuff like this - or understanding of expectations - or even the methods used to publicise  this condemnation.



It's even more simple then that; people are scared of being slurred as bigots.


----------



## LDC (Nov 27, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> I wish all these groups the best in organising what will obviously be a successful alternative to the bookfair next year and for many years after.



Be interesting to see (a) how many people those groups add up to, (b) how many of that total were at the Bookfair, and (c) how many of them are anarchists.

Well, when I say groups, 12 (maybe more) out of 44 signatories on that list are individuals.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Magnus>>>
> 
> link not loading for me but im on a really shit computer atm


This lot, how many do they represent?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's even more simple then that; people are scared of being slurred as bigots.



This. It’s easier for people not to stick their oar in if it just means they’ll be denounced as transphobes.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 27, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's even more simple then that; people are scared of being slurred as bigots.


Its got to the point of being scared of being walloped.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't. You, in your role of pop-bitch anarchist gossiper, should know this. As part of your multi-year anarchist-huff did you not argue that all anarchist groups were full of class fakers and so had no real existence - and non league football is now where it's at? Now they are expressions of class power apparently.
> 
> Don't 'i think' - get it right or don't say it. The lack of public vocal support can quite easily be put down to the lack of experience as to how  respond to stuff like this - or understanding of expectations - or even the methods used to publicise  this condemnation. Maybe not. But to assume as you do is ridiculous and quite probably a result of a political life spent only where there are formal organisations and positions and you revolve around it - negatively for you.
> 
> What annoyed those groups? I've just argued that i'm not sure they're groups at all.



what is _stuff like this_. Stuff like what? What is it your anachist movement is dealing with right now? 

This is what you said: Most sections of most anarchist federations are really just a facebook page sharing stuff they have been sent, a poorly maintained blog and one person animating a tiny group of people - four or five at most. Their name appended to a statement has no real weight. It doesn't represent a generational change, the birth of a new theoretical movement or approach or anything beyond what has annoyed them this week.

- so if the real weight doesn't lie with these anarchist federation sections, where does the real weight lie?
- What annoyed them. The groups (one person and a facebook page maybe but they are political expression of a federated organisation of anarchists. They pays subs, they vote at conference etc), you claim something has annoyed them this week. That's a claim. What is it that has annoyed them this week?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> what is _stuff like this_. Stuff like what? What is it your anachist movement is dealing with right now?
> 
> This is what you said: Most sections of most anarchist federations are really just a facebook page sharing stuff they have been sent, a poorly maintained blog and one person animating a tiny group of people - four or five at most. Their name appended to a statement has no real weight. It doesn't represent a generational change, the birth of a new theoretical movement or approach or anything beyond what has annoyed them this week.
> 
> ...


You claimed this was 'class power' - is it? Considering your record of claiming these groups are powerless and ghosts. What's changed in between your previous reading and now?


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You claimed this was 'class power' - is it? Considering your record of claiming these groups are powerless and ghosts. What's changed in between your previous reading and now?



these are class struggle anarchist groups we're talking about, they're doing it for _the class. 
_
Don't make stuff up, your claim is these anarchist federation groups have no weight, who has the weight?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> these are class struggle anarchist groups we're talking about, they're doing it for _the class.
> _
> Don't make stuff up, your claim is these anarchist federation groups have no weight, who has the weight?


Your claim is that these groups - who i have accurately characterised above - represent class power. They don't. Of course the idea is to suggest that everyone but you who has ever been involved in anarchism - organised or not - is shit and a fraud, a sell out and inconsistent. There are many other agendas at work here from the obvious one.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Your claim is that these groups - who i have accurately characterised above - represent class power. They don't. Of course the idea is to suggest that everyone but you who has ever been involved in anarchism - organised or not - is shit and a fraud, a sell out and inconsistent. There are many other agendas at work here from the obvious one.



oh fuck off  answer a straight question.

yes they don't represent class power that's the point. Which of course you knew. They have built a political identity out of_ imagining _they do, that is the point. It terms of class dynamics this gives them the opportunity to revert back to class type while retaining their social status within that political environment.

Tell us those agendas then, spill yr guts.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice one said:


> oh fuck off  answer a straight question.
> 
> yes they don't represent class power that's the point. Which of course you knew. They have built a political identity out of_ imagining _they do, that is the point. It terms of class dynamics this gives them the opportunity to revert back to class type while retaining their social status within that political environment.
> 
> Tell us those agendas then, spill yr guts.


...and we're back in the room - when you suggested they represented class power - enough at least to kill the bookfair, you didn't think they really did? That's playing both sides of the cake isn't it? When someone else suggests that this signing up to statements under collective names doesn't mean much then they're wrong.

Your agenda is simply to suggest that everyone else is shit and you're great in a great big multi-year huff that we'll never hear the end of.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 27, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> ...and we're back in the room - when you suggested they represented class power - enough at least to kill the bookfair, you didn't think they really did? That's playing both sides of the cake isn't it? When someone else suggests that this signing up to statements under collective names doesn't mean much then they're wrong.
> 
> Your agenda is simply to suggest that everyone else is shit and you're great in a great big multi-year huff that we'll never hear the end of.





i've never seen you squirm so much, you've got no ammunition have you, no new gossip.

what is _stuff like this_. Stuff like what? What is it your anachist movement is dealing with right now?

This is what you said: Most sections of most anarchist federations are really just a facebook page sharing stuff they have been sent, a poorly maintained blog and one person animating a tiny group of people - four or five at most. Their name appended to a statement has no real weight. It doesn't represent a generational change, the birth of a new theoretical movement or approach or anything beyond what has annoyed them this week.

- so if the real weight doesn't lie with these anarchist federation sections, where does the real weight lie?
- What annoyed them. The groups (one person and a facebook page maybe but they are political expression of a federated organisation of anarchists. They pays subs, they vote at conference etc), you claim something has annoyed them this week. That's a claim. What is it that has annoyed them this week?


----------



## TopCat (Nov 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Magnus>>>
> 
> link not loading for me but im on a really shit computer atm


The page is not there.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 27, 2017)

Looks like the No Flag site which hosts the Edinburgh site is out of action as a whole:
https://noflag.org.uk/


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's even more simple then that; people are scared of being slurred as bigots.



what utter bollocks


----------



## Athos (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> what utter bollocks



I know from speaking to people that that's the reason some are keeping their head below the parapet.  Whether or not you agree doesn't really matter to me.


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> what utter bollocks


It’s not bollocks at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> It’s not bollocks at all.


Oh yes it is


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2017)

This isn’t a panto.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> It’s not bollocks at all.



How many anarchist groups do you think sat down after the bookfair and decided collectively that they wouldn't say anything about this because they are too scared of being called bigots by the scary transpeople


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

They might not want to be associated with the bigots who wrote that leaflet but thats a different thing entirely


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2017)

I’m not that interested in anarchist groups statements to be honest more talking about people in general, particularly women, of whom I know many keep quiet on this topic for just this reason, fear of being called bigots, as has happened here . For instance I think Helen Steels actions took a lot of courage.


----------



## Athos (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> They might not want to be associated with the bigots who wrote that leaflet but thats a different thing entirely



Is it though? I'm sure there's lots of people who would be very quick to point to slur as bigots anyone who defended the collective, even if they disgusted with the content of the leaflets.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How many anarchist groups do you think sat down after the bookfair and decided collectively that they wouldn't say anything about this because they are too scared of being called bigots by the scary transpeople



Maybe not groups but I would imagine that was a factor in the statement in support of the bookfair being unsigned? (another factor being that people just don't want to be identified as anarchists for the usual reasons).

Solidarity with the London Anarchist Bookfair


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How many anarchist groups do you think sat down after the bookfair and decided collectively that they wouldn't say anything about this because they are too scared of being called bigots by the scary transpeople



Seems to me that there is a real readiness by both sides to call each other, and bystanders, bigots and that readiness is on display in this post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2017)

Athos said:


> Is it though? I'm sure there's lots of people who would be very quick to point to slur as bigots anyone who defended the collective, even if they disgusted with the content of the leaflets.


I'm not noticing anyone calling me a bigot for defending the collective.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2017)

On the one side, all women and on the other all transpeople.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

Oh yes it ... sorry.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Maybe not groups but I would imagine that was a factor in the statement in support of the bookfair being unsigned? (another factor being that people just don't want to be identified as anarchists for the usual reasons).
> 
> Solidarity with the London Anarchist Bookfair



I'd be very surprised if it was.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I'd be very surprised if it was.



Oh come on, there’s a whole section of the left that throw around bigotry accusations against anyone not deemed to be toeing the line. It’s embarrassing. It isn’t a libertarian position I recognise either. It’s authoritarian crap.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Oh come on, there’s a whole section of the left that throw around bigotry accusations against anyone not deemed to be toeing the line. It’s embarrassing. It isn’t a libertarian position I recognise either. It’s authoritarian crap.



I'm not denying that, I'm denying that the kind of long standing organised anarchist groups who attend the bookfair are quite that cowed by a few kids on twitter.  And those leaflets were bigotry, plain and simple - this is not a borderline matter, those leaflets claimed any legal protections against discrimination for transpeople, or changes to make it easier for them to identify as they choose, is rape culture - with all that implies. Is it any wonder that a marginalised group should react aggresively when they are constantly smeared as being rapists if they try to fight for their rights?


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2017)

Do you think Helen Steel is a bigot?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> Do you think Helen Steel is a bigot?


Has she associated herself with the contents of the leaflets?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> Do you think Helen Steel is a bigot?



Honestly I haven't talked to her about it so I don't know.  But that leaflet and the fact she's been retweeting the group it came from is sadly not a good look as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Has she associated herself with the contents of the leaflets?


Yes, insomuch as she says (quoting again her statement):

None of them call for violence against trans identifying people, obviously I would not have supported them if they had.
Refusing to validate other people’s belief systems is not the same as threatening to harm them.
Bullying people to force them to accept your views does harm people.
If you think that other people should not be allowed to question your ideology, it makes you an authoritarian NOT an anarchist.


----------



## Athos (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And those leaflets were bigotry, plain and simple - this is not a borderline matter, those leaflets claimed any legal protections against discrimination for transpeople, or changes to make it easier for them to identify as they choose, is rape culture - with all that implies. Is it any wonder that a marginalised group should react aggresively when they are constantly smeared as being rapists if they try to fight for their rights?



It's not saying trans women are rapists (though some are). It's saying that the forced removal of women's right to set boundaries as they see fit i.e. based on their sex (which, incidentally is very different from policing gender), is rape culture.  I don't agree with the much of the content of the leaflets, but your attempt to mischaracterise them (and gender critical women) is dishonest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yes, insomuch as she says (quoting again her statement):
> 
> None of them call for violence against trans identifying people, obviously I would not have supported them if they had.
> Refusing to validate other people’s belief systems is not the same as threatening to harm them.
> ...


I am surprised you didn't quote the points actually dealing with the leaflets. And *in context* the first point you quote relates to supporting the right of women to distribute the leaflets


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I'm not denying that, I'm denying that the kind of long standing organised anarchist groups who attend the bookfair are quite that cowed by a few kids on twitter.  And those leaflets were bigotry, plain and simple - this is not a borderline matter, those leaflets claimed any legal protections against discrimination for transpeople, or changes to make it easier for them to identify as they choose, is rape culture - with all that implies. Is it any wonder that a marginalised group should react aggresively when they are constantly smeared as being rapists if they try to fight for their rights?



Call me a purist, but anarchists fighting their battles through Parliamentary legislation is a new one on me also.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's not saying trans women are rapists (though some are).



Important qualifier that is it?  Needed to be said? Shown your true colours once more you nasty piece of work.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 27, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Call me a purist, but anarchists fighting their battles through Parliamentary legislation is a new one on me also.



I'm not sure many anachists campaigned for this consulation.  And the people actively opposing it aren't anarchists, although this didn't stop them turning up at the bookfair.


----------



## Athos (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Important qualifier that is it?  Needed to be said? Shown your true colours once more you nasty piece of work.



It's fairly important to, say, women who are expected to share intimate spaces with rapists.  But I guess their fears can be dismissed, eh? Not important.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I'm not sure many anachists campaigned for this consulation.  And the people actively opposing it aren't anarchists, although this didn't stop them turning up at the bookfair.



Non anarchists bringing their parliamentary beef to the book fair which is then supported by anarchists, then.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

I think the problem with anarchism is anyone can rock up and start chatting shit and then that becomes anarchism. What a mess.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2017)

There is  nothing at all problematic with anarchists discussing the law and how it impact w/c people. This is a worthless utterly pointless dead end.

You're right magnus -  anyone.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

Of course not, but the wider picture is it’s just rights activism. Which is a dead end as you well know.


----------



## rich! (Nov 27, 2017)

It's kind of hard to read this paragraph as anything other than bigotry:



			
				mayday4women said:
			
		

> Because the transgender politic is the anti-female politic and as
> such receives blanket support from all male sectors who profit from
> the elimination of human rights for females: the state, the
> conservative politic, the liberal politic, the gay politic, the
> "queer" politic, academia, business, commerce, media.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2017)

Let’s split the class down further so we have more sides to choose from.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 28, 2017)

ska invita said:


> The current tally on the open letter
> 
> *Adam Ma’anit
> anarchwaethus
> ...


How many people do these groups represent?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 28, 2017)

TopCat said:


> How many people do these groups represent?


200? thats a rough guestimate


----------



## TopCat (Nov 28, 2017)

Well fuck them (and the horse they rode in on).


----------



## ska invita (Nov 28, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 28, 2017)

TopCat said:


> How many people do these groups represent?


Half of them or more I've never heard of


----------



## TopCat (Nov 28, 2017)

It will be interesting to see how the strategy employed by the trans activists goes down in the wider world.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 28, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Half of them or more I've never heard of


Class War put out some comment but I think via face book.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 28, 2017)

Class War have come out on the side of the trans activists. I understand why but I think it’s a mistake for any organisation with class politics at the forefront to start going down these divisive routes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Class War have come out on the side of the trans activists. I understand why but I think it’s a mistake for any organisation with class politics at the forefront to start going down these divisive routes.


Yeh class war have always been unifiers in the past


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Class War have come out on the side of the trans activists. I understand why but I think it’s a mistake for any organisation with class politics at the forefront to start going down these divisive routes.


Laughing stock


----------



## Red Sky (Nov 28, 2017)

TopCat said:


> How many people do these groups represent?



Brighton Anti Raids is certainly defunct.


----------



## bimble (Nov 28, 2017)

TopCat said:


> It will be interesting to see how the strategy employed by the trans activists goes down in the wider world.


This bookfair debacle is just a microcosm of what’s happening in ‘the wider world’ isn’t  it ? Certainly not the start of anything new.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 28, 2017)

bimble said:


> This bookfair debacle is just a microcosm of what’s happening in ‘the wider world’ isn’t  it ? Certainly not the start of anything new.



Well the eternal hope is to build a bottom up movement to oppose capital. So I’m perplexed at these fringe of the fringe manoeuvres.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 28, 2017)

But not surprised.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well the eternal hope is to build a bottom up movement to oppose capital. So I’m perplexed at these fringe of the fringe manoeuvres.


For the left and the anarchist scene the fringe is centre stage


----------



## LDC (Nov 28, 2017)

.


----------



## LDC (Nov 28, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> Brighton Anti Raids is certainly defunct.



As are many of the 'groups' that have signed it I suspect. Or at best a few people.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 28, 2017)

London ABC would seem to be inactive too: Update September 2017 | London Anarchist Black Cross


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 28, 2017)

.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 28, 2017)

Im not sure this brushing aside of the 'critics' is useful even if it feels good. Its out there and a sufficient number of people feel that way to make it an issue, including a raft of people who don't get to sign statements.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Im not sure this brushing aside of the 'critics' is useful even if it feels good. Its out there and a sufficient number of people feel that way to make it an issue, including a raft of people who don't get to sign statements.



And there’s an even more significant amount of people who are sick to the back teeth of it, who are being welcomed into the ‘alt’ right as a backlash against it. I’d say that is more worthy of our attention.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Im not sure this brushing aside of the 'critics' is useful even if it feels good. Its out there and a sufficient number of people feel that way to make it an issue, including a raft of people who don't get to sign statements.


Anarchists tend to just represent themselves traditionally. Signing up to a statement at a moments notice on behalf of a "group" is designed to add weight which is worth looking at if the group is defunct or has one member.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 29, 2017)

We’re being crushed, and a group of people calling themselves the left are running about calling each other transphobes.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Im not sure this brushing aside of the 'critics' is useful even if it feels good. Its out there and a sufficient number of people feel that way to make it an issue, including a raft of people who don't get to sign statements.



I think it’s certainly worth noting that Brighton Solfed and Sisters Uncut are very active. 

It is a bit unethical to sign up to a statement like that if you’re not anarchists (Salvage), or have yourself broken one of the demands of the letter (the guy who photographed Jon Active) or are signing as a group which is defunct. 

This is a separate issue from the criticisms themselves, but using an open letter is a tactic that the signatories have adopted, so it is reasonable to discuss whether or not it lends weight to what they are saying. 

And it’s a mixed bag.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 29, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it’s certainly worth noting that Brighton Solfed and Sisters Uncut are very active.
> 
> It is a bit unethical to sign up to a statement like that if you’re not anarchists (Salvage), or have yourself broken one of the demands of the letter (the guy who photographed Jon Active) or are signing as a group which is defunct.
> 
> ...


i agree to an extent...you could go further than that even and talk  about some of the individuals in certain groups, and get quite personal in denouncing and dismissing them...ultimately though there is a significant amount of dissatisfaction and it includes majoroties at freedom, cw, 56a, hydra, plus loads of others.  I  take your point top cat, people should sign as individuals, with organisations in brackets. Ultimately we know there is real criticism out there from a good number of real people and it will need addressing one day if the london A book fair comes back, and by existing other bookfairs.


----------



## LDC (Nov 29, 2017)

ska invita said:


> i agree to an extent...you could go further than that even and talk  about some of the individuals in certain groups, and get quite personal in denouncing and dismissing them...ultimately though there is a significant amount of dissatisfaction and it includes majoroties at freedom, cw, 56a, hydra, plus loads of others.  I  take your point top cat, people should sign as individuals, with organisations in brackets. Ultimately we know there is real criticism out there from a good number of real people and it will need addressing one day if the london A book fair comes back, and by existing other bookfairs.



The criticism of this wider issues this raises have been knocking about for ages, and to me it's quite clear that the Bookfair_ has_ addressed them in the way it's run the event.

The conflict is the way the Bookfair Collective have chosen to do this (which to my mind is entirely reasonable, pragmatic, and politically acceptable) is not the way some people want it done (and I can't see any workable suggestions that these people have made as to how to exactly implement a 'safer spaces'/banning things policy on such a huge scale).

As has been pointed out it couldn't be done at the AFem event a few years ago which was much smaller, much more consistent politically, and less open to the public.


----------



## Red Sky (Nov 29, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it’s certainly worth noting that Brighton Solfed and Sisters Uncut are very active.




Rumour has it that the Brighton SolFed decision was far from unanimous.


----------



## Red Sky (Nov 29, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> London ABC would seem to be inactive too: Update September 2017 | London Anarchist Black Cross



Was a bit miffed to see them on there at all , given their lack of support or interest in anti fascist prisoners.


----------



## Red Sky (Nov 29, 2017)

.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And there’s an even more significant amount of people who are sick to the back teeth of it, who are being welcomed into the ‘alt’ right as a backlash against it. I’d say that is more worthy of our attention.


Is the alt-right a growing thing among the working classes? My understanding (and the people I've met who're into it) is that it's a middle class phenomenon - a sort of mirror of the liberal left.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> Is the alt-right a growing thing among the working classes? My understanding (and the people I've met who're into it) is that it's a middle class phenomenon - a sort of mirror of the liberal left.


What, backwards? The illiberal right are often to be found in the tory party, you don't need to look much further right for their beginning.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> Is the alt-right a growing thing among the working classes? My understanding (and the people I've met who're into it) is that it's a middle class phenomenon - a sort of mirror of the liberal left.



An example would be Tommy Robinson now hitting a much wider audience. I see him shared on social media by people who aren’t fash, I hear him mentioned in the pub. Unlike the 57 varieties of signatory we see above.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2017)

is alt-right just an umbrella term for any far right activity now?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> is alt-right just an umbrella term for any far right activity now?



I’m using it as the package rebranding of Robinson into a journalist. Isn’t it? Fuck knows then.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 29, 2017)

The EDL wasn't alt-right as I understand it. 

But Tommy is obviously trying to get in with the alt-right through things like Rebel Media.


----------



## bimble (Nov 29, 2017)

I think 'alt-right' is a shit term, its what they coined for themselves to make it sound new and edgy, and something to do with keyboards.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2017)

he's not got the clothes for it. Would need a makeover


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think 'alt-right' is a shit term, its what they coined for themselves to make it sound new and edgy, and something to do with keyboards.


Ctrl+alt+right then <delete>


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> he's not got the clothes for it. Would need a makeover


Broad arrows would suit him


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m using it as the package rebranding of Robinson into a journalist. Isn’t it? Fuck knows then.


Should probably avoid letting Robinson 'rebrand'.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> Should probably avoid letting Robinson 'rebrand'.



Seems people are more concerned with branding feminists as fascists and denouncing bookfairs to be troubled by an actual fascist now having a wider audience and his views becoming normalised.


----------



## Red Sky (Nov 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Seems people are more concerned with branding feminists as fascists and denouncing bookfairs to be troubled by an actual fascist now having a wider audience and his views becoming normalised.



That's always been the way.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 29, 2017)

Why though? I can’t work out whether it’s down to ‘interference’ or parts of the movement are genuinely this stupid. I don’t want to Class police which was pointed out earlier but there’s obviously people involved who aren’t interested in class struggle generally so are happy with the state of affairs of competing rights in place of class politics.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2017)

Peace News have published all the main statements in their current issue with this bit of editorial
How to destroy our own movements | Peace News

a good stab at trying to think through where the line is on stopping free speech (and culture of no platforming etc) and argues against the idea that the offending leaflets were "violent".

Worth reading the whole thing, but this section is key


> When should free speech be limited? Chomsky stands with the US supreme court ruling of 1969 which said that speech should always be protected from legal punishment except when people are trying to incite, and likely to produce, ‘imminent lawless action’ with their words. According to this standard, the law should not be used to stop or punish speech that justifies or advocates oppressive violence in general. The law should only be used against speech when those words are being used to try to start an actual violent attack right here, right now (‘imminently’).
> 
> Whatever else you might say about them, none of the gender-related leaflets passed out at the bookfair either justified or tried to incite anti-trans violence. The nearest the bookfair came to imminent violence was when 30 people surrounded Helen Steel.
> 
> ...



...it leaves unanswered who is the judge of hate speech. 

The editorial quotes Chomsky quoting and siding with US law. 
The UK has Hate Speech laws which I doubt would kick in over this leaflet
Then there are our own standards....


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

The whole concept that the leaflets were violence justifying violent response is fucking stupid. The repeated view that any debate is violence is also fucking stupid and wrong. 

On a slightly tangental point, the statement that Freedom collective put out is bonkers Bruno. I wonder who wrote it for them?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

The idea that not validatating someone else's belief system (because you think it harms the rights of others) amounts to fascism and/or violence is insulting to people who've been on the receiving end of/stood up to fascist violence.  It's just another mantra that's repeated until weak-minded liberals are guilted into accepting it, or others are bullied into doing so.  I don't agree with all the content of those leaflets, but they don't come close to violence.  They certainly don't justify the actual violence against women that was the response from some TRAs.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

> The idea that not validatating someone else's belief system (because you think it harms the rights of others) amounts to fascism and/or violence is insulting to people who've been on the receiving end of/stood up to fascist violence.



You sound like an 80s Tory clown ranting about the gays.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You sound like an 80s Tory clown ranting about the gays.



Except that wasn't the basis of 80s Tory clowns' rants against 'the gays'.

But you knew this. You've just chosen to attempt to smear, rather than to engage in discussing the actual point.

Do you think distributing the leaflets is an act of violence, perpetrated by fascists?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Except that wasn't the basis of 80s Tory clown' s rant against 'the gays'.
> 
> But you knew this. You've just chosen to attempt to smear, rather than to engage in discussing the actual point.



Of course it was, they were forever ranting on about gay ideology and belief systems which harmed children and society


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Of course it was, they were forever ranting on about gay ideology and belief systems which harmed children and society



This is women organising to protect their rights. A very different situation. 

Do you think distributing the leaflets is an act of violence, perpetrated by fascists?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Interesting counterpoint here about what happened when some trans-activists, including children, tried to do the same as the bookfair leafleters at a trans exclusionary radfam event



> The group bought a 16-year-old trans girl to the MWMF ticket booth and informed them that they were from Camp Trans and that they had a trans youth with them. While the MWMF sold everyone in the group tickets, the moment the group of Avengers entered the gates, TERFs began trailing the youth shouting, “MAN ON THE LAND!” This continued until the group turned into a mob that had surrounded the youth, screaming at her until MWMF security moved everyone to a tent where the trans youth was made to stand in front of an enormous group of TERFs who spent the next 2 hours berating her.  One adult openly threatened the life of the youth without consequence. The youth was marched to the gates of the festival and expelled.



The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival: The historic RadFem vs TERF vs Trans fight


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> This is women organising to protect their rights. A very different situation.
> 
> Do you think distributing the leaflets is an act of violence, perpetrated by fascists?



That was a certain view of society protecting their rights, and Christians protecting their rights, and tories protetcing childrens rights not to be exposed to perversion in schools.  If course the threat was non-existent, much like the current scare-mongering.

I think the leaflet, and particularly  the fact it was stuck up in the toilets, was likely to have made transpeople at the bookfair feel unsafe and unwelcome.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 1, 2017)

There’s pricks on both sides but I don’t get why someone would turn up somewhere where there’d be hostility. Unless they didn’t know there would be I suppose.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think the leaflet, and particularly  the fact it was stuck up in the toilets, was likely to have made transpeople at the bookfair feel unsafe and unwelcome.



I completely agree with that.

I also think that a binary view of something either being violence or not isn't helpful.

ETA - what I mean is that there are degrees. Hitting someone is obviously violence.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Interesting counterpoint here about what happened when some trans-activists, including children, tried to do the same as the bookfair leafleters at a trans exclusionary radfam event
> 
> 
> 
> The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival: The historic RadFem vs TERF vs Trans fight



Are you being disingenuous, or do you really not understand the difference between the ideas that: a) an anarchist bookfair should be open to a range of opinions; and, b) women should be able to organise on the basis of excluding those they consider men?  Would you force women to accept those they consider men into their intimate spaces?  In law? With physical force?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think the leaflet, and particularly  the fact it was stuck up in the toilets, was likely to have made transpeople at the bookfair feel unsafe and unwelcome.



I agree.  That wasn't the question, though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I completely agree with that.
> 
> I also think that a binary view of something either being violence or not isn't helpful.


Yeah, the leaflet was total crap. But the response by some has been equally crap. Both camps showing a conspicuous absence of solidarity.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You sound like an 80s Tory clown ranting about the gays.


You are playing the cunt deliberately.


----------



## chilango (Dec 1, 2017)




----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Are you being disingenuous, or do you really not understand the difference between the ideas that: a) an anarchist bookfair should be open to a range of opinions; and, b) women should be able to organise on the basis of excluding those they consider men?  Would you force women to accept those they consider men into their intimate spaces?  In law? With physical force?



The anarchist bookfair has never been open to a range of opinions - thats why the trots have a stall outside.  Demanding that the state is the only body which can decide someone's gender identity doesn't strike me as very anarchist before you even get to how those leaflets might have made some people feel.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I completely agree with that.
> 
> I also think that a binary view of something either being violence or not isn't helpful.
> 
> ETA - what I mean is that there are degrees. Hitting someone is obviously violence.


Categorically there is Violence (which is what the main critical most-signed open letter claimed the leaflets were), Hate Speech and then what...Being Unwelcoming? Where is the line to be drawn and how to judge it?
From the critical open letter:


> This is unacceptable behaviour and a form of *violence *directed at trans people. The contents of the leaflets are not simply a “perspective” or a “viewpoint” but are a form of ignorance, *violence and aggression* directed specifically at trans women........Worse still, as we saw this weekend, organisers have stepped in to defend and support those who use oppressive, *violent* and dehumanising language to perpetuate racist, colonial and patriarchal systems of oppression.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The anarchist bookfair has never been open to a range of opinions - thats why the trots have a stall outside.  Demanding that the state is the only body which can decide someone's gender identity doesn't strike me as very anarchist before you even get to how those leaflets might have made some people feel.


Still playing the cunt eh?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The anarchist bookfair has never been open to a range of opinions - thats why the trots have a stall outside.  Demanding that the state is the only body which can decide someone's gender identity doesn't strike me as very anarchist before you even get to how those leaflets might have made some people feel.



Another strawman.  They were protesting the plans of the state to redefine 'woman'.

I don't like how those leaflets might have made some people feel, but can't help but think that prioritising the feelings of a handful of people who were born male and socialised as boys and men over the concerns and rights of an enormous number of women is quite telling.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 1, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Categorically there is Violence (which is what the main critical most-signed open letter claimed the leaflets were), Hate Speech and then what...*Being Unwelcoming? Where is the line to be drawn and how to judge it?*
> From the critical open letter:



Imagine it had said...

_*This is unacceptable behaviour and a form of attack directed at trans people. The contents of the leaflets are not simply a “perspective” or a “viewpoint” but are a form of ignorance and aggression directed specifically at trans women........Worse still, as we saw this weekend, organisers have stepped in to defend and support those who use oppressive and dehumanising language to perpetuate racist, colonial and patriarchal systems of oppression.*_

Would that be more acceptable? _Unwelcoming_ is achieved in many ways, most successfully by negatively focusing on/targeting individuals/groups.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

I think most people here would agree with this from Engels:




			
				Friedrich Engels  - Condition of the Working Class in England said:
			
		

> When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society 35 places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live – forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence – knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.
> 
> I have now to prove that society in England daily and hourly commits what the working-men's organs, with perfect correctness, characterise as social murder, that it has placed the workers under conditions in which they can neither retain health nor live long; that it undermines the vital force of these workers gradually, little by little, and so hurries them to the grave before their time. I have further to prove that society knows how injurious such conditions are to the health and the life of the workers, and yet does nothing to improve these conditions. That it knows the consequences of its deeds; that its act is, therefore, not mere manslaughter, but murder, I shall have proved, when I cite official documents, reports of Parliament and of the Government, in substantiation of my charge.



So clearly there is violence which is not hitting people. 

Handing out leaflets which call for the extermination of Jews is in my book an act of violence which justifies a physically violent response. 

The difficulty here is that the TERFs (genuinely or disingenuously) state that they are simply raising concerns about changes in the law.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Another strawman.  They were protesting the plans of the state to redefine 'woman'.
> 
> I don't like how those leaflets might have made some people feel, but can't help but think that prioritising the feelings of a handful of people who were born male and socialised as boys and men over the concerns and rights of an enormous number of women is quite telling.



How do you know that the proportions work like that? Is it a handful of people vs an enormous number of women?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think most people here would agree with this from Engels:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's no sensible comparison between these leaflets and a call to exterminate Jews.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't like how those leaflets might have made some people feel, but can't help but think that prioritising the feelings of a handful of people who were born male and socialised as boys and men over the concerns and rights of an enormous number of women is quite telling.



And so everything is permitted. If a couple of non-anarchist women turn the bookfair into a space that effectively excludes trans-people that is entirely justified.  If trans children are threatened for trying to leaflet somewhere that is fine too.  The rights of this handful of radical feminists supercedes everything because they are the fearless warriors protecting women who mostly couldn't give a shit (Topshop was busy this weekend) from a handful of male socialised ideologues.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> There's no sensible comparison between these leaflets and a call to exterminate Jews.



Well there is a sensible comparison in that both examples are of leaflets. So my point is that leaflets can be considered violence in some situations. Perhaps not this one, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> How do you know that the proportions work like that? Is it a handful of people vs an enormous number of women?



How do I know that the number of trans women attending the bookfair who were upset by the leaflets is vastly smaller than the number of women in the UK whose rights will be affected by the proposed changes in the law? Seriously?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Categorically there is Violence (which is what the main critical most-signed open letter claimed the leaflets were), Hate Speech and then what...Being Unwelcoming? Where is the line to be drawn and how to judge it?
> From the critical open letter:



Being unwelcome can mean being exluded, especially if people feel nervous about even going to the fucking toilet.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well there is a sensible comparison in that both examples are of leaflets. So my point is that leaflets can be considered violence in some situations. Perhaps not this one, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.



Fair enough. That I would agree.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And so everything is permitted. If a couple of non-anarchist women turn the bookfair into a space that effectively excludes trans-people that is entirely justified.  If trans children are threatened for trying to leaflet somewhere that is fine too.  The rights of this handful of radical feminists supercedes everything because they are the fearless warriors protecting women who mostly couldn't give a shit (Topshop was busy this weekend) from a handful of male socialised ideologues.



Again, another strawman.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Imagine it had said...
> 
> _*This is unacceptable behaviour and a form of attack directed at trans people. The contents of the leaflets are not simply a “perspective” or a “viewpoint” but are a form of ignorance and aggression directed specifically at trans women........Worse still, as we saw this weekend, organisers have stepped in to defend and support those who use oppressive and dehumanising language to perpetuate racist, colonial and patriarchal systems of oppression.*_
> 
> Would that be more acceptable? Unwelcoming is achieved in many ways, most successfully by negatively focusing on/targeting individuals/groups.


It would be a lot better, yes...(it still includes the word aggression though) and without it would be a sign of a different understanding of what was going on. 
Peace News has a historic focus on dynamics of violence and conflict resolution - the editorial argues that the use of the word and understanding of it as Violence justifies violence in return by the transactivists:


> If you choose to define oppressive speech as violence, and if you accept the right of violent self-defence, then it is justified to carry out violence against pretty much everyone, because we all say things that are oppressive or that can be seen as oppressive.


That seems to describe where we are with not just this situation but a lot of online debate, which although happening virtually is quick to resort to aggressive/threatening exchanges.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> How do I know that the number of trans women attending the bookfair who were upset by the leaflets is vastly smaller than the number of women in the UK whose rights will be affected by the proposed changes in the law? Seriously?



The fact of the leaflets being handed out may have upset people who didn't attend. I am trying to gauge how representative TERFs are of women generally I guess. There seem to be a large number of women who accept that transwomen are women - here are quite a lot of them signing a letter to that effect:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/11/2...s-the-times-over-attacks-on-transgender-teen/


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

ska invita said:


> It would be a lot better, yes...(it still includes the word aggression though) and without it would be a sign of a different understanding of what was going on.
> Peace News has a historic focus on dynamics of violence and conflict resolution - the editorial argues that the use of the word and understanding of it as Violence justifies violence in return by the transactivists:
> 
> That seems to describe where we are with not just this situation but a lot of online debate, which although happening virtually is quick to resort to aggressive/threatening exchanges.


to me that snippet from peace news is taking the piss, by expanding the point to its ludicrous but logical conclusion. it's not justifying violence. you're having a laugh.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Again, another strawman.



Not at all, it is what you have argued consistently.  Every single time someone points out the bigotry that underlies a lot of terf ideology you have defended them, with this line.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> The fact of the leaflets being handed out may have upset people who didn't attend. I am trying to gauge how representative TERFs are of women generally I guess. There seem to be a large number of women who accept that transwomen are women - here are quite a lot of them signing a letter to that effect:
> 
> http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/11/2...s-the-times-over-attacks-on-transgender-teen/



Yeah, loads do.  But lots don't.  Ultimately, I'd like to see the former group persuade the latter.   But not bully and railroad.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Sue said:


> Oh you guys. If I can be arsed tomorrow when sober I may just try and explain exactly how annoying this whole discussion has got. #mansplaining.
> 
> Otoh, meh.


Sue? I guess you've decided that, on balance, meh.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Not at all, it is what you have argued consistently.  Every single time someone points out the bigotry that underlies a lot of terf ideology you have defended them, with this line.



I've defended the right of gender critical women (some of whom you seem to implicitly acknowledge aren't bigots) to discuss what it means to be a woman, without being threatened, bullied, harassed, or assaulted. The fact that you consistently seek to smear me by mischaracterising that position demonstrates your dishonesty and the weakness of your arguments.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Being unwelcome can mean being exluded, especially if people feel nervous about even going to the fucking toilet.


Pure newspeak. You attempt to stretch the meaning of words to the point where they lose any value.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> to me that snippet from peace news is taking the piss, by expanding the point to its ludicrous but logical conclusion. it's not justifying violence. you're having a laugh.


when people act violently against others they justify it in their minds...what do you think  the justificational thought process is for both aggressive radfems and transactivists? Im pretty sure its one of 'self-defence against equally violent ideas/words'
?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> I've defended the right of gender critical women (some of whom you seem to implicitly acknowledge aren't bigots) to discuss what it means to be a woman, without being threatened, bullied, harassed, or assaulted. The fact that you consistently seek to smear me by mischaracterising that position demonstrates your dishonesty and the weakness of your arguments.



One of they key problems is that a proportion of people engaging in that "discussion" have already made up their minds and will never change them.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> I've defended the right of gender critical women (some of whom you seem to implicitly acknowledge aren't bigots) to discuss what it means to be a woman, without being threatened, bullied, harassed, or assaulted. The fact that you consistently seek to smear me by mischaracterising that position demonstrates your dishonesty and the weakness of your arguments.



How many people have been assaulted?  One as far as I can tell, in the history of trans-activism and yet you consistently push this as the norm.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How many people have been assaulted?  One as far as I can tell, in the history of trans-activism and yet you consistently push this as the norm.


Threatening bullying and harassing is fine then, long as nobody gets physically assaulted. This whole thing is so depressing.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

It's depressing because there are elements of both sides which feel that the core of their identities are being threatened.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Pure newspeak. You attempt to stretch the meaning of words to the point where they lose any value.



Not at all.  Transwomen face abuse constantly, both for being women and for being trans.  The people behind that leaflet have one intention, and that is to incite fear of and hatred towards trans-people, that's one of the reasons the leaflet is so dishonest.  If it goes unchallenged (and I'm not saying I entirely agree with how that happened) then how do you think a transwoman, new to anarchism, might feel about the movement if she went to the loo and saw them stuck up everywhere?  Do we really want to allow non-anarchists to make anachists feel unsafe or unwelcome at our events?  

I don't agree with much of the open letter (either the contents or as a tactic) and am sad the bookfair is no more, but I find the apologism, or undermining of the damage that could be done to people by this leaflet and the group behind it pretty depressing.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How many people have been assaulted?  One as far as I can tell, in the history of trans-activism and yet you consistently push this as the norm.



No, that's a lie.  I don't portray physical assault as the norm.  But it's one end of a spectrum of behaviour that TRAs have normalised, and which also includes rape and death threats, doxxing, intimidation and bullying.  All with the intention of silencing women who dissent.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> One of they key problems is that a proportion of people engaging in that "discussion" have already made up their minds and will never change them.



True. There's a relatively small number at either end of the spectrum of women's opinion who'll never compromise (or empathise).  But, given the issue - what is a woman - has the potential to affect the much larger group between those poles, the debate should be allowed, in my opinion. The idea that simply having that discussion is violence to trans women is nonsense.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> No, that's a lie.  I don't portray physical assault as the norm.  But it's one end of a spectrum of behaviour that TRAs have normalised, and which also includes rape and death threats, doxxing, intimidation and bullying.  All with the intention of silencing women who dissent.



You've claimed on this thread the leafleters were assaulted yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.  And how is it normalised if it has only happened once in the history of the world?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> True. There's a relatively small number at either end of the spectrum of women's opinion who'll never compromise (or empathise).  But, given the issue - what is a woman - has the potential to affect the much larger group between those poles, the debate should be allowed, in my opinion. The idea that simply having that discussion is violence to trans women is nonsense.



Well I think that discussion is going to take place no matter what. Same as the discussion on immigration. Will either of these, can either of these, be sensible discussions in good faith?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The people behind that leaflet have one intention, and that is to incite fear of and hatred towards trans-people...



How do you know that? 




smokedout said:


> If it goes unchallenged (and I'm not saying I entirely agree with how that happened)...



How should it have been challenged? 




smokedout said:


> I don't agree with much of the open letter (either the contents or as a tactic)...



What do you think the organisers should have done?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You've claimed on this thread the leafleters were assaulted yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.  And how is it normalised if it has only happened once in the history of the world?



I said it's part of a range of behaviour that's been normalised.  (Not that I accept your proposition that its only happened once, in any event.)


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well I think that discussion is going to take place no matter what. Same as the discussion on immigration. Will either of these, can either of these, be sensible discussions in good faith?



 Sadly, I doubt it. Not whilst so many in the trans lobby consider the act of discussing  what it means to be a woman as bigotry or even violence.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Sadly, I doubt it. Not whilst so many in the trans lobby consider the act of discussing  what it means to be a woman as bigotry or even violence.



Which is exacerbated by "so many" in the radfem/TERF lobby insisting that transwomen are men and saying that the legal proposals are "rape culture".


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Has anybody got an idea of why this is all about women? Is it that men just don't care because a trans man isn't any kind of a threat or are trans men just a lot less vocal about their rights and less visible on the internet etc.


----------



## chilango (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Has anybody got an idea of why this is all about women? Is it that men just don't care because a trans man isn't any kind of a threat or are trans men just a lot less vocal about their rights and less visible on the internet etc.



Is there a "male" equivalent of a TERF?


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

TEMRAs? don't think so.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Which is exacerbated by "so many" in the radfem/trans lobby insisting that transwomen are men and saying that the legal proposals are "rape culture".



The idea that trans women are men is their position in the discussion; they have a differing philosophical and political conception of what a woman is. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it's qualitatively different from trying to prevent women having the debate at all.  If you're going to allow women to have the debate, you have to accept that some women disagree with you. You can't liken that disagreement to, say, death threats.


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> The idea that trans women are men is their position in the discussion; they have a differing philosophical and political conception of what a woman is. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it's qualitatively different from trying to prevent women having the debate at all.  If you're going to allow women to have the debate, you have to accept that some women disagree with you. You can't liken that disagreement to, say, death threats.


Oh come on. The reactionary TERF argument as presented in those leaflets wasn't trying to 'have a debate,' they were trying to be deliberately provocative, almost as if they purposely wanted to avoid an actual debate.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> The idea that trans women are men is their position in the discussion; they have a differing philosophical and political conception of what a woman is. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it's qualitatively different from trying to prevent women having the debate at all.  If you're going to allow women to have the debate, you have to accept that some women disagree with you. You can't liken that disagreement to, say, death threats.



I (if you mean me personally) haven't mentioned death threats.

"Their position in the discussion" would seem to be at variance with the equality act? Would you be so cavalier about positions which infringed the other protected characteristics?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> Oh come on. The reactionary TERF argument as presented in those leaflets wasn't trying to 'have a debate,' they were trying to be deliberately provocative, almost as if they purposely wanted to avoid an actual debate.



They're at one extreme of the debate. I've already expressed my disapproval for the wording of the leaflets.


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> They're at one extreme of the debate. I've already expressed my disapproval for the wording of the leaflets.


And that extreme is being allowed to lead the debate, at least within 'left' circles.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I (if you mean me personally) haven't mentioned death threats.
> 
> "Their position in the discussion" would seem to be at variance with the equality act? Would you be so cavalier about positions which infringed the other protected characteristics?



The Equality Act doesn't prohibit private individuals from holding philosophical positions.  Sex is also a protected characteristic.  That shouldn't be redefined (e.g. through changes to the Gender Recognition Act) in a cavalier fashion (i.e. without women having the opportunity to discuss it), either.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> And that extreme is being allowed to lead the debate, at least within 'left' circles.



Yes, the two extremes.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> The Equality Act doesn't prohibit private individuals from holding philosophical positions.  Sex is also a protected characteristic.  That shouldn't be redefined (e.g. through changes to the Gender Recognition Act) in a cavalier fashion (i.e. without women having the opportunity to discuss it), either.



OK, I'm not a lawyer  and actually on reflection recourse to the law isn't that great a position anyway.

Can we agree that some philosophical positions have more potential than others to cause harm in the real world, or for victimised groups to view as deeply suspect?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> And that extreme is being allowed to lead the debate, at least within 'left' circles.



Is that what all those signatories and letters of disassociation represent?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> OK, I'm not a lawyer  and actually on reflection recourse to the law isn't that great a position anyway.
> 
> Can we agree that some philosophical positions have more potential than others to cause harm in the real world, or for victimised groups to view as deeply suspect?



With regards to real-world harm, causation is tricky one, but, with some reservations, I would say that characterisation is broadly correct.

You might need to be a bit more specific about "view as deeply suspect".  But, if you mean something like 'are anathema to the intetests of' I'd agree that, too.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Has anybody got an idea of why this is all about women? Is it that men just don't care because a trans man isn't any kind of a threat or are trans men just a lot less vocal about their rights and less visible on the internet etc.


It comes from femminist theory and practice much of which has been predicated on the basis that women are oppressed by men. 
To ask femminists to accept that  a person can decide for themselves to be a woman despite having no physical characteristics resembling a woman, not having been born a woman or socialised as a woman was always going to face resistence. 
That the rad fems are at the forefront of this is hardly surprising. The bedrock of their behaviours has always been a loathing of men. 
Trans activists demanding that trans women's voices are more legitimate than womens voices was just throwing more fuel on the fire.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> Oh come on. The reactionary TERF argument as presented in those leaflets wasn't trying to 'have a debate,' they were trying to be deliberately provocative, almost as if they purposely wanted to avoid an actual debate.


Oh come now. If the women concerned had scheduled a meeting at the bookfair for debate their meeting would have still been invaded and attacked and lied about.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How many people have been assaulted?  One as far as I can tell, in the history of trans-activism and yet you consistently push this as the norm.


The post said threatened bullied harrassed and assaulted.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Not at all.  Transwomen face abuse constantly, both for being women and for being trans.  The people behind that leaflet have one intention, and that is to incite fear of and hatred towards trans-people, that's one of the reasons the leaflet is so dishonest.  If it goes unchallenged (and I'm not saying I entirely agree with how that happened) then how do you think a transwoman, new to anarchism, might feel about the movement if she went to the loo and saw them stuck up everywhere?  Do we really want to allow non-anarchists to make anachists feel unsafe or unwelcome at our events?
> 
> I don't agree with much of the open letter (either the contents or as a tactic) and am sad the bookfair is no more, but I find the apologism, or undermining of the damage that could be done to people by this leaflet and the group behind it pretty depressing.


Trans women dont face abuse constantly you wally. Many may never face abuse, some may do so regulary.


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Oh come now. If the women concerned had scheduled a meeting at the bookfair for debate their meeting would have still been invaded and attacked and lied about.


If they posed it in those reactionary terms, of course it would be 'protested' in some form, it would hardly be the first bookfair meeting where that happened. 

That doesn't mean the debate can't still be had, just excluding those who deliberately and perpetually misgender and repeat reactionary lies.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> If they posed it in those reactionary terms, of course it would be 'protested' in some form, it would hardly be the first bookfair meeting where that happened.
> 
> That doesn't mean the debate can't still be had, just excluding those who deliberately and perpetually misgender and repeat reactionary lies.


Who is going to do the excluding and decide acceptable opinions? You? Anyway what the fuck has anarchist politics got to do you anyway?


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is that what all those signatories and letters of disassociation represent?


they represent various different views, dont they? Most of which aren't particularly extreme, just expressed in a loud, shouty, way.


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Who is going to do the excluding and decide acceptable opinions? You? Anyway what the fuck has anarchist politics got to do you anyway?


Dunno. Can't remember how the Catholic Worker dicks were dealt with. Were they just left to fizzle away? (edit: SPGB too, they were barred weren't they? How did that happen?)

And, same as it has to do with you I guess, as we are both Labour Party members


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> TEMRAs? don't think so.


out of curiosity have you a horse in this race?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> Dunno. Can't remember how the Catholic Worker dicks were dealt with. Were they just left to fizzle away?
> 
> And, same as it has to do with you I guess, as we are both Labour Party members


The Catholic worker lot remain whilst Sam Ambreen and her crew of "kill all men" cunts decided sensibly never to return to the bookfair. Good thing too. Anyone shouting kill all men at me would get more than a leaflet.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity have you a horse in this race?


Is that the same question as 'pick a side'?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

...


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2017)

Fair play, by the same token, i guess you never make any comment on a thread about trots then


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Is that the same question as 'pick a side'?


no.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> Fair play, by the same token, i guess you never make any comment on a thread about trots then


I dont tend to. I cant recollect any. No interest and no knowledge.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> ... just excluding those who deliberately and perpetually misgender...



Who is 'mis' gendering depends on your perspective, though.  Are you seriousy suggesting that the only women who whoud be able to debate what it means to be a woman are those who agree with you (and me) on that question?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

I think one of the other issues as well is that many women who have mainstream media platforms and are transphobic have no politics apart from femminism. Undermine their sense of femminism and they are left with nothing to cloak them from accusations that in fact they have far better lives than most men.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

TopCat said:


> I think one of the other issues as well is that many women who have mainstream media platforms and are transphobic have no politics apart from femminism. Undermine their sense of femminism and they are left with nothing to cloak them from accusations that in fact they have far better lives than most men.


i think what you're driving at is they're well-heeled and unrepentantly middle class.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i think what you're driving at is they're well-heeled and unrepentantly middle class.


Plus bigoted towards men. Im thinking of Greer, Freeman, Toynbee etc.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Who is 'mis' gendering depends on your perspective, though.  Are you seriousy suggesting that the only women who whoud be able to debate what it means to be a woman are those who agree with you (and me) on that question?


What do you think it means to be a woman then Athos. We deserve to know. 
I do wonder about what the point of the category is at all, if what woman means is 'people who identify as women' it all get a bit circular doesn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> What do you think it means to be a woman then Athos. We deserve to know.
> I do wonder about what the point of the category is at all, if what woman means is 'people who identify as women' it all get a bit circular doesn't it.


what's your stake in the series of incidents under discussion? i mean, you're not an anarchist (or if you are you've concealed it very well), what's this to-do to do with you?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> What do you think it means to be a woman then Athos. We deserve to know.
> I do wonder about what the point of the category is at all, if what woman means is 'people who identify as women' it all get a bit circular doesn't it.


Someone start a thread. What does it mean to be a woman?


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model I see the anarchist bookfair incident and fallout as a microcosm of the wider issue , which is where my interest lies, not in the bookfair or the statements of these tiny groups , as I thought I’d made clear. I’d love to live in a world without hierarchy but don’t go round calling myself an anarchist that’s true (and I liked the bookfair a lot though only went a couple of times)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Pickman's model I see the anarchist bookfair incident and fallout as a microcosm of the wider issue , which is where my interest lies, not in the bookfair or the statements of these tiny groups , as I thought I’d made clear. I’d love to live in a world without hierarchy but don’t go round calling myself an anarchist that’s true (and I liked the bookfair a lot though only went a couple of times)


yeh. a microcosm of the wider issue. which is?


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. the wider issue. which is?


I'd have to think about that before tying out a glib sentence in reply. basically I am very skeptical about the whole idea of gender as an innate thing.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

I give you a like for being straight up.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> What do you think it means to be a woman then Athos. We deserve to know.
> I do wonder about what the point of the category is at all, if what woman means is 'people who identify as women' it all get a bit circular doesn't it.



For all intents and purposes in my life, I'm happy to consider as a woman anyone who identifies as such.  But I wouldn't force that definition on women for two reasons: first, I'm a man; and, secondly, I never have to deal with any of those marginal cases e.g. rape shelters.

Interesting question; start a thread on it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'd have to think about that before tying out a glib sentence in reply. basically I am very skeptical about the whole idea of gender as an innate thing.


yeh. so this has nothing to do with communication, negotiation, acceptance of people's differences, respect for people or a hundred other 'wider issues' raised by the events on 28/10.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. so this has nothing to do with communication, negotiation, acceptance of people's differences, respect for people or a hundred other 'wider issues' raised by the events on 28/10.


 I said i'd have to think before writing you a proper answer (to the question why do I care about this whole thing). I might have a go at doing that later but, you know, it'd take more than 30 seconds.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> I said i'd have to think before writing you a proper answer (to the question why do I care about this whole thing). I might have a go at doing that later but, you know, it'd take more than 30 seconds.


yeh. i got a hint of where your more thoughtful answer _might_ go from your mention of gender.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'd have to think about that before tying out a glib sentence in reply. basically I am very skeptical about the whole idea of gender as an innate thing.


To accept such (about gender being innate) rather pisses on femminist theory no? Simone de Beauviour's The Second Sex for example and much of Greer and Dworkin's writings.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Yeah, how de beuvoir said 'One is not born but rather becomes a woman'. You can read that in a different way now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yeah, how de beuvoir said 'One is not born but rather becomes a woman'. You can read that in a different way now.


Now it means none of the social processes that produced _a woman_ exist. It's just a matter of declaration.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Now it means none of the social processes that produced _a woman_ exist. It's just a matter of declaration.


Or that there are many roads leading to that destination.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Or that there are many roads leading to that destination.


With no traveling though.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

Its not a surprise or shouldn't be that this political push was going to get the backs up of femminsts. Yelling ugly terf cunt was probably less alarming or threatening.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> With no traveling though.


Some are very short roads.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> they represent various different views, dont they? Most of which aren't particularly extreme, just expressed in a loud, shouty, way.



They’re not supporting the TERF position which is what you claimed was ‘leading the debate’ in ‘lefty circles’.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> I said i'd have to think before writing you a proper answer (to the question why do I care about this whole thing). I might have a go at doing that later but, you know, it'd take more than 30 seconds.


You've been on this thread for weeks without apparently thinking what the wider issue is. Weird. Very weird.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You've been on this thread for weeks without apparently thinking what the wider issue is. Weird. Very weird.


Don't be daft. I've tried many times to express what I think and where my concerns lie, on here and the other thread related to trans rights issues. I've no idea what you think though, if anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Don't be daft. I've tried many times to express what I think and where my concerns lie, on here and the other thread related to trans rights issues. I've no idea what you think though, if anything.


Yeh. But when asked what the larger issue is iyo after more than a month of posting you say oh noes I can't be answering that without a load more thought. So what you've been saying doesn't seem like it's based on anything. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing. As for what I think, I'm a plague on both your houses person, as it shouldn't be beyond people's wit to resolve these issues within the bookfair space without resorting to the sort of immature shite we saw on the day and have seen since. If people have a right to distribute leaflets, they have a right to be challenged for it, but I would have hoped that would be in a comradely manner. Shouting ugly terf cunt etc isn't really making a persuasive political case. And having such a go at the bookfair organisers that they've stepped back was imo disgraceful. Almost all the subsequent open letters and statements and counterstatements have been pisspoor and better not issued. Not to mention the burning of the bookfair banner. Far from edifying, the entire thing.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> Dunno. Can't remember how the Catholic Worker dicks were dealt with. Were they just left to fizzle away? (edit: SPGB too, they were barred weren't they? How did that happen?)
> 
> And, same as it has to do with you I guess, as we are both Labour Party members



The SPGB has never been allowed to have a stall at the Bookfair. I'm not sure what that reference is about.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 1, 2017)

I've  been quietly reading this thread. So I hope you don't mind me interjecting but Helen Steel is here giving a talk about her experience at the bookfair with other "no plarformed" women.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Has anybody got an idea of why this is all about women? Is it that men just don't care because a trans man isn't any kind of a threat or are trans men just a lot less vocal about their rights and less visible on the internet etc.


TERFs basically ignore the existence of trans men, because it ruins the theory of trans people generally being a product of misogyny. More broadly I don’t think they are considered a threat to trad gender roles so much so there is a general level of deliberate denial. I have seen some recent commentary about cis women objectifying them recently though.

Trans men get a very bad deal IMO.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 1, 2017)

TERFS don’t ignore trans men at all, they say it’s  lesbians who are being transed due to homophobia / women hating their bodies so much due to misogyny that being a man is more desirable.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! thank you for posting. She is so fucking brave.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> FabricLiveBaby! thank you for posting. She is so fucking brave.



I don't agree with what happened to Helen at all although I didn't see the incident, and that is a brave speech although I don't agree with a lot of what she's said elsewhere about this.  But it is a shame that no-one chose to point out to that meeting that the changes that have so far been proposed will have no impact at all on whether or not transwomen are allowed into women only spaces.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

That’s your response having watched her whole talk? She says that if it becomes demedicalised self declaration will make someone legally a woman and therefore they’ll have access to women only spaces. How is she wrong?
(Typed before your edit)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 1, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> TERFS don’t ignore trans men at all, they say it’s  lesbians who are being transed due to homophobia / women hating their bodies so much due to misogyny that being a man is more desirable.


That may be a new thing. IME they’ve just pretended that they didn’t exist, but I may not be up on the latest.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> That’s your response having watched her whole talk? She says that if it becomes demedicalised self declaration will make someone legally a woman and therefore they’ll have access to women only spaces. How is she wrong?



There is an exemption in the Equalities Act which allows women's spaces to discriminate against trans women on the basis of proportional need.  The all party Women and Equalities Commission recommended in their report this exemption be lifted and the Government rejected the proposal.  There has been no indication so far they have changed their minds.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> There is an exemption in the Equalities Act which allows women's spaces to discriminate against trans women on the basis of proportional need.  The all party Women and Equalities Commission recommended in their report this exemption be lifted and the Government rejected the proposal.  There has been no indication so far they have changed their minds.



That's simply not true.  The government didn't reject the proposal (no. 12) at all!  Rather, it said "We agree with the principle of this recommendation...", and that it was keen to take into account further representations to inform future policy discussions.  You're being demonstrably disingenuous to imply that that this isn't a live issue of legitimate concern for women.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

If smokedout had been there at Helen Steel’s talk he’d have corrected her, he’d be that guy with the 15 minute ‘question’.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 1, 2017)

Is smokedout male?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> That's simply not true.  The government didn't reject the proposal (no. 12) at all!  Rather, it said "We agree with the principle of this recommendation...", and that it was keen to take into account further representations to inform future policy discussions.  You're being demonstrably disingenuous to imply that that this isn't a live issue of legitimate concern for women.



What they said more fully is:



> We understand the concerns being raised by some transgender people about the
> provisions. The Government is keen to ensure that that law in this area operates
> fairly and is not abused, therefore we are keen to receive further representations and
> evidence on the availability and use of the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 from
> all affected parties to take into account for future policy discussions



That is government speak for fuck off but this is just us covering our arses in case the political wind changes and this makes us look bad.

It wasn't mentioned in the consultation announcement, and it would require changes to the equalities act, which is not what is being consulted on.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Also should be noted that what was proposed was lifting of the exemption for anyone who gained a GRC under the 2004 act.  If the process for obtaining a GRC changes then this becomes somewhat redundant.


----------



## Sue (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> There is an exemption in the Equalities Act which allows women's spaces to discriminate against trans women on the basis of proportional need.  The all party Women and Equalities Commission recommended in their report this exemption be lifted and the Government rejected the proposal.  There has been no indication so far they have changed their minds.


What does proportional need mean?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> What they said more fully is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, that's your interpretation. One with which many women disagree. It's ridiculous for you to keep making assertions that particular measures definitely won't flow from the proposed changes (directly or indirectly), and to insist that, therefore, women are wrong to want to discuss the issue.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Well, that's your interpretation. One with which many women disagree. It's ridiculous for you to keep making assertions that particular measures definitely won't flow from the proposed changes (directly or indirectly), and to insist that, therefore, women are wrong to want to discuss the issue.



It is not ridiculous to suggest that self-identification alone will not change access to women only spaces, and that is the only proposed new law so far.  That is just the truth.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Sue said:


> What does proportional need mean?



It's usually used to allow womens refuges and support services or people wanting a carer of the same biological sex to discriminate against trans job applicants or service users.  It's a very simple process, they just need to make it clear when advertising the vacancy.  It can of course be challenged in court if someone feels it is non-proportional but I don't think any claims have ever been brought.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Also should be noted that what was proposed was lifting of the exemption for anyone who gained a GRC under the 2004 act.  If the process for obtaining a GRC changes then this becomes somewhat redundant.



No it doesn't.  If the new mechanism for receiving a certificate is contained in an amended 2004 act, the issue is still live.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It's a very simple process, they just need to make it clear when advertising the vacancy.


How is this done, in the adverts for these vacancies does it say ‘seeking cis woman for ... role’?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It is not ridiculous to suggest that self-identification alone will not change access to women only spaces, and that is the only proposed new law so far.  That is just the truth.



I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense.

But, more's the point, it doesn't really matter what you or I think the proposed changes might mean; it matters what women think - that's why they have the right to discus it.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> No it doesn't.  If the new mechanism for receiving a certificate is contained in an amended 2004 act, the issue is still live.



That is clearly not what the committee meant though is it.  No changes were on the table when the report was produced, I doubt for one second they thought they'd get self-identification through (and they haven;t yet) and it looks to me like they've fudged the issue.  But the stark fact remains that the government said no to even this and have not given any indication they have changed their position.  When the consultation is finally published, if it is ever published now, we will know if they plan to change any other laws, but at present all they have said is they will streamline and demedicalise the GRC process.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense.
> 
> But, more's the point, it doesn't really matter what you or I think the proposed changes might mean; it matters what women think - that's why they have the right to discus it.



How is it nonsense?  It surely matters what the proposed changes actually are doesn't it?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

And unlike you Athos, for reasons I don't want to go into right now, I do have a personal stake in this.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> But the stark fact remains that the government said no to even this and have not given any indication they have changed their position.



The government didn't say 'no'. I quoted what it actually said. Just repeating this falsehood doesn't make it true.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How is it nonsense?  It surely matters what the proposed changes actually are doesn't it?



Yes, but we don't know the specifics. We can't say what's not a possibility.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> How is this done, in the adverts for these vacancies does it say ‘seeking cis woman for ... role’?



Usually by having a little note at the bottom of where the vacancy is advertised saying this position is only open to xxxx  under the terms of the equalities act etc etc.

It can also be used for gender as a whole, or race in some circumstances.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> The government didn't say 'no'. I quoted what it actually said. Just repeating this falsehood doesn't make it true.



The committee made a recommendation,  The government said no but we'll keep it under review.  That is a rejection.  That's how it works.  Things are often couched in soft language and can be under review for decades.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And unlike you Athos, for reasons I don't want to go into right now, I do have a personal stake in this.



And?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Yes, but we don't know the specifics. We can't say what's not a possibility.



But we can say there has been no law proposed by the government that will change trans women's access to women's spaces.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The committee made a recommendation,  The government said no but we'll keep it under review.  That is a rejection.  That's how it works.  Things are often couched in soft language and *can be under review for decades.*


 (my emphasis) 

So, it's still under review. Exactly my point.  That's why discussion continues to be legitimate.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> But we can say there has been no law proposed by the government that will change trans women's access to women's spaces.



No, we can't say any such thing. The proposed move to self-identification (instead of a medical test) will radically alter the ease with which someone can gain access to women's spaces.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> (my emphasis)
> 
> So, it's still under review. Exactly my point.  That's why discussion continues to be legitimate.



People can talk about whatever they want, but when a debate is so contentious then I'd suggest it's best to be accurate when discussing which changes to the law that the government has actually proposed so far.  Unless of course you have another agenda and it suits that agenda to stoke up fears about these changes.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> No, we can't say any such thing. The proposed move to self-identification (instead of a medical test) will radically alter the ease with which someone can gain access to women's spaces.



How if the exmption in the equalities act remains?


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How if the exmption in the equalities act remains?



Because they are for exceptional cases.  If, for example there was no exceptional reason to insist on a cis person in a particular role, the proposed changes would mean that anyone can gain access to that space simply by claiming trans status.

What is the proposed change for if not to make it easier? That's the whole purpose!


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> People can talk about whatever they want, but when a debate is so contentious then I'd suggest it's best to be accurate when discussing which changes to the law that the government has actually proposed so far.  Unless of course you have another agenda and it suits that agenda to stoke up fears about these changes.



Or unless you're a woman concerned by the direction of travel.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> Because they are for exceptional cases.



They are not for exceptional cases they are for cases where there is a proportional need.  And they are used all the time, not just with regard to gender transition but also race and sex.  


> If, for example there was no exceptional reason to insist on a cis person in a particular role, the proposed changes would mean that anyone can gain access to that space simply by claiming trans status.



As would be the case right now, if there is no proportional reason to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender transition then it would be illegal.  And rightly so.  Just as it would be if an office job was advertised as men only



> What is the proposed change for if not to make it easier? That's the whole purpose of them!



And the proposed change is to make the process of applying for a GRC less lengthy and traumatic, not to give transwomen access to women's spaces.  The point of a GRC is that then people can change their passport etc not that it automatically triggers access to women only spaces because it doesn't, just as not having one doesn't necessarily prevent it.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> They are not for exceptional cases...



I'm sorry but you're wrong about that.  The Gvernments guidance, here, expicitly states that they are:

'Unlawful discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not acceptable and consequently the exception has to be used in *exceptional circumstances*.'




smokedout said:


> And the proposed change is to make the process of applying for a GRC less lengthy and traumatic, not to give transwomen access to women's spaces.  The point of a GRC is that then people can change their passport etc not that it automatically triggers access to women only spaces because it doesn't, just as not having one doesn't necessarily prevent it.



That's sophistry.  The point is that, at present, there's a requirement for a medical process to get a certificate, and a presumption that, in all but exceptional cases, receipt of the certificate will result in access to women's spaces.  It follows that making the process for getting a certificate easier, means making access to women's spaces will become easier.

Also, there's the proposal to make 'gender identity' (as opposed to 'gender reassignment') a protected characteristic. That would make it practically impossible for a woman to challenge any man - and I'm not calling trans women men, here - who enters a woman's space; he need only *say* that he identifies as a woman, even if it's not true.

That's something women have every right to discuss.  However much anyone might try to deny them that right, based on their own spurious (and possibly self-interested) interpretation of what the proposed changes might mean in practice.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But when asked what the larger issue is iyo after more than a month of posting you say oh noes I can't be answering that without a load more thought. So what you've been saying doesn't seem like it's based on anything. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing. As for what I think, I'm a plague on both your houses person, as it shouldn't be beyond people's wit to resolve these issues within the bookfair space without resorting to the sort of immature shite we saw on the day and have seen since. If people have a right to distribute leaflets, they have a right to be challenged for it, but I would have hoped that would be in a comradely manner. Shouting ugly terf cunt etc isn't really making a persuasive political case. And having such a go at the bookfair organisers that they've stepped back was imo disgraceful. Almost all the subsequent open letters and statements and counterstatements have been pisspoor and better not issued. Not to mention the burning of the bookfair banner. Far from edifying, the entire thing.


Well said comrade.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 1, 2017)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry but you're wrong about that.  The Gvernments guidance, here, expicitly states that they are:
> 
> 'Unlawful discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not acceptable and consequently the exception has to be used in *exceptional circumstances*.'



The law says must meet a proportionate aim as you well know.  And those exceptional if you like exemptions include things like women's refuges.  Until recently Womens Aid invoked the exemption when recruiting staff, although they now say their policy is under review.



> That's sophistry.  The point is that, at present, there's a requirement for a medical process to get a certificate, and a presumption that, in all but exceptional cases, receipt of the certificate will result in access to women's spaces.



Yes, in cases where there is no grounds to discriminate then someone with a GRC must not be discriminated against.  But neither must anyone undergoing or who appears to be undergoing or who intends to undergo gender transition.  A GRC has nothing to do with how the law is applied.  It is illegal in most cases to discriminate against transpeople whether or not they have a GRC.  Unless the exemption is applied then a prospective employer/service provider has no right to even ask to see a GRC.  From a legal point of view self-identification is all that is required.  

A GRC has nothing at all to do with accessing women's spaces.  Why not read the committee's report and you might understand why these changes have been proposed better and what current practice already is.


----------



## Athos (Dec 1, 2017)

smokedout said:


> ... From a legal point of view self-identification is all that is required.
> 
> A GRC has nothing at all to do with accessing women's spaces.  Why not read the committee's report and you might understand why these changes have been proposed better and what current practice already is.



I'm sorry, but, again, your assertions about the current law are incorrect.  At present, gender identity is not a protected characteristic (gender reassignment is); self- identification isn't "all that is required". In fact, that is a really significant proposed change; originally in the form of Maria Miller's Private Member's Bill: the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill 2016-17.  Which also serves to prove that you're wrong to suggest that the only proposed change is around demedicalising of the GRC process. And why women have a right to discus it.

Eta: We're going round in circles, now. It suffices to say that: I think you misunderstand the current law,  and are dishonestly downplaying the significance of the proposed changes, in order to prevent women having the discussion; and, you think that my position (that the changes are significant, and so legitimate for women to discuss) is driven by some sinister motive (notwithstanding that I've always been clear that I consider trans women to be women).  Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 2, 2017)

> The Equality Act 2010 outlaws discrimination in employment and vocational training on the grounds of gender reassignment. Gender reassignment is one of the nine protected characteristics protected by the act.
> 
> People have the protected characteristic if they are proposing to undergo, or are undergoing, or have undergone a process or part of a process to reassign their sex by changing their physiological or other attributes of sex.
> 
> This definition differs from that previously contained in the now repealed Sex Discrimination Act, as it has removed the requirement for the person to be under medical supervision to be protected. This means that gender reassignment is now considered to be the personal process of moving away from an individual's birth gender to their preferred gender, rather than a medical process.



Perhaps you'll listen to the law society: Working with transgender employees - The Law Society


----------



## Athos (Dec 2, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps you'll listen to the law society: Working with transgender employees - The Law Society



Exactly.  Currently "a process to reassign their sex by changing their physiological or other attributes of sex", *not* mere self-identification.

Anyway, see my edit above; not sure this is going anywhere.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 2, 2017)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry, but, again, your assertions about the current law are incorrect.  At present, gender identity is not a protected characteristic (gender reassignment is); self- identification isn't "all that is required". In fact, that is a really significant proposed change; originally in the form of Maria Miller's Private Member's Bill: the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill 2016-17.  Which also serves to prove that you're wrong to suggest that the only proposed change is around demedicalising of the GRC process. And why women have a right to discus it.
> 
> Eta: We're going round in circles, now. It suffices to say that: I think you misunderstand the current law,  and are dishonestly downplaying the significance of the proposed changes, in order to prevent women having the discussion; and, you think that my position (that the changes are significant, and so legitimate for women to discuss) is driven by some sinister motive.  Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.



Yes, I've read the committee report and much of the evidence, youre talking off the top of your head so perhaps not worth it.


----------



## Athos (Dec 2, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Yes, I've read the committee report and much of the evidence, youre talking off the top of your head so perhaps not worth it.



I've read it too. But I understood it, and am not trying to misrepresent it. So, yes, it's not worth it.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 2, 2017)

Athos said:


> Exactly.  Currently "a process to reassign their sex by changing their physiological or other attributes of sex", *not* mere self-identification.
> 
> Anyway, see my edit above; not sure this is going anywhere.



Not for you, but for others reading this thread because I think it's important that the proposed changes and the current situation are understood.

A gender recognition certificate has no bearing on anti-discrimination laws or access to women's spaces.  There are people who have fully medically transitioned who don't have a GRC because its such a pain iin the arse to get one.  They are still fully protected under the equalities act.

The all party group committee report did recommend that gender identity replace gender transition as the protected legal charicteristic in the equalities act.  The government rejected this proposal.  But importantly, this recommendation was aimed at protecting non-binary people, not transpeople who are already relatively well protected.  At present someone could be legally refused employment, or being allowed to rent a flat, and all manner of other things if their gender identity was not male or female.  A person who said they were gender fluid, or rejected the gender binary completely, can legally be discriminated against.  The committee report is quite clear that it is this group that changing the protected charicteristic in the equalities act from gender transition to gender identity is intended to protect.  

So the committee report said let's let people reject gender completely if they wish, and even enshrine that in law.  And the so-called gender critical feminists are outraged.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

smokedout said:


> A person who said they were gender fluid, or rejected the gender binary completely, can legally be discriminated against.  The committee report is quite clear that it is this group that changing the protected charicteristic in the equalities act from gender transition to gender identity is intended to protect.
> 
> So the committee report said let's let people reject gender completely if they wish, and even enshrine that in law.  And the so-called gender critical feminists are outraged.



Can you post a link to the source for this please (the comittee report)? I'd be interested in the wording.


----------



## Athos (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Can you post a link to the source for this please (the comittee report)? I'd be interested in the wording.



When considering this 'rejected' proposal, you might want to bear in mind the Private  Members' Bill bought by the current chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee.  And that any such change to the law would have implications well beyond its well-meaning intentions, which is what concerns gender critical feminists. Also, the wider picture and the direction of travel (rather  than each proposal in isolation).


----------



## weepiper (Dec 2, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> TERFs basically ignore the existence of trans men, because it ruins the theory of trans people generally being a product of misogyny. More broadly I don’t think they are considered a threat to trad gender roles so much so there is a general level of deliberate denial. I have seen some recent commentary about cis women objectifying them recently though.
> 
> Trans men get a very bad deal IMO.


This is completely unrepresentative of the radical feminist view of trans men - in fact most radical feminists are deeply uncomfortable with and worried about the rate at which teenage girls are suddenly identifying as trans boys, wearing binders and crushing their developing bodies because they're so horrified by the reality of female puberty. It doesn't 'ruin the theory of trans people being a product of misogyny' at all, in fact radical feminists would say the existence of trans men reinforces that. My 14 year old daughter has three trans boy friends just in her year at school, before anyone leaps in and yells at me for not knowing what I'm talking about here. Edit, and yes, they were all lesbians before they started saying they wanted to be boys. It's more acceptable for them to be boys than it is for them just to be gay. Further edit, two of them have eating disorders issues too. They hate their bodies. Society has done that to them, we (radical feminists) are fucking furious that this is happening to female children and they're so desperate to escape it they want to change their sex. Don't tell us we're denying their existence, it's offensive.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

When my cousin's child socially transitioned for a couple of years (has now decided to revert to being a girl) they explained it in terms of not being into make-up and liking science. I did not find it easy to hear that stuff and not feel upset, as if the last few generations of feminism have disappeared somewhere. But some will say she was not true trans, so whatever her reasoning its not got anything to do with the real thing.


----------



## Sue (Dec 2, 2017)

A friend was telling me a similar story about a girl in her son's class at primary who spent a year as a boy (not sure what the exact terminology is) before going back to being a girl/using her female name etc. 

Again a lot of this seemed to be based on her liking 'boy' stuff rather than 'girl' stuff and thinking being a girl was rubbish in comparison. My friend knows the parents and was quite shocked that there seemed to have been no discussion with the child about how it's perfectly possible to be a girl while liking/wanting to do 'boy' things and vice versa.

No doubt it's way more complicated than that but it would seem a reasonable place to start with children in general.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Can you post a link to the source for this please (the comittee report)? I'd be interested in the wording.



The report and the Government's response are both at: Transgender equality inquiry

The more recent consulation announcement is at: New Action to Promote LGBT Equality - GOV.UK

The consultation was originally supposed to have been published now and legislation laid this Autumn but it has been delayed until after the new year sometime, meaning any change to the law is unlikely this parliament at least.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2017)

Interesting contribution here (probably by someone folks on here know). Apologies if it's been posted before, if it has I missed it.

Leaflets, letters, and the anti-anti-semitism of fools


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Interesting contribution here (probably by someone folks on here know). Apologies if it's been posted before, if it has I missed it.
> 
> Cautiously pessimistic


They used to post on here around the time of the summit hopping. In fact, i summit hopped geneva with them. Will read now.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 3, 2017)

Really worth reading. Lots of good points raised.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2017)

Also a welcome bit of levity.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 3, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Also a welcome bit of levity.


Yes.


----------



## Athos (Dec 3, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Interesting contribution here (probably by someone folks on here know). Apologies if it's been posted before, if it has I missed it.
> 
> Cautiously pessimistic



It's a bit superficial. 'Hitler was a vegetarian' type stuff.  Doesnt really offer any positive suggestions.  Or even ask the right questions: how has the liberal left been allowed to create a state of affairs whereby feminists are driven into the arms of the right?


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 3, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Interesting contribution here (probably by someone folks on here know). Apologies if it's been posted before, if it has I missed it.
> 
> Cautiously pessimistic



A good read, thx for that.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's a bit superficial. 'Hitler was a vegetarian' type stuff.  Doesnt really offer any positive suggestions.  Or even ask the right questions: how has the liberal left been allowed to create a state of affairs whereby feminists are driven into the arms of the right?



Have you made any positive suggestions? (Sorry if I have missed them)


----------



## Athos (Dec 3, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Have you made any positive suggestions? (Sorry if I have missed them)



Yes.  Open, honest and respectful dialogue.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> Yes.  Open, honest and respectful dialogue.



Perhaps a bit more flesh on those bones?


----------



## Athos (Dec 3, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Perhaps a bit more flesh on those bones?



Don't try to no platform feminists, don't lie about what the proposed changes to the law mean, don't spitefully misgender people, don't smear all trans women as rapists, recognise that there is some merit to the 'other side's' concerns, recognise that this isn't a case of good v evil (but of competing goods/unintended harms), focus on what people have in common as a way to build solidarity, etc., etc.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 3, 2017)

I'm not sure we've all read the same article. When i clicked on the link it was a piece about terfs and the Christian right. There's now a different article at the top of the page.
 this is the link to the bookfair piece
Leaflets, letters, and the anti-anti-semitism of fools
I think so anyway


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I'm not sure we've all read the same article. When i clicked on the link it was a piece about terfs and the Christian right. There's now a different article at the top of the page.
> this is the link to the bookfair piece
> Leaflets, letters, and the anti-anti-semitism of fools
> I think so anyway



Cheers, it was there then moved down the page. Have edited my link.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> Don't try to no platform feminists, don't lie about what the proposed changes to the law mean, don't spitefully misgender people, don't smear all trans women as rapists, recognise that there is some merit to the 'other side's' concerns, recognise that this isn't a case of good v evil (but of competing goods/unintended harms), focus on what people have in common as a way to build solidarity, etc., etc.



Obsessively post on every transgender discussion you can find explaining to everyone what feminists should think about this and what transgender people should think in response.


----------



## Athos (Dec 3, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I'm not sure we've all read the same article. When i clicked on the link it was a piece about terfs and the Christian right. There's now a different article at the top of the page.
> this is the link to the bookfair piece
> Leaflets, letters, and the anti-anti-semitism of fools
> I think so anyway



I was commenting on the Christian right article. The more recent one seems far more nuanced (albeit there's significant aspects with which I disagree).


----------



## Athos (Dec 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Obsessively post on every transgender discussion you can find explaining to everyone what feminists should think about this and what transgender people should think in response.



Except I haven't done that; you won't find a single post where I've explained to anyone what either feminists or trans people should think (at most, I've described what some do).  But you know that; your post is exactly the sort of dishonest nonsense I was talking about.


----------



## Sue (Dec 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Obsessively post on every transgender discussion you can find explaining to everyone what feminists should think about this and what transgender people should think in response.



Hmm. Think you're a lot more guilty of telling people what they should/shouldn't think/worry about than Athos is. 

And you post pretty obsessively on those threads too. Which is fine but I wonder why you think it isn't for other people to do the same?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 4, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's not saying trans women are rapists (though some are). It's saying that the forced removal of women's right to set boundaries as they see fit i.e. based on their sex (which, incidentally is very different from policing gender), is rape culture.  I don't agree with the much of the content of the leaflets, but your attempt to mischaracterise them (and gender critical women) is dishonest.



To me this doesn't seem a million miles away from reactionary pricks/'concerned parents' saying gay people shouldn't adopt or teach children because some of them might be paedos. Could you or someone else explain the difference, and why this argument is OK?

Plus I'm also not seeing any acknowledgement in the arguments on this thread that trans people are very often victims of violence and rape themselves, and maybe a bit of understanding as to why the seeking of 'safe spaces' and solidarity might be in order.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> To me this doesn't seem a million miles away from reactionary pricks/'concerned parents' saying gay people shouldn't adopt or teach children because some of them might be paedos. Could you or someone else explain the difference, and why this argument is OK?
> 
> Plus I'm also not seeing any acknowledgement in the arguments on this thread that trans people are very often victims of violence and rape themselves, and maybe a bit of understanding as to why the seeking of 'safe spaces' and solidarity might be in order.


tbh it has been discussed at length on the recent Trans Perplexed thread


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 4, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> To me this doesn't seem a million miles away from reactionary pricks/'concerned parents' saying gay people shouldn't adopt or teach children because some of them might be paedos. Could you or someone else explain the difference, and why this argument is OK?


I'd say it's more like the UKIP, Sun and Express scaremongering about millions of Romanians and Bulgarians flooding into the UK in 2014. It didn't happen of course, and the evidence suggests self-identification won't lead to the elimination of the rights of women either.

But reality's not what these moral panics are about, they're intended to promote and reinforce prejudice and intolerance.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 4, 2017)

Says two blokes to each other.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Says two blokes to each other.


typical id pol response etc


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 4, 2017)

ska invita said:


> typical id pol response etc



Stopped clock etc though


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 4, 2017)

ska invita said:


> typical id pol response etc



Yeah, the concerns of ordinary women is just like UKIP.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2017)

pulling your leg is all


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 4, 2017)

Oh.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Oh.


well, having a little dig in the there too.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 4, 2017)

As you ought to.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 5, 2017)

rich! said:


> The leaflet was vile, homophobic and transphobic.
> 
> Trans people are in the civil rights stage where white liberals are their biggest enemy.
> 
> ...


or maybe they had a point worth discussing?  Its more complex than shouting transphobic end of.  I dont know if the 'terfs'  were spoiling for a fight or a genuine debate.  But there are trans people who agree with the issue they raised about the new laws.  Are they transphobic too?  Being gender critical is not transphobic.  Gender is primarily a class, whatever else it might also be.   see:  To Boys Who Don't Fit In - A Guest Post by Jesse - Gender Apostates


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 5, 2017)

thisweb said:


> or maybe they had a point worth discussing?  Its more complex than shouting transphobic end of.  I dont know if the 'terfs'  were spoiling for a fight or a genuine debate.  But there are trans people who agree with the issue they raised about the new laws.  Are they transphobic too?  Being gender critical is not transphobic.  Gender is primarily a class, whatever else it might also be.   see:  To Boys Who Don't Fit In - A Guest Post by Jesse - Gender Apostates


Have you read the leaflet? [there are copies on pages 3 & 4 of this thread] 

Jesse's post is an opinion that could reasonably be debated. The leaflet is a slap in the face full of vile innuendo, prejudice and lies. It's hard to imagine a debate with the author(s) that didn't quickly descend into a slanging match.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 5, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> T]


----------



## thisweb (Dec 5, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> To me this doesn't seem a million miles away from reactionary pricks/'concerned parents' saying gay people shouldn't adopt or teach children because some of them might be paedos. Could you or someone else explain the difference, and why this argument is OK?
> 
> 
> Plus I'm also not seeing any acknowledgement in the arguments on this thread that trans people are very often victims of violence and rape themselves, and maybe a bit of understanding as to why the seeking of 'safe spaces' and solidarity might be in order.



Ok, well theres this thing called feminism.  And there is no thing called mannanism.  You see women are oppressed by men and fear men.  Always have because men oppress women and scare them.   This isnt true in reverse.  If you think feminism is stupid and not needed then I can see why you think this is like the gay men thing.  If however you understadn why feminims exists, then its nothing like the gay men thing.  Not least because gay men didnt try and claim a right to enter oppressed peoples spaces.  Like women, gay men are opressed. Also  by men.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 5, 2017)




----------



## thisweb (Dec 5, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Have you read the leaflet? [there are copies on pages 3 & 4 of this thread]
> 
> Jesse's post is an opinion that could reasonably be debated. The leaflet is a slap in the face full of vile innuendo, prejudice and lies. It's hard to imagine a debate with the author(s) that didn't quickly descend into a slanging match.



The leaflets express a gender critical argument.  Theres no ineuendo or vileness to them that I can see.  You have just asserted that without thinking of specifics.  As many have. I think because posting the specifics would actually cause people to think.  Im happy to debate each line on the leaflets.   I support trans rights.  But not their right to use parliament to demand other women accept them in their spaces and be told what it means to be a women is not what they have known all their lives to be - one of oppresion by perception of their birth genitalia..  Trans people say they were 'asigned famale at birth'  That is to a feminist the exact definition of a woman.  And its the cause of their oppresion. Thats why women bathrooms and prisons exist.  It would be nice to have gender netral everything.  For men and women to share prison cells.  But until we fix the society where 1 in 5 women are raped, and more harreased and abused by men, we can't do that.  They want that fixed before they are forced to share those cells.  Or for that matter, work places.   And why are trans anarchists defending new parliamentary laws anyway?  Feminists just want men and trans people to behave, anarchistically, and be sympathetic to why women fear men, and trans women.  Since they havent had that for, like, 2000 years.  Incedently, violence among trans women is higher than it is among trans men, its equal to violence from men. (no im not useing the term cis men - no one was asisgned cis at birth - so i have no idea why trans people demand iam called cis, let alone the given the fact they think we shoudl be able to decide our gender, nbot have it imposed- another unaddressed doublespeak )


----------



## thisweb (Dec 5, 2017)

' the “gender wars” are less a war than a one way attack. An attack that mirrors the power dynamics already in place within society of males on the top calling the shots, and females (those assigned female at birth)  on the bottom being forced to make amendments to how they live their lives (now forcibly assigned as “cis-women” and giving up the term “female”, for example) so that they can navigate delicate egos and the threat of and use of violence. The attacks that are made against women in the name of “trans activism” are uncalled for, disgusting and do nothing but throw smoke over the fact that the real problem and the real threat comes from Males, gender and patriarchy.'  Theressa May is supporting a change in the law to allow anyone to identify as a women.  if it doesn't tell you all you need to know, it should at least cause any anti-'terf' anarchist to think more carefully about whats going on.  Misogyny and patriarchy still exists.  Why not call for men to accommodate transwomen in their spaces, and why don't transwomen not to demand scared women protect them in their spaces but demand that men stop harming them in mens spaces?  Why must the women always do the care work?  Because patriarchy is a violent fucker.  Thats why.  And its females who are being blamed and ask to pick up the pieces for this mess.  By a joint alliance of supposed anarchists and the tory party!!  These trans activists partially destroyed feminism and anarchy in one foul swoop. Suported by Class War and other anarchist groups, alongside Theresa May. WTF!  Even the DUP didn't protest. Why? I thought the right loved to hate trans people?  May herself voted aginst trans rights before she was home secretery. What changed?  Male power.  Thats what changed.	I'm against marriage too:  the 'right' for gays to get married was another patriarchal trick, an own goal for the entire left. I totally support gay love/gay sex/ gayness  (i hate the concept of rights, and that word), but any state certified marriage is an abomination for anarchists. It can never be an improvement for the lives of gay people in the context of egalitarianism,  anarchy or even liberal socialism.  Of course few would be openly against gay marriage or point out its backwardness at trying to move forward since  to proclaim or debate such a view would require a wanton desire for a black eye and a disregard for the fact that most peoples logic goes about as deep as a birdbath.  And now it seems, even in anarchist circles,  the birdbath has dried up.  Anarchy is fucked right now.  Its had its heart ripped out by politically naive dimwits.  Brainwashed by 'radical' left wing pundits and supposed feminist critics and right on pro trans people ( Vice, Buzzfeed, Jezebel , Guardian  - all owned and run by male venture capitalists waiting to rape women of their money, their lives, their labour, their freedoms and probably somewhere through that line of business, their vaginas) .	By all means lend your vote for social progress, make the material compromises you must to progress the cause of anarchist principles, but don't get lost in their ideology.  Support trans rights.  Support womens rights. Men can support the rights of women, without invading their spaces.  Transwomen can too.  Fuck the logic of capitalism and patriarchy, we need to get that bookfair back open and make peace by debating the arguments that caused the fight, not silencing them. And move on with the task of overthrowing the psychopathic state. Yeh Im fucking angry.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 5, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


>



What peaks your suspicion?


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 6, 2017)

Slowly backs towards door, fixed smile on face, firm grip on axe behind back.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 6, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Slowly backs towards door, fixed smile on face, firm grip on axe behind back.




Well in lieu of any argument you might as well


----------



## thisweb (Dec 6, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Slowly backs towards door, fixed smile on face, firm grip on axe behind back.


If you aren't angry, then you've not been paying attention. And, im guessing, you probably aren't a woman (assigned at birth) amirite?.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 6, 2017)

thisweb said:


> ' the “gender wars” are less a war than a one way attack. An attack that mirrors the power dynamics already in place within society of males on the top calling the shots, and females (those assigned female at birth)  on the bottom being forced to make amendments to how they live their lives (now forcibly assigned as “cis-women” and giving up the term “female”, for example) so that they can navigate delicate egos and the threat of and use of violence. The attacks that are made against women in the name of “trans activism” are uncalled for, disgusting and do nothing but throw smoke over the fact that the real problem and the real threat comes from Males, gender and patriarchy.'  Theressa May is supporting a change in the law to allow anyone to identify as a women.  if it doesn't tell you all you need to know, it should at least cause any anti-'terf' anarchist to think more carefully about whats going on.  Misogyny and patriarchy still exists.  Why not call for men to accommodate transwomen in their spaces, and why don't transwomen not to demand scared women protect them in their spaces but demand that men stop harming them in mens spaces?  Why must the women always do the care work?  Because patriarchy is a violent fucker.  Thats why.  And its females who are being blamed and ask to pick up the pieces for this mess.  By a joint alliance of supposed anarchists and the tory party!!  These trans activists partially destroyed feminism and anarchy in one foul swoop. Suported by Class War and other anarchist groups, alongside Theresa May. WTF!  Even the DUP didn't protest. Why? I thought the right loved to hate trans people?  May herself voted aginst trans rights before she was home secretery. What changed?  Male power.  Thats what changed.	I'm against marriage too:  the 'right' for gays to get married was another patriarchal trick, an own goal for the entire left. I totally support gay love/gay sex/ gayness  (i hate the concept of rights, and that word), but any state certified marriage is an abomination for anarchists. It can never be an improvement for the lives of gay people in the context of egalitarianism,  anarchy or even liberal socialism.  Of course few would be openly against gay marriage or point out its backwardness at trying to move forward since  to proclaim or debate such a view would require a wanton desire for a black eye and a disregard for the fact that most peoples logic goes about as deep as a birdbath.  And now it seems, even in anarchist circles,  the birdbath has dried up.  Anarchy is fucked right now.  Its had its heart ripped out by politically naive dimwits.  Brainwashed by 'radical' left wing pundits and supposed feminist critics and right on pro trans people ( Vice, Buzzfeed, Jezebel , Guardian  - all owned and run by male venture capitalists waiting to rape women of their money, their lives, their labour, their freedoms and probably somewhere through that line of business, their vaginas) .	By all means lend your vote for social progress, make the material compromises you must to progress the cause of anarchist principles, but don't get lost in their ideology.  Support trans rights.  Support womens rights. Men can support the rights of women, without invading their spaces.  Transwomen can too.  Fuck the logic of capitalism and patriarchy, we need to get that bookfair back open and make peace by debating the arguments that caused the fight, not silencing them. And move on with the task of overthrowing the psychopathic state. Yeh Im fucking angry.



When you are quoting a blog, article, someone else (maybe this is you though) it's helpful to link to what you are quoting.

Male Violence Is The Problem


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 6, 2017)

rich! said:


> Trans people are in the civil rights stage where white liberals are their biggest enemy.



Yeah but are the white liberals cis or trans?


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 7, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Incedently, violence among trans women is higher than it is among trans men, its equal to violence from men. (no im not useing the term cis men - no one was asisgned cis at birth - so i have no idea why trans people demand iam called cis, let alone the given the fact they think we shoudl be able to decide our gender, nbot have it imposed- another unaddressed doublespeak )



bullshit. Either you can't read or you're lying on purpose. 

TERFs get told by author of study that they are interpreting her study wrong, they insist they aren’t

Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal – The TransAdvocate



> Using simple language, would you please speak to those using your work to support the fact assertion that trans women and cis men are alike when it comes to perpetrating incidences of rape, murder, torture, etc? In other words, would you please clarify the following:
> 
> A.) As to the “male pattern regarding criminality” your study reviewed, would you please speak to whether your sample is representative of the trans population as a whole?
> 
> ...


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 7, 2017)

In any other subject on U75 I notice that any assertions made are required to be backed up. I've seen people banned for putting up things that they've refused to back up.

But on the subject of trans women there is no critical analysis. Any bullshit claims on here are lapped up by the many transphobic (yes, I will use that word for most of the people on this thread, including MadeinBedlham, Athos, Magnus McGinty and all) posters. I don't see any challenging the claim that trans women are as violent as men, which is in fact a lie, not backed up by any study. The one study I've seen quoted in fact says completely the opposite and you can read (above) where the author of the study states this clearly and unequivocally.

So why all the lies? Why the failure to hold the bullshitters to account? You'd think if those who wish to destroy trans women had an argument you wouldn't have to lie, but you all do all the time!!

If you want a debate, stop with the lies, the insinuations and the obvious hatred.

I can't actually believe I'm back on here, but I had to say something, it's been nagging at me for ages now.


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2017)

Complaints about evidence based assertions are pretty ironic coming from you, especially when you then go on, yet again, to make evidence free assertions of transphobia against a number of posters.

Your behaviour on these boards is a perfect illustration of the toxic influence of solopsistic ID politics which is undermining any genuine collective politics.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Any bullshit claims on here are lapped up by the many transphobic (yes, I will use that word for most of the people on this thread, including MadeinBedlham, Athos, Magnus McGinty and all) posters. I don't see any challenging the claim that trans women are as violent as men, which is in fact a lie, not backed up by any study. The one study I've seen quoted in fact says completely the opposite and you can read (above) where the author of the study states this clearly and unequivocally.
> 
> So why all the lies? Why the failure to hold the bullshitters to account?



In the spirit of holding buillshitters to account...

Your (evidence-free) post accusing me of having lapped up/failed to challenge bullshit claims (like the misinterpretation of the study of offending) is, in itself, demonstrably untrue.  Quite the opposite happened, in fact; I explicitly challanged a poster's misuse of that study (on the 'perplexed' thread, as I've not been back on this thread since it was posted here).



Athos said:


> Did that study control for other factors e.g. that trans women are more likely to be involved in sex work than cis men, meaning an elevated likelihood of conviction?  And did it consider the victims of their crimes, sufficient to draw the conclusion that trans women are as likely as cis men to convict violent or sexual crimes against women (rater than other sorts of crime)?  Also, didn't the correlation to which you refer only apply to those who transitioned before 1989?





Athos said:


> ... I can see that a lot of what you're saying is intellectualy dishonest, which suggests to me it's motivated by bigotry.





Athos said:


> ... points towards your misuse of the study you cited, for example.



An apology for this lie (the latest in a series) would be welcome, please.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> In any other subject on U75 I notice that any assertions made are required to be backed up. I've seen people banned for putting up things that they've refused to back up.
> 
> But on the subject of trans women there is no critical analysis. Any bullshit claims on here are lapped up by the many transphobic (yes, I will use that word for most of the people on this thread, including MadeinBedlham, Athos, Magnus McGinty and all) posters. I don't see any challenging the claim that trans women are as violent as men, which is in fact a lie, not backed up by any study. The one study I've seen quoted in fact says completely the opposite and you can read (above) where the author of the study states this clearly and unequivocally.
> 
> ...



Oh look. Someone else with zero interest in anarchism has turned up to stick the boot in.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> But on the subject of trans women there is no critical analysis. Any bullshit claims on here are lapped up by the many transphobic (yes, I will use that word for most of the people on this thread, including MadeinBedlham, Athos, Magnus McGinty and all) posters. I don't see any challenging the claim that trans women are as violent as men, which is in fact a lie, not backed up by any study. The one study I've seen quoted in fact says completely the opposite and you can read (above) where the author of the study states this clearly and unequivocally.
> 
> So why all the lies? Why the failure to hold the bullshitters to account? You'd think if those who wish to destroy trans women had an argument you wouldn't have to lie, but you all do all the time!!
> 
> ...



As far as I can tell - given my repeated condemnation of the abuse of trans people, my clear position that trans people should be allowed to live full and authentic lives, my continued assurance that (for all practical purposes) I consider trans people to be the gender they believe themselves to be, my challanges to others who make transphobic arguments, the fact that I've never claimed that all trans women are autogyneohiles or rapists, and because I've never misgendered anyone - there is only one difference between us that could conceivably be the basis of your accusation of transphobia against me. That's my position that women ought to be free to discuss the issue of what it means to be a woman, without abuse or the fear of abuse.

Please would you confirm whether you consider such a position to be transphobic, and why?  Because it seems to me that you sling that slur around without any basis, as a weapon. Increasingly, people are realising that it's a dishonest tactic used by some TRAs to silence women and those who support their rights.

If you don't consider that position transphobic, please would you either retract your smear, or provide anything you consider to be evidence for it?



Sea Star said:


> I've seen people banned for putting up things that they've refused to back up.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 7, 2017)

As far as I can tell, merely disagreeing with something can make you a transphobe. What a mess call out culture is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> In any other subject on U75 I notice that any assertions made are required to be backed up. I've seen people banned for putting up things that they've refused to back up.
> 
> But on the subject of trans women there is no critical analysis. Any bullshit claims on here are lapped up by the many transphobic (yes, I will use that word for most of the people on this thread, including MadeinBedlham, Athos, Magnus McGinty and all) posters. I don't see any challenging the claim that trans women are as violent as men, which is in fact a lie, not backed up by any study. The one study I've seen quoted in fact says completely the opposite and you can read (above) where the author of the study states this clearly and unequivocally.
> 
> ...


Yeh. The point in para 1, can you back it up with examples?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2017)

Your claim that I’m transphobic Sea Star - back it up or retract it.


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Your claim that I’m transphobic Sea Star - back it up or retract it.



They're not going to back up, retract it or, probably, refrain from making similar claims in the future, so while I understand you and Athos making that request, I fear you're wasting your time and risking derailing the thread further into the minutiae of which individuals they think are transphobic.


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2017)

Apologies Sea Star I've not been following the thread closely recently, but the poster (I won't tag or quote them directly at this point) who seems to have suggested 





> that trans women are as violent as men, which is in fact a lie, not backed up by any study.


 joined on Monday and has only made 6 posts iirc. Time will tell what sort of of reception they get from Urban should they stick around, but I don't think that alone is a fair basis for calling other posters transphobic.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 7, 2017)

Throwing the term about like this will just dilute any power they feel it carries.


----------



## editor (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> In any other subject on U75 I notice that any assertions made are required to be backed up. I've seen people banned for putting up things that they've refused to back up.


That's really not true at all, except under exceptional circumstances (usually legal). 

If we did ban people for not backing up their claims, we would have lost an awful lot of posters!


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2017)

editor said:


> That's really not true at all, except under exceptional circumstances (usually legal).
> 
> If we did ban people for not backing up their claims, we would have lost an awful lot of posters!



Also lies are her allegations of transphobia. Please would you ask her to provide evidence or retract them?


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 7, 2017)

I won't retract. Editor will have to ban me first. I speak as I find. If you don't like it stop being transphobic.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 7, 2017)

editor said:


> That's really not true at all, except under exceptional circumstances (usually legal).
> 
> If we did ban people for not backing up their claims, we would have lost an awful lot of posters!


conspiraloon - which is most of what this TERF nonsense is tbh.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> conspiraloon



You won’t get away with saying words like ‘loon’ in call out idpol circles.

If I wanted to be a dick I’d now start calling you ableist.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> I won't retract. Editor will have to ban me first. I speak as I find. If you don't like it stop being transphobic.



Won't retract. Can you post any evidence, instead, then?


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 7, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You won’t get away with saying words like ‘loon’ in call out idpol circles.
> 
> If I wanted to be a dick then I’d now start calling you ableist.


fuck off


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 7, 2017)

Athos said:


> Won't retract. Can you post any evidence, instead, then?


everything you have ever said to me is evidence.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> I won't retract. Editor will have to ban me first. I speak as I find. If you don't like it stop being transphobic.



Lol. What an entitled wanker


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> everything you have ever said to me is evidence.



That's a 'no' then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> I won't retract. Editor will have to ban me first. I speak as I find. If you don't like it stop being transphobic.


So unrepentant liar then


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2017)

Is _any_ of this helping _anyone_?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Is _any_ of this helping _anyone_?



Yes. 

Sea Star gets to lash out and perform her chosen role as world’s most oppressed person ever 

Everyone else gets to see how hollow her accusations are


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Is _any_ of this helping _anyone_?



Do you think it's helpful to anyone to allow Sea Star and a relative handful of other posters to continue to make unfounded allegations of this sort, over and over again without being pulled up on it, or do you think that we, as members of an online community, have some responsibility to challenge such allegations and demonstrate that we as a community are not prepared to tolerate their behaviour?

Your previous post suggests


chilango said:


> Apologies Sea Star I've not been following the thread closely recently, but the poster (I won't tag or quote them directly at this point) who seems to have suggested  joined on Monday and has only made 6 posts iirc. Time will tell what sort of of reception they get from Urban should they stick around, but *I don't think that alone is a fair basis for calling other posters transphobic*.



It's clear to me (and I suspect many others here) that the poster in question isn't remotely interested in being fair, or honest in their dealings, so appeals to reasonableness are simply not going to work.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 7, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> When you are quoting a blog, article, someone else (maybe this is you though) it's helpful to link to what you are quoting.
> 
> Male Violence Is The Problem


thanks .  No its not mine - the link was posted by someone in this forum earlier, I believe.

also another one worth reading here, from the same blog, from a trans person:

To Boys Who Don't Fit In - A Guest Post by Jesse - Gender Apostates


----------



## thisweb (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> bullshit. Either you can't read or you're lying on purpose.
> 
> TERFs get told by author of study that they are interpreting her study wrong, they insist they aren’t
> 
> Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal – The TransAdvocate



ok I could go back and forth on studies about this, but ive been there before, its like debating climate deniars.  To be honest I can't really demonstrate better how a LOT of trans women ARE violent other than pointing to this web site:   TERF is a slur which has an ever growing list of violent threatening tweets.  Some of the things being said here made my blood curdle. They are terrifying for women who already suffer a persistent fear of male violence.  The list of tweets is so long and cruel I couldn't get through them all.  Now if you can find or compile a similar list of tweets from Radical Femists, then I'll eat my hat and apologize for being a liar or unable to read.  Also, I note that the vast majority of these tweets , if not all of them are from trans identified males. Or transwomen, if you prefer.   Not trans men.  Theres a pattern if its m2f trans and not f2m trans that mostly behave this way, don't you accept?  Also how many violent crimes, convictions have there been for trans men vs trans females?  Can you name more than 2 cases of tranmen killing other women?

terfisalsur.com


----------



## thisweb (Dec 7, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> In any other subject on U75 I notice that any assertions made are required to be backed up. I've seen people banned for putting up things that they've refused to back up.
> 
> But on the subject of trans women there is no critical analysis. Any bullshit claims on here are lapped up by the many transphobic (yes, I will use that word for most of the people on this thread, including MadeinBedlham, Athos, Magnus McGinty and all) posters. I don't see any challenging the claim that trans women are as violent as men, which is in fact a lie, not backed up by any study. The one study I've seen quoted in fact says completely the opposite and you can read (above) where the author of the study states this clearly and unequivocally.
> 
> ...


Suppose for a minute that transwomen happend to be as violent as men, just supose, hypothetically, would you think TERFs have a case to exclude men from their spaces?  Because if not then all this is irrelevent, and arguing studies is a waste of time.  If however you agree that it would change your view on trans activism, then I will happily devote a time debating the studies with you.	Otherwise do you see why its pointless arguing studies you dont even believe matter?


----------



## thisweb (Dec 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Apologies Sea Star I've not been following the thread closely recently, but the poster (I won't tag or quote them directly at this point) who seems to have suggested  joined on Monday and has only made 6 posts iirc. Time will tell what sort of of reception they get from Urban should they stick around, but I don't think that alone is a fair basis for calling other posters transphobic.


I am new to this forum.  I came from a link from another anarchist website discussing the book fair.  I'm not transphobic (that feels like a slur), but I do often fear men, so who knows? does that make me manphobic? I dont think so.	- i dont hate trans people or men - if that counts?   I wouldn't  use slurs against trans people and I support transwomens 'right' to think they are women.  I dont support their desire to demand everyone else treat them as female in law.   My question is simply: why on earth do people think transwomen ARN'T as violent as men?  Can anyone site any evidence they are all gentle kind beings who wouldnt harm a soul.  Excluding the elephant in the room - the fact violence from trans women (that we all saw) manged to close an entire bookfair down and next years as well.	Its a sexist assumption to assume that changing your chosen identity automatically make you less violent.   Are people saying transmen are more violent than transwomen?  Or are they just saying most trans people arent violent?  If so thats meaningless as it also applies to all men and women too.  What I am talking about here is large minorities. Large minorities of men (I assume i need to provide evidence for violence in men right?) and large minorities of transwomen (see turfisaslur.com for tonnes of blood curdling evidence there) . Most transwomen, like men, I agree are unlikely to be violent against women.  But the fear , perceived and actual, and real threat from large minorities of violent people, mostly men, but also transwomen matters.  Thats why feminism exists and the debate shouldn't be shut down with 'transphobe'.  Especially by violent means.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2017)

Athos said:


> Also lies are her allegations of transphobia. Please would you ask her to provide evidence or retract them?



I don't agree with the other posters who are mentioned, but Athos, in discussion after  discussion on this you have consistantly defended the trans-exclusionary line.  You have never really acknowledged that bigotry and prejudice may exist on that side, or that there has been a long running and virulent anti-trans campaign from a very small group of radical feminists that dates back nearly fifty years and which goes way beyond concerns about the proposed new laws.  You have repeatedly portrayed trans-activists as violent and abusive based on a handful of people and one incident whilst ignoring or apologising for the violence and abuse that has come from the other side.  You post incessently and aggresively on every discussion about trans-issues, despite seeming to admit you have no skin in this game personally, and you always take the anti-trans line on behalf of this subset of radical feminists, even if it is couched in your so-called support for trans-people.  You have even adopted the lexicon of this group, calling them by their latest loaded moniker 'gender critical feminists' as if it is only possible to be critical of gender if you are trans-exclusionary - a gross insult by the way to all the feminists, such as Dworkin, who are both gender critical and supportive of trans-people.

You have never once shown any empathy with what is at stake in this debate for transpeople, who mostly just want to be able to go to the toilet and access services if they need them like everyone else takes for granted.  I don't know if you're transphobic but perhaps if you thought about some of this shit you wouldn't rub so many people up the wrong way who are genuinely and actively supportive of transpeople.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I don't agree with the other posters who are mentioned, but Athos, in discussion after  discussion on this you have consistantly defended the trans-exclusionary line.  You have never really acknowledged that bigotry and prejudice may exist on that side, or that there has been a long running and virulent anti-trans campaign from a very small group of radical feminists that dates back nearly fifty years and which goes way beyond concerns about the proposed new laws.  You have repeatedly portrayed trans-activists as violent and abusive based on a handful of people and one incident whilst ignoring or apologising for the violence and abuse that has come from the other side.  You post incessently and aggresively on every discussion about trans-issues, despite seeming to admit you have no skin in this game personally, and you always take the anti-trans line on behalf of this subset of radical feminists, even if it is couched in your so-called support for trans-people.  You have even adopted the lexicon of this group, calling them by their latest loaded moniker 'gender critical feminists' as if it is only possible to be critical of gender if you are trans-exclusionary - a gross insult by the way to all the feminists, such as Dworkin, who are both gender critical and supportive of trans-people.
> 
> You have never once shown any empathy with what is at stake in this debate for transpeople, who mostly just want to be able to go to the toilet and access services if they need them like everyone else takes for granted.  I don't know if you're transphobic but perhaps if you thought about some of this shit you wouldn't rub so many people up the wrong way who are genuinely and actively supportive of transpeople.



Come on, you know a lot of this is untrue.  If necessary, I can go back and find relevant quotes, but, in the meantime,  I'd say:

I've commented empathetically many times across many different threads about the challenges trans people face, and condemning the abuse they receive.  I've certainly never denied or defended it.

I've been very explicit in pointing out that not all trans activists behave in the ways of which I'm critical.

I have acknowledged that some of the criticism of trans people is motivated by bigotry.  But I don't consider it all is, or that the fact that some is, undermines that which is not.

I've often said that trans people should have facilities that meets their needs.  But, however much you might try to over-simplify the discussion, it's not 'just' a matter of trans people having the everyday stuff they need; that only looks at one half of the picture - there's also the issue of women's concerns, which I'm not so willing to discuss so lightly.

I picked 'gender critical feminists' precisely because it was it was less loaded than, say, TERFs.  But, if you can come up with a better description, I'd happily adopt that; I'm not trying to make a point with the name.

Yes, I post on a lot of these threads; but, why shouldn't I?  Plenty of other posters do the same.  You've not questioned their lack of skin I  the game, nor explained your own (which is fine, as long as that standard is applied equally).  I think your real objection is that I disagree with you.

I appreciate that what I say might upset some people (albeit ir receives support from others). But that's not my intention, and, if it were just a matter of idle curiosity I'd leave it (as I had begun to do until recent developments), but I happen to think it's becoming a really important issue.

I've thought about this issue a lot. And I can honestly say that I don't consider myself transphobic.  I believe much of the effort to smear me that way is a dishonest attempt to close down discussion. And its unhelpful and polarising reduce it to good versus bad (on either side); it needs a more nuanced discussion about how best to accommodate competing good intentions, whilst minimising negative unintended consequences. I think your line and tactics actively hinder that discussion.

Most importantly, I don't know how you can say I take a trans- exclusionary line. I've repeatedly and consistently said I favour trans inclusion, and stated my own inclusionary position (in fact, you criticised me for saying a number of times how I consider trans women to be women).  Once again, you're conflating the issues of my answer to the question and my stance on whether women have the right to ask the question.

That's the whole of my point: that, regardless of my conception of trans women's gender, women (including trans women) ought to be able to discuss this without abuse or the fear of abuse. Is that something with which you disagree? It that a transphobic position, in your opinion?

Notwithstanding that much of our discussion to date has been ill-tempered, I'd be happy to move forward more positively,  to really try to nail down exactly what divides us (in particular what it is in my fundamental position that you consider transphobic), and to see if there's any way to overcome that.  Perhaps by each of us setting out some fundamental principles (as I've done above, with the principle of women's freedom to discuss what it means to be a woman), for the other to explain whether or not they agree with them, and why?  Maybe you could answer that point, then set out some of yours, for me to accept or reject?  (Can do it on another thread or by pm, if you think it'd be a derail, here.)


----------



## Sue (Dec 8, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I don't agree with the other posters who are mentioned, but Athos, in discussion after  discussion on this you have consistantly defended the trans-exclusionary line.  You have never really acknowledged that bigotry and prejudice may exist on that side, or that there has been a long running and virulent anti-trans campaign from a very small group of radical feminists that dates back nearly fifty years and which goes way beyond concerns about the proposed new laws.  You have repeatedly portrayed trans-activists as violent and abusive based on a handful of people and one incident whilst ignoring or apologising for the violence and abuse that has come from the other side.  *You post incessently and aggresively on every discussion about trans-issues, despite seeming to admit you have no skin in this game personally,* and you always take the anti-trans line on behalf of this subset of radical feminists, even if it is couched in your so-called support for trans-people.  You have even adopted the lexicon of this group, calling them by their latest loaded moniker 'gender critical feminists' as if it is only possible to be critical of gender if you are trans-exclusionary - a gross insult by the way to all the feminists, such as Dworkin, who are both gender critical and supportive of trans-people.
> 
> You have never once shown any empathy with what is at stake in this debate for transpeople, who mostly just want to be able to go to the toilet and access services if they need them like everyone else takes for granted.  I don't know if you're transphobic but perhaps if you thought about some of this shit you wouldn't rub so many people up the wrong way who are genuinely and actively supportive of transpeople.


I think you're out of order. While you may not agree with Athos (and I don't always either), I think his thoughts on this are pretty clear and certainly not transphobic. 

I also don't understand the bit in bold above. Are you saying people can't post on an issue unless they 'have skin in the game'? What does that mean in this context? Do you have to be trans or a feminist or a terf or what? Who decides?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 8, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I am new to this forum.  I came from a link from another anarchist website discussing the book fair.  I'm not transphobic (that feels like a slur), but I do often fear men, so who knows? does that make me manphobic? I dont think so.	- i dont hate trans people or men - if that counts?   I wouldn't  use slurs against trans people and I support transwomens 'right' to think they are women.  I dont support their desire to demand everyone else treat them as female in law.   My question is simply: why on earth do people think transwomen ARN'T as violent as men?  Can anyone site any evidence they are all gentle kind beings who wouldnt harm a soul.  Excluding the elephant in the room - the fact violence from trans women (that we all saw) manged to close an entire bookfair down and next years as well.	Its a sexist assumption to assume that changing your chosen identity automatically make you less violent.   Are people saying transmen are more violent than transwomen?  Or are they just saying most trans people arent violent?  If so thats meaningless as it also applies to all men and women too.  What I am talking about here is large minorities. Large minorities of men (I assume i need to provide evidence for violence in men right?) and large minorities of transwomen (see turfisaslur.com for tonnes of blood curdling evidence there) . Most transwomen, like men, I agree are unlikely to be violent against women.  But the fear , perceived and actual, and real threat from large minorities of violent people, mostly men, but also transwomen matters.  Thats why feminism exists and the debate shouldn't be shut down with 'transphobe'.  Especially by violent means.


I must have been at a different bookfair because while the bookfair I went to was disrupted by the incident under discussion on this thread, it wasn't closed down by same


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 8, 2017)

It’s a rather bizarre position: is smokedout saying they are trans - so can post on the topic - or simply know someone who is? 
And surely shitting up the book fair drags in more than those with direct interests in it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 8, 2017)

Not just that, but if everyone has a gender identity (which proponents argue is true, and for arguments sake, let's suppose everyone does) and everyone  also has a sex then surely *everyone* has a dog in the race?

Apart from a-gender people, who presumably don't have a gender identity, in which case does this not affect them? Do they have no dog in the race or is the act not discriminatory to them? Do a-gender females deserve recognition of gender absence or sex based protections or both? Do a-gender males have male privilege even if they don't identify as men? What about people who don't believe in gender identity as innate? Should they just suck it up? 

Edit: What's the difference between sympathetic a-gender people who say they don't have a gender, and people who don't believe in gender identity saying they don't have a gender? Is it just the belief? In which case are we going to legislate on faith? Those with the faith get a free pass but those without are hateful? 

I think this act affects more than some are willing to admit.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2017)

Athos said:


> Come on, you know a lot of this is untrue.  If necessary, I can go back and find relevant quotes, but, in the meantime,  I'd say:
> 
> I've commented empathetically many times across many different threads about the challenges trans people face, and condemning the abuse they receive.  I've certainly never denied or defended it.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what's to be gained by stating positions, because whenever you do state your support for transpeople it is is always followed by a big 'but'.  Perhaps if you applied the same rigour and frankly nit-picking to the trans-exclusionary side of the argument that you apply to trans-activists then your posts on this wouldn't appear so biased.	Perhaps if you stopped alluding to trans-activists being violent towards people who have organised meetings or who want to questions the definition of what it is to be a woman, when this has never happened, your support for transpeople might appear more credible.

I do think it would be useful to have an alternative term for terf, and I do think it's unhelpful to lump anyone who may have questions or concerns about this debate under the terf umbrella.  To go back to the originbal meaning, terfs are radical feminists who oppose transwomen organising as women, with women and as feminists.  The main battlegrounds in the states have not been refuges and changing rooms but music festivals and conferences.  The widely held view amongst this group is not just that transwomen are men, but that transwomen are men's rught activists and as such the enemy of women, the enemy of feminism and are raping both women's bodies and identities. They are opposed to the existence of transpeople, hence their objection to any kind of medical intervention to alleviate gender dysphoria.  I have no problem calling them terfs, and sadly, several of them are leading the campaign against the proposed changes to the GRA.  They were also almost certainly behind the bookfair leaflet.  A bit more scrutiny of this group, what their agenda is, and how they have come to dominate the debate, might go a long way.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Not just that, but if everyone has a gender identity (which proponents argue is true, and for arguments sake, let's suppose everyone does) and everyone  also has a sex then surely *everyone* has a dog in the race?
> 
> Apart from a-gender people, who presumably don't have a gender identity, in which case does this not affect them? Do they have no dog in the race or is the act not discriminatory to them? Do a-gender females deserve recognition of gender absence or sex based protections or both? Do a-gender males have male privilege even if they don't identify as men? What about people who don't believe in gender identity as innate? Should they just suck it up?
> 
> ...



Since Ireland introduced self-identification two years ago only 240 people have applied for a GRC.  There is no evidence that there has been any misuse of the system or that the fears raised about this have come to pass.  There are no reported problems in other countries which have introduced similar changes.  So the evidence suggests it is really not likely to affect many people at all.

The proposed change in the equalities act to include gender identity as a protected charicteristic (which is probably not going to happen) was intended to address exactly the people you describe.  It would have protected both those whose define their gender identity as non-binary or agender and those who reject gender identity completely because it is based on the presumptions of anyone who might be discriminating - so if someone was refused a job or flat because they looked a-gender, or something they said led someone to believe they rejected gender, then they would be covered by the act.  In addition the floated plans to allow a legal gender neutral category would have protected these groups.

Neither of these things were proposed to help transpeople who are already reasonably well protected, but to help non-binary or agender people.  They would have had no bearing on women only spaces because people identifying as non-binary would not be legally women and so it would be down to service providers, as it is now, on whether to invoke the exemptions or not.  And yet these changes are vehemently opposed by some of the rad fems organising against the GRA changes - including the people behind the bookfair leaflet.

And that really sums them up for me.  They are prepared to throw away the end of a state mandated gender binary on the off chance it may occassionally make the lives of a tiny minority of transpeople slightly more tolerable.  Which really brings into question the sincerity of their rejection of gender and starts to make them look like a group who are obsessed with attacking transwomen and little else.

Which is why they weren't mobilising when benefit changes were introduced which had the potential to close every women's refuge in the country.  There were no meeting tours or earnest pieces in the press from them then.  They were fucking invisible and it was trans-inclusive feminists, such as Sisters Uncut, who were leading the fight to protect women only spaces from economic extinction.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I'm not sure what's to be gained by stating positions, because whenever you do state your support for transpeople it is is always followed by a big 'but'.  Perhaps if you applied the same rigour and frankly nit-picking to the trans-exclusionary side of the argument that you apply to trans-activists then your posts on this wouldn't appear so biased.	Perhaps if you stopped alluding to trans-activists being violent towards people who have organised meetings or who want to questions the definition of what it is to be a woman, when this has never happened, your support for transpeople might appear more credible.



I noticed you didn't answer my questions. Please would you try?

The reason I think it'd be helpful to set out some principles is because it would help us understand each other. You certainly don't seem to grasp where I'm coming from, and I really don't understand what it is in the content of my position that leads you to think I'm transphobic.

Yes, I sometimes say 'but'. Like I would say it about freedom of speech, or freedom of movement, or even the right to life. You can still believe that's something's a right whilst recognising it might be limited or qualified, especially when it conflicts with other rights. But you seem to be suggesting that trans rights area absolute, and trump everything else. A very entitled position, and one which completely disregards women's rights. 

Isn't TRAs attacking women who sought to organise a debate exactly what happened at Speaker's Corner?


----------



## kenny g (Dec 9, 2017)

MI5 named employer of the year by Stonewall

join the dots folks and put your tin foil hats on now!!

As stated earlier - watch the result and then work backwards to identify the cause...


----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I must have been at a different bookfair because while the bookfair I went to was disrupted by the incident under discussion on this thread, it wasn't closed down by same


as i understand it next years bookfair has been cancelled.  Maybe I heard wrong.  People evacuated this one after a fire alarm went off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> as i understand it next years bookfair has been cancelled.  Maybe I heard wrong.  People evacuated this one after a fire alarm went off.


Yeh. You weren't there. Yet you're making out you know better than me, who was there. Oh, and next year's bookfair not cancelled bring as it wasn't organised.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

Sue said:


> I think you're out of order. While you may not agree with Athos (and I don't always either), I think his thoughts on this are pretty clear and certainly not transphobic.
> 
> I also don't understand the bit in bold above. Are you saying people can't post on an issue unless they 'have skin in the game'? What does that mean in this context? Do you have to be trans or a feminist or a terf or what? Who decides?


It seems that what smokedout wants is total silence if you don't support trans people. Or an unambiguous position of support for transpeople if you must speak.  Genuine debate isn't allowed.  Thats why 'TERFS' have to print leaflets.  Because nobody wants to hear them talk.   I was just looking at those leaflets on page3 of this forum again.  Youy do not have to agree with everything, but I have serious doubts any person, including trans people , can disagree in their hearts and mind with at least 2 of the 20 or so points raised.  Yet they remain undressed in discussions here by trans people.  Its the insincerity of some - many (but by no means all) - trans activists that bothers me most. Bigotry is stupidity that has the potential to be overcome (however difficult) . But insincerity?  It is sinister and calculating, loveless and impossible to overcome. Un-anarchist.  Thats the reason why the book fair had to be canceled.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> It seems that what smokedout wants is total silence if you don't support trans people. Or an unambiguous position of support for transpeople if you must speak.  Genuine debate isn't allowed.  Thats why 'TERFS' have to print leaflets.  Because nobody wants to hear them talk.   I was just looking at those leaflets on page3 of this forum again.  One does not have to agree with everything, but have serious doubts any person, including trans people , can disagree in their hearts and mind with at least 2 of those points raised.  Yet they remain undressed in discussions here by trans people.  Its the insincerity of some trans people that bothers me most. Bigotry is stupidity that has , however difficult, the potential to be  overcome. But insincerity?  It is sinister and calculating, impossible to overcome.  Thats the reason why the book fair had to be canceled.


Insincerity eh?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> It seems that what smokedout wants is total silence if you don't support trans people. Or an unambiguous position of support for transpeople if you must speak.  Genuine debate isn't allowed.  Thats why 'TERFS' have to print leaflets.  Because nobody wants to hear them talk.   I was just looking at those leaflets on page3 of this forum again.  One does not have to agree with everything, but have serious doubts any person, including trans people , can disagree in their hearts and mind with at least 2 of those points raised.  Yet they remain undressed in discussions here by trans people.  Its the insincerity of some trans people that bothers me most. Bigotry is stupidity that has , however difficult, the potential to be  overcome. But insincerity?  It is sinister and calculating, impossible to overcome.  Thats the reason why the book fair had to be canceled.




By your own admission..



> *One does not have to agree with everything*, but have serious doubts any person, including trans people , can disagree in their hearts and mind *with at least 2 of those points raised.*



Yet here you are still badmouthing people here you have no idea are or are not trans.  Are only trans people allowed an opinion then? If so, are you trans?

You are posting, calling for honesty and honest debate? Put your points where your mouth is...which _points_ on those leaflets could trans people disagree with and which 2 are unquestionable _IYO_?


----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. You weren't there. Yet you're making out you know better than me, who was there. Oh, and next year's bookfair not cancelled bring as it wasn't organised.


The main  organisers stated publicly they were not going to do it next year.  Whatever. a) Your being pedantic. and b) as a  pedant:  I never said I knew anything better than you, at any point, anywhere, ever.  Never said it.  But now I heavily suspect it.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> The main  organisers stated publicly they were not going to do it next year.  Whatever. a) Your being pedantic. and b) as a  pedant:  I never said I knew anything better than you, at any point, anywhere, ever.  Never said it.  But now I heavily suspect it.


Please post in English.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> By your own admission..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well ive been following this thread and lots of people have said that the leaflets are bigotry and hateful.  I have no idea if trans people are on this thread.  yeah, I should really have said anti TERF trans activists.   I already linked to other websites of trans people that do support the aims of the feminist leaflets. So I figured that was a given when i said trans people.  My bad, i guess.   I couldn't care less what gender  others think they are. What matters to me is the arguments being made against feminists as bigots.   I don't understand your question.  I said there are at least 2 points that everyone CAN agree on.  So I'm curious to know why where they dismissed by some on this thread.  It wasn't targeted at everyone.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

kenny g said:


> Please post in English.


I did.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I couldn't care less what gender  others think they are.



Why not, surely they know better than you? 



> What matters to me is the arguments being made against feminists by bigots.   I don't understand you question.  I said there are at least 2 points that everyone CAN agree on.  So I'm curious to know why where they dismissed by some on this thread.  It wasn't targeted at everyone.



You keep talking about the leaflets and dividing the points into those you agree with/that can't be challenged and by default those that can be challenged. Instead of doing this dance around what those points actually are, invest in this thread in a meaningful way and outline what those things actually are... Why would anyone here be solely interested in you linking to the thoughts of other people/blogs and whatnot... You seem to want to defend the contents of the leaflets...do that or not at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> The main  organisers stated publicly they were not going to do it next year.  Whatever. a) Your being pedantic. and b) as a  pedant:  I never said I knew anything better than you, at any point, anywhere, ever.  Never said it.  But now I heavily suspect it.


Yeh. I never said you said you knew better than me. Do get your facts straight sweetcheeks.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Why not, surely they know better than you?
> 
> I don't care.   As in its not relevant to my reply in that instance.
> 
> You keep talking about the leaflets and dividing the points into those you agree with/that can't be challenged and by default those that can be challenged. Instead of doing this dance around what those points actually are, invest in this thread in a meaningful way and outline what those things actually are... Why would anyone here be solely interested in you linking to the thoughts of other people/blogs and whatnot... You seem to want to defend the contents of the leaflets...do that or not at all.



OK, I thought id made it clear.  l  agree with ALL the points in the leaflet.  I have defended them already.	Do you agree with any of the points or not?  Would you like to defend any you disagree with?


----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I never said you said you knew better than me. Do get your facts straight sweetcheeks.


'Yet you're making out you know better than me'

Also sweetcheeks is a sexist patronizing anti-woman cliche.  Don't.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> OK, I thought id made it clear.  l  agree with ALL the points in the leaflet.  I have defended them already.	Do you agree with any of the points or not?  Would you like to defend any you disagree with?



Eh? You seem to have changed your mind really quickly... 44 minutes to be exact... you have gone from wholesale saying that at least 2 of the 20 points can't be challenged to now saying they are all stone cold, concrete, fact?


This is you 44 minutes ago...


> I was just looking at those leaflets on page3 of this forum again. You do not have to agree with everything, *but I have serious doubts any person, including trans people , can disagree in their hearts and mind with at least 2 of the 20 or so points raised.*



What changed in the last 44 minutes?


----------



## bimble (Dec 11, 2017)




----------



## thisweb (Dec 11, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? You seem to have changed your mind really quickly... 44 minutes to be exact... you have gone from wholesale saying that at least 2 of the 20 points can't be challenged to now saying they are all stone cold, concrete, fact?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice try.  No, i said AT LEAST 2 of them.	I KNOW people challenge some of the other points, and i disagree with them.  But theres 2 on that list I haevnt heard arguments against by anyone.  They are important but have been dismissed because they are on a leaflet that has been denounced hateful and bigoted.   Whenever i bring them up, the subject changes, pedants start using personal attacks, critisie my language, or sentence formulation, insinuate im stupid or illiterate.   eg  ' speak english', 'sweetcheeks'  just in the last hour!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> 'Yet you're making out you know better than me'
> 
> Also sweetcheeks is a sexist patronizing anti-woman cliche.  Don't.


Quite so: you are making out - suggesting, implying - you know better than me. Which is just what you're doing. Moving on... Don't what? Don't spread lies? Don't believe hearsay? Both serious flaws throughout your posts.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Nice try.  No, i said AT LEAST 2 of them.	I KNOW people challenge some of the other points, and i disagree with them.  But theres 2 on that list I haevnt heard arguments against by anyone.  They are important but have been dismissed because they are on a leaflet that has been denounced hateful and bigoted.   Whenever i bring them up, the subject changes, pedants start using personal attacks, critisie my language, or sentence formulation, insinuate im stupid or illiterate.   eg  ' speak english', 'sweetcheeks'  just in the last hour!



What are the two points?


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

Just set out the two points for God's sake.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 11, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Nice try.  No, i said AT LEAST 2 of them.	I KNOW people challenge some of the other points, and i disagree with them.  But theres 2 on that list I haevnt heard arguments against by anyone.  They are important but have been dismissed because they are on a leaflet that has been denounced hateful and bigoted.   Whenever i bring them up, the subject changes, pedants start using personal attacks, critisie my language, or sentence formulation, insinuate im stupid or illiterate.   eg  ' speak english', 'sweetcheeks'  just in the last hour!



Nice try...here you go again dancing around the two points you do absolutely agree with and the others you know others disagree with yet you still can't and won't actually name or discuss any of them.

Let me know when you are actually ready to discuss these things. Even the 2 points that you insist no one can argue with would be a start


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> Just set out the two points for God's sake.


Yeh thisweb, but without hesitation, deviation or repetition


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

There's certainly a spot of hesitation there


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Nice try.  No, i said AT LEAST 2 of them.	I KNOW people challenge some of the other points, and i disagree with them.  But theres 2 on that list I haevnt heard arguments against by anyone.  They are important but have been dismissed because they are on a leaflet that has been denounced hateful and bigoted.   Whenever i bring them up, the subject changes, pedants start using personal attacks, critisie my language, or sentence formulation, insinuate im stupid or illiterate.   eg  ' speak english', 'sweetcheeks'  just in the last hour!


Sweetcheeks doesn't insinuate stupidity, it isn't a personal attack, nor a criticism of your language or sentence formation: nor a change of subject.


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2017)

Pickman's model Nice edit there, removing “I’ll Post as i see fit, my love" from your response to a woman telling you to stop calling her sweetcheecks because its a sexist patronising anti-woman cliche.  Think better of that did you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Pickman's model Nice edit there , removing “I’ll Post as i see fit, my love" from your response to a woman asking you to stop calling her sweetcheecks. Think better of that did you? =


do you want to know? i thought that being as i'd called her a liar and other people were also waiting for answers that i'd remove that to avoid going off on the tangent you wish to take us down. i also think that it is wicked of you to undermine poor thisweb by offering her your feeble support. she'll do better without it.


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2017)

Very noble.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Very noble.


yeh. let her alone, bimble. she deserves that at least.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 12, 2017)

TBH PM - if you wanted to avoid people going on pointless tangents you would have to remove 90% of your posts...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

kenny g said:


> TBH PM - if you wanted to avoid people going on pointless tangents you would have to remove 90% of your posts...


14.3% I think you'll find. There is some merit to the other tangents.


----------



## AverageJoe (Dec 12, 2017)

I have no idea what's going on. But it seems important x


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2017)

AverageJoe said:


> I have no idea what's going on. But it seems important x


Big barney at bookfair, people taking sides, new members from various povs join and are barracked: business as usual.


----------



## gamerunknown (Dec 14, 2017)

Magnus said:
			
		

> Someone who snootily suggests pubs other than the local one has no business in class politics.



Well, snootily, sure, but there's plenty of reasons not to go to the local after a conference. Right at the top is that it'll be rammed, making it difficult to order and to hear each other. Other reasons could include loud music, price, not having desired drinks on top and so forth - not to mention beefs with other groups in attendance.




			
				Lynn said:
			
		

> a materialist anarchist/communist class perspective that's rooted in solidarity, collective struggle, and freedom - or a identity politics outlook that's rooted in individual difference and rights.
> 
> It's related to the destruction of class as a political category, a surge in individualism, the unquestioning support for State multiculturalism on the left, a lack of collective memory of mass struggle, a disillusionment with the possibility of social change, etc.
> 
> Urgh, too early and not enough coffee to be doing this



The funniest thing about all of this is that the derisive term "identity politics" was probably first applied to people who prioritised feminist organising over workplace organising. Some of the essence of the debate is captured here. I don't have direct sources, but it's fairly simple to imagine how the conversations played out: in a post-revolutionary society, rape and abuse won't exist, so allying with bourgeois women to build or fund shelters is a form of class collaboration and thus reactionary (in fact, I've heard very similar statements at present). In fact, the quoted black feminist organisation used the term "biological essentialism" to decry the notion that men are innately oppressive, consigning it instead to a process of socialisation which occurs under capitalist, patriarchal society. Which segues into the next point: if gender based oppression is inevitable (and it's survived a change of mode of production!) and things like violence and empathy are determined by our chromosomes, then what I see as the end goals of feminism (an end to gender based oppression - a command of resources not dependent on genitalia, responsibility for raising children shared between adults) and socialism (free associations of equals for productive purposes) are impossible.



> I’ve heard nothing from the IWW or SolFed yet.



Debate within London IWW ultimately culminated in a working group - London IWW already has a policy against transphobia which they decided they should uphold. Brighton SolFed signed the statement - 10 in favour, 2 against (or abstaining, I forget which).



> None of them call for violence against trans identifying people, obviously I would not have supported them if they had.



Met any trans people who call themselves "trans identifying" rather than that identify as a particular gender?



> If you think that other people should not be allowed to question your ideology, it makes you an authoritarian NOT an anarchist.



Yeah, how much tolerance would you have for Troy Southgate questioning yours?



> Of course not, but the wider picture is it’s just rights activism. Which is a dead end as you well know.



This is particularly off kilter, given that Helen Steel was there representing the "Police Spies Out of Lives" campaign which aims for a legal case against the Police Spies infiltrating movements. Their website contains the rights on which their case is based.




			
				TopCat said:
			
		

> Trans women dont face abuse constantly you wally.



Well, their rates of being bullied, suicide and so forth are higher than the general population and their wages are lower. Little bit pedantic in that light.




			
				FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> TERFs basically ignore the existence of trans men, because it ruins the theory of trans people generally being a product of misogyny.



There's also far fewer trans men. Working Class History put out a bit about a 20th century trans man on twitter and the comments were pretty wild. They noted it was easier to identify as a male than be a lesbian in those times, which is a fair point. There's also the case of Victor Barker, which is a bit of a minefield.




			
				thisweb said:
			
		

> But there are trans people who agree with the issue they raised about the new laws. Are they transphobic too? Being gender critical is not transphobic.



This is more or less the internalised transphobia position (or kapo phenomenon). It's possible to find plenty of examples of people who are willing to sacrifice any of their compatriots: Blaire White, Tiny Toese, Candace Owens.



> For men and women to share prison cells.



Yeah, pinnacle of anarchist organising this.



> Since they havent had that for, like, 2000 years.



Right, but the position of women in society has been transformed radically in the past few centuries thanks to industrialisation. If we had another social revolution, gender could cease to be nearly as pertinent (things like pregnancy would still need to be addressed).



> Theressa May is supporting a change in the law to allow anyone to identify as a women. if it doesn't tell you all you need to know, it should at least cause any anti-'terf' anarchist to think more carefully about whats going on.



Discrimination lowers productivity. Two options: ban the particular characteristic (non-citizens) or protect it (gender reassignment).


----------



## MrSpikey (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Would you like to defend any you disagree with?


Generally, people don't defend arguments they disagree with. Hope that helps.


----------



## Red Sky (Dec 14, 2017)

> This is more or less the internalised transphobia position (or kapo phenomenon). It's possible to find plenty of examples of people who are willing to sacrifice any of their compatriots: Blaire White, Tiny Toese, Candace Owens.



So "self hating" trans women. "Gender traitors" perhaps.


----------



## gamerunknown (Dec 14, 2017)

Red Sky said:
			
		

> So "self hating" trans women. "Gender traitors" perhaps.



Ha


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Quite so: you are making out - suggesting, implying - you know better than me. Which is just what you're doing. Moving on... Don't what? Don't spread lies? Don't believe hearsay? Both serious flaws throughout your posts.


You used patronizing sexist language. Its clear you aren't intent on debating the issues raised in the leaflet.  I'm not hanging around this vampire castle, you've made it clear my opinions are worthless to you.  So long.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Sweetcheeks doesn't insinuate stupidity, it isn't a personal attack, nor a criticism of your language or sentence formation: nor a change of subject.


No?  Why don't you explain to everyone what you think it means then.  I think its patronisng.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> There's certainly a spot of hesitation there


Any six lines written by a man , you can use to hang him .  Hesitation and editing is a product of my fear , in a world where no ones opinions count, except those best able to express and write them.	 This is why Boris Jonson and public schoolboys run the world.  Because dicks like you think presentation, accuracy of the written word is more important than the meaning.  You pretend its all about getting the facts correct, but really its just about making others feel small so you dont have to debate anything.


Pickman's model said:


> do you want to know? i thought that being as i'd called her a liar and other people were also waiting for answers that i'd remove that to avoid going off on the tangent you wish to take us down. i also think that it is wicked of you to undermine poor thisweb by offering her your feeble support. she'll do better without it.


It isnt a tangent though Pickman.  Your attitude and language, like so many mens,  is fundamentally at the route of this entire conversation and the battle women must face to be heard without being patronized, shouted down or beaten.  A lot of men and transwomen don't get it, you are one of them, and yet you still don't know why.  And thats the problem, you cant see yourself in the mirror.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> No?  Why don't you explain to everyone what you think it means then.  I think its patronisng.


Yeh. And there was me thinking you weren't hanging round this vampire castle. I call all sorts of people, men  women, transpeople and quite possibly people who fit into none of these categories sweetcheeks, sweetling, my lovely etc because - well spotted - I'm a patronising cunt. I accept what I am. Now, are you going to come out with these two points everyone's waiting on or are you as I suspect an empty vessel? My money's on the latter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Any six lines written by a man , you can use to hang him .  Hesitation and editing is a product of my fear , in a world where no ones opinions count, except those best able to express and write them.	 This is why Boris Jonson and public schoolboys run the world.  Because dicks like you think presentation, accuracy of the written word is more important than the meaning.  You pretend its all about getting the facts correct, but really its just about making others feel small so you dont have to debate anything.
> 
> It isnt a tangent though Pickman.  Your attitude and language, like so many mens,  is fundamentally at the route of this entire conversation and the battle women must face to be heard without being patronized, shouted down or beaten.  A lot of men and transwomen don't get it, you are one of them, and yet you still don't know why.  And thats the problem, you cant see yourself in the mirror.


Yeh. You love hanging round this vampire castle. I'm quite happy to debate with you but you seem less comfortable debating issues and far happier having a pop at me. Carry on, say I. Carry on


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Any six lines written by a man , you can use to hang him .  Hesitation and editing is a product of my fear , in a world where no ones opinions count, except those best able to express and write them.	 This is why Boris Jonson and public schoolboys run the world.  Because dicks like you think presentation, accuracy of the written word is more important than the meaning.  You pretend its all about getting the facts correct, but really its just about making others feel small so you dont have to debate anything.
> 
> It isnt a tangent though Pickman.  Your attitude and language, like so many mens,  is fundamentally at the route of this entire conversation and the battle women must face to be heard without being patronized, shouted down or beaten.  A lot of men and transwomen don't get it, you are one of them, and yet you still don't know why.  And thats the problem, you cant see yourself in the mirror.


I think you're probably the first person here to quote cardinal richelieu. But you're  wrong bj etc run the world because they're the best able to express their opinions. If they were bj wouldn't have lost two jobs because of his lying - two newspaper jobs to boot. People like valerie salonas perfectly able to express their opinions at least as well as bj. But they don't have the ready access to the media or the friendship networks of auld etonians.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

gamerunknown said:


> a) This is more or less the internalised transphobia position (or kapo phenomenon). It's possible to find plenty of examples of people who are willing to sacrifice any of their compatriots: Blaire White, Tiny Toese, Candace Owens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Thats your interpretation. Its dismissive .  You are judging trans people as transphobic.  Also the irony isnt lost on me that you think you can tell trans people that their identity isnt trans because they are transphobic.
** yeh it isnt, Im against prisons.  But im against mixed prisons even more because misogyny and rape  is rampant both in and out of prison.  But particularly in it.  If you are an anarchist you wouldn't support sex seperation at all, because you wouldnt back any policiy that allowed peopel to identify as a class 'woman' EXCEPT as a way to escape the immediate oppression of their lives.  Like the way you use your birth certificate to get your railcard to get to the  book fair or whatever so you can learn how to dismantle the state and its imposition of identities. Supporting the right to self identify with state oppressed woman is not the pinnacle of anarchy either.	Presumably you see how its necessary for anarchist black men to identify as black, when they are fighting or testifying against violence from cops when facing prison?  Under this system of oppression and racism, presumably you  would not  support the right of white men to identify as black men?   If so why do you support the right of men to identify with those they oppress, women?  After all not all white men like to oppress black men, but that doesn't make it ok to just identify as black does it?  It would IF racism and misogyny didn't exist.  It wouldn't matter much.  But thats not the world we live in.  And we don't live in a world where anarchists are free from the rules of state oppression.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> If you are an anarchist you wouldn't support sex seperation at all, because you wouldnt back any policiy that allowed peopel to identify as a class 'woman' EXCEPT as a way to escape the immediate oppression of their lives.


Are you in favour of mixed NHS wards?


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

MrSpikey said:


> Generally, people don't defend arguments they disagree with. Hope that helps.


Oh gosh you didnt understand what I was saying.  Im so sorry for being stupid.  I should have said somethign like 'What do you disagree with and why.'   But you know exactly what i meant.  So dont bother.  You just prefer to derail.	 'Give me any three written sentences and I can use them to hang any man who wrote them'


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. You love hanging round this vampire castle. I'm quite happy to debate with you but you seem less comfortable debating issues and far happier having a pop at me. Carry on, say I. Carry on


I'm sorry?  You have one line sentences talking about nothing. Using patronisng language and calling me 'sweetcheeks'.   I've expressed argumenst and youve not engaged them.  You are most definitely  NOT happy to debate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I'm sorry?  You have one line sentences talking about nothing. Using patronisng language and calling me 'sweetcheeks'.   I've expressed argumenst and youve not engaged them.  You are most definitely  NOT happy to debate.


Yeh. So we're happy liars together then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I'm sorry?  You have one line sentences talking about nothing. Using patronisng language and calling me 'sweetcheeks'.   I've expressed argumenst and youve not engaged them.  You are most definitely  NOT happy to debate.





Pickman's model said:


> I think you're probably the first person here to quote cardinal richelieu. But you're  wrong bj etc run the world because they're the best able to express their opinions. If they were bj wouldn't have lost two jobs because of his lying - two newspaper jobs to boot. People like valerie salonas perfectly able to express their opinions at least as well as bj. But they don't have the ready access to the media or the friendship networks of auld etonians.


Yeh stupid me this isn't debate it's a one sentence put down


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I think you're probably the first person here to quote cardinal richelieu. But you're  wrong bj etc run the world because they're the best able to express their opinions. If they were bj wouldn't have lost two jobs because of his lying - two newspaper jobs to boot. People like valerie salonas perfectly able to express their opinions at least as well as bj. But they don't have the ready access to the media or the friendship networks of auld etonians.


 I dont think thats how British culture works.  The British love aristocracy.  They look up to people who speak and write well.  Look at the public backlash against russel brand.	 Paxman message was 'What gives you, a working clas cockney, the right to speak'.  To this day Brand sis till held in contempt by the vast majority of the British public, including working class activists.  Few barely know what he thinks or stands for.  Because his class is undesirable, so must be his opinions.  His class by the way is either wealthy upity twat who doesnt deserve his money (unlike the toffs who are seen as at least deserving because they speak well)  or working class thicko.  The British care only about language.  Speak well and you will go a long long way, no matter what an asshole you are.	This is consistent with 400 years of British history.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Are you in favour of mixed NHS wards?


Nope


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh stupid me this isn't debate it's a one sentence put down


yeah yeah.  I get it. I am like a dog with a bone.  And you love throwing them.  This is techically debate.  You win.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> yeah yeah.  I get it. I am like a dog with a bone.  And you love throwing them.  This is techically debate.  You win.


Yeh you love the vampire castle. Who knows, tomorrow you might share the two points


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

I dont think thats how British culture works.  The British love aristocracy.  They look up to people who speak and write well.  Look at the public backlash against russel brand.	 Paxman message was 'What gives you, a working clas cockney, the right to speak'.  To this day Brand sis till held in contempt by the vast majority of the British public, including working class activists.  Few barely know what he thinks or stands for.  Because his class is undesirable, so must be his opinions.  His class by the way is either wealthy upity twat who doesnt deserve his money (unlike the toffs who are seen as at least deserving because they speak well)  or working class thicko.  The British care only about language.  Speak well and you will go a long long way, no matter what an asshole you are.	This is consistent with 400 years of British history.



.....And I think deep down, a lot of comments on here including your own, demonstrate how deep rooted this is.  Ive seen Anarchists do it too.   Just as we are all sucked into sexism without even being aware we are doing it. But even pointing this out leads to people just pulling apart your words with a suspicion your stupid or incapable of thinking because you didn't express it just right. So right now we still havnt engaged in the debate about why gender critical feminists views matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I dont think thats how British culture works.  The British love aristocracy.  They look up to people who speak and write well.  Look at the public backlash against russel brand.	 Paxman message was 'What gives you, a working clas cockney, the right to speak'.  To this day Brand sis till held in contempt by the vast majority of the British public, including working class activists.  Few barely know what he thinks or stands for.  Because his class is undesirable, so must be his opinions.  His class by the way is either wealthy upity twat who doesnt deserve his money (unlike the toffs who are seen as at least deserving because they speak well)  or working class thicko.  The British care only about language.  Speak well and you will go a long long way, no matter what an asshole you are.	This is consistent with 400 years of British history.


Russell Brand full of shit - see the threads here about him, even if he has done a few decent things


----------



## thisweb (Dec 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh you love the vampire castle. Who knows, tomorrow you might share the two points


There are 20 of them.  Maybe you will let me know which ones out of the 20 you disagree with. Then I know you actually bothered to read them.  And if you agree with them all then why would you want to debate me?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:


> There are 20 of them.  Maybe you will let me know which ones out of the 20 you disagree with. Then I know you actually bothered to read them.  And if you agree with them all then why would you want to debate me?


Yeh. Maybe you'll post them up for all the other people who've asked about them. Bedtime now, sleep tight.


----------



## gamerunknown (Dec 14, 2017)

thisweb said:
			
		

> Presumably you see how its necessary for anarchist black men to identify as black, when they are fighting or testifying against violence from cops when facing prison?



I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I've found a disconnect between approaches to cultural appropriation and trans issues. There are clear analogies: disparities in outcomes by gender and race, biological and social components. However there are qualitative differences too: the fifth edition of the DSM recognises "gender dysphoria" as a condition, stating that the treatment is social and legal transition to the desired gender. Gender reassignment may help. I don't see the equivalent for race. 




			
				thisweb said:
			
		

> To this day Brand sis till held in contempt by the vast majority of the British public, including working class activists.



Sure, he represents something odious to bourgeois media. But when I've seen him dragged it's mostly for plain misogyny - his collaboration with Jonathan Ross as the most commonly cited example (if social views on sex were even slightly more advanced, it wouldn't have even been seen as interesting to bring it up with a woman's grandfather). But there's also this shit and his his stance on cops.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> There are 20 of them.  Maybe you will let me know which ones out of the 20 you disagree with. Then I know you actually bothered to read them.  And if you agree with them all then why would you want to debate me?



I don’t think that the proposals for changing the gender recognition act equate to “rape culture”. 

Do you?


----------



## MrSpikey (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Oh gosh you didnt understand what I was saying.  Im so sorry for being stupid.  I should have said somethign like 'What do you disagree with and why.'   But you know exactly what i meant.  So dont bother.  You just prefer to derail.	 'Give me any three written sentences and I can use them to hang any man who wrote them'


I'm happy to confirm that I did understand what you said, and I addressed that.

If you meant to say something else, then go ahead and state that - but assuming that people should somehow have known what you meant to say, rather than what you actually said, is a load of old bollocks.


----------



## MrSpikey (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I dont think thats how British culture works.  The British love aristocracy.



Very true. The NHS has reported an all time high of forelock-tugging injuries this year



thisweb said:


> They look up to people who speak and write well.



Yep. It doesn't matter what they say, or what they write, but as long as they do it well, we all look up to them.



thisweb said:


> To this day Brand sis till held in contempt by the vast majority of the British public, including working class activists.  Few barely know what he thinks or stands for.



I for one have quite a few problems with his stance. But I base that on what he has said about his stance, not his background. I'm sure anyone who is interested in the details can find all they need to know in his little red Bookie Wook.



thisweb said:


> Because his class is undesirable, so must be his opinions.



Well, there certainly is a small section of society that seems to agree with this, but it's not a universal truth.



thisweb said:


> His class by the way is either wealthy upity twat who doesnt deserve his money (unlike the toffs who are seen as at least deserving because they speak well)  or working class thicko.  The British care only about language.  Speak well and you will go a long long way, no matter what an asshole you are.	This is consistent with 400 years of British history.



Thanks your for your input into how we all tick.

It's always good to get a nuanced political analysis from someone who is outside of the hurly-burly of British politics, but is familiar enough with the subject to offer an insightful opinion,

If you ever meet someone like that, will you promise to send them to Urban?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Thats why 'TERFS' have to print leaflets.  Because nobody wants to hear them talk.


Yeh. That's really what's been said.  as I've said above, Yeh 'terfs' have a right to distribute leaflets. And people who disagree with them have a right to challenge them. That should be fairly uncontentious. Should any group be immune from criticism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Ok, well theres this thing called feminism.  And there is no thing called mannanism.  You see women are oppressed by men and fear men.  Always have because men oppress women and scare them.


Yeh. Have you heard of masculism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> There are 20 of them.  Maybe you will let me know which ones out of the 20 you disagree with. Then I know you actually bothered to read them.  And if you agree with them all then why would you want to debate me?


yeh. these points would presumably be the long list on the reverse of the leaflet, plus one on the obverse, which imo add up to one point: that the message of the leaflet is the new law should be opposed.

tbh i think it's a poor leaflet, which doesn't reference how the new law proposes to do any of these things. therefore the claims must be taken on trust, and as the group issuing the leaflet has no obvious history this is hard to do. if the leaflet had referenced which sections of the changes would allow the things claimed perhaps it would be worth going through the assertions one by one. but it doesn't. maybe you could share with us where each of these things are mentioned within the planned changes or how they arise from the proposed changes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Any six lines written by a man , you can use to hang him .


Yeh. What other richelieu quotes do you like? You've rather worn this one out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I dont think thats how British culture works.  The British love aristocracy.  They look up to people who speak and write well.  Look at the public backlash against russel brand.	 Paxman message was 'What gives you, a working clas cockney, the right to speak'.  To this day Brand sis till held in contempt by the vast majority of the British public, including working class activists.  Few barely know what he thinks or stands for.  Because his class is undesirable, so must be his opinions.  His class by the way is either wealthy upity twat who doesnt deserve his money (unlike the toffs who are seen as at least deserving because they speak well)  or working class thicko.  The British care only about language.  Speak well and you will go a long long way, no matter what an asshole you are.	This is consistent with 400 years of British history.


What is it you find so admirable about Russell Brand?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2017)

But answer came there none


----------



## thisweb (Dec 16, 2017)

gamerunknown said:


> I've mentioned earlier in this thread that I've found a disconnect between approaches to cultural appropriation and trans issues. There are clear analogies: disparities in outcomes by gender and race, biological and social components. However there are qualitative differences too: the fifth edition of the DSM recognises "gender dysphoria" as a condition, stating that the treatment is social and legal transition to the desired gender. Gender reassignment may help. I don't see the equivalent for race.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, he represents something odious to bourgeois media. But when I've seen him dragged it's mostly for plain misogyny - his collaboration with Jonathan Ross as the most commonly cited example (if social views on sex were even slightly more advanced, it wouldn't have even been seen as interesting to bring it up with a woman's grandfather). But there's also this shit and his his stance on cops.




You don't see the equivalent for race?  But if it was in the DSM you'd say it was fine?  We don't know if Rachel Dolezel had such a condition.  Maybe she disnt maybe she did.  But gender disphoria, ie treatment through sex change isnt disputed.  I think thats fine if it helps.  Whats not fine is treating all women by forcing them to believe and accept anyone can be a women if they declare they are.  I think its fine to treat schizophrenics, help them with their delusions through medication or anything that helps them feel better.  It may include humoring them with their delusions.  But to make a law that demands everyone must believe their delusions is something else.  Its truly Orwellian. Say five is four, that wombs and vagians have no connection to the word woman  or be called an evil terf bitch.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 16, 2017)

MrSpikey said:


> Very true. The NHS has reported an all time high of forelock-tugging injuries this year
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The red bookie wook that he wrote over a decade ago?  You think a man can';t change?  You think thats who he is today despite writing and talking about his political awakenings , publicly, and continues to do so.   This is the problem ive been talking about.  You judge people on one thing they say.   Or said. Anarchism is a process , if thats your perspective of brand, you have no idea what you are talking about. About him or what it means to be a person.  You seem to want identities over ideas.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. That's really what's been said.  as I've said above, Yeh 'terfs' have a right to distribute leaflets. And people who disagree with them have a right to challenge them. That should be fairly uncontentious. Should any group be immune from criticism?


Nope.  We agree wholey on that.   Terfs should not be beaten up though.  You forgot that little oversight of why women want safe spaces from men.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Have you heard of masculism?


yeah whats your point?  That feminism is like MRA?


----------



## thisweb (Dec 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What is it you find so admirable about Russell Brand?


Quite a lot.   Listen to some of his recent interviews if you haven't already and make your own opinions.   Why do you care what I think of him anyway?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Nope.  We agree wholey on that.   Terfs should not be beaten up though.  You forgot that little oversight of why women want safe spaces from men.


You haven't read this thread. An oversight on your part.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2017)

thisweb said:


> Quite a lot.   Listen to some of his recent interviews if you haven't already and make your own opinions.   Why do you care what I think of him anyway?


Because it helps inform what I think of you. When asked what you find admirable about someone, quite a lot is an answer bereft of content. It is vacuous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2017)

thisweb said:


> yeah whats your point?  That feminism is like MRA?


No. That your analysis is based on er bollocks. Mannanism? I mean, what the actual fuck? Do you often introduce words with no meaning into discourse as straw creations, or was it just on this occasion?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2017)

thisweb mannanism ffs ￼


----------



## thisweb (Dec 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Because it helps inform what I think of you. When asked what you find admirable about someone, quite a lot is an answer bereft of content. It is vacuous.


Its   It would take a book to explain.  I dont have the inclination, I'm pretty sure youve made your mind up about me, and probably Brand.


----------



## thisweb (Dec 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No. That your analysis is based on er bollocks. Mannanism? I mean, what the actual fuck? Do you often introduce words with no meaning into discourse as straw creations, or was it just on this occasion?


It was deliberately made up. There is no such thing. WTF?  I think you lost the context (as with almost every comment you make).  Although I doubt you really lost the context at all.  You're being obtuse to undermine any attempt at real discusion.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 16, 2017)

thisweb said:


> I said there are at least 2 points that everyone CAN agree on.


thisweb Have we arrived at the starting point yet where you actually list what you believe these points to be?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2017)

thisweb said:


> It was deliberately made up. There is no such thing. WTF?  I think you lost the context (as with almost every comment you make).  Although I doubt you really lost the context at all.  You're being obtuse to undermine any attempt at real discusion.


Yes. I asked, do you often introduce meaningless words into debate? But yet again answer came there none. You're not very good at this debate thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

thisweb said:


> You're being obtuse to undermine any attempt at real discusion.


Says the woman who hasn't read the thread


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2017)

***


----------



## thisweb (Dec 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Says the woman who hasn't read the thread


yeh yeh.  goodbye


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2017)

thisweb said:


> yeh yeh.  goodbye


Ta-ra then


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2018)

As i hinted at the other week in my now deleted post (think only pickman's model may have seen it) a group of people have left the AF over the extended fall out from this - including all surviving founder members - so pretty much any big hitters - and are in the process of forming a new group closer to the original and historical spirit of the the ACF/AF and it's commitment to a class struggle politics. This was always going to happen regardless of the precipitating event i feel. Sad but welcome.

_Resignations from the Anarchist Federation

We are a significant number of Anarchist Federation members, including all surviving founding members, who resigned from that organisation on 17/12/17.

This was due to disagreements over the recent political direction of the AF. These disagreements came to a head over the differences in responses to events at the London Anarchist Bookfair in October.

We disagreed with the statements put out by Edinburgh AF and the ‘Trans Action Faction’. We put forward an alternative statement for discussion which was received with extreme hostility and uncomradely behaviour from a vocal minority. We were no longer able to work in that environment. 

Those of us who have left the AF are re-grouping and re-organising in early 2018. We will focus less on what is essentially a small, vague anarchist sub-culture, but instead, will re-orient towards an outward looking, wider working class politics._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> As i hinted at the other week in my now deleted post (think only pickman's model may have seen it) a group of people have left the AF over the extended fall out from this - including all surviving founder members - so pretty much any big hitters - and are in the process of forming a new group closer to the original and historical spirit of the the ACF/AF and it's commitment to a class struggle politics. This was always going to happen regardless of the precipitating event i feel. Sad but welcome.
> 
> _Resignations from the Anarchist Federation
> 
> ...


I wish the new group every success


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 1, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> As i hinted at the other week in my now deleted post (think only pickman's model may have seen it) a group of people have left the AF over the extended fall out from this - including all surviving founder members - so pretty much any big hitters - and are in the process of forming a new group closer to the original and historical spirit of the the ACF/AF and it's commitment to a class struggle politics. This was always going to happen regardless of the precipitating event i feel. Sad but welcome.
> 
> _Resignations from the Anarchist Federation
> 
> ...



Every cloud etc.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 1, 2018)

Also this:

Communist Anarchism: Class Struggle Anarchist Statement on Bookfair Events and Aftermath

ETA - and this from the AF:
2018 – In with the new – Anarchist Federation


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 4, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I've  been quietly reading this thread. So I hope you don't mind me interjecting but Helen Steel is here giving a talk about her experience at the bookfair with other "no platformed" women.




As a side issue this video is the most compelling life experience I've heard from a woman regarding harassment in light of the all the main stream media's bubble of Hollywood stories. It's a really tough watch. Respect to Helen that she was able to share her experience so honestly.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 20, 2018)

To start with, I have little sympathy with those handing out those leaflets other than their right to not have venomous and hypocritical abuse hurled at them. Had those leaflets been distributed at a Labour Party or trade union event I would have hoped the people behind them would have told to cease and desist on pain of being barred from the event, at the very least. They were full of scaremongering about trans issues and were designed to deliberately provoke, and boy did they do just that. In a way having a set framework to deal with breaches of Equality rules actually makes everyone's job a lot easier, as in theory at least, the TERFs would then be swiftly and easily dealt with. Likewise, said framework should in theory also protect people from being dogpiled on for having misguided sympathies with the leafleters (and the appropriate action would have prevented the initial nastiness that led to those misguided sympathies), and all can be dealt with as rationally as possible, and there are higher bodies one has recourse to should things go as pear-shaped as they did at the bookfair. Okay, it may not be straightforward as that in real life, and bureaucracies rarely act on issues raised unless you continuously needle them, but there are procedures in place to ensure things should work out alright in the end, even if it takes a lot of pressure from below to ensure that. For these reasons, I wonder this is why the TERFs targeted the Bookfair in such a manner, because they know they would create much greater outrage rather than just be told to move on. Certainly it has done nothing but to polarise debate and create a "with us or against us" mentality on both sides, which will just further this toxic climate that has been allowed to develop.

As for the Bookfair, while I respect their stance on allowing diverging opinions, I really do not see how allowing people stirring up shit like this is conducive to anything progressive, and this has not been the first time there has been a huge squabble at the bookfair over some issue that had been allowed to spin out of control, and I shudder at how a society run according to the principles of those attending (and fighting at) the bookfair would work in practice. I have certainly never heard of any of the bunfights that decend into farcical chaos which take frequently take place at the bookfair take place at the Labour Party conference, nor even at some of the larger left parties, even if debate can get extremely heated there. IMO the Bookfair could have taken two choices had it not decided to wash its hands of the whole affair. Firstly it could have moved more towards a "safer spaces" way of handling those wishing to cause problems, the drawbacks of which had been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and looks like this will be the approach that the successors to the Bookfair Collective will take. Secondly it could come out in a more absolutist freedom of speech for all (bar actual fascists) stance, whereas they make loud disclaimers that people at the bookfair do not have the right to not be offended. However, this kind of free-for-all would be almost certainly be abused, even if it espouses a more "pure" anarchism.

Finally, I'll respond to what was said back up thread said about the how identity politics seemed to have supplanted class struggle, and how older generations of anarchists struggled to relate to younger ones. At the 2004 Anarchist Bookfair (the only one I ever went to, and to my knowledge, one of the few where there was no bunfights, maybe the usual suspects were all worn out after the London ESF which took place earlier that year), I heard Alice Nutter (who's name would be considered verboten by todays IDpol crowd due to "disablism") of Chumbawamba fame talk about the internal struggle within anarchism (and individual anarchists) in the early 1980s. She explained that up till Thatcher, most anarchists were generally self contained, building their own little communities a la Dial House and Crass. Then Thatcher decided to attack the post-war consensus, the miner's strike happened, and a schism developed between the "lifestyle" anarchists and the "class struggle" anarchists who observed the attacks on the working class and realised that they had to do more than just hide in their communes and pretend this didn't affect them. This in retrospect was a welcome development, however nowadays identity politics is in danger of paralysing any kind of class struggle, inside and outside of anarchism, and in my opinion, anarchism is going to struggle even more to stay relevant to wider working class politics as long as it is mostly associated with latching onto the latest trend in identity politics with scant regard to anyone outside of their echo chamber.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2018)

DaveCinzano said:


> Posted yet?
> 
> 
> > ...As we’re mainly class struggle and housing activists, albeit with some green tinges, we ‘re not well versed in the ins and outs of the dispute that some radical feminists have with transgender people and their supporters. On that basis, we admit that we’re not equipped to offer a definitive opinion on the rights or wrongs of this dispute until we’ve done a lot more reading and research. However, if I was a curious newcomer to the bookfair and was a witness to what went on with the confrontations, my reaction would have been ‘what the ***k is going on here?’ and my response would have been to walk out and dismiss the idea of anarchism as a viable political option.
> ...



I'm clearly a bit out of it as far as anarchism is concerned and am only just starting on this thread - what pleasures await!  However, I have a feeling the above will get to the heart of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

Tom A said:


> To start with, I have little sympathy with those handing out those leaflets other than their right to not have venomous and hypocritical abuse hurled at them. Had those leaflets been distributed at a Labour Party or trade union event I would have hoped the people behind them would have told to cease and desist on pain of being barred from the event, at the very least. They were full of scaremongering about trans issues and were designed to deliberately provoke, and boy did they do just that. In a way having a set framework to deal with breaches of Equality rules actually makes everyone's job a lot easier, as in theory at least, the TERFs would then be swiftly and easily dealt with. Likewise, said framework should in theory also protect people from being dogpiled on for having misguided sympathies with the leafleters (and the appropriate action would have prevented the initial nastiness that led to those misguided sympathies), and all can be dealt with as rationally as possible, and there are higher bodies one has recourse to should things go as pear-shaped as they did at the bookfair. Okay, it may not be straightforward as that in real life, and bureaucracies rarely act on issues raised unless you continuously needle them, but there are procedures in place to ensure things should work out alright in the end, even if it takes a lot of pressure from below to ensure that. For these reasons, I wonder this is why the TERFs targeted the Bookfair in such a manner, because they know they would create much greater outrage rather than just be told to move on. Certainly it has done nothing but to polarise debate and create a "with us or against us" mentality on both sides, which will just further this toxic climate that has been allowed to develop.
> 
> As for the Bookfair, while I respect their stance on allowing diverging opinions, I really do not see how allowing people stirring up shit like this is conducive to anything progressive, and this has not been the first time there has been a huge squabble at the bookfair over some issue that had been allowed to spin out of control, and I shudder at how a society run according to the principles of those attending (and fighting at) the bookfair would work in practice. I have certainly never heard of any of the bunfights that decend into farcical chaos which take frequently take place at the bookfair take place at the Labour Party conference, nor even at some of the larger left parties, even if debate can get extremely heated there. IMO the Bookfair could have taken two choices had it not decided to wash its hands of the whole affair. Firstly it could have moved more towards a "safer spaces" way of handling those wishing to cause problems, the drawbacks of which had been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and looks like this will be the approach that the successors to the Bookfair Collective will take. Secondly it could come out in a more absolutist freedom of speech for all (bar actual fascists) stance, whereas they make loud disclaimers that people at the bookfair do not have the right to not be offended. However, this kind of free-for-all would be almost certainly be abused, even if it espouses a more "pure" anarchism.
> 
> Finally, I'll respond to what was said back up thread said about the how identity politics seemed to have supplanted class struggle, and how older generations of anarchists struggled to relate to younger ones. At the 2004 Anarchist Bookfair (the only one I ever went to, and to my knowledge, one of the few where there was no bunfights, maybe the usual suspects were all worn out after the London ESF which took place earlier that year), I heard Alice Nutter (who's name would be considered verboten by todays IDpol crowd due to "disablism") of Chumbawamba fame talk about the internal struggle within anarchism (and individual anarchists) in the early 1980s. She explained that up till Thatcher, most anarchists were generally self contained, building their own little communities a la Dial House and Crass. Then Thatcher decided to attack the post-war consensus, the miner's strike happened, and a schism developed between the "lifestyle" anarchists and the "class struggle" anarchists who observed the attacks on the working class and realised that they had to do more than just hide in their communes and pretend this didn't affect them. This in retrospect was a welcome development, however nowadays identity politics is in danger of paralysing any kind of class struggle, inside and outside of anarchism, and in my opinion, anarchism is going to struggle even more to stay relevant to wider working class politics as long as it is mostly associated with latching onto the latest trend in identity politics with scant regard to anyone outside of their echo chamber.


I remember hurling venomous abuse at the queen in bristol and prince charles and camilla in hoxton

Not to mention assorted other people over the years. And although I can't immediately think of an occasion, I'm sure other people have hurled venomous abuse at me 

There is no right not to have venomous abuse hurled at you. I stopped reading at the point you made up this 'right'


----------



## Tom A (Jan 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I remember hurling venomous abuse at the queen in bristol and prince charles and camilla in hoxton
> 
> Not to mention assorted other people over the years. And although I can't immediately think of an occasion, I'm sure other people have hurled venomous abuse at me
> 
> There is no right not to have venomous abuse hurled at you. I stopped reading at the point you made up this 'right'


Do you not think that people have a right to be treated with decency and respect? Also even if not, do you not think that in this, and many other similar instances, hurling abuse is just counter-productive?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2018)

I do wonder what would have happened if a couple of intrepid trots had marched into the bookfair and started trying to sell Socialist Worker in one of the main rooms.  I suspect it might have provoked a similar response.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> Do you not think that people have a right to be treated with decency and respect? Also even if not, do you not think that in this, and many other similar instances, hurling abuse is just counter-productive?


If you had read the thread you'd already know what I think about this incident.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I do wonder what would have happened if a couple of intrepid trots had marched into the bookfair and started trying to sell Socialist Worker in one of the main rooms.  I suspect it might have provoked a similar response.


Harsher, far harsher


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> Do you not think that people have a right to be treated with decency and respect? Also even if not, do you not think that in this, and many other similar instances, hurling abuse is just counter-productive?


No, I don't think people have  a *right* to be treated with decency and respect. Respect, it is a commonplace, is earned, for a start. To take your claim there is this right a bit further, you'd object to people being rude to Nigel Farage or the EDL etc if you're at all consistent. Or tories. People who hand out political leaflets should expect to be challenged. The people who challenge them should think about tailoring their methods to their objectives. You should think about whether you've a clue: and read the thread before posting again


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> People who hand out political leaflets should expect to be challenged. The people who challenge them should think about tailoring their methods to their objectives.


Challenged, yes. But hypocritically hurling misogynist abuse as was noted here? A polite "please stop doing that", following by "please leave the building", and yes, getting security or even the police to get them to move on if they refuse to acknowledge they are not wanted would have dealt with the matter much more effectively, but unfortunately anarchists are somewhat allergic to having a centralised body enforcing the rules. Oh and I actually don't have that many qualms about saying unpleasant things about equally unpleasant people, though personally I find shouting and screaming obscenities at people to be usually a complete waste of energy and if not counterproductive then usually pretty unproductive.



> read the thread before posting again


I have actually read the thread, and have taken my time to reply. Now maybe people can discuss the rest of my response rather than have another boring debate regarding the rights and wrongs of saying nasty things to your enemies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> Challenged, yes. But hypocritically hurling misogynist abuse as was noted here? A polite "please stop doing that", following by "please leave the building", and yes, getting security or even the police to get them to move on if they refuse to acknowledge they are not wanted would have dealt with the matter much more effectively, but unfortunately anarchists are somewhat allergic to having a centralised body enforcing the rules. Oh and I actually don't have that many qualms about saying unpleasant things about equally unpleasant people, though personally I find shouting and screaming obscenities at people to be usually a complete waste of energy and if not counterproductive then usually pretty unproductive.
> 
> 
> I have actually read the thread, and have taken my time to reply. Now maybe people can discuss the rest of my response rather than have another boring debate regarding the rights and wrongs of saying nasty things to your enemies.


i don't believe you have read the thread or you'd have seen my post on 1 december about people shouting ugly terf cunt etc. and i don't believe someone who in one post declares there's a right to be treated with respect and decency and in almost the next online breath says er this is limited and restricted to people i find pleasant has anything to add to any political debate. not to mention that anyone, regardless of anarchist sensibilities, who thinks that calling the police to a political event might be a good idea hasn't really thought matters through, no matter whether it's the anarchist bookfair, a labour party do or whatnot.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 23, 2018)

I don’t recall there being much beef between anarchists and swappies on all the demos they find themselves on together; or either of them picketing each other’s meetings etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t recall there being much beef between anarchists and swappies on all the demos they find themselves on together; or either of them picketing each other’s meetings etc.


Yeh. You don't. Having been assaulted by swappies I can speak to a certain level of beef


----------



## chilango (Jan 23, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t recall there being much beef between anarchists and swappies on all the demos they find themselves on together; or either of them picketing each other’s meetings etc.



There's been aggro at times over the years tbf.

From the anarchist side there's been mutterings at one point of of an "intervention" at Marxism, the occasional Trot meeting disrupted, refusal to let Swaps on @ booked coaches etc. Some demos  got a bit tense, but I don't recall it ever coming to blows.

I regret that now. I would like to apologise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

chilango said:


> There's been aggro at times over the years tbf.
> 
> From the anarchist side there's been mutterings at one point of of an "intervention" at Marxism, the occasional Trot meeting disrupted, refusal to let Swaps on @ booked coaches etc. Some demos  got a bit tense, but I don't recall it ever coming to blows.
> 
> I regret that now. I would like to apologise.


I don't and wouldn't


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2018)

What's happened to the good old get the smallest mouthiest swp woman-member to aggressively prod people in the chest then shout assault followed by a mass surrounding of the opponent manoeuvre?

The beelyites and anti-imp red-brown crowd still at it. I suppose this is what a lot of this twitter stuff effectively is anyway.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I do wonder what would have happened if a couple of intrepid trots had marched into the bookfair and started trying to sell Socialist Worker in one of the main rooms.  I suspect it might have provoked a similar response.


Pre-2013 and Comrade Delta there would have been a couple of "piss offs" from some people, but mostly bemusement. Now they calls of "rape apologists" etc would be there (and I can fully understand why) but generally TERFs are seen in a much harsher light still. Still, the question of whether to whip up a baying mob is the best solution, or one that considered a legitimate way of dealing with you enemies is a valid one.



Pickman's model said:


> i don't believe you have read the thread or you'd have seen my post on 1 december about people shouting ugly terf cunt etc.


It was already a long thread by the time I got to it, so one can be forgiven for skimming over some parts of it, but I went back to all the posts you made on Dec 1 and cannot see anything you said pertaining to "ugly TERF cunt". Also I have this thing called a life which means I often have other things to do than read every single post (many of which are pointless circular debates) on a thread that is now 45 pages long at the time of posting.



> i don't believe someone who in one post declares there's a right to be treated with respect and decency and in almost the next online breath says er this is limited and restricted to people i find pleasant


You took one bit of my initial post and decided to attack me purely on that. I then decided to elaborate a bit further, and again you put words in my mouth. Oh and yes, I do believe that unless they have proven to have done something beyond the pale, that people do have a right to treated with respect and decency, treat people as you would like to be treated yourself, do unto others and all that. A society where everyone was given carte blanche to be as rude and obnoxious as they liked to whoever they pleased, just for the hell of it would be a pretty miserable one.



> anyone, regardless of anarchist sensibilities, who thinks that calling the police to a political event might be a good idea hasn't really thought matters through, no matter whether it's the anarchist bookfair, a labour party do or whatnot.


Unfortunately when the situation is dire, and there seems to be an imminent threat of physical violence, or physical violence is actually occurring, then calling the police is the solution of last resort. I actually remember a case at a squatted social centre some years ago where the police were called after an incident involving a group of drunken people. I am all too aware that it would reflect negatively on whatever it is, and been involved in organisations where we have needed to be proactive to avoid creating situations which would result in the police being called. Anyway, how else can you get rid of people who refuse to budge no matter who unwelcome they are, other than sending in vigilantes to do the deed (and taking the law into one's own hands is not something I am keen on either)?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 23, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> suppose this is what a lot of this twitter stuff effectively is anyway.


Very much so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> As for the Bookfair, while I respect their stance on allowing diverging opinions, I really do not see how allowing people stirring up shit like this is conducive to anything progressive, and this has not been the first time there has been a huge squabble at the bookfair over some issue that had been allowed to spin out of control, and I shudder at how a society run according to the principles of those attending (and fighting at) the bookfair would work in practice. I have certainly never heard of any of the bunfights that decend into farcical chaos which take frequently take place at the bookfair take place at the Labour Party conference, nor even at some of the larger left parties, even if debate can get extremely heated there. IMO the Bookfair could have taken two choices had it not decided to wash its hands of the whole affair. Firstly it could have moved more towards a "safer spaces" way of handling those wishing to cause problems, the drawbacks of which had been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and looks like this will be the approach that the successors to the Bookfair Collective will take. Secondly it could come out in a more absolutist freedom of speech for all (bar actual fascists) stance, whereas they make loud disclaimers that people at the bookfair do not have the right to not be offended. However, this kind of free-for-all would be almost certainly be abused, even if it espouses a more "pure" anarchism.


yeh. you have never heard. right. why haven't you heard? most likely because you haven't been _listening_ or privy to the right conversations. why should we have 'more absolutist freedom of speech for all (bar actual fascists)'? are the views of conspiraloons more acceptable than fascists? as we've seen you don't have to shout 'sieg heil' to cause disruption. and is the freedom of speech of the 'terfs' to be privileged over the freedom of speech of the trans activists? and as for your pure anarchism, let's see you say what you mean. you're all over the place, tom, and not in a good way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> I went back to all the posts you made on Dec 1 and cannot see anything you said pertaining to "ugly TERF cunt"


either you're lying or your sight's deficient: in the latter case, go to specsavers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But when asked what the larger issue is iyo after more than a month of posting you say oh noes I can't be answering that without a load more thought. So what you've been saying doesn't seem like it's based on anything. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing. As for what I think, I'm a plague on both your houses person, as it shouldn't be beyond people's wit to resolve these issues within the bookfair space without resorting to the sort of immature shite we saw on the day and have seen since. If people have a right to distribute leaflets, they have a right to be challenged for it, but I would have hoped that would be in a comradely manner. Shouting ugly terf cunt etc isn't really making a persuasive political case. And having such a go at the bookfair organisers that they've stepped back was imo disgraceful. Almost all the subsequent open letters and statements and counterstatements have been pisspoor and better not issued. Not to mention the burning of the bookfair banner. Far from edifying, the entire thing.


Tom A


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> Pre-2013 and Comrade Delta there would have been a couple of "piss offs" from some people, but mostly bemusement. Now they calls of "rape apologists" etc would be there (and I can fully understand why) but generally TERFs are seen in a much harsher light still. Still, the question of whether to whip up a baying mob is the best solution, or one that considered a legitimate way of dealing with you enemies is a valid one.
> 
> 
> It was already a long thread by the time I got to it, so one can be forgiven for skimming over some parts of it, but I went back to all the posts you made on Dec 1 and cannot see anything you said pertaining to "ugly TERF cunt". Also I have this thing called a life which means I often have other things to do than read every single post (many of which are pointless circular debates) on a thread that is now 45 pages long at the time of posting.
> ...


so i've put words in your mouth. it's strange how people can never point to those words i've thrust into their gobs. it's a staple when someone's been caught out and doesn't like it.

no, people do not have the *right* to be treated with respect and decency. it's what people ought to do, but that doesn't make it a right. people ought to leave toilets the way they would like to find them, for example, but it's not a right to find a clean lav. you just don't know what a right is.

in the post here quoted ^ you say that you believe calling the police justified 'when the situation is dire, and there seems to be an imminent threat of physical violence, or physical violence is actually occurring'. above, in post 1335, you say 





> even the police to get them to move on if they refuse to acknowledge they are not wanted


which is a rather lower bar. which of these two do you actually believe?


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you have never heard. right. why haven't you heard? most likely because you haven't been _listening_ or privy to the right conversations. why should we have 'more absolutist freedom of speech for all (bar actual fascists)'? are the views of conspiraloons more acceptable than fascists? as we've seen you don't have to shout 'sieg heil' to cause disruption. and is the freedom of speech of the 'terfs' to be privileged over the freedom of speech of the trans activists? and *as for your pure anarchism, let's see you say what you mean. *you're all over the place, tom, and not in a good way.


I was not providing any solutions, this was just an observation about the two potential paths the movement could take. I am not a "pure" anarchist, or indeed an anarchist of any stripe, and incidents like what happened at the Bookfair are part of the reason why I have long turned my back on it. I acknowledge how a free speech free-for-all would end in chaos, and not suggesting that solution be taken, even if we shouldn't shirk from debating controversial topics.. However any attempt to try and regulate the actions of certain people leads to complaints about introducing the dreaded concept of "safe spaces", so you cannot win.



Pickman's model said:


> either you're lying or your sight's deficient: in the latter case, go to specsavers.


Was there any need for that petty insult? In my haste I happened to overlook the comment in comment in question whilst skimming through, I would apologise but you seem to be taking great pleasure in trying to portray me as being mentally deficient, so will save my breath. But having said that...



> Shouting ugly terf cunt etc isn't really making a persuasive political case. And having such a go at the bookfair organisers that they've stepped back was imo disgraceful. Almost all the subsequent open letters and statements and counterstatements have been pisspoor and better not issued. Not to mention the burning of the bookfair banner. Far from edifying, the entire thing.


...I actually agree with this statement, even if it comes from someone who takes pleasure at making condescending remarks towards people who dare to have an opinion incompatible with theirs, or worse still have opinions on the matter that are developing over time. I would go further by saying that shouting "ugly TERF cunt" plays right into their hands, as they can come across as "misogynists". But the TERFs knew what they were doing when they targeted the Bookfair, and they knew the response it would elicit, how some trans rights activists would score an own goal for their cause, and how the TERFs would get a load of free publicity into the bargain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> I would apologise but you seem to be taking great pleasure in trying to portray me as being mentally deficient, so will save my breath. But having said that...


i don't think you're mentally deficient, nor have i said, suggested, implied or in any other way made you out to be mentally deficient. it's an outright lie.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> in the post here quoted ^ you say that you believe calling the police justified 'when the situation is dire, and there seems to be an imminent threat of physical violence, or physical violence is actually occurring'. above, in post 1335, you say which is a rather lower bar. which of these two do you actually believe?


Well "refusal to move on" implies that all attempts of nicely persuading them to leave have been exhausted, so the chances are that things will have escalated to a situation where physical violence (or at least a precieved threat of it) is imminent.



Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you're mentally deficient, nor have i said, suggested, implied or in any other way made you out to be mentally deficient. it's an outright lie.





> You should think about whether you've a clue





> hasn't really thought matters through





> go to specsavers.


Also you do like to tell me what I do and don't know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> Also you do like to tell me what I do and don't know.


none of which suggest you're mentally deficient. go to specsavers to do with mental capacity? i think not: especially when you say you couldn't see the post i referred to. and if you haven't really thought matters through that means you haven't, not you can't. as for having a clue, once more nothing to do with mental capacity and all to do with your knowledge of the subject you comment on.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 23, 2018)

[that gif of grandpa Simpson going into a house and then turning around and going back out again]


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> no, people do not have the *right* to be treated with respect and decency. it's what people ought to do, but that doesn't make it a right. people ought to leave toilets the way they would like to find them, for example, but it's not a right to find a clean lav. you just don't know what a right is.


Okay, quit nit-picking, I am aware it's not a "right" in the sense the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights, although having said that, this happens to be Article 1:



> All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.



Also Articles 7, 8, 10 are worth bearing in mind in regards to how to treat one's enemies:



> All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.





> Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.





> Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Tom A said:


> Okay, quit nit-picking, I am aware it's not a "right" in the sense the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights, although having said that, this happens to be Article 1:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Articles 7, 8, 10 are worth bearing in mind in regards to how to treat one's enemies:


declaration. it neither speeds up nor slows down. the udhr may lay that down but there's still not right not to be venemously abused.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> declaration. it neither speeds up nor slows down. the udhr may lay that down but there's still not right not to be venemously abused.


Have corrected accordingly.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't and wouldn't


So you don't regret and wouldn't like to apologise for not coming to blows with the SWP?

How very ecumenical of you.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 7, 2018)

Where do we go from here?


----------



## TopCat (Mar 7, 2018)

I want the bookfair back.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 7, 2018)

TopCat said:


> I want the bookfair back.



Best option is probably to sit this year out and then see if an expanded collective is possible for 2019? 

I think a lot of people (like me) who loved the Bookfair but took the organising of it for granted would lend a hand.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 7, 2018)

19force8 said:


> So you don't regret and wouldn't like to apologise for not coming to blows with the SWP?
> 
> How very ecumenical of you.


six weeks down the line your inability to understand my post still shocks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 7, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Best option is probably to sit this year out and then see if an expanded collective is possible for 2019?
> 
> I think a lot of people (like me) who loved the Bookfair but took the organising of it for granted would lend a hand.


Yeh too late to do anything much this year plus I suspect any event this year would be seen by some people as an opportunity to continue last year's debacle


----------



## nyxx (Mar 8, 2018)

TopCat said:


> I want the bookfair back.



what’s stopping you from contributing to making it happen?


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> six weeks down the line your inability to understand my post still shocks.


Oh I understood it


----------



## TopCat (Mar 8, 2018)

Im up for helping


nyxx said:


> what’s stopping you from contributing to making it happen?


----------



## LDC (Mar 8, 2018)

Was also wondering what, if anything, was going on with any London Anarchist Bookfair alternatives this year. It's a bit of a poisoned chalice though if anyone does take it on, can't imagine they won't get it in the neck in some way or another.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Was also wondering what, if anything, was going on with any London Anarchist Bookfair alternatives this year. It's a bit of a poisoned chalice though if anyone does take it on, can't imagine they won't get it in the neck in some way or another.


they'll be lucky if they only get it in the neck

i'm up for helping with finding a decent pub near any venue.

TopCat Badgers Fozzie Bear Streathamite Mr.Bishie


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm up for helping with finding a decent pub near any venue.
> 
> TopCat Badgers Fozzie Bear Streathamite Mr.Bishie



It's tough job but somebody's, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2018)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's tough job but somebody's, etc.


i think it's only possible to tag five people in a post or i'd have done you too


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 8, 2018)

This has been running for a few years and is a mixed bag (Tankies! Bookmarks! Arty zines!) but is still worth a look and features some Bookfair fixtures usually:

London Radical Bookfair 2018


----------



## chilango (Mar 8, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This has been running for a few years and is a mixed bag (Tankies! Bookmarks! Arty zines!) but is still worth a look and features some Bookfair fixtures usually:
> 
> London Radical Bookfair 2018



Ooh. I'm almost never free for the @ bookfair's October date so this is good to know...


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 8, 2018)

chilango said:


> Ooh. I'm almost never free for the @ bookfair's October date so this is good to know...



Come! Pickman's model is organising drinks and getting the first two rounds in.


----------



## Sue (Mar 8, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Come! Pickman's model is organising drinks and getting the first two rounds in.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This has been running for a few years and is a mixed bag (Tankies! Bookmarks! Arty zines!) but is still worth a look and features some Bookfair fixtures usually:
> 
> London Radical Bookfair 2018



Will be going along, be good to see you and urbs and especially chilango if yoy make it


----------



## Mordi (Mar 11, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This has been running for a few years and is a mixed bag (Tankies! Bookmarks! Arty zines!) but is still worth a look and features some Bookfair fixtures usually:
> 
> London Radical Bookfair 2018



Has some good book prizes too, I particularly like their childrens book prize which they've helpfully archived the shortlist for each year.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 11, 2018)

There's a bunch happening through the course of the year:

Anarchist Bookfairs in 2018


----------



## chilango (Mar 12, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Will be going along, be good to see you and urbs and especially chilango if yoy make it



Provisionally blocked this off in my calendar  I'm awol in Snowdonia the week leading up to it, but should be back.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> There's a bunch happening through the course of the year:
> 
> Anarchist Bookfairs in 2018


Be interesting to see to what extent the 'trans v terfs' battle plays out - or doesn't - in these venues.  I think it will also be interesting if/when the London event runs again how the organisers approach the issue. I get the impression over the years there have been a few exclusions - conspiraloons, weird sects on the pavement outside, but haven't table/room bookings been pretty much open to anyone who self defines as anarco-ish?  Would organisers be forced to come up with statements limiting the groups who can book? Would there be pre-negotiations between groups to avoid similar battles?

None of that is put forward as a 'solution'. Quite the opposite in fact - I can't really see how any kind of 'planning' could stop these toxic battles happening again.  All very sad really, makes you appreciate the efforts the organisers have put in over the years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Be interesting to see to what extent the 'trans v terfs' battle plays out - or doesn't - in these venues.  I think it will also be interesting if/when the London event runs again how the organisers approach the issue. I get the impression over the years there have been a few exclusions - conspiraloons, weird sects on the pavement outside, but haven't table/room bookings been pretty much open to anyone who self defines as anarco-ish?  Would organisers be forced to come up with statements limiting the groups who can book? Would there be pre-negotiations between groups to avoid similar battles?
> 
> None of that is put forward as a 'solution'. Quite the opposite in fact - I can't really see how any kind of 'planning' could stop these toxic battles happening again.  All very sad really, makes you appreciate the efforts the organisers have put in over the years.


given what happened at millwall i suppose there'll be lot more er 'debate' on this issue to come.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 12, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Be interesting to see to what extent the 'trans v terfs' battle plays out - or doesn't - in these venues.



You're assuming it didn't last year, to a greater or lesser extent. And there's been fights and feuds playing out through public events in the anarchist scene since the 19th century, including fistfights at the London event almost every year. All this isn't nearly as special as people seem to think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> You're assuming it didn't last year, to a greater or lesser extent. And there's been fights and feuds playing out through public events in the anarchist scene since the 19th century, including fistfights at the London event almost every year. All this isn't nearly as special as people seem to think.


yeh but so many of the other feuds and rows have been at least entertaining for onlookers.

what we need next time is a choice between bareknuckle and glove and a ring for the contenders.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> You're assuming it didn't last year, to a greater or lesser extent. And there's been fights and feuds playing out through public events in the anarchist scene since the 19th century, including fistfights at the London event almost every year. All this isn't nearly as special as people seem to think.


Yeah, I know. I've been at a couple of the battles over the last 15 years or so.  There were a few themes in common for a couple of them, both predictable and unpredictable spats - even attempts to twat a certain/former urbanite. But this seems a bit different, something set up with 2 sides, 2 positions, fully loaded up with absolutes. It's something I wouldn't want to organise an event around or, for that matter, even come up with a form of words as to how the issue would be dealt with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I know. I've been at a couple of the battles over the last 15 years or so.  There were a few themes in common for a couple of them, both predictable and unpredictable spats - even attempts to twat a certain/former urbanite. But this seems a bit different, something set up with 2 sides, 2 positions, fully loaded up with absolutes. It's something I wouldn't want to organise an event around or, for that matter, even come up with a form of words as to how the issue would be dealt with.


'anyone attempting to threaten, harass or intimidate others will be ejected'


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2018)

Opportunity for The Black Hand to relaunch his book fairs ?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Opportunity for The Black Hand to relaunch his book fairs ?


_Working Class_ Book Fairs.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> 'anyone attempting to threaten, harass or intimidate others will be ejected'


Questions of what constitutes 'attempting to threaten etc' very much open to disagreement though


----------



## LDC (Mar 12, 2018)

One of the differences with the disagreement at the London Anarchist Bookfair last year compared to disagreements in previous years is that this particular conflict (and the underlying politics) exist outside the confines of the Bookfair and is also going on among a much wider number of people (and in wider society too) whereas many of the previous fights/conflicts are a bit more boundaried between space and people.

Can't see how this isn't going to implode at another event soon. It's bubbling along in all sorts of places and ways elsewhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2018)

andysays said:


> Questions of what constitutes 'attempting to threaten etc' very much open to disagreement though


and thus to ejection


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> One of the differences with the disagreement at the London Anarchist Bookfair last year compared to disagreements in previous years is that this particular conflict (and the underlying politics) exist outside the confines of the Bookfair and is also going on among a much wider number of people (and in wider society too) whereas many of the previous fights/conflicts are a bit more boundaried between space and people.
> 
> Can't see how this isn't going to implode at another event soon. It's bubbling along in all sorts of places and ways elsewhere.


Yep. As a minimum there would be protests about group x being allowed to book a room. Like you say, the bookfair being influenced by no platforming/safe spacing from outside the bookfair.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> and thus to ejection


At work ATM. I'll post more later maybe.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2018)

Wilf said:


> _Working Class_ Book Fairs.





> Refused said - "No, The Black Hand/gangster I do not want to distribute flyers for this event."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I know. I've been at a couple of the battles over the last 15 years or so.  There were a few themes in common for a couple of them, both predictable and unpredictable spats - even attempts to twat a certain/former urbanite. But this seems a bit different, something set up with 2 sides, 2 positions, fully loaded up with absolutes. It's something I wouldn't want to organise an event around or, for that matter, even come up with a form of words as to how the issue would be dealt with.



It’s not that complicated. Just announce in advance that anyone turning up to do a bit of transphobic proselytizing will get the same response as anyone turning up to spread racist ideas. That’s pretty much inevitably going to be the norm in a couple of year’s time anyway so anyone organizing an activist event may as well skip past the bickering.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 14, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s not that complicated. Just announce in advance that anyone turning up to do a bit of transphobic proselytizing will get the same response as anyone turning up to spread racist ideas. That’s pretty much inevitably going to be the norm in a couple of year’s time anyway so anyone organizing an activist event may as well skip past the bickering.


Sounds straightforward.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Sounds straightforward.



It is. It’s only complicated if your starting point is that transphobes have to be accommodated to some extent. They don’t.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 14, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It is. It’s only complicated if your starting point is that transphobes have to be accommodated to some extent. They don’t.


I've no desire to revive the substantive argument on this thread, so I'll just stick to the Bookfair. Your absolutism does nothing to move this on and certainly doesn't add up to a solution for potential future organisers.  If there's to be any progress in the movement it requires dialogue, it requires groups talking to each other, it requires some difficult stuff. I can't personally see that there _is_ a way forward and its no surprise the organisers have left off for at least a year. But just shouting 'terfs out' does nothing.  Who knows, you might be right, the next attempt to run a bookfair in London might take your line, but it won't actually resolve anything.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I've no desire to revive the substantive argument on this thread, so I'll just stick to the Bookfair. Your absolutism does nothing to move this on and certainly doesn't add up to a solution for potential future organisers.  If there's to be any progress in the movement it requires dialogue, it requires groups talking to each other, it requires some difficult stuff. I can't personally see that there _is_ a way forward and its no surprise the organisers have left off for at least a year. But just shouting 'terfs out' does nothing.  Who knows, you might be right, the next attempt to run a bookfair in London might take your line, but it won't actually resolve anything.



No this is all horseshit. Holding a book fair doesn’t require dialogue with racists, different groups talking with racists or “some difficult stuff” involving accommodating racists. It doesn’t require any of that with transphobes either. All you have to do is announce they aren’t welcome and throw them out the door if they try to peddle their shit. It only seems complex and difficult and intractable to you because you think transphobes should be accommodated.

As for whether it will resolve anything, throwing people whose politics are about spreading transphobia out of radical movements isn’t just a resolution, it’s a good resolution and it’s one that will inevitably happen.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No this is all horseshit. Holding a book fair doesn’t require dialogue with racists, different groups talking with racists or “some difficult stuff” involving accommodating racists. It doesn’t require any of that with transphobes either. All you have to do is announce they aren’t welcome and throw them out the door if they try to peddle their shit. It only seems complex and difficult and intractable to you because you think transphobes should be accommodated.
> 
> As for whether it will resolve anything, throwing people whose politics are about spreading transphobia out of radical movements isn’t just a resolution, it’s a good resolution and it’s one that will inevitably happen.


The comparison with racism is just childish and an attempt to out-absolute anything that anybody could come back at you with. It's ridiculous and it adds to the style of politics that has got us to this point. I'm in favour of full trans rights and recognition. But then I recognise what some women are saying about self-identification not being the same as female socialisation and lived experience. Given that I haven't scampered into your absolutist camp, that no doubt makes me transphobic, a purveyor of hate speech and as bad as a racist. By contrast, I'd point out that I'm neither trans nor female and so think it's best if I don't start pronouncing or drawing battle lines.  Faced with that kind of situation, the job of organising something like a bookfair is difficult, maybe impossible. It isn't something that can be reduced down to simple shouty phrases, this is political stuff and its personal stuff.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Wilf said:


> The comparison with racism is just childish and an attempt to out-absolute anything that anybody could come back at you with. It's ridiculous and it adds to the style of politics that has got us to this point. I'm in favour of full trans rights and recognition. But then I recognise what some women are saying about self-identification not being the same as female socialisation and lived experience. Given that I haven't scampered into your absolutist camp, that no doubt makes me transphobic, a purveyor of hate speech and as bad as a racist. By contrast, I'd point out that I'm neither trans nor female and so think it's best if I don't start pronouncing or drawing battle lines.  Faced with that kind of situation, the job of organising something like a bookfair is difficult, maybe impossible. It isn't something that can be reduced down to simple shouty phrases, this is political stuff and its personal stuff.



A long winded way of saying that, yes, you think that transphobes need to be accommodated. The whole mess seems impossible to resolve to you because your starting point is that a resolution involves some kind of compromise between trans people and bigots that allows both to participate. Something that you at the same time realise is impossible. You are right on that part. It is impossible. But in fact the issue can be resolved simply by excluding transphobes. That’s not at all impossible, as a solution it’s not intractable or wildly complicated and ultimately, across radical movements, that’s what is happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2018)

It's OK. The socialist party are doing one. Late to the parade they promise the most working class one yet.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A long winded way of saying that, yes, you think that transphobes need to be accommodated. The whole mess seems impossible to resolve to you because your starting point is that a resolution involves some kind of compromise between trans people and bigots that allows both to participate. Something that you at the same time realise is impossible. You are right on that part. It is impossible. But in fact the issue can be resolved simply by excluding transphobes. That’s not at all impossible, as a solution it’s not intractable or wildly complicated and ultimately, across radical movements, that’s what is happening.


No. I'm not a radfem, but I am prepared to listen to women on here who want to talk about things like services and women only spaces. I might not actually agree with them on all the issues raised, I certainly don't agree with those who refer to trans women with the capslock as MEN. But are you even able to countenance that some women on here and beyond, people like Helen Steel, should be listened to?  Given that your approach is to refer to them as equivalent to racists means that you don't. Frankly, your approach is just immature - personally and politically.


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2018)

Do the SP do large scale public events equivalent to the bookfair or Marxism?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 15, 2018)

chilango said:


> Do the SP do large scale public events equivalent to the bookfair or Marxism?


the Socialism conference, thinks thats a party conference as well tho


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> the Socialism conference, thinks thats a party conference as well tho



This?

Be interesting to hear if Nigel Irritable's simple "No Transphobes" policy was used. Was it needed? If so how did it go? If not, why not?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 15, 2018)

I dunno if the irish SP have the same conference as the UK SP- you'd have thought ireland would have its own.


----------



## Lurdan (Mar 15, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Late to the parade they promise the most working class one yet.


In fairness that part isn't so difficult. They only have to get some working class people to run the stalls and do the security, and mostly stay away themselves. Prefigurative socialism in action.

This discussion recalls to mind a half serious notion many years ago about how instead of an anarchist book fair there should be an anarchist boot fair. It would solve some of the current dilemmas if instead of worrying about keeping cunts out you just invited them all in and then kicked shit out of them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Wilf said:


> No. I'm not a radfem, but I am prepared to listen to women on here who want to talk about things like services and women only spaces. I might not actually agree with them on all the issues raised, I certainly don't agree with those who refer to trans women with the capslock as MEN. But are you even able to countenance that some women on here and beyond, people like Helen Steel, should be listened to?  Given that your approach is to refer to them as equivalent to racists means that you don't. Frankly, your approach is just immature - personally and politically.



I’m not suggesting that you are a radfem. But your starting point is the idea that the TERF subset of radfems need to be accommodated. That’s a political choice. They don’t in fact have to be accommodated. You want them to be, even though you realise that they can’t be without fucking over trans people. So it all seems complicated and impossible and you end up posting about how hard everything will be.

And no, I don’t think that transphobes should be listened to. I think that in any radical movement they should be given the choice of shutting up or fucking off. As you are aware though, most transphobes are men and this “listening to women” framing is just dishonest rhetoric meant to naturalize the views of a bizarre minority offshoot of radical feminism as the views of “women”.

You don’t have to agree with me about the desirability of accommodating bigots, but it really shouldn’t be controversial to say that accommodating them isn’t an actual necessity. The anarchist movement, such as it is, will get along fine without, for instance, the Green Party politician whose deliberate provocations started this whole row.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

chilango said:


> This?
> 
> Be interesting to hear if Nigel Irritable's simple "No Transphobes" policy was used. Was it needed? If so how did it go? If not, why not?



As far as I know no transphobes have ever attempted to proselytize at the Socialism event. The last time I know of any wrong uns turning up and getting thrown out it was the Sparts when they started leafleting about abolishing the age of consent some years ago. I’d hope they’d throw out anyone trying to leaflet against trans rights and certainly their official position is pro trans rights, but I can’t say for sure as the issue hasn’t arisen.

I can guarantee that anyone trying it at an SP event in Ireland would be ejected immediately, but there’s no chance of it happening here: TERFery is the British disease.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A long winded way of saying that, yes, you think that transphobes need to be accommodated.



Only if you believe that the all "women [who] are saying about self-identification not being the same as female socialisation and lived experience", to whom Wilf referred, are necessarily transphobes. An obviously ridiculous proposition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> Only if you believe that the all "women [who] are saying about self-identification not being the same as female socialisation and lived experience", to whom Wilf referred, are necessarily transphobes.



That depends on whether they are agitating or organizing for that sentiment to have political, social or legal consequences. The problem with the Green Party politician who provoked this row isn’t that she has daft or nasty opinions, but that she was agitating for those opinions to have consequences for other people.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not suggesting that you are a radfem. But your starting point is the idea that the TERF subset of radfems need to be accommodated. That’s a political choice. They don’t in fact have to be accommodated. You want them to be, even though you realise that they can’t be without fucking over trans people. So it all seems complicated and impossible and you end up posting about how hard everything will be.
> 
> And no, I don’t think that transphobes should be listened to. I think that in any radical movement they should be given the choice of shutting up or fucking off. As you are aware though, most transphobes are men and this “listening to women” framing is just dishonest rhetoric meant to naturalize the views of a bizarre minority offshoot of radical feminism as the views of “women”.
> 
> You don’t have to agree with me about the desirability of accommodating bigots, but it really shouldn’t be controversial to say that accommodating them isn’t an actual necessity. The anarchist movement, such as it is, will get along fine without, for instance, the Green Party politician whose deliberate provocations started this whole row.


You seem to think that if you use the words transphobe and bigot in every post, then everyone who has raised any questions about self identification is a transphobe or bigot - because there's nothing else you can be.  No questions to answer, nobody you need to talk to. Trot mindset along with the full on no-platforming and call outs. Yuk. 

Perhaps 2 years ago, I was posting stuff on here in bewilderment that women might have concerns about issues around self identification, heath and the rest. I read a bit on here and wasn't converted to a 'terf' position, but did begin to accept there were issues that might not be as straightforward, might be things I hadn't read enough about and were things I haven't experienced. I don't have an answer, I don't have a line (though as mentioned, I'm actually closer to a trans rights position than a 'terf' position if forced to plot it on some bizarre scale). Some of that gets writ large if you trying to plan an event. Sometimes a lack of certainty is healthy.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Right, just to get this clear then Nigel Irritable  - and you do seem to do 'clear' on this topic: Athos asked you the question below, about the position outlined and whether it is 'necessarily transphobic'


> Only if you believe that the all "women [who] are saying about self-identification not being the same as female socialisation and lived experience", to whom @Wilf referred, are necessarily transphobes. An obviously ridiculous proposition.


Your reply, the bit underlined, suggests that any political action around that position *is* _inherently transphobic_.


Nigel Irritable said:


> That depends on whether they are agitating or organizing for that sentiment to have political, social or legal consequences. The problem with the Green Party politician who provoked this row isn’t that she has daft or nasty opinions, but that she was agitating for those opinions to have consequences for other people.


Have I got that right?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Again, you are making an argument that transphobes should be accommodated because you sympathize to some shifting extent with their bigotry. I’m pointing out that they don’t have to be accommodated. That’s a political choice you want to make, not a necessity. 

It also isn’t a political choice most others on the radical left will want to make, which is why transphobes are slowly but surely being pushed out of all left wing movements. You can whine about it all you like and sympathize with bigots all you like, but in a few years time people like you will be denying that you ever thought there should be a place for TERFery on the left.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 15, 2018)

When leading anti-trans figures are calling trans people "parasites," deliberately misgendering them as a means of attempted delegitimisation and then very conspicuously not being called out on that by their "reasonable" wing though it's not really a case of "oh people are just questioning," it's a case of some people framing their bigotry as "questioning" and then claiming victimhood when people don't take that seriously and tell them off.

Anti-trans activists hit out at ‘parasitic’ trans people at event in Parliament

The problem is that for trans people these "reasonable questions" have been asked over and over again and answers get ignored - for example the unsafe bathrooms line, where the Act is cast as a "fair question" situation about what happens when abusive men are legally enabled to pretend to be women to get access to the women's bogs. Except that's covered by the 2010 Equalities Act and there's never been a formal law on who's allowed in what room. I'm not even sure how you'd enforce it, stall cops?

The "fair question" line is more often than not an excuse to repeat things designed to unsettle people who haven't been following the arguments, rather than an honest perspective. And while it may or may not fall into the same category as racist activism in terms of virulence, it's damn close to some of their "look at these misleading statistics" strategies.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Your reply, the bit underlined, suggests that any political action around that position *is* _inherently transphobic_.



Yes, of course political agitation aimed at denying trans people the right to be treated as their preferred gender is transphobic.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That depends on whether they are agitating or organizing for that sentiment to have political, social or legal consequences. The problem with the Green Party politician who provoked this row isn’t that she has daft or nasty opinions, but that she was agitating for those opinions to have consequences for other people.



So you can't conceive of a single situation where it might be legitimate to advocate for that significant difference to have a social consequence? And that to do so can only ever be transphobic?  If so, I disagree. But, even then, it'd be more honest to frame the debate as being about the boundaries of transphobia, rather than as being pro/anti accommodating transphobia.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, of course political agitation aimed at denying trans people the right to be treated as their preferred gender is transphobic.



What if that's not the aim, but a consequence of a  otherwise legitimate aim?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> What if that's not the aim, but a consequence of a  otherwise legitimate aim?



Don’t be obtuse. It’s always the aim.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> When leading anti-trans figures are calling trans people "parasites," deliberately misgendering them as a means of attempted delegitimisation and then very conspicuously not being called out on that by their "reasonable" wing though it's not really a case of "oh people are just questioning," it's a case of some people framing their bigotry as "questioning" and then claiming victimhood when people don't take that seriously and tell them off.
> 
> Anti-trans activists hit out at ‘parasitic’ trans people at event in Parliament
> 
> ...


I can only speak for myself on this, but I'd say the majority of my posts on the mega thread that got closed were hostile to people using shitty language, deliberately mis-gendering people and the rest. I spent quite a while arguing against Miranda Y on that thread and have, fwiw, been 'positioned' far closer to a trans rights position.  I'm just fucked off how the whole thing has become disingenuous and so, in many ways, I'm also agreeing with you about this as a wider debate. Real issues, massively important issues, but too much of the battle has been fought with the tools of identity politics and call outs, no platforming demands.  Specifically as an anarcho debate - this thread at least - issues around class politics and solidarity would be a good starting point, even if that in itself doesn't 'solve' the specific issues.  But wailing transphobes at everyone who disagrees with you is shit (not aimed at you of course).


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Again, you are making an argument that transphobes should be accommodated because you sympathize to some shifting extent with their bigotry. I’m pointing out that they don’t have to be accommodated. That’s a political choice you want to make, not a necessity.
> 
> It also isn’t a political choice most others on the radical left will want to make, which is why transphobes are slowly but surely being pushed out of all left wing movements. You can whine about it all you like and sympathize with bigots all you like, but in a few years time people like you will be denying that you ever thought there should be a place for TERFery on the left.


Aha!  I sympathise 'to some shifting extent' with bigots!  In the neat slide rule you carry round with you that must be pushing me even closer to the 'as bad as a racist' marker! Oh my, what a fool I've been.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Aha!  I sympathise 'to some shifting extent' with bigots!  In the neat slide rule you carry round with you that must be pushing me even closer to the 'as bad as a racist' marker! Oh my, what a fool I've been.



Yes you are a fool.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes you are a fool.


You didn't use the word transphobe in that post.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 15, 2018)

It's definitely difficult, particularly if navigating as a man through territory which is really not ours to define while also wanting to avoid abandoning solidarity to those who need it. But it's as important to try and understand why people are adamant about shutting down elements of the discussion which they feel are rooted in bigotry rather than honest debate as it is to try and keep an open mind. And it's important to bear in mind the human element - this isn't only about political positions, it's about personal histories, friendships, family, seeing people you care about suffer and having intense reactions to that. People getting angry is inevitable, and there's not much point in demanding they stop being so.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Don’t be obtuse. It’s always the aim.



I disagree. Undoubtedly, there are bigots whose sole intention is to mistreat trans people, but, there are also a number of people who broadly accept trans inclusion except in exceptional cases where they believe it should be deprioritised in favour of competing goods e.g. women's rights to organise behind a conception of gender as a social construct (target than a matter of individual choice) - traditionally a mainstay of feminist organising.  You might feel they're wrongheaded (and in many cases I'd agree with you), but it's not necessarily accurate to say they're motivated by bigotry (and, arguably, counter-productive).


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2018)

Wilf said:


> You didn't use the word transphobe in that post.


A singular omission


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> A singular omission


Yes, he was running at 100% on this thread till the last 2 sloppy posts.  Nigel - I've had a word with the scorers and they say that if you say it 3 times in your next post they'll restore your enviable score. Wouldn't want to be like Don Bradman, missing out on a 100 average by taking your eye of the ball would you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> I disagree. Undoubtedly, there are bigots whose sole intention is to mistreat trans people, but, there are also a number of people who broadly accept trans inclusion except in exceptional cases where they believe it should be deprioritised in favour of competing goods e.g. women's rights to organise behind a conception of gender as a social construct (target than a matter of individual choice) - traditionally a mainstay of feminist organising.  You might feel they're wrongheaded (and in many cases I'd agree with you), but it's not necessarily accurate to say they're motivated by bigotry (and, arguably, counter-productive).



Seeking to organise women on the basis that trans women should be excluded isn’t incidentally transphobic, it’s deliberately setting out to deny trans women the right to be treated as trans women. The vast majority of feminists have no problem including trans women. When bizarre minority splinters of the feminist movement set out to organise without trans women, that exclusion is a central point of what they are doing not a side effect of some other aim.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seeking to organise women on the basis that trans women should be excluded isn’t incidentally transphobic, it’s deliberately setting out to deny trans women the right to be treated as trans women. The vast majority of feminists have no problem including trans women. When bizarre minority splinters of the feminist movement set out to organise without trans women, that exclusion is a central point of what they are doing not a side effect of some other aim.


I don't think people who are themselves in bizarre minority splinters should be casting aspersions


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't think people who are themselves in bizarre minority splinters should be casting aspersions


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

(((((Nigel's shattered greenhouse)))))


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seeking to organise women on the basis that trans women should be excluded isn’t incidentally transphobic, it’s deliberately setting out to deny trans women the right to be treated as trans women. The vast majority of feminists have no problem including trans women. When bizarre minority splinters of the feminist movement set out to organise without trans women, that exclusion is a central point of what they are doing not a side effect of some other aim.



What there can never be a legitimate basis to organise  according to biology?  Not childbirth, reproductive rights, fgm, etc., etc..  And, as a man, you're entirely comfortable telling women that?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> What there can never be a legitimate basis to organise  according to biology?  Not childbirth, reproductive rights, fgm, etc., etc..  And, as a man, you're entirely comfortable telling women that?



None of those issues require the exclusion of trans people. All of those issues directly effect non binary people and either trans men or trans women. All of those issues are organised around by feminist grouping in trans inclusive ways. The largest feminist movement in Western Europe at the moment is the abortion rights movement in Ireland. As you know, every single group involved in that movement, from the most staid semi-QUANGO to the most radical activist organisations are trans inclusive. And when they say that people who want to exclude trans people from those movements are bigoted scum, I’m more than willing to take them at their word.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> None of those issues require the exclusion of trans people. All of those issues directly effect non binary people and either trans men or trans women. All of those issues are organised around by feminist grouping in trans inclusive ways. The largest feminist movement in Western Europe at the moment is the abortion rights movement in Ireland. As you know, every single group involved in that movement, from the most staid semi-QUANGO to the most radical activist organisations are trans inclusive. And when they say that people who want to exclude trans people from those movements are bigoted scum, I’m more than willing to take them at their word.



It's not a question of whether trans exclusion is required; clearly, there's one way of doing it that is trans inclusive (and, as it happens, one I'm I'd favour women choosing to adopt) .  It's a question of the extent to which it's proper for men like you to dictate to the women that's the *only* acceptable way of doing it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's not a question of whether trans exclusion is required; clearly, there's one way of doing it that is trans inclusive (and, as it happens, one I'm I'd favour women choosing to adopt) .  It's a question of the extent to which it's proper for men like you to dictate to the women that's the *only* acceptable way of doing it.



If that was really the question it would be fortunate that I’m only echoing the views of the overwhelming majority of the feminist movement. But it isn’t. I’m not in favour of trying to stop bigots from holding their bigoted meetings, but unlike a few people here who have adopted the TERF spin on ID pol, I haven’t fallen so far down the standpoint epistemology rabbit hole that I’ve started to believe that only a woman is capable of holding an opinion about whether another woman is a bigot.

In any case, I’m not interested in restarting the other thread. My point here is only that the people on this thread treating this conflict as an insurmountable or intractable problem are wrongly assuming that a resolution must be to some degree acceptable to both sides. It doesn’t have to be acceptable to both sides. One side can be told to fuck off. In practice that’s what’s happening across the left and, whether the handwringers like it or not, that’s what’s likely to happen if the book fair returns. The view that transphobia is as unacceptable as racism is already hegemonic on the left, even in Britain, and it’s only going to get more so. 

Meanwhile the TERFs are only going to get more hostile to the left. I see that they held another meeting sponsored by David Davis last night, while the previously less rabid Mayday4women group are today retweeting people demanding the end of trans as a concept and calling individual trans women parasites. There isn’t going to be a compromise between this mini movement and either the left or the bulk of the feminist movement. There isn’t going to be reconciliation. The trajectories involved point in opposite directions.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Mar 15, 2018)

if radical liberalism can even be considered ‘left’ that is.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> None of those issues require the exclusion of trans people. All of those issues directly effect non binary people and either trans men or trans women. All of those issues are organised around by feminist grouping in trans inclusive ways. The largest feminist movement in Western Europe at the moment is the abortion rights movement in Ireland. As you know, every single group involved in that movement, from the most staid semi-QUANGO to the most radical activist organisations are trans inclusive. And when they say that people who want to exclude trans people from those movements are bigoted scum, I’m more than willing to take them at their word.



In case you still don't get it, Nigel stars in the remake of _What Women Want_, with himself in the Mel Gibson role.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If that was really the question it would be fortunate that I’m only echoing the views of the overwhelming majority of the feminist movement. But it isn’t. I’m not in favour of trying to stop bigots from holding their bigoted meetings, but unlike a few people here who have adopted the TERF spin on ID pol, I haven’t fallen so far down the standpoint epistemology rabbit hole that I’ve started to believe that only a woman is capable of holding an opinion about whether another woman is a bigot.
> 
> In any case, I’m not interested in restarting the other thread. My point here is only that the people on this thread treating this conflict as an insurmountable or intractable problem are wrongly assuming that a resolution must be to some degree acceptable to both sides. It doesn’t have to be acceptable to both sides. One side can be told to fuck off. In practice that’s what’s happening across the left and, whether the handwringers like it or not, that’s what’s likely to happen if the book fair returns. The view that transphobia is as unacceptable as racism is already hegemonic on the left, even in Britain, and it’s only going to get more so.
> 
> Meanwhile the TERFs are only going to get more hostile to the left. I see that they held another meeting sponsored by David Davis last night, while the previously less rabid Mayday4women group are today retweeting people demanding the end of trans as a concept and calling individual trans women parasites. There isn’t going to be a compromise between this mini movement and either the left or the bulk of the feminist movement. There isn’t going to be reconciliation. The trajectories involved point in opposite directions.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> ... unlike a few people here who have adopted the TERF spin on ID pol, I haven’t fallen so far down the standpoint epistemology rabbit hole that I’ve started to believe that only a woman is capable of holding an opinion about whether another woman is a bigot.



Nobody is suggesting that.




Nigel Irritable said:


> The view that transphobia is as unacceptable as racism is already hegemonic on the left, even in Britain, and it’s only going to get more so.



Yes, and rightly so.  But there's less consensus about whether or not it's necessarily transphobic to concede there may be some justification for treatiing trans women differently from other women in extreme cases.  Or even whether or not women have a right to discuss that proposition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yes, and rightly so.  But there's less consensus about whether or not it's necessarily transphobic to concede there may be some justification for treatiing trans women differently from other women in extreme cases.



No, the view that TERFs “just asking questions” about “extreme cases” is just more transphobia is already dominant too. As you can see by the fact that such pretense attracts exactly the same hostility as more honest transphobia. Maybe you think that this shouldn’t be the case, but it is.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 15, 2018)

i am sure that if there is an expanded collective for the 2019 London Anarchist Bookfair that they will be very grateful for this discussion here and all the helpful pointers.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, the view that TERFs “just asking questions” about “extreme cases” is just more transphobia is already dominant too. As you can see by the fact that such pretense attracts exactly the same hostility as more honest transphobia. Maybe you think that this shouldn’t be the case, but it is.



In my experience, this isn't universally true.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 15, 2018)

I reckon we can sort this one out, on here, between now and October 2019. 

Then the Bookfair can be like a victory rally. For us.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> i am sure that if there is an expanded collective for the 2019 London Anarchist Bookfair that they will be very grateful for this discussion here and all the helpful pointers.


"Right everybody, we've got somebody here who will advise about the pitfalls..."
- TRANSPHOBES!
"Erm, sorry, we just wanted a few ideas about the bookfair and..."
- BIGOTS - NO COMEBACKS!


----------



## ska invita (Apr 27, 2018)

Related
Legal Defence and Monitoring Group Statement on the Hyde Park Case
Cue much angry typing on keyboards on both sides


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 27, 2018)

It’s a massive headache. I’m not into political differences being sorted by the state but neither would I want to discourage women who’ve been assaulted not to report it to the police if they wanted to. The LDMG are a useful resource and shouldn’t be forced to choose sides in this.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2018)

From people i have a lot of time and respect for (and it seems they are as of yet unaware of the wider issues around  this years bristol bookfair and the PPK-isation of local anarchists)

We won’t be at the Bristol Anarchist Bookfair on May 12th

We’re not flip flopping any more. As far as we’re concerned, a toxic, divisive element of identity politics has been allowed too much sway in our movement and we have to start calling time on it. Obviously we want to focus on the class struggle politics and community activism we do out here in Essex away from the activist bubble in London. However, if we feel we can make appropriate interventions in the struggle to put class politics back in a more central place in the anarchist movement, we’ll do so. The cancellation of our stall at the Bristol Anarchist Bookfair is not us retreating from a row – it’s us making a tactical decision as to when and where we fight the battles that need to be fought.

We’ve already fallen out with comrades because of differences over identity politics. We recognise that with the stance we’re now taking, we may well fall out with a few more. So be it. Sometimes you have to do what you think is the right thing and deal with the consequences – we’re now prepared to do that.


----------



## ska invita (May 2, 2018)

What wider issues of Bristol bf are they?


----------



## LDC (May 2, 2018)

Think there's been some 'issues' with the Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair too when the News From Nowhere bookshop was written to asking them not to bring offensive literature to the Bookfair and when they asked what was meant they were told anything that was related to the GRA or that could be considered transphobic. (Details have come second hand and might be be 100% accurate, happy for clarification.)


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2018)

And guess whose been allowed to do the the bristol bookfair - the morning fucking star. Odd that i wasn't allowed to do an IWCA stall a few years ago as the bookfair is for 'explicitly non-electoral anarchists' - now fascist sympathising, holocaust deniers supporters, electoral fetishising tankie pricks are fine - _up the PKK, must get my new apo tattoo done asap:_


----------



## Wilf (May 2, 2018)

Not sure which of those is the more depressing. 

I know about the events that have lead up to the Liverpool lot, effectively, censoring materials brought to their bookfair. But the fucking Morningstar???   What kind of political and intellectual pirouettes have lead the Bristol organisers to that weird place?


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Not sure which of those is the more depressing.
> 
> I know about the events that have lead up to the Liverpool lot, effectively, censoring materials brought to their bookfair. But the fucking Morningstar???   What kind of political and intellectual pirouettes have lead the Bristol organisers to that weird place?


Assadism and PKKism i expect.


----------



## Wilf (May 2, 2018)

Christ.


----------



## chilango (May 2, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> And guess whose been allowed to do the the bristol bookfair - the morning fucking star. Odd that i wasn't allowed to do an IWCA stall a few years ago as the bookfair is for 'explicitly non-electoral anarchists' - now fascist sympathising, holocaust deniers supporters, electoral fetishising tankie pricks are fine - _up the PKK, must get my new apo tattoo done asap:_
> 
> View attachment 134236



Yuk.

Not worth popping in if I'm in the area then.


----------



## LDC (May 3, 2018)

Looks like the Bristol Bookfair has been postponed IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT BOOKFAIR 2018 | Bristol Anarchist Bookfair

They do win the competition for the shittest Bookfair poster ever though.


----------



## Geri (May 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Looks like the Bristol Bookfair has been postponed IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT BOOKFAIR 2018 | Bristol Anarchist Bookfair
> 
> They do win the competition for the shittest Bookfair poster ever though.


 
Not postponed, just moved in protest about the venue's connections with Rolls Royce. Rolls Royce supply arms to Turkey + Turkey killed Anna Campbell (YPJ member from Bristol) = Rolls Royce killed Anna Campbell.

I presume they have no objections to the arms supplied by Rolls Royce to the US, who were supporting the YPJ/YPG with airstrikes, who have killed more people in Syria than Turkey, but they were Syrian, so...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> And guess whose been allowed to do the the bristol bookfair - the morning fucking star. Odd that i wasn't allowed to do an IWCA stall a few years ago as the bookfair is for 'explicitly non-electoral anarchists' - now fascist sympathising, holocaust deniers supporters, electoral fetishising tankie pricks are fine - _up the PKK, must get my new apo tattoo done asap:_


Fucking hell.


----------



## LDC (May 3, 2018)

I hope they'll be a move to kick them out on the day...


----------



## ska invita (May 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> They do win the competition for the shittest Bookfair poster ever though.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 3, 2018)

The primary aim of flier design isn’t for it ‘to be noticed’ at all. It’s draw attention to the information it wants you to know in a clear and concise way.


----------



## chilango (May 3, 2018)

I'm definitely not going now! 

...and i think I'm in Bristol that day too.

Seriously though, the stuff Geri and butchersapron refer to. I'm staying the fuck away from those kindsa people.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 3, 2018)

But you’ll miss the cabaret and cocktails! 
That’s what that flyer conveys to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But you’ll miss the cabaret and cocktails!
> That’s what that flyer conveys to me.


if you're going to post a couplet
- i know you like to do -
please make damn sure
line one rhymes with line two


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 3, 2018)

(


Pickman's model said:


> if you're going to post a couplet
> - i know you like to do -
> please make damn sure
> line one rhymes with line two



(It wasn’t meant to be one..)

But you’ll miss the cabarat and fine cocktails,
Oh my that flyer completely fails!


----------



## cantsin (May 3, 2018)

ska invita said:


>




really decent retro-futurism shizzle that,bit of irony included,  like it


----------



## Lurdan (May 3, 2018)

What's the problem with the poster ? Once they'd smoked the plants they obviously had to draw them from memory, and they were feeling a bit peckish by then so the nut allergy warning symbol takes on the form of a candy peanut. 

As for all this sour grapes about letting in the wrong kind of electoralists...


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2018)

You think it's anger at an electoral grouping being allowed rather than anger at a really actually happening realignment around utterly malignant stalinist nationalist politics that's shot through with conspiracy and far right bullshit?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2018)

Lurdan said:


> As for all this sour grapes about letting in the wrong kind of electoralists...


Seriously?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2018)

Seems the Morning St*r has been uninvited.


----------



## TopCat (May 5, 2018)

Censorship!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 5, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> From people i have a lot of time and respect for (and it seems they are as of yet unaware of the wider issues around  this years bristol bookfair and the PPK-isation of local anarchists)
> 
> We won’t be at the Bristol Anarchist Bookfair on May 12th
> 
> ...



Now taken down so it obviously attracted interest.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2018)

See.


----------



## rich! (May 5, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Think there's been some 'issues' with the Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair too when the News From Nowhere bookshop was written to asking them not to bring offensive literature to the Bookfair and when they asked what was meant they were told anything that was related to the GRA or that could be considered transphobic. (Details have come second hand and might be be 100% accurate, happy for clarification.)


So i went to Liverpool for their bookfair, and spent the evening in the social centre under NfN. No-one was having a problem with not bringing books to the event.

One local troublemaker turned up to a workshop and was enough of an asshole they drove them out, politely or not.

Otherwise it was a really good Bookfair.

The Cunningham Amendment people put cash in to make it happen, and have a long argument in their zine about why. 

Tldr? More local bookfairs.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 6, 2018)

Norwich wasn't too bad today, other than the crypt being a bit on the cold and dark side!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 6, 2018)

Very nice down Westminster. But no books.


----------



## The39thStep (May 6, 2018)

Anyone know a bit more about this lot? 

Building the base for radical change


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 8, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> Anyone know a bit more about this lot?
> 
> Building the base for radical change



I think (and I might be wrong) that they've done a few different local newsletters over the last 10 years or so and that at least one of them was previously involved with the IWCA. 

They've done some stands at the anarchist bookfair in London. Also (and I might be completely wrong about this) I think one of them got embroiled in the weird argument with Laurie Penny about multiculturalism, the IWCA and racism.

Broadly sound anyway afaik.


----------



## TopCat (May 8, 2018)

Have another look at the Freedom collective statement about the last London bookfair. They didnt write it. It was put into their mouths. A similar set of demands will start being made from all the bookfairs and indeed any organised anarchist event. 
Do people accept this set of demands as reasonable? 
I say no.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 8, 2018)

Please don't interpret things that aren't there. It was marked as majority view because not everyone agreed, not because it was thrust upon the collective from outside.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 8, 2018)

On a related note btw the FA just put out a statement rejecting anti-trans sentiment in similar sorts of terms (below). Honestly I find this tendency to act as though the anarchist movement is uniquely under the thumb of some sort of powerful ID-pol trans lobby quite bizarre, it's not actually that weird to find the manipulative, mean-spirited tactics of active bigots who consistently demean, bully and misrepresent trans people abhorrent.

FA condemns anti-transgender flyers outside Wembley at women's FA Cup final


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> On a related note btw the FA just put out a statement rejecting anti-trans sentiment in similar sorts of terms (below). Honestly I find this tendency to act as though the anarchist movement is uniquely under the thumb of some sort of powerful ID-pol trans lobby quite bizarre, it's not actually that weird to find the manipulative, mean-spirited tactics of active bigots who consistently demean, bully and misrepresent trans people abhorrent.
> 
> FA condemns anti-transgender flyers outside Wembley at women's FA Cup final



 ‘the anarchist movement is uniquely under thumb of.. ID Pol trans lobby’. Er who has argued this?

And your position is supported by the FA. Well that’s settled it then. 

Do you think there’s any reason for banning male-bodied athletes from women’s sporting competitions?


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

Topcat literally just argued (from goodness' only knows where) that Freedom was being forced to push a pro-trans statement written by other people and that this was going to be a common occurrence in future. What do you think is implied by that sort of accusation?

And my point with the FA, as I thought was quite clear from context, is that it is very definitely not the sort of body likely to be pushed into anything much by the tiny number of trans people involved. But sure, turn that into a snide comment if you like I suppose.



> Do you think there’s any reason for banning male-bodied athletes from women’s sporting competitions?



I think even from my limited reading on the subject of the impact of hormone treatment on trans people's physical attributes that it's a fuck of a lot more complicated than both the leading question you've just formulated and the leaflets which apparently managed to be so unpleasant that even the FA spoke out about them. I also think the tone of the "debate" on this subject is utterly poisonous and has been deliberately made so from the start by people who deadname and misgender as a matter of habit.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Have another look at the Freedom collective statement about the last London bookfair. They didnt write it. It was put into their mouths. A similar set of demands will start being made from all the bookfairs and indeed any organised anarchist event.
> Do people accept this set of demands as reasonable?
> I say no.


Be reasonable demand the impossible


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you think there’s any reason for banning male-bodied athletes from women’s sporting competitions?


The IAAF have just decided that measuring and manipulating testosterone levels is the best way to ensure fairness in some not all competitions.


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

newbie said:


> The IAAF have just decided that measuring and manipulating testosterone levels is the best way to ensure fairness in some not all competitions.



And that’s a touch more equitable than shouting ‘trans women are women’ and being abusive to anyone who thinks otherwise.

And the Caster Semanya case is an example of the childish viciousness of some on the ‘terf’ position, and alludes to the sheer dishonesty of many of those on the ‘tw = w!!!’ positon.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

"Some" on the 'terf' position and "many" on the 'tw = w!!!' position. How interesting. Please do expand on how you're sailing above the fray, the neutral voice of reason.

As an aside, I love how putting quotes and exclamation marks in front of a phrase can make it look like the mindless group chanting of unreasonable people. Add in a vague allusion to "abusive shouting" and hey presto.


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> "Some" on the 'terf' position and "many" on the 'tw = w!!!' position. How interesting. Please do expand on how you're sailing above the fray, the neutral voice of reason.
> 
> As an aside, I love how putting quotes and exclamation marks in front of a phrase can make it look like the mindless group chanting of unreasonable people. Add in a vague allusion to "abusive shouting" and hey presto.



I’m not ‘the nuetral voice of reason’ (but please point to where I’ve ever claimed to be). I’m making an assertion based on my perception of the issue we’re talking about. I’m happy to be wrong. 

It’s telling that you don’t want to disagree (because disagreement is sin, obvs), instead you want make dishonest ad homs. 

 ID politics innit


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> "Some" on the 'terf' position and "many" on the 'tw = w!!!' position. How interesting. Please do expand on how you're sailing above the fray, the neutral voice of reason.
> 
> As an aside, I love how putting quotes and exclamation marks in front of a phrase can make it look like the mindless group chanting of unreasonable people. Add in a vague allusion to "abusive shouting" and hey presto.



Oh and to take your lead in being a dick, your post here is truly moronic.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

Goodness, how unreasonable. It's almost as though you're not in fact above a bit of rudeness when you feel put upon, and perhaps should consider this before leaping in to condemn trans people and their supporters as unreasoned ID Pol mentalists when individuals sometimes lose their tempers in the face of a concerted campaign of nastiness.


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And that’s a touch more equitable than shouting ‘trans women are women’ and being abusive to anyone who thinks otherwise.


the comparison is with the FA's behind closed doors approach to identifying who they do and don't consider to be a woman, not with the leafletters, and to illustrate that simply _banning male-bodied athletes from women’s sporting competitions_ isn't particularly credible.

All sports seem to have different approaches.  A transgender woman would have easily won the womens weightlifting at the Commonwealth Games if she hadn't dislocated her elbow.  By contrast women compete equally with men in horseracing, and have done since the original Sex Discrimination Act in the 70s. 

However you are right, this thread is about leafletters


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

newbie said:


> the comparison is with the FA's behind closed doors approach to identifying who they do and don't consider to be a woman, not with the leafletters, and to illustrate that simply _banning male-bodied athletes from women’s sporting competitions_ isn't particularly credible.
> 
> All sports seem to have different approaches.  A transgender woman would have easily won the womens weightlifting at the Commonwealth Games if she hadn't dislocated her elbow.  By contrast women compete equally with men in horseracing, and have done since the original Sex Discrimination Act in the 70s.
> 
> However you are right, this thread is about leafletters



Well it’s an important development so useful to read about. Food for thought.


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Goodness, how unreasonable.



Do you have a point?

I have no obligation to be ‘reasonable’.


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

You have nothing to say Rob Ray 

Which you know.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

With you? Yes, it's that maybe rather than doing this:


MadeInBedlam said:


> And that’s a touch more equitable than shouting ‘trans women are women’ and being abusive to anyone who thinks otherwise.



As though you're in a position to judge you could stand to wind your neck in a bit and ponder that maybe trans people losing their tempers sometimes in the face of a poisonous campaign to deny they have a right to exist is entirely understandable and not actually intrinsic to their campaign for recognition, nor does it represent the sum of their political outlook and contribution.

Edit: Tbh I'm kind of amazed at this Jekyll and Hide performance - touch a nerve did I?


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> With you? Yes, it's that maybe rather than doing this:
> 
> 
> As though you're in a position to judge you could stand to wind your neck in a bit and ponder that maybe trans people losing their tempers sometimes in the face of a poisonous campaign to deny they have a right to exist is entirely understandable and not actually intrinsic to their campaign for recognition, nor does it represent the sum of their political outlook and contribution.
> ...



Except I wasn’t talking about trans people. Believe it or not all trans identifying people have the same politics. I explicitly referenced a particular political position, and a particular political style. 

If you’re too thick to read what others say, that’s about you, not anyone else. 

And fuck off with your ‘wind your neck in’. You know nothing about my personal existence, certainly nothing about my relationship with my body, and with gender.


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Edit: Tbh I'm kind of amazed at this Jekyll and Hide performance - touch a nerve did I?



You’re going to say I’m gaslighting next


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Do you suffer from dysphoria Rob Ray ? Have you ever been given a diagnosis about it?

Who the fuck are you to tell me to ‘wind my neck in’. 

Fucking mug.


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

ID politics writ large: there are discrete, concrete identities; these indentities have inherent cultures, beliefs, politics; any lack of compliance with these beliefs is an attack on the existence of that ‘identity’.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> As though you're in a position to judge you could stand to wind your neck in a bit and ponder that maybe trans people losing their tempers sometimes in the face of a poisonous campaign to deny they have a right to exist is entirely understandable and not actually intrinsic to their campaign for recognition, nor does it represent the sum of their political outlook and contribution.



A major contributing factor to this toxic mess is people’s insistence that those who are questioning self ID are “denying trans people the right to exist”. 
Sure, there’s some horrible people perhaps doing that but not everyone (most?) can be simply dismisssed as doing so.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Except I wasn’t talking about trans people. Believe it or not all trans identifying people have the same politics. I explicitly referenced a particular political position, and a particular political style.



Wait trans people don't all agree?? Mind. Blown.

More seriously though, what you went after was trans people and their allies, yes with a specific position on trans rights but your implication has repeatedly been holding that position entails a particular, concerted political style, characterised as three exclamation marks-worth of unstable.

I don't care about and haven't at any point mentioned your personal relationship with gender, what I'm getting at is the assumptions and characterisations being made about trans people and their allies who have been under continuous attack, which you've been contributing to above, and its impact on the adult debate you seem to be saying you want.

I mean no-one forced you to like an unsourced, inaccurate post that happened to paint the trans rights movement as some sort of malignant "ID Pol" force making people support them, for example — that was you participating in the construction of a shibboleth.


----------



## Shechemite (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Wait trans people don't all agree?? Mind. Blown.
> 
> More seriously though, what you went after was trans people and their allies, yes with a specific position on trans rights but your implication has repeatedly been holding that position entails a particular, concerted political style, characterised as three exclamation marks-worth of unstable.
> 
> ...



Again nothing (but transparent disingenuounity). 

What’s a ‘trans person’? Who are the ‘allies’ of trans people? 

‘Trans people and their allies’. Dear god.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> A major contributing factor to this toxic mess is people’s insistence that those who are questioning self ID are “denying trans people the right to exist”.
> Sure, there’s some horrible people perhaps doing that but not everyone (most?) can be simply dismisssed as doing so.



So to go back to the structure of the sentence for a minute, "people’s insistence" meaning who? All pro-trans people? Probably not. So who? some people on the internet? Some people who shout at rallies? Why is this phrase a focal point?

What is meant by the phrase? Does it _have_ a unified meaning? Is it always referring to the practice of questioning or debating self ID whoever is doing it, or is it more aimed at people who use the word "questioning" as a handy shield when what they actually mean is "campaigning against expanded rights for trans people."

As MiB so eloquently notes, there isn't "a" trans position here, just people, some of whom I would agree are headbangers, some of whom just don't put things very well, some of whom like a good slogan, some of whom don't use the phrase at all etc - like basically every campaign ever.

This is what I'm trying to get at. Yes sometimes people talk a lot of rubbish online. But the construction of an "ID Pol" dismissal and/or acceptance of a (heavily trailed across the mainstream press) view that trans rights advocates are unreasonable on a concerted basis is _also_ foolish.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

And note how this inflicts itself on MiB's writing — he seemingly cannot accept where I'm actually coming from, and is busily arguing with a hysterical shouty ID Pol stereotype constructed entirely in his own mind.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> So to go back to the structure of the sentence for a minute, "people’s insistence" meaning who? All pro-trans people?



Meaning those who say it. Yes some people use “only questioning” as a shield for a transphobic agenda but there are plenty who have concerns who don’t have a transphobic agenda. Unless, of course, you’re arguing that anyone with concerns is transphobic. I’ve seen plenty of that including on this forum.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

Personally I think that most people don't have much background on the topic, so questions is fine — and there's a bunch of resources available debunking the most common myths because pro-trans people aren't actually a mob of shouty hysterics. Some of them were listed on the Freedom statement.

However, I also think that this is a limited-time thing. If you've been reading/participating for a while and you're still pretending you're just "questioning" or "opening a debate" by standing outside a stadium to hand out leaflets for example that's just disingenuous rubbish. The lefletters have a position demanding the blocking of Self ID and they're seeking to convert people to it. Which, if you see Self ID as a needed step forward for trans rights, is quite logically going to be criticised as transphobic behaviour.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Personally I think that most people don't have much background on the topic, so questions is fine — and there's a bunch of resources available debunking the most common myths because pro-trans people aren't actually a mob of shouty hysterics. Some of them were listed on the Freedom statement.
> 
> However, I also think that this is a limited-time thing. If you've been reading/participating for a while and you're still pretending you're just "questioning" or "opening a debate" by standing outside a stadium to hand out leaflets for example that's just disingenuous rubbish. The lefletters have a position demanding the blocking of Self ID and they're seeking to convert people to it. Which, if you see Self ID as a needed step forward for trans rights, is quite logically going to be criticised as transphobic behaviour.



Perhaps so, but would you agree that even opposing self ID doesn’t equate to “denying trans people the right to exist”? It’s that kind of emotive language that has led to women being attacked / no platformed (which, incidentally, was what brought it all to wider scrutiny).


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

It's not a phrase I (edit: tend to — just realised I did above) use myself because it's clunky and often derails conversations unnecessarily. I think it depends on how the phrase is parsed however as to whether it's ultimately unreasonable or not. Opposing self ID certainly does deny trans people recognition and rights in some very important arenas, and the campaign to do so has repeatedly reinforced tropes and bigotries which can and do lead to violent death. It's very easy to be sanguine when it's not me who has to pay for such things by getting my head kicked in.

Ultimately though I think it's a slogan, and my interest in slogans has always been minimal. Emotive language generally is normal in any heated argument, and has come from both sides. The idea that it has much link causing the various scuffles which have happened I think is a huge stretch, otherwise Chris "eat the rich" Knight would have long since gone on trial for cannibalism.

Actually, a more related example would be the time I was told Freedom was contributing to rape culture and making women unsafe by carrying pronoun badges. That was a bit special. These are the dangerous objects in question, the others being she/her and they/them:


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> It's not a phrase I (edit: tend to — just realised I did above) use myself because it's clunky and often derails conversations unnecessarily. I think it depends on how the phrase is parsed however as to whether it's ultimately unreasonable or not. Opposing self ID certainly does deny trans people recognition and rights in some very important arenas, and the campaign to do so has repeatedly reinforced tropes and bigotries which can and do lead to violent death. It's very easy to be sanguine when it's not me who has to pay for such things by getting my head kicked in.



It’s inaccurate and dishonest (as was the labelling of ‘TERFs’ as ‘fascists’ which is probably a clearer example of language being used to distort definitions in order to justify actions usually reserved for actual fascists).


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s inaccurate and dishonest (as was the labelling of ‘TERFs’ as ‘fascists’ which is probably a clearer example of language being used to justify actions usually reserved for actual fascists).



I'm sort of wondering why you bothered quoting me given you appear to be mostly ignoring what I said and going on refute a comment I've not made.

Anyhoo it all seems kind of one-sided, this attribution of motivations you're offering here. I get that you think people are being inaccurate, what evidence do you have that they (all/most/some/a minority/someone/none) are being dishonest? I've seen a couple of people talk about terfs and fascists in the same breath, my take was that they were being a bit silly thinking of the worst word they could use, which is something we've all seen happen about a thousand times in contexts from shouting at members of the plod who are carrying out an arrest to Animal Rights activists outside an abattoir. Frankly if anything I'd see marking the phenomenon of badly-conceived insults out as somehow being specially tied to pro-trans activists while ignoring the poisonous behaviour of their opponents (evidenced in the very post you were quoting), as far more "dishonest" behaviour.

Do you think slagging people off as tacitly pro-rape for wearing a They/Them badge is honest decent debate? What about getting someone arrested after a scuffle, waiting until they were in the dock testifying and then bray-laughing at their speech impediment to try and put them off to the point that the judge has to intervene? How about, as I've seen recently, putting it about that the entire trans rights movement is a stooge for "big pharma" - should that be treated as a fair and reasonable bit of questioning behaviour?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s inaccurate and dishonest (as was the labelling of ‘TERFs’ as ‘fascists’ which is probably a clearer example of language being used to distort definitions in order to justify actions usually reserved for actual fascists).


Perhaps used in accordance with the definition of fascists as people the user of the word dislikes


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 9, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps used in accordance with the definition of fascists as people the user of the word dislikes



Fair point but that’s layman stuff, there’s seasoned activists supporting this useage.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 9, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm sort of wondering why you bothered quoting me given you appear to be mostly ignoring what I said and going on refute a comment I've not made.
> 
> Anyhoo it all seems kind of one-sided, this attribution of motivations you're offering here. I get that you think people are being inaccurate, what evidence do you have that they (all/most/some/a minority/someone/none) are being dishonest? I've seen a couple of people talk about terfs and fascists in the same breath, my take was that they were being a bit silly thinking of the worst word they could use, which is something we've all seen happen about a thousand times in contexts from shouting at members of the plod who are carrying out an arrest to Animal Rights activists outside an abattoir. Frankly if anything I'd see marking the phenomenon of badly-conceived insults out as somehow being specially tied to pro-trans activists while ignoring the poisonous behaviour of their opponents (evidenced in the very post you were quoting), as far more "dishonest" behaviour.
> 
> Do you think slagging people off as tacitly pro-rape for wearing a They/Them badge is honest decent debate? What about getting someone arrested after a scuffle, waiting until they were in the dock testifying and then bray-laughing at their speech impediment to try and put them off to the point that the judge has to intervene? How about, as I've seen recently, putting it about that the entire trans rights movement is a stooge for "big pharma" - should that be treated as a fair and reasonable bit of questioning behaviour?



Out of idle curiosity, are there any examples of ‘TERFs’ physically attacking trans activists here in the U.K.? It was that which got my goat tbh and the only reason why I’m bringing up the language is because that apparently justified it.
That aside, I agree the extremes on both sides use inflammatory language.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> there’s seasoned activists supporting this useage.



Who? Are they usually otherwise known for their pin-sharp use of terminology? What was the context, were they drunk and angry in an argument or sober and seriously arguing "terfs want a state-corporate compact characterised by aggressive nationalism"? Why does this example of Godwin's Law matter particularly over say, calling a badge-wearer a rape apologist?

Seriously though I find it really, really weird that trans activists are repeatedly singled out as being vastly more dishonest and aggressive than people who in many cases refuse point blank to even call them by their chosen name, accuse them of only wanting to be women so they can peek at tits in the ladies' bathroom etc etc.

What's more dishonest and aggro, getting angry at a progressive event when people come to hand out leaflets attacking the idea of you getting important rights that have until now been denied? Or going to an event you know will be full of trans people specifically to hand out "questioning" leaflets in full knowledge that it'll kick off a fight, then legging it and claiming you're the innocent victim of savagery (while bragging Job Done to your mates)? I genuinely don't get looking at these stunts and coming up with the idea that it's just Gender Critical Victims vs Terrible ID Pol Psychos.



Magnus McGinty said:


> is there any examples of ‘TERFs’ physically attacking trans people here in the U.K.? It was that which got my goat tbh and the only reason why I’m bringing up the language



Yes, the other side of the reports on Hyde Park alleged that the person punched had acted first by attacking someone from behind. Thing is though a main plank of the anti-trans strategy has been to deliberately wind people up and then play the victim card when they react (eg. above, and my other examples of poisonous verbiage), which has been a standard activist tactic for as long as I've been around and doubtless long before.

And it's easy to do that in this case, in the same way as it's easy for I dunno, a white guy to wind up a black person by claiming Black Lives Matter actually means black people are being racist against whites, keep their cool because it's not them getting slapped about by cops and then claim "look I told you these blacks are just unreasonable" when tempers are lost.

I tend to facepalm when people take the bait, and certainly don't condone physical attacks (potential exclusion from progressive spaces is a broader question), but I think the level of abuse which has gone on is generally revolting. I mean fucking hell the amount of shit that got slung at Lily Madigan, who'd never physically hurt anybody, was just breathtaking. The stuff that pops up on the social media feed of Paris Lees and the like is as bad or worse, and near enough continuous. I dunno if you saw Genderquake, but the comments there are pretty common fare.

And I've not seen prominent "gender critics" take this behaviour to task, in fact when I've seen them asked about it there's mostly just been sliding on to the next topic, or a blank inability to stop trying to divert it into how terrible trans people are.


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2018)

Think I'm making just about the same point I made on one of the disappeared trans threads, but it seems even more relevant on an anarcho-specific thread. Anyroad, I previously posed the question 'what would the 'trans v terf' battle look like in an equal society'? That might look a bit utopian and a bit 'why can't we all get along', but neither are intended.  I'm just getting at whether there's a prefigurative politics available that avoids what I've read about bookfair organisers being pressured to sign up to statements and the rest.

Hopefully without displaying any mansplaining, cis-splaining or similar it just looks to me like this as a battle, as a way of carrying on, is using the tools and weapons of ID politics, not solidarity.  Part of that is about real issues, real positions that can't easily be split down the middle. Issues around the GRA, around women only spaces, around whether trans women can expect people to respect self definitions. Fwiw my instincts are around full trans rights, but then I've also listened to some arguments about women only spaces/services. But my instincts are not the point, I'm neither trans nor female. These are difficult, real issues for women and for trans men and women. In a way, it's not surprising that this plays out with everyone's real, raw concerns about challenges to their identity and status.  But, to get to my point  it's hard to see how any of this will go anywhere if it still plays out as ID pols. Privilege theory and intersectionality don't provide a way through this, don't allow for common struggles, don't even take us towards a place where feminist and trans activists could campaign together on, say, sexual violence.  Neither does ID politics take you to a place where you could think about a world where would even need to be hung up on some of these boundaried and owned identities.


----------



## smokedout (May 11, 2018)

Bookfair leafleter was suspended from the Green Party for transphobia this weekend: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/...date-after-transphobic-heckling-on-channel-4/


----------



## Shechemite (May 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Bookfair leafleter was suspended from the Green Party for transphobia this weekend: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/...date-after-transphobic-heckling-on-channel-4/



Alleged transphobia.

The article you link to provides no examples of her alleged ‘transphobic heckling’ (unless there’s something hidden away in the article).

And the article itself repeatedly puts trabsohobia in scare quotes.

Any more info or should we just accept as fact the word of The Green Party and Munroe Bergdorf?


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2018)

Very odd reporting in that article


----------



## Rob Ray (May 12, 2018)

Huh, didn't clock that the "questioning" anarchist bookfair leafletter was also the person who went on the telly to shout "penis" at a trans panellist. You can hear her from around the 41-minute mark.



> it's hard to see how any of this will go anywhere if it still plays out as ID pols. Privilege theory and intersectionality don't provide a way through this, don't allow for common struggles



So I think this goes some of the way to my uneasiness about "ID Pol" as a term of criticism. It's way too broad and nebulous imv, as privilege theory and intersectional theory both have elements which are useful and elements which can be (and are) misused either deliberately or no. Yes there's a lot of stupid shit goes on (eg. the oppression Olympics) but that's true of any social trend or political tendency - pillocks will be pillocks right? Intersectionality as talked about by Bell Hooks and Patricia Collins for example has a lot of interesting things to say.


----------



## rich! (May 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Bookfair leafleter was suspended from the Green Party for transphobia this weekend: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/...date-after-transphobic-heckling-on-channel-4/



After the bookfair, several complaints and a request for suspension were made, but it was decided that they wouldn't be suspended during the investigation of the complaints. The more public display resulted in additional complaints and a request for suspension that was upheld.

The actual investigation into the original complaints is still going on - GP internal procedures are not the fastest moving in the world...


----------



## bimble (May 13, 2018)

This is her point of view (the expelled* green party woman) if anyone's interested:
The Genderquake debate fiasco and the McCarthyism that followed.

*not expelled soz, suspended


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2018)

Am I the only one who is struggling to see why the 'temporary suspension in order to prevent possible harm to the Party’s reputation’ (not expulsion, and not explicitly for transphobia) of a member of the Green Party is being discussed on the Anarchist Bookfair thread? Apart from smokedout's dishonest and disingenuous attempt to shoehorn it in here, of course.

It would make more sense to include in the "Why the Green Party is shit" thread, TBH


----------



## ska invita (May 13, 2018)

andysays said:


> Am I the only one who is struggling to see why the 'temporary suspension in order to prevent possible harm to the Party’s reputation’ (not expulsion, and not explicitly for transphobia) of a member of the Green Party is being discussed on the Anarchist Bookfair thread? Apart from smokedout's dishonest and disingenuous attempt to shoehorn it in here, of course.
> 
> It would make more sense to include in the "Why the Green Party is shit" thread, TBH


Because the trans perplexed thread got locked and there's still a lot to talk about


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Because the trans perplexed thread got locked and there's still a lot to talk about



My recollection is that that thread was locked because of the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others.

The temporary suspension of a member of the Green Party following their behaviour in a TV studio has nothing to do with the Bookfair, and smokedout shoehorning it in here seems to me an attempt to continue to attack the Bookfair organisers rather than continue any meaningful discussion about trans issues.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 13, 2018)

andysays said:


> The temporary suspension of a member of the Green Party following their behaviour in a TV studio has nothing to do with the Bookfair



She was one of the leafletters at the bookfair.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> She was one of the leafletters at the bookfair.



I know that, but the fact the Green Party have now suspended one of their members while they investigate a complaint arising from something she did last week isn't of any significance to the Anarchist Bookfair, unless you (or more appropriately perhaps as they brought it up smokedout) would like to explain what relevance it has to the Bookfair in particular or Anarchism in general


----------



## Rob Ray (May 13, 2018)

I mean, I dunno what interaction you had with the fallout, but a good chunk of the argument about the Bookfair involved critics saying people were overreacting to "questioning" leaflets and that it was outrageous people trying to open a debate were being treated in the same way as if racists showed up.

That one of the two leafletters has since shown up on a national telly programme shouting "penis" at trans panellists and been suspended from the fluffy wuffy Greens surely goes a fair way to showing that the leaflets were not in fact motivated by opening a debate at all, and the people who confronted them were spot on in identifying her as a bigot.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I mean, I dunno what interaction you had with the fallout, but a good chunk of the argument about the Bookfair involved critics saying people were overreacting to "questioning" leaflets and that it was outrageous people trying to open a debate were being treated in the same way as if racists showed up.
> 
> That one of the two leafletters has since shown up on a national telly programme shouting "penis" at trans panellists and been suspended from the fluffy wuffy Greens surely goes a fair way to showing that the leaflets were not in fact motivated by opening a debate at all, and the people who confronted them were spot on in identifying her as a bigot.



But surely the important question for this thread is not whether her leaflets were bigoted (we don't need her to be suspended by the GP to help us decide that FFS) but whether the method of confronting on the day was appropriate or useful, whether the way various other groups with a grudge against the organisers subsequently used the incident to attack them and how/if some sort of Bookfair can be effectively organised in the future given the clear split between people on both sides who care more about the ongoing TERF/trans activist battle than they do about the Bookfair and, I suspect, Anarchism in general.

Smokedout clearly comes into the latter category, which is why I'm not surprised at them bringing this up, but in what way do you think it's helpful to the subject of the thread to drag this in here and now?


----------



## Rob Ray (May 13, 2018)

I don't think the "important question" of this 51-page monstrosity of a thread is yours to decide, tbh. If you want to talk about how bigots should be confronted fine, but even if you don't like smokedout it's a bit shit to call them "disingenuous and dishonest" for posting a directly relevant followup to a related issue which very much is part of the debate.


> (we don't need her to be suspended by the GP to help us decide that FFS)



Edit: Also are you serious here? A good chunk of people on this thread had very clearly not agreed on the subject, how on Earth is providing new information a "we don't need this ffs" moment?


----------



## rich! (May 13, 2018)

andysays said:


> I know that, but the fact the Green Party have now suspended one of their members while they investigate a complaint arising from something she did last week isn't of any significance to the Anarchist Bookfair, unless you (or more appropriately perhaps as they brought it up smokedout) would like to explain what relevance it has to the Bookfair in particular or Anarchism in general


There are also outstanding complaints from the Bookfair incident.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2018)

rich! said:


> There are also outstanding complaints from the Bookfair incident.



Yes there are, but I can't see that those being resolved will make any significant difference to issues around the Bookfair.

It's as if some here imagine that if the Green Party decide to permanently expel this person for transphobic actions, anyone who currently doubts or denies that she should have been prevented from leafleting the Bookfair will immediately become convinced, and that all the actions of the protestors who attacked her and others on the day and those who used the incident as an excuse to attack the organisers will be proved correct, and then, what exactly?

Will this help in any way to resolve the trans/TERF split or make it more likely that future Bookfairs can happen without this hostility raising its head again? 

Or is that unimportant compared to the feeling of being able to say 'I told you they were a bigot and now even the Green Party agree, so if you don't agree, you must be a bigot too'? Because that's all this will achieve.


----------



## rich! (May 13, 2018)

andysays said:


> Yes there are, but I can't see that those being resolved will make any significant difference to issues around the Bookfair.
> 
> It's as if some here imagine that if the Green Party decide to permanently expel this person for transphobic actions, anyone who currently doubts or denies that she should have been prevented from leafleting the Bookfair will immediately become convinced, and that all the actions of the protestors who attacked her and others on the day and those who used the incident as an excuse to attack the organisers will be proved correct, and then, what exactly?
> 
> ...


I agree with you on this, fwiw.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 13, 2018)

andysays said:


> It's as if some here imagine that if the Green Party decide to permanently expel this person for transphobic actions, anyone who currently doubts or denies that she should have been prevented from leafleting the Bookfair will immediately become convinced, and that all the actions of the protestors who attacked her and others on the day and those who used the incident as an excuse to attack the organisers will be proved correct, and then, what exactly?



Who has suggested this? I certainly haven't. What I have suggested is that it is pertinent supporting information about one of the main instigators of the confrontation, and maybe you shouldn't fuck people off for posting it. I'm not sure why this is rustling your jimmies so much, or why you're focusing on the Greens aspect of it rather than on the shouting abuse at trans people on national television aspect. Or why you're characterising it as a case of "making excuses" for "those who used the incident as an excuse to attack the organisers" — which tbh is a pretty partisan way of putting that.



andysays said:


> Will this help in any way to resolve the trans/TERF split or make it more likely that future Bookfairs can happen without this hostility raising its head again?



Will being a bit more on it and identifying bigots who are trying to stir shit up early prevent hostility from getting out of hand at events? Probably yes. Will moaning about them mad ID Pols oh if only we didn't have to deal with this shit blah blah help? Likely not. In fact it's probably quite counterproductive.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> ...Or why you're characterising it as a case of "making excuses" for "those who used the incident as an excuse to attack the organisers" — which tbh is a pretty partisan way of putting that...



I suggest you go back and read the statement from the organisers of the Bookfair about why they won't be organising one this year


----------



## Rob Ray (May 13, 2018)

Thanks for the advice, I was the one who published it at Freedom and one of the few people who actually went out of their way to phone up a collective member for a chat about it though, and much as they were upset that people they considered friends had signed that statement I don't remember them suggesting that trans activists were thanking their good fortune that a bigot had happened along at the right moment to cause a stink.

But anyhow I can't help but notice, once again, that you're doing your best to divert any mention of bad behaviour by "gender critical feminists" into discussion about bad behaviour by trans activists here. Seems a bit of a trend with you this, Andy. It's almost as though you're only really interested in demanding that one side show any contrition or improve their behaviour.


----------



## smokedout (May 13, 2018)

andysays said:


> Am I the only one who is struggling to see why the 'temporary suspension in order to prevent possible harm to the Party’s reputation’ (not expulsion, and not explicitly for transphobia) of a member of the Green Party is being discussed on the Anarchist Bookfair thread? Apart from smokedout's dishonest and disingenuous attempt to shoehorn it in here, of course.
> 
> It would make more sense to include in the "Why the Green Party is shit" thread, TBH



For fucks sake she was one of the key people involved in the incident that this thread has spent pages discussing.  I'm not claiming it's a massive smoking gun, but the fact she's just been confronted for transphobia by her own party is something I thought might be of interest to those following this debate.


----------



## smokedout (May 13, 2018)

andysays said:


> My recollection is that that thread was locked because of the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others..



The thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate (none by me btw).  You seem very keen to only tell one side of the story.


----------



## Athos (May 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate (none by me btw).  You seem very keen to only tell one side of the story.



How do you know that?


----------



## smokedout (May 13, 2018)

Because thats what FridgeMagnet said at the time.


----------



## Athos (May 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Because thats what FridgeMagnet said at the time.



Where did he mention reported posts from people on both sides?


----------



## smokedout (May 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> Where did he mention reported posts from people on both sides?



On the thread that was locked as far as I can recall, I cant be arsed to check, but he certainly didn't  say the thread was locked because of "the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others."


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> On the thread that was locked as far as I can recall, I cant be arsed to check, but he certainly didn't  say the thread was locked because of "the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others."



He didn't. He posted seven short posts on that thread, and I checked them all. I think this is another example of you being a bit 'flexible' with the truth.


----------



## smmudge (May 14, 2018)

Athos said:


> He didn't. He posted seven short posts on that thread, and I checked them all. I think this is another example of you being a bit 'flexible' with the truth.



Do you have evidence that this was why the thread was locked?:



andysays said:


> My recollection is that that thread was locked because of the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 14, 2018)

The thread was locked because of all the continuing abuse and personal attacks on it, and there were a very large number of reported posts, from all “sides”.


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2018)

smmudge said:


> Do you have evidence that this was why the thread was locked?:



No. But I didn't make any such claim.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 14, 2018)

No you just let someone else claim it was down to one side's bad behaviour then accused smokedout of being a liar for suggesting otherwise.


----------



## ska invita (May 14, 2018)




----------



## Shechemite (May 14, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> No you just let someone else claim it was down to one side's bad behaviour then accused smokedout of being a liar for suggesting otherwise.



He *let* them?


----------



## Rob Ray (May 14, 2018)

As in of the two assertions made by andysays and smokedout, one being "that thread was locked because of the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout" and the other being "the thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate", Athos only challenged smokedout as being unevidenced/dishonest.


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> No you just let someone else claim it was down to one side's bad behaviour then accused smokedout of being a liar for suggesting otherwise.



It's not up to me to 'let' anyone do anything.  I never endorsed Andysays' recollection.

Smokedout claimed something (i.e. that FM said on that thread that the reason for its closure was reports from both sides) that was demonstrably untrue.  He said no such thing, there (though he has done on this thread, since Smokedout's claim).


----------



## Rob Ray (May 14, 2018)

But Andysays did so far more egregiously - as in he was not only unevidenced but actively misrepresented the situation and had to be corrected by a mod -  which was specifically what smokedout had been replying to, yet there was unaccountably tumbleweed from you on that side of it. Why is that?


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> But Andysays did so far more egregiously - as in he was not only unevidenced but actively misrepresented the situation and had to be corrected by a mod - yet there was unaccountably tumbleweed from your end. Why is that?



Because what Andysays was far more equivocal than what Smokedout did. The former talked about his recollection, whereas the latter asserted facts, and continued to make more detailed dishonest claims when asked for any evidence. (Though I notice you very precisely selected and edited the quotes to conceal that fact in your previous post.)


----------



## Rob Ray (May 14, 2018)

I didn't "precisely" snip other than to highlight the active part of the assertions made (and honestly we're both old enough here I think to know that "to my recollection" is no kind of shield when making accusations against other people), but nice try.

Yes I note that equivocation seems to be a theme here.


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I didn't "precisely" snip other than to highlight the active part of the assertions made (and honestly we're both old enough here I think to know that "to my recollection" is no kind of shield when making accusations against other people), but nice try.
> 
> Yes I note that equivocation seems to be a theme here.



Well, we can agree to disagree about the significance of the words you edited out, and your motive for doing so.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 14, 2018)

Well it'd fit with your approach to the rest of this thread. Honestly watching you, MiB and andy wriggling around throwing inaccuracies, slurs and bluster about while trying to find reasons to slag people off for "dishonesty" has been thoroughly unpleasant. LIke I dunno if smokedout is as prone to lying as you say, but if so I don't think there's many legs to stand on from the above.

Edit: On which note, I think I'm out. I mentioned being on this thread to a friend and they urged me to avoid like the plague, and for the sake of a better, happier life I reckon I'll take that advice.


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Well it'd fit with your approach to the rest of this thread. Honestly watching you, MiB and andy wriggling around throwing inaccuracies, slurs and bluster about while trying to find reasons to slag people off for "dishonesty" has been thoroughly unpleasant. LIke I dunno if smokedout is as prone to lying as you say, but if so I don't think there's many legs to stand on from the above.



Please give some examples of any inaccuracies you think I've posted on this thread.

That what Smokedout claimed was untrue is beyond doubt. FM simply didn't say what Smokedout claimed he did.  From many interactions with them, that's their MO.

ETA: just seen your edit, which I guess means you won't back up your claim - slurs and bluster, indeed.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate (none by me btw).





FridgeMagnet said:


> The thread was locked because of all the continuing abuse and personal attacks on it, and there were a very large number of reported posts, from all “sides”.



I am struggling to see the issue with this now and am not really enjoying all the he said / she said cross examination japes.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 14, 2018)

Similarly it think it's fair enough for smokedout to post a link about the continuing anti-trans actions of one of the bookfair leafletters. I can't be arsed to read threads on here about the Green Party so I wouldn't see it there. 

It could be relevant if the bookfair happens again as I assume there is a fair chance that said person would try to do it all again.


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> So I think this goes some of the way to my uneasiness about "ID Pol" as a term of criticism. It's way too broad and nebulous imv, as privilege theory and intersectional theory both have elements which are useful and elements which can be (and are) misused either deliberately or no. Yes there's a lot of stupid shit goes on (eg. the oppression Olympics) but that's true of any social trend or political tendency - pillocks will be pillocks right? Intersectionality as talked about by Bell Hooks and Patricia Collins for example has a lot of interesting things to say.


Sorry, belated reply. Yes, I think I overstated it and over generalised. I still see ID pols as a term of criticism, but it's important to think about the 'good bits' as well. My focus is on the context and type of politics that identity operates in. There's the _potential_ to think about identity in a more nuanced and reflective way, but in the context of a wider political economy, aka class politics. But what's depressing about this is that it doesn't get anywhere near solidarity and it does have elements of call out culture and the worst manoeuvres of postmodern ID pols. I'll admit I'm only going off reports, on this thread particularly, but the News From Nowhere thing was depressing.

Comparisons have been made about transphobia and racism being equivalent or being things to be equally opposed. At one level I'll make the obvious point that transphobia _should_ be opposed - within the movement(s) and without. Some gruesome (anti-trans) comments have been reported, seen in debates and the like. I also see no political point in saying things like 'trans women are not real women' regardless of any theoretical/philosophical positions people might take on nature/identity. But I just feel it's reasonable to listen to (yes, that phrase again ) serious women's campaigners who might have things to say about the impact on longstanding struggles feminist struggles. I might not even agree with those feminists, but it just seems like a difficult debate about people's real lives and experiences. Not something to be treated as a zero sum game.  Again, I suppose I end up at the same point: ID pols as practised on this doesn't have the potential to create solidarity.


----------



## andysays (May 14, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Similarly it think it's fair enough for smokedout to post a link about the continuing anti-trans actions of one of the bookfair leafletters. I can't be arsed to read threads on here about the Green Party so I wouldn't see it there.
> 
> It could be relevant if the bookfair happens again as I assume there is a fair chance that said person would try to do it all again.


Assuming this person does attempt to attend a hypothetical future Bookfair what do people think the organisers response should be?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2018)

andysays said:


> Assuming this person does attempt to attend a hypothetical future Bookfair what do people think the organisers response should be?


short, sharp and decisive


----------



## smmudge (May 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. But I didn't make any such claim.



So you see no reason to challenge andysays' account of the thread closing (it's fine for people to think that) but you choose instead to challenge smokedout's version, which is a complete fabrication for some reason and only by sheer coincidence is it actually true (fuck you Occam).

I think I see your problem Athos, your bullshit-ometer needs some serious recalibration.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2018)

smmudge said:


> So you see no reason to challenge andysays' account of the thread closing (it's fine for people to think that) but you choose instead to challenge smokedout's version, which is a complete fabrication for some reason and only by sheer coincidence is it actually true (fuck you Occam).
> 
> I think I see your problem Athos, your bullshit-ometer needs some serious recalibration.


It’s a bit of a habit of his, to slate one side then pretend he is being even handed. Happened throughout the closed thread.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 15, 2018)

andysays said:


> Assuming this person does attempt to attend a hypothetical future Bookfair what do people think the organisers response should be?



Well ideally the organisers of the hypothetical Bookfair would have attempted to work through this scenario in advance and come to a collective decision about what to do.


----------



## andysays (May 15, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well ideally the organisers of the hypothetical Bookfair would have attempted to work through this scenario in advance and come to a collective decision about what to do.


Thanks for your reply. I'll respond properly later when I'm not at work.


----------



## Athos (May 15, 2018)

smmudge said:


> So you see no reason to challenge andysays' account of the thread closing (it's fine for people to think that) but you choose instead to challenge smokedout's version, which is a complete fabrication for some reason and only by sheer coincidence is it actually true (fuck you Occam).
> 
> I think I see your problem Athos, your bullshit-ometer needs some serious recalibration.



Let's be honest, quite apart from the difference in how the two were framed and the fact that what Smokedout claimed had been posted on that thread hadn't, andysays' version is intrinsically more likely.

Very broadly speaking, there were two 'sides' on that thread. One favoured women's right to discuss this matter; the other opposed it (with some openly calling for the thread to be binned).  Fridgemagnet (who was up-front about his own stance on this issue) presented a  open goal to the second group, by saying it'd be closed if there were more reports. Lo and behold, reports followed, and it was closed. Do you really think those reports came from those in  favour of discussion, or those who sought to prevent discussion?

I suspect it was closed because those who don't want women to be able to discuss the impact upon them of these issues made spurious reports of transphobia.  Which, along with Smokedout's history of dishonesty in these matters, is why, although I didn't endorse the precise formulation andysays used, I was less inclined to challenge it.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> On favoured women's right to discuss this matter; the other opposed it


That’s a lie. There wasn’t opposition to women discussing it, there was objection to the way that certain women (who you largely supported) framed the discussion.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> Let's be honest,


it's very hard to trust anything which appears after these three words. like 'trust me, i know what i'm doing', 'let's be honest' undermines any faith you may have had in the speaker.


----------



## Athos (May 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> That’s a lie. There wasn’t opposition to women discussing it, there was objection to the way that certain women (who you largely supported) framed the discussion.



Well, that's  the crux of it, and where we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> Well, that's  the crux of it, and where we'll have to agree to disagree.


It exposes your pretence to be in any way neutral as a lie. Once again.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> It exposes your pretence to be in any way neutral as a lie. Once again.



It’s an accurate representation of what happened. That you’d prefer him to lie in order to present neutrality speaks volumes.


----------



## Athos (May 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> It exposes your pretence to be in any way neutral as a lie. Once again.



I don't purport to be 'neutral' (whatever that means).

My position is that, whilst I consider trans women to be women (and I'm broadly pro-inclusion), I don't believe that any woman who  refuses to accept that uncritically is necessarily a transphobe (though, of course, some are).

As such, I believe women have a right to discuss issues of gender, given the social backdrop of misogyny and violence towards women.  I believe that should be done respectfully to feelings of trans people, to a point; they have no right to veto what women can discuss.

I also have every sympathy for the suffering of trans people, and think that we should do what we can to alleviate that; I utterly condemn transhobia and abuse of trans people.

I don't think it's a zero sum game, though; I think that there are points around which solidarity can be built.  In which regard I think the '#nodebate' stance that is prevalent in social media is positively unhelpful. As is much of the shrill IDPol stuff that's happening IRL.

I'm sorry if that position is too nuanced for you to cast me as the bogeyman.  But I find it pathetic that you'd deliberately misrepresent me to score points.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s an accurate representation of what happened. That you’d prefer him to lie in order to present neutrality speaks volumes.


It’s a grotesquely distorted version of the truth. One that you agree with. The presentation of a small subset of women as _all women_ (as he does again, above) is highly dishonest. if you refuse to see that, that’s your problem.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> I don't purport to be 'neutral' (whatever that means).
> 
> My position is that, whilst I consider trans women to be women (and I'm broadly pro-inclusion), I don't believe that any woman who  refuses to accept that uncritically is necessarily a transphobe (though, of course, some are).
> 
> ...


Nuanced? Please, it’s just a patronising load of drivel. Your frequent misrepresentations (repeated on this thread) expose you. 

You’re just a cut price Lionel Hutz.


----------



## Athos (May 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> It’s a grotesquely distorted version of the truth. One that you agree with. The presentation of a small subset of women as _all women_ (as he does again, above) is highly dishonest. if you refuse to see that, that’s your problem.



I haven't done that. 'Women' can mean some women, or all women.  It's obvious from the context that I mean the former; the latter would be nonsensical. (But I think you know that.)


----------



## Athos (May 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> Nuanced? Please, it’s just a patronising load of drivel. Your frequent misrepresentations (repeated on this thread) expose you.
> 
> You’re just a cut price Lionel Hutz.



Fair enough. Your opinion of me (which I'm sure others share) isn't really something I worry about. And I'm happy for anyone who's interested to read what I've posted on this issue,  in this and other threads.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 15, 2018)

belboid said:


> It’s a grotesquely distorted version of the truth. One that you agree with. The presentation of a small subset of women as _all women_ (as he does again, above) is highly dishonest. if you refuse to see that, that’s your problem.



I was talking about the reasons why the thread was closed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 15, 2018)

Furthermore, people using post reporting as a means of stifling or closing down debate is a tactic I’ve seen employed previously by the very same people.


----------



## Sea Star (May 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Furthermore, people using post reporting as a means of stifling or closing down debate is a tactic I’ve seen employed previously by the very same people.


or was it people reporting posts to get the moderators to do something about the worst of the transphobia and the frequent fabrications, scare mongering and personal attacks so that a debate could actually be had? hmmm?


----------



## Athos (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> or was it people reporting posts to get the moderators to do something about the worst of the transphobia and the frequent fabrications, scare mongering and personal attacks so that a debate could actually be had? hmmm?



You didn't want a debate; you wanted the thread binned.


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Just what the thread needs, another Green Party candidate dragging their dishonest and toxic ID politics squabble into the Anarchist Bookfair...


----------



## Shechemite (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> or was it people reporting posts to get the moderators to do something about the worst of the transphobia and the frequent fabrications, scare mongering and personal attacks so that a debate could actually be had? hmmm?



Quite.


----------



## Sea Star (May 16, 2018)

andysays said:


> Just what the thread needs, another Green Party candidate dragging their dishonest and toxic ID politics squabble into the Anarchist Bookfair...


Me being in the Green Party is nothing to do with this. I don't ally myself with ID politics, my roots politics is socialist, but I spent the 90s being active in groups that involved anarchists and socialists. 

But I am transgender, and I am invested in this struggle, unlike you. But that's your really problem with me isn't it? You don't want trans people being able to speak up so regardless of my actual politics you will claim that just being trans makes me ID Pol.


----------



## Sea Star (May 16, 2018)

Athos said:


> You didn't want a debate; you wanted the thread binned.


That's so dishonest of you. I tried really hard to take part in a reasonable discussion and to keep it focused on the actual issue - that of streamlining and fixing the way that trans people can obtain a revised birth certificate - but it was a shit show of personal abuse, and lies about trans women that went completely unchallenged most of the time.

I tried to keep on topic, but when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman, and I'm not worth even talking to then fuck that thread. It needed to be better moderated. It needed those who claimed not to be transphobic to be challenging all lies, not just piling on to the very few actual trans people contributing.

When it was binned it was right to do so. That thread was just trash and was going absolutely nowhere.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 16, 2018)

In other words: you want the discussion to be on your terms or not at all. Which isn’t really what a debate is.


----------



## Sea Star (May 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> In other words: you want the discussion to be on your terms or not at all. Which isn’t really what a debate is.


That's not what I said.

If you think actual lies and smears and personal attacks are a valid way of conducting a debate then you're party of the problem. 

No one actually engages with what I say any more, I'm just having to constantly defend myself against rubbish like this. So I'm not going to continue to do this. I will interject when I see bullshit but if people can't stay on topic then I'm not going to feed that bullshit.

The TERFs are constantly saying they want a debate about the GRA and then when any trans person tries to engage it's anything but about the GRA. Most seem to take issues with rights trans people have had for years already. I appreciate this is a thread about the anarchist bookfair bit is straying into discussing other threads and trans issues in general and I reserve the right to jump in when I see complete bullshit.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman.



How can you know this?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> That's not what I said.
> 
> If you think actual lies and smears and personal attacks are a valid way of conducting a debate then you're party of the problem.
> 
> ...


tbh if any of you were interested in having a debate about the gra then you'd be having a debate about the gra and not a general slag off contest of each other which isn't from my pov about informing people. if the 'terfs' were campaigning about it there'd be an element of lobbying mps / parliament which i for one haven't seen. if the trans activists were interested in having a debate about the gra then there wouldn't be this constant insulting litany of references to terfs.


----------



## bimble (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> if the 'terfs' were campaigning about it there'd be an element of lobbying mps / parliament which i for one haven't seen.


You've just not looked. There's plenty. But no point discussing any of that here really is there.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> You've just not looked. There's plenty. But no point discussing any of that here really is there.


no, there isn't. not when the long awaited consulation hasn't yet opened, although the scottish government held a consultation earlier in the year.


----------



## bimble (May 16, 2018)

? There have been many people writing to their mps etc I thought that’s what you meant. Anyway, no point here imo.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> ? There have been many people writing to their mps etc I thought that’s what you meant. Anyway, no point here imo.


yeh, no point until the government lays out the detailed proposals in the consultation. all the letters and so on up to that point will be no more than frothing.


----------



## bimble (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> if the 'terfs' were campaigning about it there'd be an element of lobbying mps / parliament which i for one haven't seen.





Pickman's model said:


> yeh, no point until the government lays out the detailed proposals in the consultation. all the letters and so on up to that point will be no more than frothing.


ok right you are. Not enough campainging or too much pointless froth, hard to know which is worse really.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> ok right you are. Not enough campainging or too much pointless froth, hard to know which is worse really.


i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you don't leaflet the anarchist bookfair to promote lobbying of mps or to offer a constitutional means of objecting to proposed legislation.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you don't leaflet the anarchist bookfair to promote lobbying of mps or to offer a constitutional means of objecting to proposed legislation.



Yet, that’s pretty much what this entire thing is about. Strange world.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yet, that’s pretty much what this entire thing is about. Strange world.


as was clear from my observation of leafletting before i got to the bookfair, when someone was leafleting the pub opposite, the purpose of the leafleting was to provoke a response rather than raise awareness / strengthen a campaign etc.


----------



## stethoscope (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you don't leaflet the anarchist bookfair to promote lobbying of mps or to offer a constitutional means of objecting to proposed legislation.



This.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Me being in the Green Party is nothing to do with this. I don't ally myself with ID politics, my roots politics is socialist, but I spent the 90s being active in groups that involved anarchists and socialists.
> 
> But I am transgender, and I am invested in this struggle, unlike you. But that's your really problem with me isn't it? You don't want trans people being able to speak up so regardless of my actual politics you will claim that just being trans makes me ID Pol.


You don't want any dissent at all. Or discussion. Nor debate. Just acceptance when you go into bullshit mode.


----------



## Athos (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> ... when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman, and I'm not worth even talking to then fuck that thread.



Why should the measure of whether a thread ought to be binned be the extent to which contributors to it share your conception of your gender/wish to engage with you?


----------



## Athos (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I tried really hard to take part in a reasonable discussion and to keep it focused on the actual issue - that of streamlining and fixing the way that trans people can obtain a revised birth certificate - but it was a shit show of personal abuse, and lies about trans women that went completely unchallenged most of the time.



It's not possible to fully discuss the GRA without discussing gender. And that's something you're not willing to debate. For instance the question of 'what is a woman'?  It seems to me that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your definition is someone you consider a transphobe, and who should be silenced, and that any expression of such an opinion is personal abuse.


----------



## belboid (May 16, 2018)

Athos said:


> Why should the measure of whether a thread ought to be binned be the extent to which contributors to it share your conception of your gender/wish to engage with you?


On a thread about trans rights, how one of the few trans people taking part in it is treated is of fairly obvious relevance.


----------



## Athos (May 16, 2018)

belboid said:


> On a thread about trans rights, how one of the few trans people taking part in it is treated is of fairly obvious relevance.



She can take part or not, as she pleases. But the fact that she doesn't want to when it goes places she doesn't like is not to say it ought to be closed.  If she was abused, then those doing so should have been dealt with. It just seems a little convenient that the claimed abuse was the pretext for the whole thread being closed


----------



## DotCommunist (May 16, 2018)

'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.


#coward


----------



## Athos (May 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.
> 
> 
> #coward



Yeah, shit like that is completely unacceptable. But I'm not sure why the small number of offenders can't be dealt with, rather than the whole thing shut down.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.
> 
> 
> #coward


Whatever points, genuine points, there may be are lost in the exchange of vitriol.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2018)

belboid said:


> On a thread about trans rights, how one of the few trans people taking part in it is treated is of fairly obvious relevance.


Unless they are Miranda Yardley?


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Me being in the Green Party is nothing to do with this. I don't ally myself with ID politics, my roots politics is socialist, but I spent the 90s being active in groups that involved anarchists and socialists.
> 
> But I am transgender, and I am invested in this struggle, unlike you. But that's your really problem with me isn't it? You don't want trans people being able to speak up so regardless of my actual politics you will claim that just being trans makes me ID Pol.



The fact that you stood as a candidate for the Green Party in the last GE and the recent council elections is *absolutely* relevant on this, the Anarchist Bookfair thread. Whatever the participation of Anarchists and/or Socialists in groups you may have been involved in in the 90s, your current political choices mean that you are not "invested in" the Bookfair in the way that many others here are.

Your claims not to ally yourself with ID politics are nonsense, your behaviour over numerous threads speaks for itself, as does your repeated focus on who is speaking rather than what they are saying.

And your behaviour in throwing around baseless accusations of transphobic bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with you has contributed hugely to the toxic level of debate on numerous threads, including the ones you have actively called for the closure of. So while you're not the only one responsible, you're as responsible as anyone for the fact that there are currently no threads existing where trans issues can be debated.

We've already seen last year's ABF disrupted by the behaviour of zealots from both sides of the Trans/TERF feud, and the future of Bookfairs is in question as a result. I really can't see why those of us who do have an interest in the original subject of this thread should have to put up with you and others dragging your toxic feud here and poisoning yet another thread as you have done previously.


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.
> 
> 
> #coward



I'd forgotten about that comment and it was a fucking disgrace.

There was cuntish behaviour on both sides frankly, and given how much shit was flung around, I can sympathise with whoever decided enough was enough and closed the thread.


----------



## emanymton (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> ,but when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman


I'd be interested to know which posters denied you are a women. Can you please provide links to the appropriate posts?


----------



## bimble (May 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> #coward


I think what you're saying is the opposite of cowardly tbh, in this climate to say no thanks i'm not going to just 'pick a side' and pretend it's all simple.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 16, 2018)

emanymton said:


> I'd be interested to know which posters denied you are a women. Can you please provide links to the appropriate posts?



I think there’s been one who said so when pushed for an answer and a handful of others who perhaps think the same but haven’t expressed it outright. Certainly not ‘most’ posters though, not even close.


----------



## Edie (May 16, 2018)

I think Sea Star is a trans woman. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Voley (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman



A sweeping statement that seems wildly inaccurate to me. I've seen one person say this to you and that was when you repeatedly asked her for her opinion.


----------



## Sea Star (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh if any of you were interested in having a debate about the gra then you'd be having a debate about the gra and not a general slag off contest of each other which isn't from my pov about informing people.


oh, is that what you think is going on? 



Pickman's model said:


> if the 'terfs' were campaigning about it there'd be an element of lobbying mps / parliament which i for one haven't seen.



Then you're blind or you don;t want to see it.


----------



## Sea Star (May 16, 2018)

Edie said:


> I think Sea Star is a trans woman. Nothing wrong with that.


I'm a woman. 

I'm also trans - but that's not as important as the first bit (above).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> oh, is that what you think is going on?


the tenor of what's passed for debate has been more generally characterised by 'terf cunt' and comments about how trans women are men than by anything passing for a reasoned exchange of ideas - it's much more reminiscent of the auld euphemism 'a frank exchange of views occurred' than by any attempts to really discuss the issues, where the issues got lost in a fog of insults and abuse.





> Then you're blind or you don;t want to see it.


yes. this point has been addressed above but your contribution, including that portion about visual disabilities, is noted


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But when asked what the larger issue is iyo after more than a month of posting you say oh noes I can't be answering that without a load more thought. So what you've been saying doesn't seem like it's based on anything. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing. As for what I think, I'm a plague on both your houses person, as it shouldn't be beyond people's wit to resolve these issues within the bookfair space without resorting to the sort of immature shite we saw on the day and have seen since. If people have a right to distribute leaflets, they have a right to be challenged for it, but I would have hoped that would be in a comradely manner. Shouting ugly terf cunt etc isn't really making a persuasive political case. And having such a go at the bookfair organisers that they've stepped back was imo disgraceful. Almost all the subsequent open letters and statements and counterstatements have been pisspoor and better not issued. Not to mention the burning of the bookfair banner. Far from edifying, the entire thing.


Sea Star i haven't seen anything in the past six months to persuade me to reassess the view i held at the start of december


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Anyway, in the hope that we can return this thread to its original subject...



Fozzie Bear said:


> Well ideally the organisers of the hypothetical Bookfair would have attempted to work through this scenario in advance and come to a collective decision about what to do.



I agree that it's for the Bookfair organisers to come to a collective decision about how to act in response to disruptive behaviour, but I was also hoping some here might be willing to discuss the issue, even hypothetically, and explore what some of their options might be and what people thought of them.

One obvious option would be to ban someone who had seriously disrupted from attending future Bookfairs, though I can see that some might have reservations about that. 

General question: is there any precedent for people being banned from attending Bookfairs?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

andysays said:


> Anyway, in the hope that we can return this thread to its original subject...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i expect any bans to have a) been informal, and b) rarely communicated to the organisers.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2018)

andysays said:


> Anyway, in the hope that we can return this thread to its original subject...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


People were made aware their presence might provoke a scuffle. The odd one or two exiled.


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i expect any bans to have a) been informal, and b) rarely communicated to the organisers.





TopCat said:


> People were made aware their presence might provoke a scuffle. The odd one or two exiled.



So there is some sort of precedent for "banning" the leafleter (was it just one leafleter or were there more?) and members of the mob (those who could be identified anyway) who attacked her.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2018)

But mostly for appaling personal behaviour rather than politics. 

Given the range of views on offer at the bookfair, I would assert it has been characterised by tolerence and co operation. 

That wannabe poisonous shit Sam Ambreen did a good attempt at disrupting the bookfair a few years back with her KILL ALL MEN intersectionalist chirping. 

Her attempt to kill off the bookfair failed as people showed cool heads and solidarity.


----------



## TopCat (May 16, 2018)

andysays said:


> So there is some sort of precedent for "banning" the leafleter (was it just one leafleter or were there more?) and members of the mob (those who could be identified anyway) who attacked her.


No there is not a precedent. I'm thinking more of threats of violence that would have been unknown to the organisers and would have upset them. This was the 80's to be fair.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

andysays said:


> So there is some sort of precedent for "banning" the leafleter (was it just one leafleter or were there more?) and members of the mob (those who could be identified anyway) who attacked her.


the people i can think had the undesirability of their presence communicated to them in no uncertain terms, but as TopCat says, this wasn't done through 'official channels' but by what i'd characterise as informal means and tc would call threats of violence. people like fascists and so forth, generally not people who were anarchists of any stripe ime - but i'm thinking of the 1990s, maybe early 2000s.


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> No there is not a precedent. I'm thinking more of threats of violence that would have been unknown to the organisers and would have upset them. This was the 80's to be fair.



OK, I misunderstood what you and PM were saying.

I can understand why the organisers wouldn't want to go down the road of banning anyone, however much they might "deserve" it, but I wonder what other actions they could reasonably be expected to take to prevent similar situations flaring up in future.


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the people i can think had the undesirability of their presence communicated to them in no uncertain terms, but as TopCat says, this wasn't done through 'official channels' but by what i'd characterise as informal means and tc would call threats of violence. people like fascists and so forth, generally not people who were anarchists of any stripe ime - but i'm thinking of the 1990s, maybe early 2000s.


Understood.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 16, 2018)

I could be misremembering but I thought the organisers basically said that they wouldn’t ‘police’ the event as that’s against the spirit of anarchism and that everyone should be involved in that anyway; which is pretty much what happened although they got all the flak for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

andysays said:


> OK, I misunderstood what you and PM were saying.
> 
> I can understand why the organisers wouldn't want to go down the road of banning anyone, however much they might "deserve" it, but I wonder what other actions they could reasonably be expected to take to prevent similar situations flaring up in future.


generally people didn't turn up and be wankers more than the once.

every year had a different wanker / group of wankers though.


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> generally people didn't turn up and be wankers more than the once.
> 
> every year had a different wanker / group of wankers though.



Someone (I may go back in a minute and remind myself who) was saying upthread about the 'risk' of the Green Party leafleter coming back in future and repeating their behaviour, so I was wondering if the organisers had had to face this in the past. 

Personally I don't think it's that great a risk or that it needs to result in a formal banning, I'm more wondering what concrete action those who are still focussing on this particular person expect the organisers to do, assuming they can be persuaded this individual is a dangerous bigot.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 16, 2018)

There was some pre-emotive named ban list from one of the yank anarchist Bookfairs.

It’s the wrong way to go imo. Better to make a blanket statement that x y z activity (not wearing deodorant) is not welcome than to ban a particular individual publicly.

(Worth also mentioning that at least one fash guy to my knowledge has been physically ejected from the Bookfair before. Again not by the Bookfair collective but by anti-fascists who happened to be there)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 16, 2018)

Also it was me that said they might come back. Some of the TERFs have everything to gain by provoking a reaction and nothing to lose if that has a negative impact on the Bookfair - because they’re not anarchists or even close.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 16, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Also it was me that said they might come back. Some of the TERFs have everything to gain by provoking a reaction and nothing to lose if that has a negative impact on the Bookfair - because they’re not anarchists or even close.



I thought Helen Steele was an anarchist (although she apparently wasn’t handing leaflets out but attacked for saying those who did had the right to so).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> There was some pre-emotive named ban list from one of the yank anarchist Bookfairs.
> 
> It’s the wrong way to go imo. Better to make a blanket statement that x y z activity (not wearing deodorant) is not welcome than to ban a particular individual publicly.
> 
> (Worth also mentioning that at least one fash guy to my knowledge has been physically ejected from the Bookfair before. Again not by the Bookfair collective but by anti-fascists who happened to be there)


Yeh that happened at least once at ulu


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Also it was me that said they might come back. Some of the TERFs have everything to gain by provoking a reaction and nothing to lose if that has a negative impact on the Bookfair - because they’re not anarchists or even close.


More tefs than TERFs perhaps


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> There was some pre-emotive named ban list from one of the yank anarchist Bookfairs.
> 
> It’s the wrong way to go imo. Better to make a blanket statement that x y z activity (not wearing deodorant) is not welcome than to ban a particular individual publicly.
> 
> (Worth also mentioning that at least one fash guy to my knowledge has been physically ejected from the Bookfair before. Again not by the Bookfair collective but by anti-fascists who happened to be there)



I wasn't suggesting banning, more putting it forward as a hypothetical option to try to get a discussion going.

So what sort of activity could the organisers state was not welcome, given that it will be close to impossible to get universal agreement that a contentious leaflet is transphobic or whatever? (and I really don't want to reopen the dead end of whether the particular leaflet which sparked the incident was transphobic, that's a separate question)


----------



## andysays (May 16, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Also it was me that said they might come back...



Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was someone else, but when I went back and looked, they hadn't said anything like that, so I thought I'd imagined the whole thing...


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh that happened at least once at ulu



Also Conway Hall.


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Would you fuck one?' was the point where that thread should have been closed. Pretty astonishing stuff really. Now people may talk (and they will) about context regarding that but I won't be answering. Cos cards on the table, I don't know what to think anymore because the debate has become vicious lines drawn and I refuse to be*. But it has to be better than this.
> 
> 
> #coward


I'm certainly with you on not knowing what to think. I started out with a straightforward/simplisitc 'pro-trans' position across the range of issues and, to be honest, still hold much of that. But then I've listened to other opinions on women only spaces and concerns of postmodern/self recognition and the rest. Only honest position I can hold is not knowing and, most of all, naively hoping there could be some solidarity and comradeship in the middle of this. Even more that I shouldn't be pronouncing as to who is right. But the wetter and mushier I've got about the issues, the more certain I've got about the politics, the shit show, the viciousness - stuff which is after all about important issues in people's lives (on both 'sides'). Utterly depressing and becoming an all too common way of carrying on across the 'left'. Fucking awful.


----------



## TopCat (May 17, 2018)

Green Anarchist were a relevant organisation regarding this. Bat shit crazy. Loony politics. 
Did anyone try and ban them? 
Most just desperately avoided their stall.


----------



## LDC (May 17, 2018)

I don't think GA are relevant at all. Whatever one thinks of their politics they were very clearly anarchists, and i never heard any calls to ban them. 

People seem to be forgetting that this trans thing is only a part of the dilemma the bookfair faces if it happens again. There was a whole host of demands of things it 'must do' - look at the fuss about the 'Religion is Stupid' banner for starters.

I'm actually not sure in the current climate I can imagine a Bookfair happening without it being dominated by confrontation.


----------



## bimble (May 17, 2018)

Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.


----------



## chilango (May 17, 2018)

It not like even the anarchist organisations (never mind the wider anarchist movement) have been able to find some common ground to unite around (afaics) to engage with this. Toxicity and division _appear_ to be everywhere.

It's fucked up.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

The whole point of idpol is about division, not solidarity. If it didn’t exist the state would invent it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.


according to an article that is, on its internal evidence, problematic, you mean.

for example, there is no such group as antifa. and even when there was there wasn't a black uniform. the accounts seem to be equivocal comments from the police. perhaps a little less credulity and a little more caution when sharing such links, bimble.


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.



I'm sure a blog with dodgy views on trans people based in Canada with liberal politics is bound to be a great source of accounts as to the actions of Class War and events surrounding UK anarchism.

You're just like teuchter, rather than just being open and transparent about your beliefs and positions, you hide behind this 'just asking questions' and 'but according to this...' fake naivety.


----------



## bimble (May 17, 2018)

I have been open about my views on this, spent months on here doing so but not willing to pour more energy into discussing it on here totally pointless, imo. I just posted that about cw allegedly calling the police to stop people going to a pub because it seemed relevant to the discussion above. That link just the first i found when searching for that story which i remember seeing on twitter that day.
Not sure what teuchter's got to do with anything.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

To be fair I’m fairly certain the author of that article is U.K. based and is a Marxist, not a liberal.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> I have been open about my views on this, spent months on here doing so but not willing to pour more energy into discussing it on here totally pointless, imo. I just posted that about cw allegedly calling the police to stop people going to a pub because it seemed relevant to the discussion above. That link just the first i found when searching for that story which i remember seeing on twitter that day.
> Not sure what teuchter's got to do with anything.


i fear your critical faculties are atrophying


----------



## bimble (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i fear your critical faculties are atrophying


me too.


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2018)

Meh, perhaps so. I'm fatigued by the whole fucking business and what seems to count as politics anymore. I don't even know why I still post here so time to call it a day.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> me too.


another dodgy thing in that article is the claim that class war loudly oppose "carceral feminism" yet i can't find anything to substantiate that - although there's at least 20 sites carrying the article containing the claim. it seems cw are very quiet on the issue.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Green Anarchist were a relevant organisation regarding this. Bat shit crazy. Loony politics.
> Did anyone try and ban them?
> Most just desperately avoided their stall.


i remember a movement against the monarchy demo at highgrove where man with beard out of ga was wearing a balaclava with a big bushy ginger beard sticking out from underneath, it served absolutely no purpose in disguising his identity.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> for example, there is no such group as antifa. and even when there was there wasn't a black uniform.



Antifa is frequently used in the media as a synonym of anti-fascists and she clearly means they’d adopted the black bloc look, that many involved nowadays do as a matter of principle rather than a tactic. 
It’s a pretty one-sided article but at least criticise it for the right reasons and not that it ought to write expecting its audience have an intricate understanding of historical UK anti-fascism.


----------



## newbie (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The whole point of idpol is about division, not solidarity. If it didn’t exist the state would invent it.


Indeed, but I stumble trying to work out how a communist or anarchist politics not infected with idpol would deal with the contradictions thrown up by this apparently intractable divergence of opinion.  Even allowing for the wise keeping the hotheads respectful there's still such a gulf in the respective positions it's hard to see how focus on solidarity (or anything else) can resolve the differences.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

newbie said:


> Indeed, but I stumble trying to work out how a communist or anarchist politics not infected with idpol would deal with the contradictions thrown up by this apparently intractable divergence of opinion.  Even allowing for the wise keeping the hotheads respectful there's still such a gulf in the respective positions it's hard to see how focus on solidarity (or anything else) can resolve the differences.



Rights activism is about treatment of the individual under capitalism. Socialism is about the interests of the group (united by class). Could idpol even exist under socialism? It’s particular to Neo-Liberalism.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 17, 2018)

andysays said:


> I wasn't suggesting banning, more putting it forward as a hypothetical option to try to get a discussion going.
> 
> So what sort of activity could the organisers state was not welcome, given that it will be close to impossible to get universal agreement that a contentious leaflet is transphobic or whatever? (and I really don't want to reopen the dead end of whether the particular leaflet which sparked the incident was transphobic, that's a separate question)



I don't think a hypothetical discussion like this is particularly useful to be honest, Andy. I'm sure it could be interesting but my main priority is seeing if the Bookfair can happen again and I expect there to be all sorts of practical, political and personal issues that need to be addressed for that to work - and they really should be done face to face with people and not on a public forum like this.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Antifa is frequently used in the media as a synonym of anti-fascists and she clearly means they’d adopted the black bloc look, that many involved nowadays do as a matter of principle rather than a tactic.
> It’s a pretty one-sided article but at least criticise it for the right reasons and not that it ought to write expecting its audience have an intricate understanding of historical UK anti-fascism.


so what you're saying is that we should allow jen izaakson, former editor of london student, who has identified as a socialist for more than five years, some leeway based on journalistic laziness. how much leeway should we allow her for the claim about carceral feminism?


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2018)

It's a pity if they're a fucking 'Marxist' that whatever their opinions on the politics of all this shit, that they can't at least just be vaguely 'respectful' and not use phrases like 'trans-identified male' about a trans woman (even though I have little interest in defending this Wolf either). It's just more shit fucking politics that is divisive and doesn't ever find any way forward.


----------



## newbie (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Rights activism is about treatment of the individual under capitalism. Socialism is about the interests of the group (united by class). Could idpol even exist under socialism? It’s particular to Neo-Liberalism.


sure, but this is potentially problematic whatever the class composition of society.  The other day a woman said to me she didn't want penises in womens changing rooms.  I don't see why that sentiment should exist only within a context of neoliberalism, capitalism or individual rights based society.  It's a pretty fundamental concept with the capability to divide in any society.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2018)

But it comes back to class doesn't it? The pitting of trans rights vs women's rights is facilitated by the poverty that both wc trans people and women are subject to. Take hospitals/crisis houses for example. If the resources were put into these services, then it would be much easier to have facilities which reflect the rights of everyone.

I can't remember ever reading of Caitlyn Jenner ever having difficulty finding a loo, or being hassled in hospital by other patients because of being a transwoman in a female facility


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> It's a pity if they're a fucking 'Marxist' that whatever their opinions on the politics of all this shit, that they can't at least just be vaguely 'respectful' and not use phrases like 'trans-identified male' about a trans woman (even though I have little interest in defending this Wolf either). It's just more shit fucking politics that is divisive and doesn't ever find any way forward.



I agree with this. I don’t understand the desire to be disrespectful.


----------



## andysays (May 17, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I don't think a hypothetical discussion like this is particularly useful to be honest, Andy. I'm sure it could be interesting but my main priority is seeing if the Bookfair can happen again and I expect there to be all sorts of practical, political and personal issues that need to be addressed for that to work - and they really should be done face to face with people and not on a public forum like this.


Fair enough


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> It's a pity if they're a fucking 'Marxist' that whatever their opinions on the politics of all this shit, that they can't at least just be vaguely 'respectful' and not use phrases like 'trans-identified male' about a trans woman (even though I have little interest in defending this Wolf either). It's just more shit fucking politics that is divisive and doesn't ever find any way forward.


may claim to be a marxist but comes across as an effete and ineffectual liberal


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> so what you're saying is that we should allow jen izaakson, former editor of london student, who has identified as a socialist for more than five years, some leeway based on journalistic laziness. how much leeway should we allow her for the claim about carceral feminism?



I’m just saying that ‘Antifa’ has moved into common parlance, as has the view that masking up is their ‘uniform’. Dumbing down politics to reach a wider audience should be understood by anyone who’s ever had in interest in Class War, for example. Wasn’t that the MO of the original magazine?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

newbie said:


> sure, but this is potentially problematic whatever the class composition of society.  The other day a woman said to me she didn't want penises in womens changing rooms.  I don't see why that sentiment should exist only within a context of neoliberalism, capitalism or individual rights based society.  It's a pretty fundamental concept with the capability to divide in any society.



It’s a consequence of patriarchy which hopefully wouldn’t exist under socialism. Of course, it might. But what’s happening at the moment is a consequence of the dominant ideologies we’re living under.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m just saying that ‘Antifa’ has moved into common parlance, as has the view that masking up is their ‘uniform’. Dumbing down politics to reach a wider audience should be understood by anyone who’s ever had in interest in Class War, for example. Wasn’t that the MO of the original magazine?


yeh. we've moved on from that, i'm asking you about the amount of leeway we should give her on what appears to be a claim without basis. why are you refusing to answer such a simple question?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. we've moved on from that, i'm asking you about the amount of leeway we should give her on what appears to be a claim without basis. why are you refusing to answer such a simple question?



The question about her claim about Class War? It’s fair that you critique that. I haven’t said otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The question about her claim about Class War? It’s fair that you critique that. I haven’t said otherwise.


grand


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Bizarre that you were pressing me on it. Either she’s making it up or there’s something in the history of CW that she knows that’s making her say it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Bizarre that you were pressing me on it. Either she’s making it up or there’s something in the history of CW that she knows that’s making her say it.


nothing bizarre about it at all. what i see as laziness on the one hand and invention on the other seems of a sort with the remainder of the piece. you suggest a different motive for the antifa bit but nothing about her peculiar claim about carceral feminism, a phrase i never heard until this morning.

but tell you what, search as i did for 





> "class war" "carceral feminism"


and tell me how many things actually by cw loudly ranting about it you find.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Rights activism is about treatment of the individual under capitalism. Socialism is about the interests of the group (united by class). Could idpol even exist under socialism? It’s particular to Neo-Liberalism.


Nonsense. Identity politics can be group based, or individual based. The Combahee River Collective, the likes of bell hooks, MOVE all argued for a group identity, and showed how individuals within those groups were more under the threat of, eg, imperialism, and violence than people outside of those groups.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2018)

This is an excellent thread on the subject of crisis houses by a comrade who access crisis houses


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> Nonsense. Identity politics can be group based, or individual based. The Combahee River Collective, the likes of bell hooks, MOVE all argued for a group identity, and showed how individuals within those groups were more under the threat of, eg, imperialism, and violence than people outside of those groups.



And some in the Black Panthers recognised that they had to form commonality with people outside of their identity - class politics. For those that didn’t the outcome they argued for was Black Nationalism / separatism. Which do you think is the more preferable?


----------



## newbie (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s a consequence of patriarchy which hopefully wouldn’t exist under socialism. Of course, it might.


on the face of that's sailing very close to saying that not only is gender a social construct that can become extinct in the absence of patriarchy but so also are biological sex differences.



> But what’s happening at the moment is a consequence of the dominant ideologies we’re living under.


agree


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 135547 This is an excellent thread on the subject of crisis houses by a comrade who access crisis houses




  

(a couple of the photos have come up as thumbnails)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> nothing bizarre about it at all. what i see as laziness on the one hand and invention on the other seems of a sort with the remainder of the piece. you suggest a different motive for the antifa bit but nothing about her peculiar claim about carceral feminism, a phrase i never heard until this morning.
> 
> but tell you what, search as i did for and tell me how many things actually by cw loudly ranting about it you find.



You would need to ask her what she meant but I wouldn’t subscribe to the notion that if it isn’t on the internet it didn’t happen.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And some in the Black Panthers recognised that they had to form commonality with people outside of their identity - class politics. For those that didn’t the outcome they argued for was Black Nationalism / separatism. Which do you think is the more preferable?


I dont think simplistic dichotomies are any kind of answer. That kind of group collective response is absolutely essential so that we can say more than 'patriarchy hopefully won't exist under socialism'.  It is not either/or, and such a simplistic reduction does no one any favours.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> I dont think simplistic dichotomies are any kind of answer. That kind of group collective response is absolutely essential so that we can say more than 'patriarchy hopefully won't exist under socialism'.  It is not either/or, and such a simplistic reduction does no one any favours.



It isn’t a simple reduction, I was saying I wouldn’t want to speculate.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You would need to ask her what she meant but I wouldn’t subscribe to the notion that if it isn’t on the internet it didn’t happen.



if it ain't on the internet they're hardly loud critics of carceral feminism.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 135553
> if it ain't on the internet they're hardly loud critics of carceral feminism.



I sort of get your point but eg my mother is a critic of Trump and I’d bet my last quid that isn’t on the internet.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I sort of get your point but eg my mother is a critic of Trump and I’d bet my last quid that isn’t on the internet.


it is now: pls to donate a quid to the server fund.  but your mother isn't, when last i checked, a prominent anarchist organization with an internet presence.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn’t a simple reduction, I was saying I wouldn’t want to speculate.


speculate on what??


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it is now: pls to donate a quid to the server fund.  but your mother isn't, when last i checked, a prominent anarchist organization with an internet presence.



My guess was that it pertains to internal discipline rather than a policy. But it is only a guess.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> speculate on what??



On whether socialism would be free from patriarchy. Perhaps you have a crystal ball, I don’t.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My guess was that it pertains to internal discipline rather than a policy. But it is only a guess.


i took it to mean that they'd pronounced on the matter publicly


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i took it to mean that they'd pronounced on the matter publicly



Well ‘loudly’ would suggest that. Who knows?


----------



## smokedout (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.



It's a bare faced lie.   

One of many that came as they usually do from Venice Allen.  I think this is an important point to get across.  Amongst some more extreme anti-trans feminists, who have decided that trans rights means the destruction of all womanhood, there is now not even a pretence of objectivity or honestly.  There is no longer a pretence to not be transphobic as the recent defence of these messages from Julia Long shows, there is open conspiraloonery being supported by some well  known names on the left and there is open collaboration  with Tories, religious fundamentalists and in some cases the alt-right.  Anyone who supports trans rights in any way is now in their sights, including Class War, Sisters Uncut and whoever they think is Antifa this week.  The bookfair was just collateral damage in pursuit of these demands which have now gone far beyond concerns about GRA reform.  Mayday 4 Women seem to be moving to a position of forcing trans people out of the correct toilets for their aquired gender.  This is a new current on the left, one unique to  the UK I think,  and there will be a lot more damage done befoe it burns out.


----------



## bimble (May 17, 2018)

bizarre tangent. I thought you'd be arguing that she was wrong / lying about them calling the police to stop people they disagree with going to a pub.
eta: that's more like it posted before smokedout's link.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> On whether socialism would be free from patriarchy. Perhaps you have a crystal ball, I don’t.


Blimey.  It will definitely continue to exist unless it is challenged, in the here and now. We don't need to speculate about that. Both socialism and feminism have benefitted from interacting with each other, and long may that continue.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's a bare faced lie.


bimble

e2a i see you've seen it


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> bizarre tangent. I thought you'd be arguing that she was wrong / lying about them calling the police to stop people they disagree with going to a pub.


i'm arguing that the article you relied on above is riddled with fuckwittery and lies.

and it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.


perhaps you could do something like add 'it turns out this was all nonsense' to your post or make other reference to the fact the account you rely on is worthless.


----------



## bimble (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could do something like add 'it turns out this was all nonsense' to your post or make other reference to the fact the account you rely on is worthless.



"The screeching Terfs waved us off liked crazed loons.." tweet totally draws a line under the whole episode .


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> Blimey.  It will definitely continue to exist unless it is challenged, in the here and now. We don't need to speculate about that. Both socialism and feminism have benefitted from interacting with each other, and long may that continue.



I’m not sure you can know either way. You appear to think you do know either way so we’ll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not sure you can know either way. You appear to think you do know either way so we’ll have to agree to disagree.


You are deeply contradictory. In one post you recognise patriarch is 'a thing' - and you seperate it from capital/class society. If so, then it will obviously continue to exist unless it is explicitly opposed. If it is wholly bound up by capital/class, then maybe it would just 'wither away' - but that is surely, grossly unlikely. Especially if people follow your lead, which seems basically to be 'I dont give a fuck'


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> "The screeching Terfs waved us off liked crazed loons.." tweet totally draws a line under the whole episode .


the tweet that isn't a tweet - seems appropriate, really.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> You are deeply contradictory. In one post you recognise patriarch is 'a thing' - and you seperate it from capital/class society. If so, then it will obviously continue to exist unless it is explicitly opposed. If it is wholly bound up by capital/class, then maybe it would just 'wither away' - but that is surely, grossly unlikely. Especially if people follow your lead, which seems basically to be 'I dont give a fuck'



Nice strawman. Surely it arguably wouldn’t be socialism if women were subordinate to men? Although we could end up in a society calling itself such that still has patriarchy was the point I was making. I have no crystal ball. But perhaps you’d like to point to where I’ve suggested feminism shouldn’t exist or “I don’t give a fuck” or retract that bit of bullshit?


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> "The screeching Terfs waved us off liked crazed loons.." tweet totally draws a line under the whole episode .



I thought you stood outside of this sort of thing?


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nice strawman. Surely it arguably wouldn’t be socialism if women were subordinate to men? Although we could end up in a society calling itself such that still has patriarchy was the point I was making. I have no crystal ball. But perhaps you’d like to point to where I’ve suggested feminism shouldn’t exist or “I don’t give a fuck” or retract that bit of bullshit?


You wrote that patriarchy could still exist 'under socialism', so go correct your own posts if you want. And your consistent attacks on any kind of identity based politics (which is what any kind of feminism is) mean you, practically at least, think we should do fuck all about anything that doesn't fit neatly and squarely into a box labelled 'class'


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> You wrote that patriarchy could still exist 'under socialism', so go correct your own posts if you want. And your consistent attacks on any kind of identity based politics (which is what any kind of feminism is) mean you, practically at least, think we should do fuck all about anything that doesn't fit neatly and squarely into a box labelled 'class'



Ah. You think feminism is identity politics. I don’t. But you think I do. Hence the rather bizarre straw men you’re building.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

(I should add that it can be but isn’t always).


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I don't think a hypothetical discussion like this is particularly useful to be honest, Andy. I'm sure it could be interesting but my main priority is seeing if the Bookfair can happen again and I expect there to be all sorts of practical, political and personal issues that need to be addressed for that to work - and they really should be done face to face with people and not on a public forum like this.


Agreed. You could imagine a list of points/principles that some future organisers could post about behaviour at the bookfair, but it would be unlikely to stop the (various) shitstorms there have been over the last couple of years. As far as I can tell most of those causing the problems are not anarchists so don't give a shit about the health of the movement. But yeah, most of all it has to make sense for a group of people to take the job on again, particularly in this atmosphere. And it's really come to something when the main meeting in the UK anarcho calendar is no longer a viable proposition. 

Worth saying again that the efforts of the folk who have organised it over the years are much appreciated.


----------



## smokedout (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ah. You think feminism is identity politics. I don’t. But you think I do. Hence the rather bizarre straw men you’re building.



But surely a feminism which is structured around attacking trans people is identity politics.  Or is it only identity poltics to defend trans people?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> But surely a feminism which is structured around attacking trans people is identity politics.  Or is it only identity poltics to defend trans people?



I’m not sure I want to get back into this tbh. It was all done on the now locked thread.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ah. You think feminism is identity politics. I don’t. But you think I do. Hence the rather bizarre straw men you’re building.


I think your version of ID politics is its own straw man (ironically enough). The bits you like, are feminism, the bits you don't, are ID politics. But that's incoherent nonsense.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> I think your version of ID politics is its own straw man (ironically enough). The bits you like, are feminism, the bits you don't, are ID politics. But that's incoherent nonsense.



No, things like redistributing inequality between the sexes is identity politics, because it lacks a class analysis.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

So that straw man is entirely your own.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> No, things like redistributing inequality between the sexes is identity politics, because it lacks a class analysis.


fortunately, I don't know anyone who argues that. So that straw man is entirely yours.

And having a class analysis means more than just repeating the words 'class analysis' over and over


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> And having a class analysis means more than just repeating the words 'class analysis' over and over



Thanks for that, Captain Obvious. I presume we’re done with your wittering for now?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Agreed. You could imagine a list of points/principles that some future organisers could post about behaviour at the bookfair, but it would be unlikely to stop the (various) shitstorms there have been over the last couple of years. As far as I can tell most of those causing the problems are not anarchists so don't give a shit about the health of the movement. But yeah, most of all it has to make sense for a group of people to take the job on again, particularly in this atmosphere. And it's really come to something when the main meeting in the UK anarcho calendar is no longer a viable proposition.
> 
> Worth saying again that the efforts of the folk who have organised it over the years are much appreciated.


yeh the people who've put themselves out arranging it have done a grand job, and it's a great pity that it's never been more recognised.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the people who've put themselves out arranging it have done a grand job, and it's a great pity that it's never been more recognised.



Classic case of you don't know what you have until it's gone.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thanks for that, Captain Obvious. I presume we’re done with your wittering for now?


And yet, you do nothing but repeat the words 'class analysis'

The whole argument on the other thread was about whether the group of people who are 'trans women' are 'allowed' into the group of people called 'women' - it is precisely about group rights, not individual rights. So, according to your previous definition, it is 'femisnism' not 'identity politics'


----------



## TopCat (May 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Are class war supposed to be anarchists? Idk but according to accounts they called the police to come and stop the 'other side' from going to the same pub as them after the Tara Wood court case. Its all past ridiculous.


That account is sub dick emery in its comedy. Flick is in CW and got her groups support.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> And yet, you do nothing but repeat the words 'class analysis'
> 
> The whole argument on the other thread was about whether the group of people who are 'trans women' are 'allowed' into the group of people called 'women' - it is precisely about group rights, not individual rights. So, according to your previous definition, it is 'femisnism' not 'identity politics'



Class politics, as I’m sure you know, is how workers are oppressed by capital for their labour. Women have a worse deal by being socialised into doing unpaid work such as caring for elderly relatives, child rearing etc. The struggle of women is a class one. 
Where feminism becomes identity politics is when it says the struggle of all women are the same. It totally ignores the fact that women can be bosses, landlords and the such and in fact argues that the solution to inequality would be to have more women bosses and landlords, as equal to landlord and bosses who are men. 
Now, where does trans fit into all this? I’ve said I no longer wish to discuss it so I’ll leave you to think of the implications by yourself.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Class politics, as I’m sure you know, is how workers are oppressed by capital for their labour. Women have a worse deal by being socialised into doing unpaid work such as caring for elderly relatives, child rearing etc. The struggle of women is a class one.
> Where feminism becomes identity politics is when it says the struggle of all women are the same. It totally ignores the fact that women can be bosses, landlords and the such and in fact argues that the solution to inequality would be to have more women bosses and landlords, as equal to landlord and bosses who are men.
> Now, where does trans fit into all this? I’ve said I no longer wish to discuss it so I’ll leave you to think of the implications by yourself.


I dont know anyone, not even themost bourgeois feminist, who argues that 'all women are the same.' So this is another straw person argument. This is also a different definition to your previous one.  Maybe you should go away and think about _that_.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> I dont know anyone, not even themost bourgeois feminist, who argues that 'all women are the same.' So this is another straw person argument. This is also a different definition to your previous one.  Maybe you should go away and think about _that_.



Well I know plenty of people who understand that very basic point but I suspect I mix with brighter company than yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well I know plenty of people who understand that very basic point but I suspect I mix with brighter company than yourself.


as i believe you work in lighting that comes as no surprise.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well I know plenty of people who understand that very basic point but I suspect I mix with brighter company than yourself.


I understood your point, I was arguing with its veracity.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> I understood your point, I was arguing with its veracity.



You said you “don’t know anyone including the most bourgeois feminist” who would make that argument. Well that’s settled then, feminism as identity politics doesn’t exist. Even though you see all feminism as identity politics. And all those liberal feminists such as the one’s in the Women’s Equality Party who argue for “equal representation in politics and in business” must be a figment of my imagination.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You said you “don’t know anyone including the most bourgeois feminist” who would make that argument. Well that’s settled then, feminism as identity politics doesn’t exist. Even though you see all feminism as identity politics. And all those liberal feminists such as the one’s in the Women’s Equality Party who argue for “equal representation in politics and in business” must be a figment of my imagination.


it's a pity to bring this down to a question of the size of belboid's social circle.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You said you “don’t know anyone including the most bourgeois feminist” who would make that argument. Well that’s settled then, feminism as identity politics doesn’t exist. Even though you see all feminism as identity politics. And all those liberal feminists such as the one’s in the Women’s Equality Party who argue for “equal representation in politics and in business” must be a figment of my imagination.


I dont know who you think you are arguing with, or why you wish to put words into my mouth, none of the above has anything to do with my proposition. Of course there is a socialist-feminism and a bourgeois feminism  - although even bourgeois feminists dont tend to argue that 'all women are the same' (as you put it). There was long before the advent of neo-liberalism and 'identity politics.' That's why I believe that arguing the two terms are wholly different things is a misnomer.

And I pointed out that your disctinction beween feminism and identity politics was inconsistent. If you want to defend your argument, defend your argument, dont make mine up instead.


----------



## Red Cat (May 17, 2018)

There used to be distinctions made between feminism and other theories of women's oppression but I'm not convinced that a theory of patriarchy can be reduced to ID politics.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> There used to be distinctions made between feminism and other theories of women's oppression but I'm not convinced that a theory of patriarchy can be reduced to ID politics.



You’d have to ask Belboid why he thinks feminism is identity politics. I don’t, I merely said it sometimes is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> I dont know who you think you are arguing with, or why you wish to put words into my mouth, none of the above has anything to do with my proposition. Of course there is a socialist-feminism and a bourgeois feminism  - although even bourgeois feminists dont tend to argue that 'all women are the same' (as you put it). There was long before the advent of neo-liberalism and 'identity politics.' That's why I believe that arguing the two terms are wholly different things is a misnomer.



I was busy at work but I meant when people organise around an identity as having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity. That’s my understanding of what is meant by identity politics (or bourgeois as you seem to call it).


----------



## TopCat (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> I dont know anyone, not even themost bourgeois feminist, who argues that 'all women are the same.' So this is another straw person argument. This is also a different definition to your previous one.  Maybe you should go away and think about _that_.


Given you are not an anarchist and don't attend the bookfair may I suggest you and all of a similar vein fuck off from this thread?


----------



## Wilf (May 17, 2018)

I'm really struggling with this deckchair, can anyone help me put it up?


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Given you are not an anarchist and don't attend the bookfair may I suggest you and all of a similar vein fuck off from this thread?


I have attended the bookfair, and know several of the people involved. So, fuck you


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was busy at work but I meant when people organise around an identity as having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity. That’s my understanding of what is meant by identity politics (or bourgeois as you seem to call it).


It's not really an understanding, though, is it? As I said, I dont know of any group who believe (any particular set of) oppressed people have exactly the same set of interests - that is one of the main points of intersectionality, which is, surely, a bedrock of 'identity politics.' 

My argument is that there have always been individualist versions of anti-oppression movements, and collective versions of anti-oppression movements. To say one is identity politics and other other...whatever else you want to call it, is misleading, and I dont see how it helps any kind of struggle.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> It's not really an understanding, though, is it? As I said, I dont know of any group who believe (any particular set of) oppressed people have exactly the same set of interests - that is one of the main points of intersectionality, which is, surely, a bedrock of 'identity politics.'



But no group of “oppressed people” are oppressed to the same degree because of their identity. Some are in the oppressor class. And all intersectionality does is add new identities to show who is more oppressed whilst ignoring the above point.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But no group of “oppressed people” are oppressed to the same degree because of their identity. Some are in the oppressor class. And all intersectionality does is add new identities to show who is more oppressed whilst ignoring the above point.


ffs. Yes, dear, I know that. That was the point I was making. And that is why your distinction based upon - _in your words_ - 'having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity' is false, and contradictory.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> ffs. Yes, dear, I know that. That was the point I was making. And that is why your distinction based upon - _in your words_ - 'having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity' is false, and contradictory.



Which means nobody organises along those lines or encourages others to do so? In fact, don’t answer. This is a thread about the bookfair so not the place to be splitting hairs with a liberal about things they already understand yet claim doesn’t happen.


----------



## Sea Star (May 17, 2018)

Can I suggest that as youre not trans you stick to the thread subject and stop talking bullshit about trans people. 


TopCat said:


> Given you are not an anarchist and don't attend the bookfair may I suggest you and all of a similar vein fuck off from this thread?



By the way, I have attended the book fair but don't let that stop you...


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Which means nobody organises along those lines or encourages others to do so? In fact, don’t answer. This is a thread about the bookfair so not the place to be splitting hairs with a liberal about things they already understand yet claim doesn’t happen.


I have repeatedly agreed that there is a bourgeois version of anti-oppression movements, from feminism to irish nationalism. But that is not a definition you are applying consistently when you use the term 'identity politics.' Sl;ag bourgeois movements off for being bourgeois, there's no need to invent a new term for them.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2018)

belboid is your point that all feminism is 'identity politics' (regardless of whether it as "socialist" or "bourgeois")?

Magnus McGinty is your point that not all feminism is 'identity politics' (albeit that some can be)?

Because I get the impression you're using  the term 'identity politics' differently. Broadly speaking: belboid to mean any politics that is organised (at least in part) upon a facet of identity (in this case, gender); and, Magnus McGinty to mean any politics where identity is the only (or at least primary) concern (to the extent that class is overlooked).

Such that, presumably, belboid would be critical of 'identity politics' as defined by Magnus McGinty, whereas Magnus McGinty would be less critical of 'identity politics' as defined by belboid?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

I think you’re right, Athos although belboid will probably just say I’m using the term incorrectly.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Athos said:


> belboid is your point that all feminism is 'identity politics' (regardless of whether it as "socialist" or "bourgeois")?
> 
> Magnus McGinty is your point that not all feminism is 'identity politics' (albeit that some can be)?
> 
> ...


we clearly are. I dont think the term is useful, except as a catch all for the womens/trans/black/etc movements. And, more to the point, I dont think the majority of those activists who use the phrase, particularly those likely to be attending the bookfair, use it in the way you are ascribing to magnus. I am fairly sure they would explicitly reject such a definition. Furthermore, the differences between your two versions of the terms meaning go back to wy before the term was even invented, so it certainly isn't an example of neo-liberalism colonising politics. And, finally, my argument has been that magnus has used the term inconsistently, often applying it to people who aren't being bourgeois, they're just being dickheads.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Who even says bourgeois anymore?  
Just because a definition pre-exists my use of it doesn’t therefore inform the way I’m using it. Tbh I assumed everyone defined it how I am.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Who even says bourgeois anymore?
> Just because a definition pre-exists my use of it doesn’t therefore inform the way I’m using it. Tbh I assumed everyone defined it how I am.


inconsistently? With athos' definition, that's at least the third way of using it you've tried.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> inconsistently? With athos' definition, that's at least the third way of using it you've tried.



I haven’t used it inconsistently at all.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> I dont think the majority of those activists who use the phrase, particularly those likely to be attending the bookfair, use it in the way you are ascribing to magnus. I am fairly sure they would explicitly reject such a definition.



I think you're wrong about that.




belboid said:


> Furthermore, the differences between your two versions of the terms meaning go back to wy before the term was even invented, so it certainly isn't an example of neo-liberalism colonising politics.



Yes, but anyone involved in any real-world politics on the left can't unaware of the relatively recent upsurge in a very different kind of approach, that's not just typified by ideas, but also tactics/ways of working. I think that's a part of what a lot of people mean by 'identity politics'.




belboid said:


> And, finally, my argument has been that magnus has used the term inconsistently, often applying it to people who aren't being bourgeois, they're just being dickheads.



I think there's an element of truth in that. But, see my last point.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I haven’t used it inconsistently at all.


well, if we fall back on my intial version of your definition - just the bits of feminism/etc you dont like - then i guess not


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yes, but anyone involved in any real-world politics on the left can't unaware of the relatively recent upsurge in a very different kind of approach, that's not just typified by ideas, but also tactics/ways of working. I think that's a part of what a lot of people mean by 'identity politics'.


well, here's (probably) the crux. But now we are back to 'some people being dickheads.' 'No platforming' terf's is hardly 'Identity Politics' by the definition you ascribe to Magnus, it's just pretty crap politics. Attacking 'identity politics' will be of no value in undermimng that kind of behaviour. Which is surely the point.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Identity politics and crap politics aren’t mutually exclusive.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Of course not, but they're not necesarily the same thing, either.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 17, 2018)

Which philosophy is crap politics built upon?


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2018)

Can be any. I'm sure we all know and can immediately think of at least one person who defines as a socialist or an anarchist or a libertarian marxist, or whatever, who actually has really crappy practise.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2018)

belboid said:


> well, here's (probably) the crux. But now we are back to 'some people being dickheads.' 'No platforming' terf's is hardly 'Identity Politics' by the definition you ascribe to Magnus, it's just pretty crap politics. Attacking 'identity politics' will be of no value in undermimng that kind of behaviour. Which is surely the point.



To be honest, I think you're both guilty of a bit of over-simplification (as I am prone to be I  this issue).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Which philosophy is crap politics built upon?


Eh, pisstemology


----------



## crossthebreeze (May 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's a bare faced lie.
> 
> One of many that came as they usually do from Venice Allen.  I think this is an important point to get across.  Amongst some more extreme anti-trans feminists, who have decided that trans rights means the destruction of all womanhood, there is now not even a pretence of objectivity or honestly.  There is no longer a pretence to not be transphobic as the recent defence of these messages from Julia Long shows, there is open conspiraloonery being supported by some well  known names on the left and there is open collaboration  with Tories, religious fundamentalists and in some cases the alt-right.  Anyone who supports trans rights in any way is now in their sights, including Class War, Sisters Uncut and whoever they think is Antifa this week.  The bookfair was just collateral damage in pursuit of these demands which have now gone far beyond concerns about GRA reform.  Mayday 4 Women seem to be moving to a position of forcing trans people out of the correct toilets for their aquired gender.  This is a new current on the left, one unique to  the UK I think,  and there will be a lot more damage done befoe it burns out.


Thank you for the correction about the police thing - I thought it sounded unlikely.  I don't think that Julia Long ever pretended to not be transphobic though.  I agree that that tweet from Mayday4Women is shit.  I do have issue with your second link though:

What was the facebook post referring to (its a dead link for me)? Because if it was referring to the LGBT Awards 2018, that literally was sponsored by banks and MI5.  Ruth Serwotka is in the comments of that tweet saying that Roz Kaveneny is smearing her, and Helen Steel says in the comments that her timeline has been inundated with fascists and trolls.  Also what specific well-known leftwing feminists are collaborating with which specific tories, religious fundamentalists, and particularly specific alt rightists on this issue - because I think that's important to know if it is happening.  And because otherwise its on the same level of shit as "class war called the cops".


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Thank you for the correction about the police thing - I thought it sounded unlikely.  I don't think that Julia Long ever pretended to not be transphobic though.  I agree that that tweet from Mayday4Women is shit.  I do have issue with your second link though:
> 
> What was the facebook post referring to (its a dead link for me)? Because if it was referring to the LGBT Awards 2018, that literally was sponsored by banks and MI5.  Ruth Serwotka is in the comments of that tweet saying that Roz Kaveneny is smearing her, and Helen Steel says in the comments that her timeline has been inundated with fascists and trolls.  Also what specific well-known leftwing feminists are collaborating with which specific tories, religious fundamentalists, and particularly specific alt rightists on this issue - because I think that's important to know if it is happening.  And because otherwise its on the same level of shit as "class war called the cops".




The facebook post has been deleted but this tweet sums it up:



MI5 have been cosying up to LGBT rights for a while after being named best employer by Stonewall in 2016.  They have sponsored other awards at 'diversity' celenrations including the recent Diversity Awards.  They also sponsored the lifetime achievement award at the LGBT awards, along with Natwest and Barclays, MTV, Virgin and GMB Union and several others.  The award they sponsored happened to be won by a woman who set up a trans chariy.  This led to speculation from Helen and others that this was evidence of some kind of plot by bankers and MI5 to promote trans rights and divide the movement.  Ruth Serwotka did make that comment, I saw it, and it's true that the thread quickly filled up with fash supporting the speculation.  There's was lots of it, here's Posy Parker who has spoken at several of the recent meetings:


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2018)

utter lunacy

so if mi5 is sponsoring the trans lot who is sponsoring the 'terfs'?


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2018)

And here's Posy supporting alt-right guru Jordan B Peterson 

Venice Allen also retweeted at least one tweet condemning antifa in the run up to Tommy Robinson's recent protest


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> utter lunacy
> 
> so if mi5 is sponsoring the trans lot who is sponsoring the 'terfs'?


Jason Bourne.


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2018)

The link with David Davies, perhaps one of the most right wing Tory MPs, is well established after he gave Venice Allen meeting space for an anti-trans meeting in parliament.

Woman's Place organiser Jacky Holyoake has been tweeting fundie videos claiming the roots of transgenderism are in paedophilia. There other link to fundie groups, but I'll have to look.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 18, 2018)

There is a long tradition of LGBT people criticising the involvement of state and corp agencies in things like Pride. 

For example five comrades were arrested at Glasgow Pride last year for protesting about it being sponsored by the cops.

I imagine the same is true of MI5 sponsoring the awards.

The idea that all trans people think MI5 is fab and groovy now is absurd.


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> There is a long tradition of LGBT people criticising the involvement of state and corp agencies in things like Pride.
> 
> For example five comrades were arrested at Glasgow Pride last year for protesting about it being sponsored by the cops.
> 
> ...



And really sums up how skewed the thinking on this has become.  Note that MI5 are not being accused of trying to influence LGB politics based on their award sponsorships, because that would be daft.  It's just the trans part, because any mention or involvement of trans people is now evidence of some vast conspiracy.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> utter lunacy
> 
> so if mi5 is sponsoring the trans lot who is sponsoring the 'terfs'?



I wouldn’t go as far as to call conspiracy. But that these ‘movements’ have no issue with being sponsored by banks or cozying up to MI5 illustrates the pitfalls of, yes I’ll say it again, identity politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I wouldn’t go as far as to call conspiracy. But that these ‘movements’ have no issue with being sponsored by banks or cozying up to MI5 illustrates the pitfalls of, yes I’ll say it again, identity politics.


Say it again, I dare you


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Say it again, I dare you



Three times and it appears.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Three times and it appears.


Yeh the ghost of big auld id pol


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> There is a long tradition of LGBT people criticising the involvement of state and corp agencies in things like Pride.
> 
> For example five comrades were arrested at Glasgow Pride last year for protesting about it being sponsored by the cops.
> 
> ...


The trans youth I know are the most prominent in opposing the involvement of the cops in this years Sheffield Pride.  From the terfs?  I've not seen a word


----------



## andysays (May 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The facebook post has been deleted but this tweet sums it up:




It's quite a stretch to go from questioning why 'genuine activists fighting oppression & injustice [would] think it appropriate to associate with MI5' to claiming that 'trans is a conspiracy by MI5 and bankers'.

I don't know whether Steel has claimed this or not, but given your record of misrepresentation I'll need a bit more than a claim from you to have seen a Facebook post which has now mysteriously disappeared.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 18, 2018)

Obviously I agree with the second sentence of Helen's tweet. 

The last sentence could easily be read as drawing a line between the trans activism and MI5 in splitting movements.

Which I think we can all agree is something that happens but is generally unhelpful to mention without concrete evidence, as pointing the finger and saying "MI5" is also very divisive.


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2018)

andysays said:


> It's quite a stretch to go from questioning why 'genuine activists fighting oppression & injustice [would] think it appropriate to associate with MI5' to claiming that 'trans is a conspiracy by MI5 and bankers'.
> 
> I don't know whether Steel has claimed this or not, but given your record of misrepresentation I'll need a bit more than a claim from you to have seen a Facebook post which has now mysteriously disappeared.



Here's a transcript, from here



> Trans advocacy sponsored by MI5 and bankers!
> 
> Why has the relatively new ‘trans' ideology made so many gains so fast? Much faster gains than ever achieved by those fighting sexism and racism. Why is this new ideology splitting so many progressive movements with its demands for absolute adherence to that ideology and total intolerance of any debate or critical thinking?
> 
> ...


----------



## andysays (May 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Here's a transcript, from here



OK, that's far more convincing. 

As I've said before, there are unreasonable zealots on both sides of this argument, and maybe this is a reminder that even once-sound people are still susceptible to nonsense and misguided ways of thinking.


----------



## 19force8 (May 18, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Obviously I agree with the second sentence of Helen's tweet.


Not sure that's possible


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 18, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Not sure that's possible



What, to agree with this?

“How could any genuine activists fighting oppression & injustice think it appropriate to associate with MI5?”


----------



## 19force8 (May 18, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> What, to agree with this?
> 
> “How could any genuine activists fighting oppression & injustice think it appropriate to associate with MI5?”


Do you agree with this question too?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 18, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Do you agree with this question too?



Well I think Helen’s question is better.


----------



## 19force8 (May 18, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well I think Helen’s question is better.


Sorry, bored on a Friday evening. Just thought I'd poke the bear


----------



## TopCat (May 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> utter lunacy
> 
> so if mi5 is sponsoring the trans lot who is sponsoring the 'terfs'?


FarmFoods.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Do you agree with this question too?


The answer is what you might want to agree with.


----------



## 19force8 (May 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> The answer is what you might want to agree with.


Oh come on, you never wanted to poke the bear?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 19, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Oh come on, you never wanted to poke the bear?



Is this a thing now?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 19, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Oh come on, you never wanted to poke the bear?


Unlike you I've never seen the attraction in bear baiting


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 19, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Not sure that's possible



Only if you don’t see it as a rhetorical question.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Here's a transcript, from here


can confirm this is true, i saw the thread when it was still going on. i have screenshots from the thread itself but not the original post. I'll see if anyone has a screenshot of the OP


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2018)

.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2018)

i said this before but I think this has gone way beyond simple concerns over the GRA and irritation over IDpol now and i've become increasingly disgusted by it tbh


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2018)

The 'trans lobby' stuff is very similar to antisemitism tbh not to mention old right wing paranoia about the 'gay agenda'. Yes some of these things may be problems and I can understand why people can be taken in by this narrative because I was myself for a long time with some of stuff, but I think it's being used by some very sinister people.

Edited: and I don't think this is unrelated to some of the other bullshit on the left recently.


----------



## LDC (May 20, 2018)

My initial position was to be supportive/feel solidarity with women wanting to question and talk about some of the aspects of the GRA and issues around transwomen having unquestioned access to women's spaces and services on demand. And also to be critical of the parts of the trans scene that stated that any level of debate or questioning was transphobic and shouldn't be tolerated, while also of course being more broadly supportive of the struggle of trans people generally. (All this in the context of me being critical of identity politics on a wider scale.)

But I feel like my position has shifted slightly in the last few months. While I do think it's of course OK to be talking about this stuff, some of the people I would have considered comrades and thought had better politics are drawing alliances with some pretty nasty people, hosting or attending talks by them, and repeating some of their shit politics. Rather than 'talking about' the issues with women generally, they seem to be supporting people who at best already have quite bad politics and at worst are outright transphobes and are far from being 'on our side'. In addition, far from situating it in a wider context, some of them seem to be retreating more and more into 'single issue feminism', something they're supposed to be critical of the trans scene for.

(The behaviour at the Bookfair, and other places, was still horrendous of course.)


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2018)

it's the 'I'm just being critical of Israel'/I'm just against terrorism''/I'm just against muggings in the inner cities' all over again. same people doing it in many cases too.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The link with David Davies, perhaps one of the most right wing Tory MPs, is well established after he gave Venice Allen meeting space for an anti-trans meeting in parliament.
> 
> Woman's Place organiser Jacky Holyoake has been tweeting fundie videos claiming the roots of transgenderism are in paedophilia. There other link to fundie groups, but I'll have to look.


Pacific Justice Institute iirc


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> The 'trans lobby' stuff is very similar to antisemitism tbh not to mention old right wing paranoia about the 'gay agenda'. *Yes some of these things may be problems and I can understand why people can be taken in by this narrative because I was myself for a long time with some of stuff,* but I think it's being used by some very sinister people.
> 
> Edited: and I don't think this is unrelated to some of the other bullshit on the left recently.



I'd like to understand your position a bit better. You're saying yes there 'may be problems' but you personally have decided that its better to not think about or mention those because by doing so you risk somehow aligning with some really dodgy people?
Then you draw a parellel with criticising israel, as if doing that is a mistake because you might find yourself standing next to an antisemite? I don't think this is coherent tbh. Unless you're just saying silence is preferable when things are complicated, best just to stand back from the whole mess etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'd like to understand your position a bit better. You're saying yes there 'may be problems' but you personally have decided that its better to not think about or mention those because by doing so you risk somehow aligning with some really dodgy people?
> Then you draw a parellel with criticising israel, as if doing that is a mistake because you might find yourself standing next to an antisemite? I don't think this is coherent tbh. Unless you're just saying silence is preferable when things are complicated, best just to stand back from the whole mess etc.


Perhaps you should reread and reconsider


----------



## redsquirrel (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'd like to understand your position a bit better. You're saying yes there 'may be problems' but you personally have decided that its better to not think about or mention those because by doing so you risk somehow aligning with some really dodgy people?


No she's not - or at least that post is saying nothing of sort.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'd like to understand your position a bit better. You're saying yes there 'may be problems' but you personally have decided that its better to not think about or mention those because by doing so you risk somehow aligning with some really dodgy people?
> Then you draw a parellel with criticising israel, as if doing that is a mistake because you might find yourself standing next to an antisemite? I don't think this is coherent tbh. Unless you're just saying silence is preferable when things are complicated, best just to stand back from the whole mess etc.


Criticising Israel is not antisemitic. BUT. It's not a mystery that stuff like the criticism of Israel gets *used* by antisemites, and the concept of 'just' criticising it gets used by them as an *excuse*. 'I am just criticising Israel' is an excuse antisemites use, as in they hide behind something that is semi legitimate, and when they are challenged they always just say they are doing that even if they never mentioned Israel to begin with.

It's like racists will say they are against 'muggings in the inner cities', 'rioters burning down their own neighbourhood' etc, well great, most people don't want to be mugged or have their own house burned down. But there is also a subtext to when many people discuss this sort of thing that allows someone to be seen as reasonable and not just as a racist, and they will turn around and say shit like 'what? No i am just against crime, nothing against any race!'

And in that situation yeah sorry, I do think it's a bad idea to say share a platform with antisemites (or whoever) to 'just' criticise something you both don't like, even if the content of the criticism isn't dodgy, but because by doing so you are legitimising their actions. You're giving cover to them even if what you said itself wasnt antisemitic, when and where you do it, and how you do it, can end up giving political support to them.

Likewise with this. I am not saying people shouldn't discuss these problems, in fact I think they need to. But it is no secret that this is being used by the far right (and not just the right, I don't think we can pretend it's just them any longer), ive seen people reposting stuff from anti abortion fundamentalists, the far right and Jordan Peterson because *surprise!!* they both hate trans people. There is a risk of giving political cover to transphobes and allowing them some sort of legitimacy.


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

fair enough. Of course there are awful people involved in anti-trans propaganda, just as there are raging antisemites involved in any protest / action against the actions of the IDF. So yes anyone who doesn't just stay silent does need to serioulsy take care who they are standing next to and whose voices they're amplifying, agree. Glad to see you say that at the same time there_ is_ a need for people to discuss the issues just to do so with care.


----------



## crossthebreeze (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> My initial position was to be supportive/feel solidarity with women wanting to question and talk about some of the aspects of the GRA and issues around transwomen having unquestioned access to women's spaces and services on demand. And also to be critical of the parts of the trans scene that stated that any level of debate or questioning was transphobic and shouldn't be tolerated, while also of course being more broadly supportive of the struggle of trans people generally. (All this in the context of me being critical of identity politics on a wider scale.)
> 
> But I feel like my position has shifted slightly in the last few months. While I do think it's of course OK to be talking about this stuff, some of the people I would have considered comrades and thought had better politics are drawing alliances with some pretty nasty people, hosting or attending talks by them, and repeating some of their shit politics. Rather than 'talking about' the issues with women generally, they seem to be supporting people who at best already have quite bad politics and at worst are outright transphobes and are far from being 'on our side'. In addition, far from situating it in a wider context, some of them seem to be retreating more and more into 'single issue feminism', something they're supposed to be critical of the trans scene for.
> 
> (The behaviour at the Bookfair, and other places, was still horrendous of course.)


I don't want to excuse shit behaviour and shit politics, and I agree with much of what frogwoman just wrote, but its pretty textbook attitude (and group) polarisation isn't it.  Maybe because there hasn't been space to talk about this stuff from in a more considered way.


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2018)

It's an interesting parallel.

Undoubtedly there are people using the "just asking questions" formula when what they're doing is expressing transphobia.

But there are also, IMO, people using the "any questioning is transphobia" tactic to try and shut down debate.

The debate has become so polarised that it's increasingly difficult to find a reasonable way of discussing it.


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

andysays said:


> It's an interesting parallel.
> 
> Undoubtedly there are people using the "just asking questions" formula when what they're doing is expressing transphobia.
> 
> ...


Yeah this. i unfollowed a whole load of people on the twitter because i realised they are indiscriminately amplifying totally shitty stuff in a sort of my enemies enemy is my friend mindset, which is what happens also with the israel thing obvs. it is depressing and lonely-making.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

I don't think it is always indiscriminate. I think they very often know what they're doing.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Likewise with this. I am not saying people shouldn't discuss these problems, in fact I think they need to. But it is no secret that this is being used by the far right (and not just the right, I don't think we can pretend it's just them any longer), ive seen people reposting stuff from anti abortion fundamentalists, the far right and Jordan Peterson because *surprise!!* they both hate trans people. There is a risk of giving political cover to transphobes and allowing them some sort of legitimacy.


"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think it is always indiscriminate. I think they very often know what they're doing.


Yep some of the stuff is just full of hate. I'm down to about 3 voices that i think are worth listening to . But then how to do the other bit, like you say there are conversations that are necessary to have. I don’t know.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> But it is no secret that this is being used by the far right (and not just the right, I don't think we can pretend it's just them any longer), ive seen people reposting stuff from anti abortion fundamentalists, the far right and Jordan Peterson because *surprise!!* they both hate trans people.



Tommy doesn’t appear to hate trans people.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

And? The far right isn't made up of one guy.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> And? The far right isn't made up of one guy.



Innit! 

That nonsense above is just like he doesn't hate all Muslim people...


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Innit!
> 
> That nonsense above is just like he doesn't hate all Muslim people...



And the far right love the one 'good' Jew / Muslim / trans person etc that proves the rest are all bad.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> And the far right love the one 'good' Jew / Muslim / trans person etc that proves the rest are all bad.



In Tommy's case it seems simply a matter of whether or not he finds them 'fit' being the man of such strongly coherent political values that he is. FFS.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> And? The far right isn't made up of one guy.



If you’d taken the time to watch it you’d see that he’s using it as anti-feminist vehicle.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> And the far right love the one 'good' Jew / Muslim / trans person etc that proves the rest are all bad.



A second ago you were saying people were siding with others with ‘dodgy views’. Make your mind up.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> If you’d taken the time to watch it you’d see that he’s using it as anti-feminist vehicle.



There are people who do this too. 

So what?


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

Its almost as if trans people have all sorts of different political viewpoints from far left to far right. Cis people are obviously so.much better.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> There are people who do this too.
> 
> So what?



Ok. So one side of the argument is being latched onto by the far right and we must be careful etc, but it’s also on the other side of the argument and so what.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Its almost as if trans people have all sorts of different political viewpoints from far left to far right. Cis people are obviously so.much better.



I was countering a particular point being made.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ok. So one side of the argument is being latched onto by the far right and we must be careful etc, but it’s also on the other side of the argument and so what.



Ok, you have posted ONE video, so are there any other examples of it being on the other side of the argument? Is there a concerted campaign by the far right to stir up hate against feminists? A lot of the time feminists are being ridiculed by the fash by believing in loads of different genders etc which is the same thing trans people are attacked for.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Ok, you have posted ONE video, so are there any other examples of it being on the other side of the argument? Is there a concerted campaign by the far right to stir up hate against feminists? A lot of the time feminists are being ridiculed by the fash by believing in loads of different genders etc which is the same thing trans people are attacked for.



The ‘alt’ right (who Tommy appeals to) have that whole men’s rights anti-feminist stuff going on yes.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Have you seen some of the speakers invited to the anti trans meetings for example? One was a guy who said heroin addicts shouldn't be given methadone because they needed to take 'personal responsibility'. If fash are infiltrating the trans side yes thats a problem but it doesn't disprove anything i said.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The ‘alt’ right (who Tommy appeals to) have that whole men’s rights anti-feminist stuff going on yes.



The alt right also ridicule 'social justice warriors' who they conflate with feminists, social justice warriors of course having millions of different genders, etc


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Have you seen some of the speakers invited to the anti trans meetings for example? One was a guy who said heroin addicts shouldn't be given methadone because they needed to take 'personal responsibility'. If fash are infiltrating the trans side yes thats a problem but it doesn't disprove anything i said.



I’m not disagreeing with what you’ve said, just the way you’re trying to discredit everyone by association.


----------



## ska invita (May 21, 2018)

Robinson is also using it for Freedom of Speach cover, and some general queerwashing


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not disagreeing with what you’ve said, just the way you’re trying to discredit everyone by association.



It's not a 'smear' of 'guilt by association' though is it, when these people are actually connected to each other and actually associated with each other. These people are invited to speak at these events, they routinely repost each others stuff, they use hate language such as 'parasites' and so on.


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

There's got to be an element where its gender noncomformity that really distresses the 'right', whereas people becoming the other gender keeps things more or less stable, means you don't have to deal with "effeminate men" etc. For instance Iran being apparently way more advanced on trans right than america for instance (whilst homosexuality is punishable by death)is a bit of a weird one unless you see it in that sort of way?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> It's not a 'smear' of 'guilt by association' though is it, when these people are actually connected to each other and actually associated with each other. These people are invited to speak at these events, they routinely repost each others stuff, they use hate language such as 'parasites' and so on.



I mean people who are making similar arguments and NOT associating with those people. That bit is being ignored in favour of hoisting the loons up as the reason why the argument is wrong.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Ok, you have posted ONE video, so are there any other examples of it being on the other side of the argument? Is there a concerted campaign by the far right to stir up hate against feminists? A lot of the time feminists are being ridiculed by the fash by believing in loads of different genders etc which is the same thing trans people are attacked for.


There is no one "other side". Trans people literally exist across the political spectrum just like cis people, just like gay cis people. There are trans people who support the alt right. What those people say does not impinge one bit on trans people who are on the left, or elsewhere on the political spectrum, including many who are not political at all but still support human rights for trans people.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Look on the iran thing, Ive spent most of the year in Russia.

I can assure you the authorities here don't like trans people, while transition is legal everything is set up to make it practically impossible. And there is no evidence their discrimination against trans people has made it safer for 'women and girls' or anyone else. It is part of a general homophobic and misogynistic campaign. I agree that this stuff can work differently in places like Iran, I also don't discount the fact people could feel pressured into transitioning or feel like it would resolve their conflicts about sexuality etc. But very frequently these allies of the radfems have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to help gay people be themselves and end discrimination, in fact the opposite.

In fact this stuff is being used as an excuse to throw eg butch women out of women's bathrooms etc.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

Has everyone missed the weaponisation by anti trans campaigners of the truscum movement, who seek to delegitimise all trans people except fully medicalised transsexual people who pass as their transitioned to gender.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Look on the iran thing, Ive spent most of the year in Russia.
> 
> I can assure you Putin and the state here don't like trans people, while transition is legal everything is set up to make it practically impossible. And there is no evidence their discrimination against trans people has made it safer for 'women and girls' or anyone else. It is part of a general homophobic and misogynistic campaign. I agree that this stuff can work differently in places like Iran, I also don't discount the fact people could feel pressured into transitioning or feel like it would resolve their conflicts about sexuality etc. But very frequently these allies of the radfems have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to help gay people be themselves and end discrimination, in fact the opposite.
> 
> In fact this stuff is being used as an excuse to throw eg butch women out of women's bathrooms etc.


What happens in Iran is not anything that trans people want or campaign for.  There they conflate sexuality with gender in order to erase gay people. Not a single trans person would want this whatever their politics, because we all know just how damaging it is to be forced to live as a gender we are not.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I mean people who are making similar arguments and NOT associating with those people. That bit is being ignored in favour of hoisting the loons up as the reason why the argument is wrong.



My point is these people are the mainstream of these campaigns.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> What happens in Iran is not anything that trans people want or campaign for.  There they conflate sexuality with gender in order to erase gay people. Not a single trans person would want this whatever their politics, because we all know just how damaging it is to be forced to live as a gender we are not.



I agree.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> My point is these people are the mainstream of these campaigns.



It was previously argued that they are a small but vocal group.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It was previously argued that they are a small but vocal group.



Was it? By who?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Has everyone missed the weaponisation by anti trans campaigners of the truscum movement, who seek to delegitimise all trans people except fully medicalised transsexual people who pass as their transitioned to gender.



No what was this?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Was it? By who?



On the now locked thread.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

No idea what you are talking about, I haven't been on here properly for half a year


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> No idea what you are talking about, I haven't been on here properly for half a year


You missed nothing tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)




----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> No what was this?


Maybe you have to be involved in the day to day to see this. But it culminated in a hash tag #TSRaincrew on Twitter followed by a letter in the Guardian signed by a very small number of trans people saying that the proposed changes for the GRA will end up hurting transsexuals. It seems to be an attempt to split the trans community. Trouble is the TERFs who have been appearing on platforms with some of these trans women have been seen to be expressing how much contempt they have even for these "good" trans women with their GRS and their GRCs- still contemptible in the eyes of TERFs - so perhaps it won't go anywhere.


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


>




I do wish people would stop using TERF though, even if it's just for clarity. Who organized the talk they mentioned here, anything more specific than TERFs?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I do wish people would stop using TERF though, even if it's just for clarity. Who organized the talk they mentioned here, anything more specific than TERFs?


people should use the official designator - TAFKNT (pronounced taffkent): the activists formerly known as terfs.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It was previously argued that they are a small but vocal group.


They are small. They are also the mainstream of the campaign.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I do wish people would stop using TERF though, even if it's just for clarity. Who organized the talk they mentioned here, anything more specific than TERFs?



It was this (link to a very nasty site broken)
https:// gendertrenderdotwordpressdotcom/2018/01/12/anti-capitalist-queers-fail-to-shut-down-glasgow-womens-discussion-on-the-gender-recognition-act/


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> They are small. They are also the mainstream of the campaign.



They don’t represent everyone with misgivings about the GRA whichever way you paint it.


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Tommy doesn’t appear to hate trans people.



Ooh, let's all listen to what 'Tommy is saying

You really can't help yourself, can you


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Tommy doesn’t appear to hate trans people.



yeh, let's use tr as arbiter of this debate


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They don’t represent everyone with misgivings about the GRA whichever way you paint it.



The people organising these meetings are the ones organising under the cover of misgivings about the gra.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> The people organising these meetings are the ones organising under the cover of misgivings about the gra.



Yes but I don’t know what you propose from that. That everyone else shouldn’t have misgivings because dodgy types are using it as a cover?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

andysays said:


> Ooh, let's all listen to what 'Tommy is saying
> 
> You really can't help yourself, can you



What’s wrong with knowing what your opponents are saying? Surely it’s imperative for forming a counter strategy?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What’s wrong with knowing what your opponents are saying? Surely it’s imperative for forming a counter strategy?


no, it's imperative for forming a strategy.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it's imperative for forming a strategy.



Either or. Andy thinks that it’s evidence that I’m a fan of his or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Either or. Andy thinks that it’s evidence that I’m a fan of his or something.


sure you're a fan of his


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> sure you're a fan of his



I can’t stand his politics, or him particularly. I don’t see him as being off bounds for discussion though. And it was relevant to what was being said.


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yes but I don’t know what you propose from that. That everyone else shouldn’t have misgivings because dodgy types are using it as a cover?



For me one of the things that's changed my position on this was looking who people 'with misgivings' were asking to speak at their talks, who they were re-tweeting, sharing FB posts from, and were generally happy to share political company with.

I think for sure there's a position that's comradely and yet still critical of some aspects of the GRA and aspects of bits of the trans struggle (for want of a better term), and it would be possible to have discussions about this from a radical left perspective, but actually much of what seems to have happened is that reactionary elements within feminism (and wider) have dominated the debate in public, and other people who should know better have gone along with that.

I do think there's an element of however 'right' you think you are on a position if you find yourself generally attacked by much/most of the people who were previously your comrades, and when you look around those defending and promoting what you say are basically against you on pretty much every other issue, then you need to have a long hard think about what it is you're saying and whether it really is the 'right' position.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> For me one of the things that's changed my position on this was looking who people 'with misgivings' were asking to speak at their talks, who they were re-tweeting, sharing FB posts from, and were generally happy to share political company with.
> 
> I think for sure there's a position that's comradely and yet still critical of some aspects of the GRA and aspects of bits of the trans struggle (for want of a better term), and it would be possible to have discussions about this from a radical left perspective, but actually much of what seems to have happened is that reactionary elements within feminism (and wider) have dominated the debate in public, and other people who should know better have gone along with that.
> 
> I do think there's an element of however 'right' you think you are on a position if you find yourself generally attacked by much/most of the people who were previously your comrades, and when you look around those defending and promoting what you say are basically against you on pretty much every other issue, then you need to have a long hard think about what it is you're saying and whether it really is the 'right' position.



A friend, colleague and TU comrade of mine - from a discussion among women in the RMT - came up with this as a starting point.
Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> For me one of the things that's changed my position on this was looking who people 'with misgivings' were asking to speak at their talks, who they were re-tweeting, sharing FB posts from, and were generally happy to share political company with.
> 
> I think for sure there's a position that's comradely and yet still critical of some aspects of the GRA and aspects of bits of the trans struggle (for want of a better term), and it would be possible to have discussions about this from a radical left perspective, but actually much of what seems to have happened is that reactionary elements within feminism (and wider) have dominated the debate in public, and other people who should know better have gone along with that.
> 
> I do think there's an element of however 'right' you think you are on a position if you find yourself generally attacked by much/most of the people who were previously your comrades, and when you look around those defending and promoting what you say are basically against you on pretty much every other issue, then you need to have a long hard think about what it is you're saying and whether it really is the 'right' position.



I’m more thinking of people I know who haven’t gone to any talks and are almost certainly trans inclusive but now feel they’re being put on the spot to accept this stuff. Imo choosing to point out that they’re basically allying with the far right probably won’t wash and would almost certainly be counter productive if trying to win them round.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yes but I don’t know what you propose from that. That everyone else shouldn’t have misgivings because dodgy types are using it as a cover?



I don't know what to say?

I don't know how much evidence you need. This isn't the 'fringe' of the movement. It's not like there are a tiny minority who are hijacking a legitimate movement.

When you have formerly sensible people posting stuff about 'bankers', 'the 1%' and a 'trans lobby' that are promoting gender identity stuff and fash jumping in to agree with them? When you have people like Sheila Jeffreys speaking in Parliament at an event organised by one of these free that trans women are parasites occupying women's bodies? When you have radfems posting Jordan Peterson shit and writing by religious fundamentalists because he doesnt like trans people and nor do they?

When you have threads like this extremely ugly and threatening thread on mumsnet talking about what it will take to 'peak trans the world' and hoping support from the far right and religious groups?

https://wwwdotmumsnetdotcom/Talk/wo...lly-take-the-peak-trans-the-world?pg=1&order=


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2018)

I think this issue about making common cause with dodgy or outright offensive groups/commentators goes back to the type of politics the whole debate is set in. Regardless of the 'side' you are on, I suspect you are less likely to share platforms (metaphorical and real) with right wing bigots if you yourself have a framework that makes connections in quite different ways - solidarity and class struggle.

I'm not suggesting class politics dissolves very real differences, maybe even intractable problems, but it does allow you to think about the wider social field, links between different exploitations and oppressions and the rest.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m more thinking of people I know who haven’t gone to any talks and are almost certainly trans inclusive but now feel they’re being put on the spot to accept this stuff. Imo choosing to point out that they’re basically allying with the far right probably won’t wash and would almost certainly be counter productive if trying to win them round.



Yeah I used to share some of those views to be honest. I changed my mind, i agree argument won't on its own. im fairly sure if they just have misgivings they won't have a problem with it being pointed out where the misinformation is coming from. 

Isnt it counter productive to expect trans people to be confronted with this shit on a daily basis and not have these ideas challenged for fear of being 'counter productive' in addition to the attacks they face in right wing media etc?


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

but when trans people refuse to share platforms with anyone we are accused on "no platforming".


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m more thinking of people I know who haven’t gone to any talks and are almost certainly trans inclusive but now feel they’re being put on the spot to accept this stuff. Imo choosing to point out that they’re basically allying with the far right probably won’t wash and would almost certainly be counter productive if trying to win them round.



This is the exact same shit as the antisemitism scandal. That we shouldn't challenge their shit because it will alienate people, all this interminable stuff that people don't see a problem and a few upset people less important than getting the tories out of power. Why should trans people be expected to have bigotry against them go unchallenged because of the fear of some feminists having their opinion challenged in some difficult conversations?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> but when trans people refuse to share platforms with anyone we are accused on "no platforming".



Yeah and the government have just announced plans to stop students no platforming speakers in a university. But the freedom of speech threat is totally coming from trans people.


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

I think this (pointing at people and saying you must be wrong cos this awful person is 'on your side') is a bit of a dead end tbh, whatever the subject. I mean Theresa May said she wants the gra reformed (demedicalised) but obviously that doesn't mean people who agree with her on that one thing agree with anything else she's ever said does it. Its a bit like the pointlessness of the interminable brexit arguments, people saying ye but if you voted leave you must be on team Boris johnson.

This what Sea Star posted a link to gives me hope.


Sea Star said:


> A friend, colleague and TU comrade of mine - from a discussion among women in the RMT - came up with this as a starting point.
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think this (pointing at people and saying you must be wrong cos this awful person is 'on your side') is a bit of a dead end tbh, whatever the subject. I mean Theresa May said she wants the gra reformed (demedicalised) but obviously that doesn't mean people who agree with her on that one thing agree with anything else she's ever said does it. Its a bit like the pointlessness of the interminable brexit arguments, people saying ye but if you voted leave you must be on team Boris johnson.
> 
> This what Sea Star posted a link to gives me hope.


yeh. i think what people are talking less what you say than people actually quoting dodgy sources in support of their argument. do you understand the difference?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> This is the exact same shit as the antisemitism scandal. That we shouldn't challenge their shit because it will alienate people, all this interminable stuff that people don't see a problem and a few upset people less important than getting the tories out of power. Why should trans people be expected to have bigotry against them go unchallenged because of the fear of some feminists having their opinion challenged in some difficult conversations?



You’re making the assumption that they’ve been won over by ‘terfs’ as opposed to just forming their own thoughts on the issue.


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Either or. Andy thinks that it’s evidence that I’m a fan of his or something.


It's just that you plaster his opinions around here at every opportunity, either as an example of how he/the right is/are so much more on top of whatever the issue is than "the left or, as here, without any comment.

Ironic that we've been talking about the 'just asking questions' cover and now you're using the 'know what your enemies are up to' cover.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You’re making the assumption that they’ve been won over by ‘terfs’ as opposed to just forming their own thoughts on the issue.


i haven't made any assumptions of the sort.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

andysays said:


> It's just that you plaster his opinions around here at every opportunity, either as an example of how he/the right is/are so much more on top of whatever the issue is than "the left or, as here, without any comment.
> 
> Ironic that we've been talking about the 'just asking questions' cover and now you're using the 'know what your enemies are up to' cover.



I don’t ‘plaster his opinions here at every opportunity’, that’s complete conjecture. But even if I did, it isn’t evidence that I’m a fan of his.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> i haven't made any assumptions of the sort.



So what did this mean: 



> im fairly sure if they just have misgivings they won't have a problem with it being pointed out where the misinformation is coming from.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

there's this too - venice allan et al have been instrumental in organising these talks and julia long regularly speaks at them.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So what did this mean:


It means that if you are wrong about something and that's all it is then a lot of people would be happy to be corrected and learn something. Nothing to do with who convinced you.


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. i think what people are talking less what you say than people actually quoting dodgy sources in support of their argument. do you understand the difference?


I do understand the difference yeah.
 It was LynnDoyleCooper 's bit i was thinking of, this bit about how maybe if you find yourself isolated on this then you should change your point of view:


LynnDoyleCooper said:


> .. however 'right' you think you are on a position if you find yourself generally attacked by much/most of the people who were previously your comrades, and when you look around those defending and promoting what you say are basically against you on pretty much every other issue, then you need to have a long hard think about what it is you're saying and whether it really is the 'right' position.


That sort of thing is definitely enough to make people stop talking about a subject, in order not to ruin friendships etc, but not to change their view really in any meaningful way, imo.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> It means that if you are wrong about something and that's all it is then a lot of people would be happy to be corrected and learn something. Nothing to do with who convinced you.



I’m not sure how people can be ‘wrong’ about misgivings. It’s something that needs to be addressed rather than dismissed.


----------



## stethoscope (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> A friend, colleague and TU comrade of mine - from a discussion among women in the RMT - came up with this as a starting point.
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights



Thanks for posting this. I had the pleasure to get to meet/see Booth perform recently, and this sums up quite a few of the frustrations I've had with the whole situation, plus how to build some sort of reasoned dialogue and with some grounding in solidarity and class-politics too. Its this that gives me some hope in all this where I've really become fatigued and frustrated and reluctant to engage in any of it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not sure how people can be ‘wrong’ about misgivings. It’s something that needs to be addressed rather than dismissed.


if someone has read some shit on the internet about, say, jews controlling everything, or that trans people are going to rape them in a toilet, then they can definitely be wrong. im not saying that there isnt genuine things that need to be addressed, but my whole point is how this is being used by the far right. it seems to me that you're misunderstanding me deliberately. 
sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I do understand the difference yeah.
> It was LynnDoyleCooper 's bit i was thinking of, this bit about how maybe if you find yourself isolated on this then you should change your point of view:
> 
> That sort of thing is definitely enough to make people stop talking about a subject, in order not to ruin friendships etc, but not to change their view really in any meaningful way, imo.


and maybe you should change your view if you find yourself isolated on an issue and among other people running with the issue are those you despise.


----------



## bimble (May 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> and maybe you should change your view if you find yourself isolated on an issue and among other people running with the issue are those you despise.


Changing your view usually happens by talking / getting new information, not just by deciding to get on the right side of whatever.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> A friend, colleague and TU comrade of mine - from a discussion among women in the RMT - came up with this as a starting point.
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights


that's a great post.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> Changing your view usually happens by talking / getting new information, not just by deciding to get on the right side of whatever.


yea i dont think that's quite what he said, he means rethinking the position, not necessarily changing it. rethinking would be thinking about it in terms of new information and experiences.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> Changing your view usually happens by talking / getting new information, not just by deciding to get on the right side of whatever.


you do know what maybe means, right? after all you used the word yourself. _perhaps_ you should change your views if the people running with your pov are among those you despise and you find yourself isolated on an issue. _perhaps. _not _you should_.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> if someone has read some shit on the internet about, say, jews controlling everything, or that trans people are going to rape them in a toilet, then they can definitely be wrong. im not saying that there isnt genuine things that need to be addressed, but my whole point is how this is being used by the far right. it seems to me that you're misunderstanding me deliberately.
> sorry.



I’m not misunderstanding you. You’re positioning yourself as anything other than your view is bigoted (and comparing it to antisemitism etc to make the point). Not much room to manoeuvre there, is there?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

ffs it is about who is organising these talks and who is using them as a cover. I think if we're going to be discussing 'trans issues' we need to discuss this as well don't we rather than just let it go unchallenged?


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I do understand the difference yeah.
> It was LynnDoyleCooper 's bit i was thinking of, this bit about how maybe if you find yourself isolated on this then you should change your point of view:
> 
> That sort of thing is definitely enough to make people stop talking about a subject, in order not to ruin friendships etc, but not to change their view really in any meaningful way, imo.



No, I said it should be cause to have a pretty serious think about one's position if one finds oneself on the opposite side to many/most of the people you share the rest of your politics with.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not misunderstanding you. You’re positioning yourself as anything other than your view is bigoted (and comparing it to antisemitism etc to make the point). Not much room to manoeuvre there, is there?


You're right, there's nothing that can be compared to antisemitism in the idea that a small group of people are secretly influencing 'big pharma' and the media in order to put across their agenda, or that the said group of people are extremely privileged (and trying to oppress everyone else) and that we shouldnt be worried about anything they say given that they only represent about 1% of the population. Don't know where i got the idea where there was a resemblance. The fact that anti-trans articles and antisemitic bullshit have appeared side by side in outlets like the Morning Star have been another complete coincidence too. Silly me.


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

Yeah, one of the things that's made me despair was hearing people I know start defending the debates around the GRA on free speech grounds, and then one second later defend the Vanessa Beeley talks about Syria on the same grounds.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> You're right, there's nothing that can be compared to antisemitism in the idea that a small group of people are secretly influencing 'big pharma' and the media in order to put across their agenda, or that the said group of people are extremely privileged (and trying to oppress everyone else) and that we shouldnt be worried about anything they say given that they only represent about 1% of the population. Don't know where i got the idea where there was a resemblance. The fact that anti-trans articles and antisemitic bullshit have appeared side by side in outlets like the Morning Star have been another complete coincidence too. Silly me.



There’s also the kind of ‘anti-semitism’ where any criticism of Israel is regarded as such. No room for dissenting voices just a polarisation.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s also the kind of ‘anti-semitism’ where any criticism of Israel is regarded as such. No room for dissenting voices just a polarisation.


oh great, here we fucking go.this is just what i was talking about a few pages back


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

up next, 'terrorism' and 'muggings in the inner cities' ...


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Ok, you have posted ONE video, so are there any other examples of it being on the other side of the argument? Is there a concerted campaign by the far right to stir up hate against feminists? A lot of the time feminists are being ridiculed by the fash by believing in loads of different genders etc which is the same thing trans people are attacked for.


Loads of different genders? Please explain?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

Yeah  @ frogwoman.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Has everyone missed the weaponisation by anti trans campaigners of the truscum movement, who seek to delegitimise all trans people except fully medicalised transsexual people who pass as their transitioned to gender.


Not on my reading list to be fair.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Maybe you have to be involved in the day to day to see this. But it culminated in a hash tag #TSRaincrew on Twitter followed by a letter in the Guardian signed by a very small number of trans people saying that the proposed changes for the GRA will end up hurting transsexuals. It seems to be an attempt to split the trans community. Trouble is the TERFs who have been appearing on platforms with some of these trans women have been seen to be expressing how much contempt they have even for these "good" trans women with their GRS and their GRCs- still contemptible in the eyes of TERFs - so perhaps it won't go anywhere.


Why are you content to discuss issues on this thread about the Anarchist Bookfair given you campaigned to have the thread about trans politics (now locked) closed?


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> You're right, there's nothing that can be compared to antisemitism in the idea that a small group of people are secretly influencing 'big pharma' and the media in order to put across their agenda, or that the said group of people are extremely privileged (and trying to oppress everyone else) and that we shouldnt be worried about anything they say given that they only represent about 1% of the population. Don't know where i got the idea where there was a resemblance. The fact that anti-trans articles and antisemitic bullshit have appeared side by side in outlets like the Morning Star have been another complete coincidence too. Silly me.


Morning Star running anti semetic articles? Can you link to one please?


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> and maybe you should change your view if you find yourself isolated on an issue and among other people running with the issue are those you despise.


Thats me considering re Brexit then. 
(1 min later) No, still fuck the EU for me.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Morning Star running anti semetic articles? Can you link to one please?


Total acceptance that they print transphobic articles then.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Why are you content to discuss issues on this thread about the Anarchist Bookfair given you campaigned to have the thread about trans politics (now locked) closed?


Given you are I am going to approach the mods asking for that thread to be unlocked and hope this one will be more bookfair related.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Total acceptance that they print transphobic articles then.


No not at all Sea Star. What a silly post.
I would be surprised if they did print such and asked for an example. Have you seen any in The Morning Star? Anyone?


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Morning Star running anti semetic articles? Can you link to one please?



They're very pro-Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett who are cheek by jowl with anti-semites and conspiracy theory idiots for a start.


----------



## stethoscope (May 21, 2018)

Tbf, I used to buy the Morning Star but what with the pro-Beeley pieces and Yardley for fucks sake amongst other reasons I gave up on it. Shame, because I seem to remember the reporting on Lucy Meadows death by one of their journos being pretty decent at the time.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> They're very pro-Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett who are cheek by jowl with anti-semites and conspiracy theory idiots for a start.


Fuck cheek by jowl. Just link to an example article so we can consider the serious charge frogwoman made.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Tbf, I used to buy the Morning Star but what with the pro-Beeley pieces and Yardley for fucks sake amongst other reasons I gave up on it. Shame, because I seem to remember the reporting on Lucy Meadows death by one of their journos being pretty decent at the time.


Any anti semetic article links then?


----------



## stethoscope (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Any anti semetic article links then?



I wasn't declaring there was/wasn't tbf, not sure I can be arsed to look through the website to remember/find any either tbh!


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

The Assad analogy isn't a bad one actually.

If you're 'on the left' and you have a position where you're defending Assad, or even 'just being critical' of the news coming out of Syria, and you look around and those with the same position of you are a nasty fucked up bunch of anti-semites, mad Stalinists, and dickhead conspiracy theorists, it's time to have a think about your position.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> I wasn't declaring there was/wasn't tbf, not sure I can be arsed to look through the website to remember/find any!


I'm not interested in a Morning Star is going down the pan discussion but am very interested in frogwoman's assertion that it ran anti semetic articles. I haven't read The M Star for years but still would be surprised and a bit shocked if the assertion is true.


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> The Assad analogy isn't a bad one actually.
> 
> If you're 'on the left' and you have a position where you're defending Assad, or even 'just being critical' of the news coming out of Syria, and you look around and those with the same position of you are a nasty fucked up bunch of anti-semites, mad Stalinists, and dickhead conspiracy theorists, it's time to have a think about your position.


Yeah especially if you fetishsise the YPG and then notice Trump armed them.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Yeah especially if you fetishsise the YPG and then notice Trump armed them.


Nothing is clean in Syria


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Nothing is clean in Syria


The high horses all look like they have had a wash and groom.


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> A friend, colleague and TU comrade of mine - from a discussion among women in the RMT - came up with this as a starting point.
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights


In some ways this makes the argument for self identification just as sharply as any other contribution to the debate, so it's not something that squares the circle, magics up some mythical agreement etc. But it's very refreshing to simply see the issue discussed in the context of a wider movement and with an analysis of wider patterns of exploitation.


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

Syria / conspiracy theory / anti-semites / trans thread mash-up explosion...


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Syria / conspiracy theory / anti-semites / trans thread mash-up explosion...


Totally taking us away from the bookfair and any solutions to the shut down.


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Syria / conspiracy theory / anti-semites / trans thread mash-up explosion...


The names Jeremy Corbyn has given his hamsters?


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

I have requested the transgender perplexed thread is reopened. I await the FridgeMagnet response. 
I don't think a thread about the bookfair should be the arena for all trans politics discussion. 

I don't want this thread shut when some poster takes offence either for themselves or worse on behalf of another.


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2018)

I hate popcorn, can I have pringles instead?


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> I have requested the transgender perplexed thread is reopened. I await the FridgeMagnet response.
> I don't think a thread about the bookfair should be the arena for all trans politics discussion.
> 
> I don't want this thread shut when some poster takes offence either for themselves or worse on behalf of another.


Or we could start a new thread with a title and an OP that is respectful to all sides and not clearly an attack on trans people.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Totally taking us away from the bookfair and any solutions to the shut down.


Keep it respectful to trans people then


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Or we could start a new thread with a title and an OP that is respectful to all sides and not clearly an attack on trans people.


Or YOU could start a new thread etc...


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Totally taking us away from the bookfair and any solutions to the shut down.



Yeah, OK, back to the topic, I agree, I don't think this thread about the Bookfair should become a thread about all issues trans related, apologies if I in part dragged it that way.

So, I'm gutted and angry about the Bookfair, but I don't actually see anything that can be put in place by the Bookfair organizers to solve the problems though, I think it's something that's going to have to be dealt with by the wider movement. And until that gets done I don't think a Bookfair will happen without massive conflict.

And like I've said before it's not just about trans issues at the Bookfair. People were demanding banners and all sorts of other stuff be declared 'unwelcome'.


----------



## Nice one (May 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> I'm not interested in a Morning Star is going down the pan discussion but am very interested in frogwoman's assertion that it ran anti semetic articles. I haven't read The M Star for years but still would be surprised and a bit shocked if the assertion is true.


She didn't say articles she said anti-semitic bullshit in which i'm assuming she's referencing this post:



butchersapron said:


> And guess whose been allowed to do the the bristol bookfair - the morning fucking star. Odd that i wasn't allowed to do an IWCA stall a few years ago as the bookfair is for 'explicitly non-electoral anarchists' - now fascist sympathising, holocaust deniers supporters, electoral fetishising tankie pricks are fine - _up the PKK, must get my new apo tattoo done asap:_
> 
> View attachment 134236


A post incidently you liked


----------



## LDC (May 21, 2018)

There's a Radical Bookfair in London in June, don't know if they've put anything in place to try and deal with things that happen.

London Radical Bookfair 2018


----------



## stethoscope (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, OK, back to the topic, I agree, I don't think this thread about the Bookfair should become a thread about all issues trans related, apologies if I in part dragged it that way.
> 
> So, I'm gutted and angry about the Bookfair, but I don't actually see anything that can be put in place by the Bookfair organizers to solve the problems though, I think it's something that's going to have to be dealt with by the wider movement. And until that gets done I don't think a Bookfair will happen without massive conflict.



Yep this really, and possibly not just on this particular battlefront either.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

andysays said:


> Or YOU could start a new thread etc...


why would I want to do that?


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2018)

Might work if there was another trans rights, gra, gender related thread. May we go the way of the previous one of course, but worth a try.

This one could discuss movement responses specifically, maybe even starting with the blog Sea Star posted. It's not really up to this thread to determine how/whether there can be another London Bookfair, but there are plenty of issues about the politics of class and the politics of identity, relating to events like the bookfair but more generally.


----------



## Athos (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> A friend, colleague and TU comrade of mine - from a discussion among women in the RMT - came up with this as a starting point.
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights



Does that reflect your position on these issues?


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> why would I want to do that?


Because YOU are the one who wants to continue discussing trans issues, and this isn't the thread for it, so I suggest you start your own thread, with whatever title and OP you choose, and then set the tone in promoting a respectful discussion to explore whatever issues you and other want to discuss, and leave this thread for whoever (including you obviously) wants to discuss the Anarchist Bookfair and directly related issues.


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2018)

Athos said:


> Does that reflect your position on these issues?



Please stop de-railing this thread, just as we're trying to get back on topic


----------



## andysays (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> A friend, colleague and TU comrade of mine - from a discussion among women in the RMT - came up with this as a starting point.
> Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights



Here's a suggestion, if you think that article is a good starting point for a discussion, why not start a thread to do just that


----------



## Athos (May 21, 2018)

andysays said:


> Please stop de-railing this thread, just as we're trying to get back on topic



It's by no means a derail.


----------



## Sea Star (May 21, 2018)

andysays said:


> Because YOU are the one who wants to continue discussing trans issues, and this isn't the thread for it, so I suggest you start your own thread, with whatever title and OP you choose, and then set the tone in promoting a respectful discussion to explore whatever issues you and other want to discuss, and leave this thread for whoever (including you obviously) wants to discuss the Anarchist Bookfair and directly related issues.



I really don't want to start anything - I was made ill over that last thread that was binned. But if people are going to post shit then I reserve the right to counter their shit.

I didn't start talking about trans on this thread. I am far from the only person talking about trans issues - in fact this thread went for pages on trans issues before I decided to come back - and now suddenly it's all about me. No, I'd much rather be talking about something else.


----------



## Wilf (May 21, 2018)

Incidentally, if you think about this whole debate - on urban and beyond - being (re)ignited by the speaker's corner spat, we've at least now had a reminder that people don't need to behave in that way, with the piece sea star posted up.  Dragging the whole debate onto that (Janine Booth's) ground seems entirely positive.  I don't happen to agree with her about 'simple self identification', but that's not the point to me. Her approach is a left approach.

Admittedly, given that I'm currently, ahem, 'working', I haven't actually read it all.


----------



## Nice one (May 21, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Incidentally, if you think about this whole debate - on urban and beyond - being (re)ignited by the speaker's corner spat, we've at least now had a reminder that people don't need to behave in that way, with the piece sea star posted up.  Dragging the whole debate onto that (Janine Booth's) ground seems entirely positive.  I don't happen to agree with her about 'simple self identification', but that's not the point to me. Her approach is a left approach.
> 
> Admittedly, given that I'm currently, ahem, 'working', I haven't actually read it all.



you do know it's an awl discussion paper don't you?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Like this one.
I stand by Corbyn, along with the millions relying on him




> I am going to be frank without demeaning the seriousness of anti-semitism and tell them this: when you are homeless and your bed is a piece of cardboard, rows about alleged anti-semitism are not on your list of priorities for the day and night ahead. Staying alive, being warm, having food is.
> 
> When your family are housed in a one-room bed and breakfast and your children have nowhere to play, nowhere to do homework, nowhere to bring friends back to, *anti-semitism accusations don’t figure much in your daily list of getting by.*
> 
> ...



Specifically implying antisemitism is unimportant and is a concern of the rich and intellectual powerful elites only. Implying only rich people have a reason to care about it. That if you care or have a reason to care you can't be poor, can't be homeless etc, that you wouldn't care about the two simultaneously. Now I know I can be over sensitive about this issue but I found that article disgusting.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> Like this one.
> I stand by Corbyn, along with the millions relying on him
> 
> 
> ...


The enemy is not toryism. It is the whole rotten edifice of power. And the rest of the article's disgusting too.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> The enemy is not toryism. It is the whole rotten edifice of power. And the rest of the article's disgusting too.



(((Intellectual elites))).


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

And not to mention their support of Beeley etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2018)

andysays said:


> Please stop de-railing this thread, just as we're trying to get back on topic


I think we might be past the tipping point


----------



## TopCat (May 21, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Or we could start a new thread with a title and an OP that is respectful to all sides and not clearly an attack on trans people.


That would be fabulous.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yes but I don’t know what you propose from that. *That everyone else shouldn’t have misgivings because dodgy types are using it as a cover?*


(my emphasis) FWs explicitly said that that is not what she is saying. Rather that people should be careful about who they working with, that they might want to do a quick background check, and if if later turns out that someone is dodgy they don't lose any time in giving them the cold shoulder. 

As froggie and others have said this is equally true of other issues - Palestine/Israel, anti-EU campaigns, criticism of multiculturalism etc - and it's actually just basic common sense, like PM said my enemies enemy is *not* my friend.


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> (my emphasis) FWs explicitly said that that is not what she is saying. Rather that people should be careful about who they working with, that they might want to do a quick background check, and if if later turns out that someone is dodgy they don't lose any time in giving them the cold shoulder.
> 
> As froggie and others have said this is equally true of other issues - Palestine/Israel, anti-EU campaigns, criticism of multiculturalism etc - and it's actually just basic common sense, like PM said my enemies enemy is *not* my friend.




And if a large number of people who agree with them do turn out to be dodgy may be worth asking why. And thinking about your position on that basis. Asking what it about that set of beliefs that attracts shit politics and whether your position should change as a result.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s also the kind of ‘anti-semitism’ where any criticism of Israel is regarded as such.


Yes and that precisely _why_ it's even more important that usual to make sure the people you might be allying/aligning yourself with are not dodgy.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes and that precisely _why_ it's even more important that usual to make sure the people you might be allying/aligning yourself with are not dodgy.



Yes I get that but I wasn’t talking about people going to talks or organising etc but the ones who the debate is now just reaching so any misgivings expressed are instinctive rather  than ‘learned’.


----------



## rich! (May 21, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There's a Radical Bookfair in London in June, don't know if they've put anything in place to try and deal with things that happen.
> 
> London Radical Bookfair 2018



Organising it on the same day as Strawberry Fair seems like a pretty effective tactic


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 21, 2018)

rich! said:


> Organising it on the same day as Strawberry Fair seems like a pretty effective tactic



You think the next battle ground will be a festival?


----------



## Nice one (May 22, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes and that precisely _why_ it's even more important that usual to make sure the people you might be allying/aligning yourself with are not dodgy.



like Mi5? Mi6? GCHQ?
2017 is the first year that all three of the Security and Intelligence Agencies feature in Stonewall's Top 100 best employers for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people.

How do you think that plays out for an anarchist movement that has lost the only thing that provided anarchists with a presentation of itself as a movement? 

If identity politics is fundementally the reproduction of social values that validates your identity what's the point of politics? What's the point of anarchism? What are you seeking to change?


----------



## Wilf (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> you do know it's an awl discussion paper don't you?


Yes - and as I've said I don't actually agree with the central argument around self identification (my point isn't against self identification itself fwiw, it's what happens when that comes into conflict women's spaces - but that's getting right back into it, not something for this thread). But yes, AWL, I'm just impressed to be reading something that makes an attempt to avoid twatty namecalling, recognises this has been a badly conducted debate and at least makes a tentative attempt at offering a left perspective. In a sense I'm easily pleased, but it's also a measure of how depressing this battle has been that I'm impressed by something I don't fully agree with, written for a group I certainly don't agree with.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> like Mi5? Mi6? GCHQ?


Yes I'd put them in the dodgy category. Is anyone on this thread saying otherwise?



Nice one said:


> 2017 is the first year that all three of the Security and Intelligence Agencies feature in Stonewall's Top 100 best employers for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people.
> 
> How do you think that plays out for an anarchist movement that has lost the only thing that provided anarchists with a presentation of itself as a movement?
> 
> If identity politics is fundementally the reproduction of social values that validates your identity what's the point of politics? What's the point of anarchism? What are you seeking to change?


You're tilting at windmills, neither I, or FW, PM, LDC, etc are defending identity politics. Ensuring that anti-semites are marginalised and excluded from actions around Palestine/Israel isn't identity politics, keeping out pro-Assad scum from campaigns against the use of UK military forces isn't identity politics, and taking care that the people involved in any anti-GRA campaign aren't transphobic cunts isn't identity politics.

But more than that let me ask you what the point of anarchism is if you're not willing to recognise the basic principle of solidarity?
Of course that applies to the idiots that mobbed Helen Steel and set off the fire alarm (I don't think a single person on this thread has argued otherwise) but it also applies to those distributing a leaflet designed to provoke a reaction. People should be able to discuss both their criticism/concerns or their support for the GRA etc but you owe a bit of basic solidarity to your comrades to do it with some care and sense, particularly if you are going to do it at an event like the Bookfair. Recognise that this is an area that is very personal for lots people and consider* their opinions and feelings. Of course I can understand why when dealing with the actions of idiots people get pushed into camps and there is a breakdown in solidarity, it's regrettable but it's human. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to act with some attempt at solidarity - like taking care a bit of care to ensure that bigots, anti-semities, transphobic wankers, pro-dictator loons or undercover police are excluded from any actions/campaign you're undertaking.

*Note I'm not saying you have to agree what they say, i'm not saying you have to accept what they say, I'm not saying don't challenge them but just give them the solidarity to listen to what they say.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

Not sure 'Anti-GRA campaigns' are a particularly good idea in itself tbf, and any such campaign *will* attract transphobes, given the amount of myths surrounding these proposals, the fact they call for making things trans people can already do a little easier, etc, the fact Ireland and other places have these laws and its seen largely as a non issue etc etc. Having an 'anti-GRA' campaign is a terrible idea imo. I largely agree with rest of your post though.

More info about GRA myths here

Facts Matter; Challenging the myths about self identification


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> like Mi5? Mi6? GCHQ?
> 2017 is the first year that all three of the Security and Intelligence Agencies feature in Stonewall's Top 100 best employers for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people.



And what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> like Mi5? Mi6? GCHQ?
> 2017 is the first year that all three of the Security and Intelligence Agencies feature in Stonewall's Top 100 best employers for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people.


iyo is this a good thing or a bad thing?


----------



## rich! (May 22, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You think the next battle ground will be a festival?


there was the Camden Green Fair where the punks drove the Tories out, so you never know.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> How do you think that plays out for an anarchist movement that has lost the only thing that provided anarchists with a presentation of itself as a movement?


perhaps the anarchist movement should seek to be in the top 100 stonewall employers


----------



## Sea Star (May 22, 2018)

Stonewall concern me too on lots of levels. That's why I withdrew my support for them some time ago. Traditionally they've been anti trans, and only changed about 3/4 years ago, but remain problematic on trans issues. 

Trans people that I know have been extremely sceptical around Stonewalls recent change of heart on trans issues - not least because of their corporate and pro establishment take on LGBT acceptance. 

But if you look at who's leading this neoliberal washing and corporatising of LGBT rights it's establishment LGB people - ceos, celebs, mps and Lords, bankers, and God knows what. What is absent are equivalent trans people. I know of one trans person who is high up in banking and that's it. 

In fact my withdrawal from LGBT activism has been because of this corporate focus. Trans rights dont fit because we are still fighting for acceptance while the wider LGBT movement just want Pride, celebration and endlessly reflecting on how brilliant things are now compared to how they were. Its frustrating as fuck. 

I've advocated trans people getting to the head of LGBT groups and turning them back into campaigning, protesting groups - there's just not enough trans people to make an impact by ourselves. And for that I've been smeared and excluded by largely establishment neo liberal gay men in the movement. 

The idea that trans people are powerful and pro establishment people wih the support of secretive and shadowy groups is laughable tbh.


----------



## Nice one (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?



What it does do it frame the question that follows it. (You can't really have the one without the other).

I'll put it another way. The most sinister part of the UK state, some very dodgy people, are using progressive sexual politics to promote themselves as an inclusive workplace. Is the anarchist movement outraged by that? Helen steel certainly was.

What does it say about the nature of identity politics that when oppressive state institutions align themselves with progressive political identities those outraged are the ones that get criticised (re helen steel again)?


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

I think this whole _*wink wink nudge nudge*_ trans rights being pushed by the shadowy establishment to disrupt movements is a fucking pathetic joke tbh, and just shows the desperation of some of the politics.


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> What it does do it frame the question that follows it. (You can't really have the one without the other).
> 
> I'll put it another way. The most sinister part of the UK state, some very dodgy people, are using progressive sexual politics to promote themselves as an inclusive workplace. Is the anarchist movement outraged by that? Helen steel certainly was.
> 
> What does it say about the nature of identity politics that when oppressive state institutions align themselves with progressive political identities those outraged are the ones that get criticised (re helen steel again)?



Recuperation innit.

Same old thing that happened with all sorts of progressive social movements. It's nothing new, and doesn't hint at any kind of conspiracy. Yeah, it's a part of identity politics for sure. But I see people across all sides in this debate criticizing identity politics.

If anyone is aligning the radical feminists with class based/solidarity/non-identity politics and trans people with individualized/difference/identity politics then I suggest you're taking a very simple and inaccurate view on things.


----------



## Sea Star (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> I'll put it another way. The most sinister part of the UK state, some very dodgy people, are using progressive sexual politics to promote themselves as an inclusive workplace. Is the anarchist movement outraged by that? Helen steel certainly was.
> 
> What does it say about the nature of identity politics that when oppressive state institutions align themselves with progressive political identities those outraged are the ones that get criticised (re helen steel again)?


so many wrong assumptions in that statement.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> The idea that trans people are powerful and pro establishment people wih the support of secretive and shadowy groups is laughable tbh.



The state also supported redefining the traditional definition of marriage.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> What it does do it frame the question that follows it. (You can't really have the one without the other).
> 
> I'll put it another way. The most sinister part of the UK state, some very dodgy people, are using progressive sexual politics to promote themselves as an inclusive workplace. Is the anarchist movement outraged by that? Helen steel certainly was.
> 
> What does it say about the nature of identity politics that when oppressive state institutions align themselves with progressive political identities those outraged are the ones that get criticised (re helen steel again)?



Jfc.


----------



## rekil (May 22, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> And not to mention their support of Beeley etc.


Alison Banville writes for the Morning Star. She is also co-editor of loon site bsnews which pushes all the same shit as 21st century wire and related Icke-esque messes - false flags everywhere, 9/11, Thierry Meyssan, Assad the god king and so on.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think this whole _*wink wink nudge nudge*_ trans rights being pushed by the shadowy establishment to disrupt movements is a fucking pathetic joke tbh, and just shows the desperation of some of the politics.



I'm at  the edge of my fucking seat, I can't wait to find out who these 'shadowy elite groups' trying to push neoliberal sexual politics onto the public are. I bet it all started with the end of section 28 and the redefining of traditional marriage as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

copliker said:


> Alison Banville writes for the Morning Star. She is also co-editor of loon site bsnews which pushes all the same shit as 21st century wire and related Icke-esque messes - false flags everywhere, 9/11, Thierry Meyssan, Assad the god king and so on.


it's good of them to name the site bs news so you know in advance the low quality of their fare


----------



## Nice one (May 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> so many wrong assumptions in that statment.



 Youre absolutely right. I shouldnt assume mi5 is an oppressive state institution, certainly not the most sinister. I shouldnt assume that.

Nor should i assume they're using progressive sexual...

Nah fuck it what do you think i am assuming that is wrong?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

Nice one said:


> I'll put it another way. The most sinister part of the UK state, some very dodgy people, are using progressive sexual politics to promote themselves as an inclusive workplace. Is the anarchist movement outraged by that? Helen steel certainly was.


sexual orientation and gender reassignment are protected characteristics under the equality act 2010. it is therefore a legal obligation for mi5, mi6 and indeed the police forces of this country not to discriminate against people on these grounds. i don't myself think that there is anything inherently progressive about trans-sexualism or the sexual politics associated with it, and i'm certainly not outraged at organizations which have jumped through hoops to get stonewall's approval. there are other reasons, better reasons, to be outraged at mi5 and mi6 than their apparently decent treatment of people from an lgbt background. i have never cared who worked at mi5 or mi6, what their sexual preferences were, whether they were transitioning from male to female or vice versa. they could be the most inclusive workplace in the country and it wouldn't alter my opinion of those malign organisations one iota to know that surveillance and political repression was being carried out by lgbtq+ people rather than, or as well as, cis heterosexuals.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

Fucking hell. This would be the same British state that deports lgbt asylum seekers to their deaths ffs.


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2018)

The idea that MI5 is in some shadowy trans conspiracy is nuts.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> The idea that MI5 is in some shadowy trans conspiracy is nuts.


yeh it's utter lunacy.


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh it's utter lunacy.



And is a good example of where polarisation leads.  People grasping at straws for shit to fling at 'the other side'.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

I can't believe I am fucking reading this.  people are repeating a conspiracy about lgbt sexual politics' being an agenda by the state. As if MI5 don't already have influence and they have to use trans politics to do so!! All this fucking subtext about these 'shadowy elites' earning vast sums as well, hmmm wonder who could be being talked about there? Another discriminated against group? Surely not!


----------



## stethoscope (May 22, 2018)

...


----------



## Nice one (May 22, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> I can't believe I am fucking reading this.  people are repeating a conspiracy about lgbt sexual politics' being an agenda by the state. As if MI5 don't already have influence and they have to use trans politics to do so!! All this fucking subtext about these 'shadowy elites' earning vast sums as well, hmmm wonder who could be being talked about there? Another discriminated against group? Surely not!



Nobody has done that though, at least not today.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

at least not yet...


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Think there's some seriously confused thinking going on in some quarters around this.

People can be critical of identity politics (tbh I don't like this term without a fuck tonne of clarification, but using it for brevity) and the wider political context that it's from and way this type of politics has been encouraged over the years by the State/culture to _partly_ take the power away from the class, yet not see this as some conspiracy that they're now using trans rights and the arguments about that to destroy political movements.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2018)

As with all conspiracy theories this supposed one about MI5 and the trans agenda is completely top down and the wrong way round.

The past struggles of LGBT+ people have forced the state and corporations to recognise and accept them through changes in the law (and more generally). There is obviously still some way to go with this. 

This acceptance is then sold back to us by these organisations as them being progressive. There is nothing sinister about this, it's just business as usual. 

The Stonewall riots (and let us never forget that they were riots, by trans and gay people against the cops) are transformed into the pink pound.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2018)

Also if MI5 were serious about disrupting progressive movements through the trans/TERF dispute then they would no doubt embed people on both sides of that dispute. 

And they probably wouldn't draw attention to themselves by sponsoring a massive corporate award at the same time either.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 22, 2018)

As a note here: I was asked about unlocking the old trans thread but I don't think that would be a good idea, given its history and the state it was in when it was closed. I think it would just re-open arguments and cause more trouble.

I appreciate that it might be better to move some of the stuff off the bookfair thread though. If someone starts a thread which has an actual defined topic, it won't get automatically closed because it might have a connection to trans politics.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2018)

I might start one in Theory (to take the heat out of it a bit?) on the Janine Booth text. When I get a sec. If someone else wants to that's fine too obviously.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> As with all conspiracy theories this supposed one about MI5 and the trans agenda is completely top down and the wrong way round.
> 
> The past struggles of LGBT+ people have forced the state and corporations to recognise and accept them through changes in the law (and more generally). There is obviously still some way to go with this.
> 
> ...



And you know that eg Donald Trump tried to ban trans people being in the military? You know all those 'bathroom bills' in the states and a movement to do the same thing here? You know there are Tory MPs giving this support in Parliament? Not to mention the Polish states stance on this, the Russian state, the Hungarian state etc, all of which have made use of similar conspiracy type rhetoric to undermine LGBT people's rights and in the case of Poland and Hungary to discriminate against the Jews, blaming all these people for economic degradation, implying its solely a concern for the rich, etc. The inconvenient truth is that the state still discriminates against LGBT people and a few award ceremonies don't really change anything. Lgbt people are still being sent to their deaths by the UK state


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Back to the Bookfair...

Does anyone know if there's an ongoing conversation that the Bookfair collective are having about what to do? Or, as I imagine I might do, they might just be having a bit of a break about even thinking about it?

Is anyone thinking about putting on something in its place?

Does anyone have suggestions as to have to proceed forwards with the Bookfair for 2019?


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

the thing as well about this stuff 'getting in the way of' or being a distraction from class politics, the thing is insisting that LGBT struggles etc are separate and some sort of distraction from everything else, is just not true, this stuff led to real material improvements in people's lives. it meant that people don't have to hide their sexuality, it meant that they accrued some of or even all of the same rights in theory as a heterosexual couple, it meant that they had some form of legal protection (again fought for by workers). it meant that societal stigma was lessened as people saw LGBT people in the media on a regular basis etc. It meant that they weren't (or werent supposed to be) taught at school homosexuality was wrong and they were deficient after S28 was abolished.


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

One of the things that made me much less sympathetic to the 'just asking questions/wanting discussion' theme was hearing that the person who leafleted the Bookfair last year was planning on coming back next time it ran and do the same. And they're in the fucking Green Party, so basically couldn't give a fuck about being responsible for acting in a way that fucks the Bookfair up.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Back to the Bookfair...
> 
> Does anyone know if there's an ongoing conversation that the Bookfair collective are having about what to do? Or, as I imagine I might do, they might just be having a bit of a break about even thinking about it?
> 
> ...



I'm not aware of anything happening right now (except the London Radical Bookfair which was always going to happen anyway). 

My plan remains to email the (former?) organisers via the website or their twitter account in October and see if they are interested in doing anything in 2019 with a view to taking part myself.

Also - I've said that there is no reason to believe that the leafletters won't come back, but I have seen nothing to indicate that they actually intend to do so.


----------



## Sea Star (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> One of the things that made me much less sympathetic to the 'just asking questions/wanting discussion' theme was hearing that the person who leafleted the Bookfair last year was planning on coming back next time it ran and do the same. And they're in the fucking Green Party, so basically couldn't give a fuck about being responsible for acting in a way that fucks the Bookfair up.


Though I'm in the Green Party and I've always valued the bookfair - which I guess is one reason I feel strongly that I should be able to attend without having to face transphobic information being handed out.

ETA - and why I'm so disappointed in people like Helen Steel. I've always supported her - literally when I was out there raising money and distributing leaflets when she was being sued by McDonalds - but would she give me that support in my time of need? Like fuck she would!!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I'm not aware of anything happening right now (except the London Radical Bookfair which was always going to happen anyway).
> 
> My plan remains to email the (former?) organisers via the website or their twitter account in October and see if they are interested in doing anything in 2019 with a view to taking part myself.
> 
> Also - I've said that there is no reason to believe that the leafletters won't come back, but I have seen nothing to indicate that they actually intend to do so.


i suspect that there would be considerable disquiet if they did return, and that their attendance at the bookfair would be fleeting


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Though I'm in the Green Party and I've always valued the bookfair - which I guess is one reason I feel strongly that I should be able to attend without having to face transphobic information being handed out.



Yeah, I appreciate that.

But extending that to the Bookfair and practical problems with this and other issues, where and how would you say the line should be drawn around people feeling strongly that they should also be able to attend without having to face racist banners ('Religion is Stupid' one put up over the Active Distribution stall), or radical feminists saying they want to be able to attend without facing anti-feminist information?

How the fuck does this get sorted out at the Bookfair where until now people generally felt drawn together under the banner of anarchism, something that I think has now imploded?

Can the Bookfair _ever _happen again in the way it has in previous years?


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

I think there needs to be a fuck tonne of ego and personal feelings taken out of all of this.

Feeling upset or oppressed by a leaflet given out or a banner you can see? Get over it, how do you survive outside in the wider harsher world?
Giving out a leaflet/putting up a banner that you know is going to cause huge rows? Guess what, your leaflet/banner isn't that important, leave it at home.

<Standing by for a roasting.>


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2018)

copliker said:


> Alison Banville writes for the Morning Star. She is also co-editor of loon site bsnews which pushes all the same shit as 21st century wire and related Icke-esque messes - false flags everywhere, 9/11, Thierry Meyssan, Assad the god king and so on.


I think the piece frogwoman posted as evidence is hardly definitive. 
As for the above assertion, has Banville written anti semetic articles published in the Morning Star? Thus far the evidence is more than a bit thin.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I might start one in Theory (to take the heat out of it a bit?) on the Janine Booth text. When I get a sec. If someone else wants to that's fine too obviously.



"Solidarity for both trans rights and women's rights" by Janine Booth


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

hardly definitive, despite the fact that the entire article is saying that antisemitism is utterly unimportant and something for rich intellectual elites to discuss over dinner, and that poor people don't worry about it/are affected by it? ok then. i love it when it when someone decides what i'm 'definitively' allowed to be upset by and view as antisemitic. and this in the context of a thread defending that paper's transphobia. great stuff.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think there needs to be a fuck tonne of ego and personal feelings taken out of all of this.
> 
> Feeling upset or oppressed by a leaflet given out or a banner you can see? Get over it, how do you survive outside in the wider harsher world?
> Giving out a leaflet/putting up a banner that you know is going to cause huge rows? Guess what, your leaflet/banner isn't that important, leave it at home.
> ...


especially an anti-_religion _banner at a bloody anarchist event. Sure, it's slogan is rather simplistic, but...it's a bloody slogan not a 500 page critique.


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

"One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Anarchist Bookfair' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England." - (apologies to) George Orwell.

Slightly more seriously I do think this stuff over the Bookfair is partly the logical result of the type of anarchism that's become more popular in recent years, where anything that's vaguely anti-establishment has come under the anarchism umbrella, and it's ended up with a confused mess where actually people don't share that much political ground when it comes down to it.

(Personally always quite enjoy the fact that people that drink fruit juice used to be regarded as quacks back in the 1930s. )


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

the fact that they employ some scumbag who is the supporter of beeley and other antisemitic/pro Assad loons, but that person 'doesn't print antisemitic articles at the morning star' is a pathetic defence btw, especially when their politics align with the Beeleyites in so many ways, when they have printed cartoons in support of Beeley (who by the way runs a far right conspiraloon site), and so on. it's like saying 'be as racist as you like mate but don't bring it in here'.
Edited: I don't think this transphobia problem is unrelated to the wider issues on the left. We are having to confront this shit constantly now. And it's a lesson in always being critical and examining/rethinking your own position too (something I haven't always done in the past).


----------



## Shechemite (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think there needs to be a fuck tonne of ego and personal feelings taken out of all of this.



As it ever was in activism


----------



## andysays (May 22, 2018)

Some of the comments about banners and leaflets seem to imply that the organisers are (or should be) responsible for the content of all materials available.

Just in practical terms, I don't know how people expect this to work, quite apart from the issue of censoring or banning potentially offensive materials.

Once again, the organisers are being put in an impossible position.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

andysays said:


> Some of the comments about banners and leaflets seem to imply that the organisers are (or should be) responsible for the content of all materials available.
> 
> Just in practical terms, I don't know how people expect this to work, quite apart from the issue of censoring or banning potentially offensive materials.
> 
> Once again, the organisers are being put in an impossible position.


perhaps a health warning could be erected - perhaps along the lines of people bearing statist material beyond this point do so at their own risk


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2018)

andysays said:


> Some of the comments about banners and leaflets seem to imply that the organisers are (or should be) responsible for the content of all materials available.
> 
> Just in practical terms, I don't know how people expect this to work, quite apart from the issue of censoring or banning potentially offensive materials.
> 
> Once again, the organisers are being put in an impossible position.



I remain optimistic that these issues can be overcome.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

andysays said:


> Some of the comments about banners and leaflets seem to imply that the organisers are (or should be) responsible for the content of all materials available.
> 
> Just in practical terms, I don't know how people expect this to work, quite apart from the issue of censoring or banning potentially offensive materials.
> 
> Once again, the organisers are being put in an impossible position.


I guess anyone giving out offensive material (conspiraloonery/racist/transphobic bollocks/religious preaching etc) could be asked to leave. It's been a long time since I've been but don't they do anyway with trots etc?


----------



## andysays (May 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps a health warning could be erected - perhaps along the lines of people bearing statist material beyond this point do so at their own risk


But then you get the problem of who defines what is statist, and some bunch of hot heads deciding it's them and not the organisers, and the same situation unfolds...


----------



## Sue (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I appreciate that.
> 
> But extending that to the Bookfair and practical problems with this and other issues, where and how would you say the line should be drawn around *people feeling strongly that they should also be able to attend without having to face racist banners ('Religion is Stupid' one put up over the Active Distribution stall), *or radical feminists saying they want to be able to attend without facing anti-feminist information?
> 
> ...


I'm maybe being a bit dim but I don't understand the bit in bold -- are you saying that saying 'religion is stupid' is racist?


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> I guess anyone giving out offensive material (conspiraloonery/racist/transphobic bollocks/religious preaching etc) could be asked to leave. It's been a long time since I've been but don't they do anyway with trots etc?



Not seen any Trots giving out stuff at the Bookfair for ages. What you describe is pretty much how it has worked so far I think. The issue has never been both so polarizing with significant numbers in both 'camps' as it were, nor so mirrored in a debate going on in wider society though.

In theory that sounds OK, but then of course outside the definition of this material, who then asks them to leave? The Bookfair collective or a Anarchist Bookfair security team? And if they refuse do you physically remove them, and if so who does that? And where to? Just outside the venue doors, off the grounds completely onto the nearest street? And what if some people disagree and try and intervene to stop it?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 22, 2018)

How have we gone from the anarchist bookfair to the anti-semitism of Tankies?


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

.


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Sue said:


> I'm maybe being a bit dim but I don't understand the bit in bold -- are you saying that saying 'religion is stupid' is racist?



There were people after the Bookfair last year that accused this banner of being racist or colonialist or something like that yeah.

TBH I can sympathize with that point of view slightly, I can see when there's a really complex mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity (like in much of the world) that banner could be seen as basically saying your culture/ethnicity is stupid.

I do think it's a shit banner really, and smacks of slightly teenage sloganeering rather than a useful political statement. But of course I don't think it should be 'banned' from the Bookfair. I don't get why we can't just tut and roll our eyes a bit more vigorously.


----------



## Sea Star (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There were people after the Bookfair last year that accused this banner of being racist or colonialist or something like that yeah.
> 
> TBH I can sympathize with that point of view slightly, I can see when there's a really complex mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity (like in much of the world) that banner could be seen as basically saying your culture/ethnicity is stupid.
> 
> I do think it's a shit banner really, and smacks of slightly teenage sloganeering rather than a useful political statement. But of course I don't think it should be 'banned' from the Bookfair. I don't get why we can't just tut and roll our eyes a bit more vigorously.


An attack on somebody else's religion is not the same as leaflets designed to create what is effectively now a "hostile environment" for trans people throughout politics. I would hope that unsubstantiated lies and slogans that are obviously intended to provoke people who may well be anarchists should be challenged. Ideally in a formal way but what if the organisers sided with the leafleters?

Anyway - I wasn't there, I've seen conflicting accounts of what happened so not getting into it deeper than that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

andysays said:


> But then you get the problem of who defines what is statist, and some bunch of hot heads deciding it's them and not the organisers, and the same situation unfolds...


tbh the organisers organise the event and have never said, suggested, implied or in any other way insinuated part of their role was to police or arbitrate over disputes at the bookfair. it is therefore perverse to set them up as you do as people with a role to define things. of course you can pose hypothetical problems and demonise those who might seek to resolve them - terming them 'a bunch of hot heads' suggests that that's the only thing that can happen. if the organisers *did* take on that role there'd be people howling them down. as for a definition of what is statist, i'd suggest that campaigning through parliamentary and constitutional means might reasonably form part of a definition. if people who aren't anarchists turn up at anarchist events seeking to provoke a reaction from other people should anarchists indulge them and let them have their barney? or should they be encouraged - in as comradely a fashion as possible - to go forth and multiply? how do we as a movement maintain a certain level of order at our events - a core question and one to which i don't have the answer. but placing people who have booked the rooms and organised the event in a false position, a position they have not asked for, a position to which they do not pretend, that's utterly unfair. we as a movement have suffered from both TAFKNTs and trans activists using our event as a stage on which to play out their disagreements. it would be preferable that any repetition of this nonsense was resolved by reasoned and comradely debate: but when on the one hand you have trans activists  being grossly offensive and TAFKNTs being equally vile to their opponents, you have your bunches of hot heads. it might have been better if both groups had been ejected and enjoined to continue their discussion on ducketts common or chestnuts park. sadly hot heads outside the trans and TAFKNT communities were in short supply on 28 october.


----------



## andysays (May 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh the organisers organise the event and have never said, suggested, implied or in any other way insinuated part of their role was to police or arbitrate over disputes at the bookfair. it is therefore perverse to set them up as you do as people with a role to define things. of course you can pose hypothetical problems and demonise those who might seek to resolve them - terming them 'a bunch of hot heads' suggests that that's the only thing that can happen. if the organisers *did* take on that role there'd be people howling them down. as for a definition of what is statist, i'd suggest that campaigning through parliamentary and constitutional means might reasonably form part of a definition. if people who aren't anarchists turn up at anarchist events seeking to provoke a reaction from other people should anarchists indulge them and let them have their barney? or should they be encouraged - in as comradely a fashion as possible - to go forth and multiply? how do we as a movement maintain a certain level of order at our events - a core question and one to which i don't have the answer. but placing people who have booked the rooms and organised the event in a false position, a position they have not asked for, a position to which they do not pretend, that's utterly unfair. we as a movement have suffered from both TAFKNTs and trans activists using our event as a stage on which to play out their disagreements. it would be preferable that any repetition of this nonsense was resolved by reasoned and comradely debate: but when on the one hand you have trans activists  being grossly offensive and TAFKNTs being equally vile to their opponents, you have your bunches of hot heads. it might have been better if both groups had been ejected and enjoined to continue their discussion on ducketts common or chestnuts park. sadly hot heads outside the trans and TAFKNT communities were in short supply on 28 october.


I'll return to this later when not posting on phone


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There were people after the Bookfair last year that accused this banner of being racist or colonialist or something like that yeah.
> 
> TBH I can sympathize with that point of view slightly, I can see when there's a really complex mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity (like in much of the world) that banner could be seen as basically saying your culture/ethnicity is stupid.
> 
> I do think it's a shit banner really, and smacks of slightly teenage sloganeering rather than a useful political statement. But of course I don't think it should be 'banned' from the Bookfair. I don't get why we can't just tut and roll our eyes a bit more vigorously.


the 'religion is stupid' banner has been around since about 2006, when a run of stickers bearing the same slogan was produced.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

andysays said:


> I'll return to this later when not posting on phone


i look forward to it


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> as for a definition of what is statist, i'd suggest that campaigning through parliamentary and constitutional means might reasonably form part of a definition.



Class War out then!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Class War out then!


i am not sure that class war have ever suggested pursuing a parliamentary route to ameliorate the effects of proposed legisation. in fact i'm rather sure they haven't.


----------



## Sea Star (May 22, 2018)

by 'trans activists' do you mean activists who happen to be trans, and by activist, is that anyone involved in anarchism, or are trans people, by virtue of being trans, and having an opinion about themselves always going to be trans activists? Or do you mean the special use of the term "trans activists" which anti-trans campaigners use to describe any trans person they disagree with? Can a trans activist also be an anarchist, in which case are they a trans activist or just an anarchist who happens to be trans?


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Didn't they stand electoral candidates recently? Anyway, was tongue in cheek, don't want to derail things anymore!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> by 'trans activists' do you mean activists who happen to be trans, and by activist, is that anyone involved in anarchism, or are trans people, by virtue of being trans, and having an opinion about themselves always going to be trans activists? Or do you mean the special use of the term "trans activists" which anti-trans campaigners use to describe any trans person they disagree with? Can a trans activist also be an anarchist, in which case are they a trans activist or just an anarchist who happens to be trans?


yes.


----------



## stethoscope (May 22, 2018)

I do worry though when one of the bookfair responses/call outs said:



> It is disappointing that, once again, LABF has let down and created an unsafe space for many comrades.



I mean, I want an anarchism that is broadly inclusive, but its anarchist bookfair not a support group or stuffy conference. It doesn't mean that dodgy and inflammatory shit can't still be robustly challenged by self-policing, people told to fuck off if they're being cunts, asked to calm it and discuss it, etc. but lets not go down any route where stuff becomes 'out of bounds' because of a leaflet, banner or a stall that might offend someone (I realise, its difficult to know where lines get drawn here as that varies for everyone).

I mean, I've seen the leaflets that were handed out, and whilst their content personally touches me, I'd have likely challenged and called it out for what it is should I have been there. It certainly shouldn't have been used against the Bookfair collective as it has, and for them to be expected to police/control what can/can't be discussed, leafletting, etc. Radical politics is fucked otherwise.

I've encountered people on protests over the years where we had disagreements over stuff but we didn't assess each others intersectionalist credentials on social media first before regarding each other as 'comrades' in a particular action. A bit of give and take, push and shove surely has to prevail?


----------



## Wilf (May 22, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I remain optimistic that these issues can be overcome.


This might seem an odd way of putting it but, short of violence and intimidation, I don't particularly care what happens at the event.  If it gets to the point of shouting matches again, it does nobody any good and, cliché alert, spoils it for everyone else. You just hope people will have a bit of respect for the event itself.

My anxieties are more for the organisers having to tip toe round issues, having to take responsibility for other people's bad behaviour. I imagine any future organisers might want to get into dialogue with groups wanting to participate on trans/gra debates. But the horror scenario would be getting drawn into a long running facebook spat, demands that x should be banned etc.

Sorry, that's like me trying to transfer anxiety onto you at the point you are taking steps to revive the bookfair.   Maybe all the organisers can do is put a statement up along the lines of 'we expect participants to take responsibility for their behaviour. Please don't ruin the bookfair'. Anything else drags you into 'policing', responding to demands and the rest.

Edit: all said much better by Pickman's model and stethoscope .


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

WTF is it with this 'unsafe space' thing? Do people just really mean a bit uncomfortable or do they actually mean dangerous?

If the Bookfair is 'unsafe' how the fuck did they even manage to get there?


----------



## Sea Star (May 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yes.


ok. glad you've cleared that one up then.


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> One of the things that made me much less sympathetic to the 'just asking questions/wanting discussion' theme was hearing that the person who leafleted the Bookfair last year was planning on coming back next time it ran and do the same. And they're in the fucking Green Party, so basically couldn't give a fuck about being responsible for acting in a way that fucks the Bookfair up.


This is simple enough. They get told to stay the fuck away. Leaflet their own conference.


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

i largely agree with that. but what if someone's handing out fascist leaflets/'national anarchist' shit and claiming they are an anarchist?
or conspiraloon/beeleyite shit? where do you draw the line? it is an issue to think about, because i have a lot of problems with 'safe spaces' but there are circumstances in which people will have to be ejected.


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> hardly definitive, despite the fact that the entire article is saying that antisemitism is utterly unimportant and something for rich intellectual elites to discuss over dinner, and that poor people don't worry about it/are affected by it? ok then. i love it when it when someone decides what i'm 'definitively' allowed to be upset by and view as antisemitic. and this in the context of a thread defending that paper's transphobia. great stuff.


You ain't the only arbiter in this life. Your para phrasing is a view along with everyone elses.


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> i largely agree with that. but what if someone's handing out fascist leaflets/'national anarchist' shit and claiming they are an anarchist?
> or conspiraloon/beeleyite shit? where do you draw the line? im not comparing the two  but it is an issue to think about, because i have a lot of problems with 'safe spaces' but there are circumstances in which people will have to be ejected.


Punch them in the head.


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the 'religion is stupid' banner has been around since about 2006, when a run of stickers bearing the same slogan was produced.


I paid for those stickers!!!


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2018)

TopCat said:


> You ain't the only arbiter in this life. Your para phrasing is a view along with everyone elses.


fantastic.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> ok. glad you've cleared that one up then.


you're a member of the green party and as such not an anarchist. if you have anything to offer in practical terms about how collisions like that under discussion might be prevented, why not share them? i'm seeing a lot of sniping from the sidelines and not a lot of positive engagement.


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

Yeah, if you're a Green Party member/activist you're pretty far down the list of who I'm going to listen to about what should and shouldn't be at the Anarchist Bookfair.


----------



## stethoscope (May 22, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> i largely agree with that. but what if someone's handing out fascist leaflets/'national anarchist' shit and claiming they are an anarchist?
> or conspiraloon/beeleyite shit? where do you draw the line? it is an issue to think about, because i have a lot of problems with 'safe spaces' but there are circumstances in which people will have to be ejected.



Oh yeah, not claiming otherwise although I'm sure some of those examples wouldn't be tolerated and stamped upon very quickly. I'm pondering the argument though, that through identity politics and people with otherwise liberal politics being attracted to 'anarchism', has shifted the notion of what's regarded nowadays as offensive and 'unsafe', and what would be held up for rigorous debate (however much you disagree) is met with a 'no platforming' or 'I refuse to even discuss' kind of mentality. It's not an easy line I realise. 

Best example I can think of in the context of this thread is that I've read all manner of rad fem books and theory over the years, pretty polemic. Some of it has really hurt, some of it has challenged my thinking, some of it I thought was batshit. What I try not to do, unless its clearly lacking any convincing argument and is just vitriol and hate for its own sake, is to just write it off and wrap myself up in a cocoon. Again, this isn't alway easy I realise, and times/moments when clearly reading something that could affect deeply isn't wise to do. It's something I've tried to live by though.


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, if you're a Green Party member/activist you're pretty far down the list of who I'm going to listen to about what should and shouldn't be at the Anarchist Bookfair.


Off the list.


----------



## Shechemite (May 22, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Off the list.



Doesn’t even make the subs bench


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Doesn’t even make the subs bench


not even in the stadium


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

I _*demand*_ someone from a long standing anarchist grouping, preferably a cis-man with a grey beard and tweed suit, sitting at at the entrance to the next Bookfair checking anarchist credentials in front of a dusty computer from the '80s.

"Green Party? Momentum? Think Corbyn's a sweetie? Hmmm, computer says no."


----------



## Shechemite (May 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I _*demand*_ someone from a long standing anarchist grouping, preferably a cis-man with a grey beard and tweed suit, sitting at at the entrance to the next Bookfair checking anarchist credentials in front of a dusty computer from the '80s.
> 
> "Green Party? Momentum? Think Corbyn's a sweetie? Hmmm, computer says no."



I was born in the wrong era


----------



## LDC (May 22, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I was born in the wrong era



Give this thread a bit longer so you have a few more pages to read and you'll be old before your time.


----------



## TopCat (May 22, 2018)

The reality is we are not going to allow a self appointed bunch of agenda holders to dictate who is allowed to peddle what line at the bookfair, respecting their right of veto over the event if they are not satisfied. 
Green Party members can fuck off, as can the pro religionists and the stupid cunt who burned our banner. 
People who rock up just to sow division can fuck off as well. 
We should hold the bookfair in the future and let any cunts picketing the event feel the heat. 
Forward comrades!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2018)

TopCat said:


> The reality is we are not going to allow a self appointed bunch of agenda holders to dictate who is allowed to peddle what line at the bookfair, respecting their right of veto over the event if they are not satisfied.
> Green Party members can fuck off, as can the pro religionists and the stupid cunt who burned our banner.
> People who rock up just to sow division can fuck off as well.
> We should hold the bookfair in the future and let any cunts picketing the event feel the heat.
> Forward comrades!


As malatesta would have said, avanti!


----------



## Nice one (May 23, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> I can't believe I am fucking reading this.  people are repeating a conspiracy about lgbt sexual politics' being an agenda by the state. As if MI5 don't already have influence and they have to use trans politics to do so!! All this fucking subtext about these 'shadowy elites' earning vast sums as well, hmmm wonder who could be being talked about there? Another discriminated against group? Surely not!



done a search of the thread and nobody, absolutely nobody has mentioned or repeated there is a conspiracy of lgbt sexual politics being an agenda by the state. In fact nobody has mention conspiracy at all apart from yourself in countering arguments no-one has actually made. 

The only thing that could possibly allude to this is when someone posted up helen steel's facebook post. Is this what you mean? And if it is can you be clear about it? Do you think what helen steel wrote has an anti-semitic subtext? She didn't mention 'shadowy elites' though, no-one's mentioned shadowy elites. 

What we do have is the state's secret services employing a classic case of pinkwashing. And yes pinkwashing is employed by state agencies precisely because the british state deports lgbt people to their death.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

Nice one said:


> What it does do it frame the question that follows it. (You can't really have the one without the other).
> 
> I'll put it another way. The most sinister part of the UK state, some very dodgy people, are using progressive sexual politics to promote themselves as an inclusive workplace. Is the anarchist movement outraged by that? Helen steel certainly was.
> 
> What does it say about the nature of identity politics that when oppressive state institutions align themselves with progressive political identities those outraged are the ones that get criticised (re helen steel again)?


How is being trans a progressive political identity?


----------



## LDC (May 23, 2018)

Statement on _Freedom's _website

It’s spelt Sisterhood, not Cis-terhood statement


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

Nice one said:


> done a search of the thread and nobody, absolutely nobody has mentioned or repeated there is a conspiracy of lgbt sexual politics being an agenda by the state. In fact nobody has mention conspiracy at all apart from yourself in countering arguments no-one has actually made.
> 
> The only thing that could possibly allude to this is when someone posted up helen steel's facebook post. Is this what you mean? And if it is can you be clear about it? Do you think what helen steel wrote has an anti-semitic subtext? She didn't mention 'shadowy elites' though, no-one's mentioned shadowy elites.
> 
> What we do have is the state's secret services employing a classic case of pinkwashing. And yes pinkwashing is employed by state agencies precisely because the british state deports lgbt people to their death.


LynnDoyleCooper mentioned the shadowy establishment:


LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think this whole _*wink wink nudge nudge*_ trans rights being pushed by the shadowy establishment to disrupt movements is a fucking pathetic joke tbh, and just shows the desperation of some of the politics.



 according to wikipedia

perhaps you owe frogwoman an apology


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2018)

the idea that MI5 and the UK state is pushing 'progressive sexual politics' (in order to do what?) in order to divide movements etc is a conspiracy. its nonsensical. and frankly if the state is using the idea of respect for LGBT people or not to divide movements, then maybe they deserve to be divided tbh.
Did you read smokedout's post where he posted up that statement, where it mentioned 'MI5 and bankers' promoting this? and i read the original thread with helen steel and think some of the comments on that origianl thread about 'bankers' being involved in the LGBT movement and pushing this 'trans agenda' have an antisemitic subtext yes.
even if they didn't have this subtext, it is still a nonsensical, and offensive idea. all of these things that were actually fought for by the LGBT movement weren't just given away, it was decades of people fighting for their rights.
if you weren't promoting a conspiracy theory or this wasn't in fact what you were saying, then i'm sorry. but looking at the thread i'm definitely not the only one that interpreted your post this way.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 23, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> the idea that MI5 and the UK state is pushing 'progressive sexual politics' (in order to do what?) is a conspiracy theory. they don't need to do this. why do they need to? and  think some of the comments on that origianl thread about 'bankers' being involved in the LGBT movement and pushing this 'trans agenda' have an antisemitic subtext yes.
> even if they didn't have this subtext, it is still a nonsensical, and offensive idea.



I thought it just pertained to eg Barclays sponsoring Pride. Which is actually a thing.


----------



## Sea Star (May 23, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> the idea that MI5 and the UK state is pushing 'progressive sexual politics' (in order to do what?) in order to divide movements etc is a conspiracy. its nonsensical. and frankly if the state is using the idea of respect for LGBT people or not to divide movements, then maybe they deserve to be divided tbh.
> Did you read smokedout's post where he posted up that statement, where it mentioned 'MI5 and bankers' promoting this? and i read the original thread with helen steel and think some of the comments on that origianl thread about 'bankers' being involved in the LGBT movement and pushing this 'trans agenda' have an antisemitic subtext yes.
> even if they didn't have this subtext, it is still a nonsensical, and offensive idea. all of these things that were actually fought for by the LGBT movement weren't just given away, it was decades of people fighting for their rights.


Add to that the whole Big Pharma conspiracy - definitely getting into David Icke territory.

And as for the state using support for trans people to cause division in the left, that strategy does rely on useful idiots on the left buying into transphobic ideas, largely supplied by the media such as the Times, the Spectator and the Mail. Nothing fishy about that.


----------



## Sea Star (May 23, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I thought it just pertained to eg Barclays sponsoring Pride. Which is actually a thing.


Barclays sponsored pride - indeed, corporate sponsored Pride, is distinctly trans unfriendly as well as being racist, among many other problems. So how this all got conflated into conspiracy theories about trans people is unclear.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2018)

no 





Nice one said:


> like Mi5? Mi6? GCHQ?
> 2017 is the first year that all three of the Security and Intelligence Agencies feature in Stonewall's Top 100 best employers for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people.
> 
> How do you think that plays out for an anarchist movement that has lost the only thing that provided anarchists with a presentation of itself as a movement?
> ...





Nice one said:


> What it does do it frame the question that follows it. (You can't really have the one without the other).
> 
> I'll put it another way. The most sinister part of the UK state, some very dodgy people, are using progressive sexual politics to promote themselves as an inclusive workplace. Is the anarchist movement outraged by that? Helen steel certainly was.
> 
> What does it say about the nature of identity politics that when oppressive state institutions align themselves with progressive political identities those outraged are the ones that get criticised (re helen steel again)?


so what exactly do you think is happening here? yes, MI5 and the cops do promote themselves as an inclusive workplace, lots of employers do this. 
and there have been and are *loads* of LGBT activists upset over the pinkwashing of pride etc, it's quite a major issue in the LGBT activism and has been since as long as I can remember, companies recuperating the idea of pride, commercial outfits and MI5 etc getting in on the act. i think at the moment there's a pride march which the organisers have asked people not to have any political content on the march because 'its a celebration not a protest'. so it's definitely untrue to say 'those outraged by it are the ones that get criticised'. 
and 'the reproduction of social values that validate your identity' - well what kind of social values are these exactly? what are you saying should happen, as it seems to imply that people should be sceptical of trans people in general because MI5 won some award? 
what steel said is very different, she said that trans rights and GRA changes were being promoted by 'MI5 and bankers'. i dont think thats the same thing at all tbh.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Barclays sponsored pride - indeed, corporate sponsored Pride, is distinctly trans unfriendly as well as being racist, among many other problems. So how this all got conflated into conspiracy theories about trans people is unclear.



I agree with that. All it shows really is that Pride has been co-opted by the establishment.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> no
> 
> so what exactly do you think is happening here? yes, MI5 and the cops do promote themselves as an inclusive workplace, lots of employers do this.
> and there have been and are *loads* of LGBT activists upset over the pinkwashing of pride etc, it's quite a major issue in the LGBT activism and has been since as long as I can remember, companies recuperating the idea of pride, commercial outfits and MI5 etc getting in on the act. i think at the moment there's a pride march which the organisers have asked people not to have any political content on the march because 'its a celebration not a protest'. so it's definitely untrue to say 'those outraged by it are the ones that get criticised'.
> ...


not to mention that an identity, be it sexual orientation or gender, is not in itself progressive. any community or set of people with a defining characteristic be it heterosexuality or transgenderism, is going to contain people with a range of political ideas from revolutionary anarchism to high toryism: but i look forward to Nice one explaining his thinking on the matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I agree with that. All it shows really is that Pride has been co-opted by the establishment.


i remember back round 1999, 2000 there was an alternative pride for people who were pissed off by the commerciality of the main one.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2018)

smokedout said:
			
		

> Trans advocacy *sponsored by MI5 and bankers!
> 
> Why has the relatively new ‘trans' ideology made so many gains so fast? Much faster gains than ever achieved by those fighting sexism and racism. Why is this new ideology splitting so many progressive movements with its demands for absolute adherence to that ideology and total intolerance of any debate or critical thinking?*
> 
> ...


this statement to me is not just saying that trans activists shouldn't accept an award to MI5 or be outraged at them doing so, being outraged at the commercialisation of pride, etc.
It's linking the trans activist movement to a conspiracy, saying that it's 'achieved so many gains so fast across the world', saying it's 'creating division' and demands absolute adherence to an ideology, etc. It is true that some of the SJWs have been a bit silly, and completely counterproductive, but when you have plans to no platform speakers being banned by government, people like jordan peterson specifically get his career kick started by ridiculing trans people and saying that he will refuse to refer to anyone except by biological sex, etc, it's very clear this is far from the truth. and IIRC the GRA consultations have now been shelved anyway (maybe someone can confirm this?)


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention that an identity, be it sexual orientation or gender, is not in itself progressive. any community or set of people with a defining characteristic be it heterosexuality or transgenderism, is going to contain people with a range of political ideas from revolutionary anarchism to high toryism: but i look forward to Nice one explaining his thinking on the matter.


yeah what is a 'progressive political identity'?


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Add to that the whole Big Pharma conspiracy - definitely getting into David Icke territory.
> 
> And as for the state using support for trans people to cause division in the left, that strategy does rely on useful idiots on the left buying into transphobic ideas, largely supplied by the media such as the Times, the Spectator and the Mail. Nothing fishy about that.


It simply isn't true that transgender people are achieving 'faster gains' than other minorities. See here: 

In Rescinding Transgender Prisoner Protections, Trump Administration Again Targets the Most Vulnerable


----------



## Sea Star (May 23, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> It simply isn't true that transgender people are achieving 'faster gains' than other minorities. See here:
> 
> In Rescinding Transgender Prisoner Protections, Trump Administration Again Targets the Most Vulnerable


People can't see the long history going back to the early 20th century - they only see that trans people seemed to come into existence about 5 years ago with all the rights - that had been long fought for - also magically appearing.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> People can't see the long history going back to the early 20th century - they only see that trans people seemed to come into existence about 5 years ago with all the rights - that had been long fought for - also magically appearing.


yeh everyone's ignorant with the truth known only to a few elect. right.


----------



## stethoscope (May 23, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Statement on _Freedom's _website
> 
> It’s spelt Sisterhood, not Cis-terhood statement



I realise it's a statement from various people/groups rather than a presented as a motion/discussion piece, but given some of the names who have signed it, I thought it was pretty weak when I read it - sure it's trans-supportive, but it seems a bit wishy washy and clumsy in some respects and lacking the sort of clarity and definitely class analysis which I'd want to see - the AWL/Booth piece is so much stronger.

In the meantime, it looks like it's also kicked off a war of words between Freedom and Steel...






I don't know where positive any of this is likely to go in terms of solidarity and radical/anarchist movements.


----------



## LDC (May 23, 2018)

Fuck that Twitter exchange is depressing - it's the whole row encapsulated.

That sentence Helen first draws attention to I had to read a few times and was still a bit wtf.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 23, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> I realise it's a statement from various people/groups rather than a presented as a motion/discussion piece, but given some of the names who have signed it, I thought it was pretty weak when I read it - sure it's trans-supportive, but it seems a bit wishy washy and clumsy in some respects and lacking much class analysis which I'd want to see - the AWL/Booth piece is so much stronger.



This is exactly what I thought when I saw it too. Plus the language (hate, sick, despise) is more punk rock than the situation demands and won't help.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This is exactly what I thought when I saw it too. Plus the language (hate, sick, despise) is more punk rock than the situation demands and won't help.


the situation is beyond help.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2018)

the AWL piece goes a long way to refuting some of the specific points raised by the radfems too.


----------



## LDC (May 23, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This is exactly what I thought when I saw it too. Plus the language (hate, sick, despise) is more punk rock than the situation demands and won't help.



Anarchism: a good political idea ruined by punk rock.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the situation is beyond help.



Well that remains to be seen, so let's not be pessimistic.


----------



## LDC (May 23, 2018)

When the fuck will people learn that Twitter is fucking useless for sensible discussion? It's for news, not debate ffs.

Maybe someone will write a response for_ Freedom_ to publish...?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well that remains to be seen, so let's not be pessimistic.


i tell you what, shall we unleash the destructive forces of TAFKNTs and TAs on the tory party conference? be grand to see that ended


----------



## redsquirrel (May 23, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> I realise it's a statement from various people/groups rather than a presented as a motion/discussion piece, but given some of the names who have signed it, I thought it was pretty weak when I read it - sure it's trans-supportive, but it seems a bit wishy washy and clumsy in some respects and lacking the sort of clarity and definitely class analysis which I'd want to see - the AWL/Booth piece is so much stronger.


Yes reading it my impression was that there was a lot of words to say something that didn't amount to a lot. I guess that's often a problem when so many people are putting together a statement. (Also I don't agree with the statement "Identity politics are about intersectionality not essentialism" but that's probably being a bit picky)



stethoscope said:


> In the meantime, it looks like it's also kicked off a war of words between Freedom and Steel...
> I don't know where positive any of this is likely to go in terms of solidarity and radical/anarchist movements.


FFS when will people realise that twitter is a truly shit place to hold any political discussion. Might be good for some things - quite response/organising but absolutely rubbish for having a sensible conversation, particularly one that all the baggage this one does.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> When the fuck will people learn that Twitter is fucking useless for sensible discussion? It's for news, not debate ffs.


c4u


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 23, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> When the fuck will people learn that Twitter is fucking useless for sensible discussion? It's for news, not debate ffs.



But what if the NEWS is WRONG, LDC? Eh? Eh?


----------



## stethoscope (May 23, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Anarchism: a good political idea ruined by punk rock.


----------



## krink (May 23, 2018)

punk rock was ruined by anarchists. and punks.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

krink said:


> punk rock was ruined by anarchists. and punks.


----------



## krink (May 23, 2018)

I've started reading that statement in Freedom. I take it Freedom themselves do not approve/support the statement as they don't seem to be on the supporters list and there's nothing in the introduction. It's a terribly written statement - I'm only part way in and even I have spotted a few howlers - so not surprised if Freedom aren't signing up to it.


----------



## andysays (May 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> ...TAFKNTs



It's probably obvious to everyone except me, but what's this stand for?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

andysays said:


> It's probably obvious to everyone except me, but what's this stand for?


The Activists Formerly Known As TERFs


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

post 1826 





Pickman's model said:


> people should use the official designator - TAFKNT (pronounced taffkent): the activists formerly known as terfs.


andysays


----------



## Wilf (May 23, 2018)

krink said:


> I've started reading that statement in Freedom. I take it Freedom themselves do not approve/support the statement as they don't seem to be on the supporters list and there's nothing in the introduction. It's a terribly written statement - I'm only part way in and even I have spotted a few howlers - so not surprised if Freedom aren't signing up to it.





> We are asking our cis male comrades to join us in these commitments. This isn’t a ‘women’s issue’. This struggle isn’t less important than the class struggle or anti-fascism, it is a part of those struggles as much as they are a part of it. *Identity politics are about intersectionality not essentialism*, and this benefits you as much as us and trans people


I think the first bit of the above is interesting, listing trans issues, antifash and class struggle as _*different*_ things.  Might just be a wording thing, but listing them like that suggests you don't do trans politics (or other themes/areas) as *part of* class politics. But the real thing for me is that the people who wrote and signed up to this commit themselves to *intersectionality*.

Edit: pretty much assuming - explicitly stating even - that anarchists should embrace idpols and intersectionality.


----------



## belboid (May 23, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I think the first bit of the above is interesting, listing trans issues, antifash and class struggle as _*different*_ things.  Might just be a wording thing, but listing them like that suggests you don't do trans politics (or other themes/areas) as *part of* class politics. But the real thing for me is that the people who wrote and signed up to this commit themselves to *intersectionality*.
> 
> Edit: pretty much assuming - explicitly stating even - that anarchists should embrace idpols and intersectionality.


the point of that statement is surely that one cannot separate class politics, anti-fascism and trans rights struggles into separate struggles, they are all part of the same thing. that is, presumably, what they mean by supporting intersectionality.


----------



## newbie (May 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> TAFKNTs





Pickman's model said:


> The Activists Formerly Known As TERFs


TAFKATs surely?


----------



## andysays (May 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> The Activists Formerly Known As TERFs


Good luck getting your neologism into the next update of the OED


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

newbie said:


> TAFKATs surely?


yeh you'd have thought so but no


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

andysays said:


> Good luck getting your neologism into the next update of the OED


such a petty ambition


----------



## newbie (May 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh you'd have thought so but no


for any reason other than making it wholly unpronounceable?


----------



## stethoscope (May 23, 2018)

I've been pronouncing it _taf-kunts_, presume that's right?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2018)

newbie said:


> for any reason other than making it wholly unpronounceable?


in his house at r'lyeh dead cthulhu waits dreaming is pronounceable

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn: rather less so

tafknt by comparison is a walk in the park


----------



## Wilf (May 23, 2018)

belboid said:


> the point of that statement is surely that one cannot separate class politics, anti-fascism and trans rights struggles as separate struggles, they are all part of the same thing. that is, presumably, what they mean by supporting intersectionality.


Well, literally, it does say that but the bit I quoted is the only bit in the whole thing that relates to any kind of class issues. And this bit: 'it is a part of those struggles as much as they are a part of it' reads like a mere nod towards connecting struggles when the wider approach of ID politics fails to do exactly that.


----------



## belboid (May 23, 2018)

It reads to me more like  an example of social reproduction theory. It is a statement on a ‘identity politics’ issue, hence it is always going to talk about identity politics issues. But it also says that these are class issues, they cannot be separated. Hence it isn’t ‘the only bit in the whole thing that relates to any kind of class issues’ – because the whole thing _is_ a class issue.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2018)




----------



## Nice one (May 24, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> the idea that MI5 and the UK state is pushing 'progressive sexual politics' (in order to do what?) in order to divide movements etc is a conspiracy. its nonsensical. and frankly if the state is using the idea of respect for LGBT people or not to divide movements, then maybe they deserve to be divided tbh.
> Did you read smokedout's post where he posted up that statement, where it mentioned 'MI5 and bankers' promoting this? and i read the original thread with helen steel and think some of the comments on that origianl thread about 'bankers' being involved in the LGBT movement and pushing this 'trans agenda' have an antisemitic subtext yes.
> even if they didn't have this subtext, it is still a nonsensical, and offensive idea. all of these things that were actually fought for by the LGBT movement weren't just given away, it was decades of people fighting for their rights.
> if you weren't promoting a conspiracy theory or this wasn't in fact what you were saying, then i'm sorry. but looking at the thread i'm definitely not the only one that interpreted your post this way.




Just to be clear: somebody wrote something on here about the women on the radical feminist side associating with dodgy people (you get no counter from me on that score, the left is a open sewer occassionally littered with rafts of lunacy, idiocy that utterly demented self-serving arseholes cling to). But equally the trans advocacy side associate with some dodgy people- the example given is the lgbt awards - which was what helen steel was explicitly talking about in her facebook post.

The sponsors for these awards include - NatWest, Barclays, HSBC, Mi5, Virigin Atlantic, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, (and bizarrely GMB union).
The judging panel include:
Mark Anderson - Executive Vice President - Customer Virgin Atlantic
Brian Ashmead-Siers - Partner at PwC
Sue Baines - Director – Barclays Bank
Philip Bourchier O’Ferrall - Head of Velocity International, Executive Vice President
Viacom International Media Networks
Fiona Daniel - Head of Diversity and Inclusion, HSBC
Samantha Nelson - Vice President, Risk Engineer, Global Energy Practice, Marsh (MMC)
Daisy Reeves - Partner Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (law firm)
Marjorie Strachan - Head of Inclusion Royal Bank of Scotland

When i saw that i thought - this isn't a celebration of lgbt life, it's a celebration of capitalism. And this is what i think Helen Steel was getting at in her post. I haven't read the facebook thread that followed but if what you're saying is true people then i think she seriously needs to amend her language so there can be no confusion - she's not the sort of person who suffers demented self-serving arseholes whatever their politics.

She makes exactly the same point you make *all of these things that were actually fought for by the LGBT movement weren't just given away, it was decades of people fighting for their rights.

*


----------



## Nice one (May 24, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> yeah what is a 'progressive political identity'?



off the top of my head i would  say things like: socialist, feminist, anti-fascist, trade union activist, anti-racist campaigner


----------



## crossthebreeze (May 24, 2018)

Nice one said:


> Just to be clear: somebody wrote something on here about the women on the radical feminist side associating with dodgy people (you get no counter from me on that score, the left is a open sewer occassionally littered with rafts of lunacy, idiocy that utterly demented self-serving arseholes cling to). But equally trans advocacy side associate with some dodgy people- the example given is the lgbt awards - which was what helen steel was explicitly talking about in her facebook post.
> 
> The sponsors for these awards include - NatWest, Barclays, HSBC, Mi5, Virigin Atlantic, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, (and bizarrely GMB union).
> The juding panel include:
> ...


Yes and winnners inclided Playboy, Richard Branson, MI5, and a few people who work for banks and other corporates, and a few LGBTQ activists and celebs (I am actually disappointed in Laverne Cox accepting an award (sponsored by Natwest) because I thought she had decent politics which included a class analysis but then again she wasn't actually there to accept the award, so maybe its all done through agents and that and she knows nothing about it).  Its also utterly bizarre but almost certainly deliberate that MI5 sponsor the "outstanding contribution to LGBT+ life" awards but its an indication of the recipient not having decent politics that would cause them to refuse such an award rather than being an MI5 asset. The whole awards are disgusting - and so far removed from the lives of most LGBTQ people.  Like Helen Steel said, its mostly benefiting rich white men. 

But its classic recuperation.  However lots of LGBTQ people - including trans people (sometimes leading on it) - have protested this process of recuperation in the past, which she seems to have missed from her analysis.  Its the jump Helen makes from criticising the awards or even analysing what aspects of LGBTQ activism are most easily recuperated by capital and to what purpose to asking  "Why has the relatively new ‘trans' ideology made so many gains so fast? Much faster gains than ever achieved by those fighting sexism and racism. Why is this new ideology splitting so many progressive movements with its demands for absolute adherence to that ideology and total intolerance of any debate or critical thinking?" - she seems to be saying that capital (though she concentrates on bankers which y'know is a small step down a very wrong road) and MI5 are driving trans ideology and its "successes" - its conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## stethoscope (May 24, 2018)

I'd argue that she's not really even right with that though - trans rights (and as a political 'movement') has always been ten years behind Lesbian & Gay rights, it's just that trans visibility has broke mainstream in the last five and is, at present, seeing a quicker pace of public awareness and discourse and trans people have found a stronger voice. But, also comes the backlash as we're partly seeing now too. And why 'play' feminism, anti-racism, etc. off against trans people and rights? I did grant Steel with a bit more of an analysis and awareness of this, given her political history, and regardless of her personal opinions on some of this, but some of what's she's been saying and other people she's been retweeting is very disappointing. 

Ten years ago, capital and state institutions were already exploiting LGB people in a big way, Pride became commercial, every bank was selling it's 'gay friendly' credentials - at least, and I think this is important too, to middle class LGB people. Trans stuff was still struggling to get even basic name changes with banks sorted properly without any draconian crap. I don't understand, therefore, why, trans rights are now being singled out especially. Not only that, but in the longer time period which we've had black liberation, a number of waves of feminism, lesbian & gay liberation and now trans rights coming to the fore, this country (and the World) has massively shifted to a neoliberal one. And so mainstream liberation/rights end up sitting inside capital and liberal structures (as do a lot of what we see with BAME rights too - look at the current stuff about Oxbridge - just about improving diversity of intake not why such institutions are a problem). But, trans rights for years had to fight against state structures. Again, it's about class primarily.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Yes and winnners inclided Playboy, Richard Branson, MI5, and a few people who work for banks and other corporates, and a few LGBTQ activists and celebs (I am actually disappointed in Laverne Cox accepting an award (sponsored by Natwest) because I thought she had decent politics which included a class analysis but then again she wasn't actually there to accept the award, so maybe its all done through agents and that and she knows nothing about it).  Its also utterly bizarre but almost certainly deliberate that MI5 sponsor the "outstanding contribution to LGBT+ life" awards but its an indication of the recipient not having decent politics that would cause them to refuse such an award rather than being an MI5 asset. The whole awards are disgusting - and so far removed from the lives of most LGBTQ people.  Like Helen Steel said, its mostly benefiting rich white men.
> 
> But its classic recuperation.  However lots of LGBTQ people - including trans people (sometimes leading on it) - have protested this process of recuperation in the past, which she seems to have missed from her analysis.  Its the jump Helen makes from criticising the awards or even analysing what aspects of LGBTQ activism are most easily recuperated by capital and to what purpose to asking  "Why has the relatively new ‘trans' ideology made so many gains so fast? Much faster gains than ever achieved by those fighting sexism and racism. Why is this new ideology splitting so many progressive movements with its demands for absolute adherence to that ideology and total intolerance of any debate or critical thinking?" - she seems to be saying that capital (though she concentrates on bankers which y'know is a small step down a very wrong road) and MI5 are driving trans ideology and its "successes" - its conspiracy nonsense.





stethoscope said:


> I'd argue that she's not really even right with that though - trans rights (and as a political 'movement') has always been ten years behind Lesbian & Gay rights, it's just that trans visibility has broke mainstream in the last five and is, at present, seeing a quicker pace of public awareness and discourse and trans people have found a stronger voice. But, also comes the backlash as we're partly seeing now too. And why 'play' feminism, anti-racism, etc. off against trans people and rights? I did grant Steel with a bit more of an analysis and awareness of this, given her political history, and regardless of her personal opinions on some of this, but some of what's she's been saying and other people she's been retweeting is very disappointing.
> 
> Ten years ago, capital and state institutions were already exploiting LGB people in a big way, Pride became commercial, every bank was selling it's 'gay friendly' credentials - at least, and I think this is important too, to middle class LGB people. Trans stuff was still struggling to get even basic name changes with banks sorted properly without any draconian crap. I don't understand, therefore, why, trans rights are now being singled out especially. Not only that, but in the longer time period which we've had black liberation, a number of waves of feminism, lesbian & gay liberation and now trans rights coming to the fore, this country (and the World) has massively shifted to a neoliberal one. And so mainstream liberation/rights end up sitting inside capital and liberal structures (as do a lot of what we see with BAME rights too - look at the current stuff about Oxbridge - just about improving diversity of intake not why such institutions are a problem). But, trans rights for years had to fight against state structures. Again, it's about class primarily.


if a minority group gains rights quickly, people shouldn't ask 'who is pushing their rights to fuck with mine?', they should be congratulating them on the rapid advance. _who gains_ if conspiracy is submitted as an explanation of things?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2018)

Nice one said:


> off the top of my head i would  say things like: socialist, feminist, anti-fascist, trade union activist, anti-racist campaigner


yeh. and you suggest above that you see transgenderism as progressive sexual politics. for what reasons?


----------



## Athos (May 24, 2018)

belboid said:


> the point of that statement is surely that one cannot separate class politics, anti-fascism and trans rights struggles into separate struggles, they are all part of the same thing. that is, presumably, what they mean by supporting intersectionality.



I think it's more accurate to say tht they *can be* (and in my opinion, should be) part of the same thing.  But, equally, they needn't be; there's a lot of liberal anti-fascism that's nothing to do with class politics.  (Which isn't to say that, even then, liberals and those on the left can't find common ground to work together, and some solidarity.)


----------



## frogwoman (May 24, 2018)

. Fuck it cba.


----------



## Athos (May 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. and you suggest above that you see transgenderism as progressive sexual politics. for what reasons?



Whilst I can't see how an anti-trans position could ever be progressive, it doesn't follow that a pro-trans position is necessarily progressive. It depends on how it's done.

The most progressive way would be within a theoretical framework of class politics (n.b. I'm not saying trans liberation should be postponed until the class war is won, or anything like that), and through practice that builds class solidarity.

An obvious example would be for women, trans people and the working class (accepting the enormous overlap) to recognise that we are all harmed by 'gender' (to differing extents), and to recognise the crucial role that system plays for capital.

And that's something that can happen notwithstanding some quite profound differences of opinion.  For instance, it wouldn't be necessary to consider a trans woman a woman to recognise a mutual interest in ending gender roles. But, it would require people to listen to one another and respect differences of opinion, rather than refusing to engage positively (or, worse, seeking to silence) anyone who refuses to accept one's position 100% (e.g. by repeatedly attempting to provoke trans people through pronouns, or ' no platforming' those whose use of pronouns reflects a view you don't share).

Eta: sorry, meant to post that one the other thread!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2018)

Athos said:


> Whilst I can't see how an anti-trans position could ever be progressive, it doesn't follow that a pro-trans position is necessarily progressive. It depends on how it's done.
> 
> The most progressive way would be within a theoretical framework of class politics (n.b. I'm not saying trans liberation should be postponed until the class war is won, or anything like that), and through practice that builds class solidarity.
> 
> ...


thank you for your answer, which i welcome while i await nice one's thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Athos (May 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> thank you for your answer, which i welcome while i await nice one's thoughts on the subject.



Always a pleasure.


----------



## Wilf (May 24, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Yes and winnners inclided Playboy, Richard Branson, MI5, and a few people who work for banks and other corporates, and a few LGBTQ activists and celebs (I am actually disappointed in Laverne Cox accepting an award (sponsored by Natwest) because I thought she had decent politics which included a class analysis but then again she wasn't actually there to accept the award, so maybe its all done through agents and that and she knows nothing about it).  Its also utterly bizarre but almost certainly deliberate that MI5 sponsor the "outstanding contribution to LGBT+ life" awards but its an indication of the recipient not having decent politics that would cause them to refuse such an award rather than being an MI5 asset. The whole awards are disgusting - and so far removed from the lives of most LGBTQ people.  Like Helen Steel said, its mostly benefiting rich white men.
> 
> But its classic recuperation.  However lots of LGBTQ people - including trans people (sometimes leading on it) - have protested this process of recuperation in the past, which she seems to have missed from her analysis.  Its the jump Helen makes from criticising the awards or even analysing what aspects of LGBTQ activism are most easily recuperated by capital and to what purpose to asking  "Why has the relatively new ‘trans' ideology made so many gains so fast? Much faster gains than ever achieved by those fighting sexism and racism. Why is this new ideology splitting so many progressive movements with its demands for absolute adherence to that ideology and total intolerance of any debate or critical thinking?" - she seems to be saying that capital (though she concentrates on bankers which y'know is a small step down a very wrong road) and MI5 are driving trans ideology and its "successes" - its conspiracy nonsense.


This is me speaking my braynes or, at best, blurting a random thought out: there's obviously a big issue around recuperation and the way bosses have claimed multiculturalism, diversity and equality as their own - and in doing so either recruited former progressives onto their side or simply blunted/confused the issue for workers/campaigners. That certainly seems to be happening around trans 'inclusion' in the workplace, at least at the level of the public sector and other big employers.

In terms of this recuperation, I wonder if employers superficially becoming trans friendly and sponsoring awards is an easy win for them? With regard to other social divisions such as gender and race, it's relatively easy to counter their claims, with stats on unequal promotion and pay and the like. But with the relatively smaller number of trans men and women working for an employer it's a bit more difficult to use definitive figures to prove they are not equal/inclusive. It becomes a case of individual stories, something less visible at the collective level (which is a point at which the interface between identity politics and recuperating bosses has its greatest potential).

Crucially, none of that actually means it necessarily becomes any easier for trans men and women in the workplace, just as state/employer led equality policies more generally are not really a weapon in the hands of women, the disabled, black workers etc.  Anyway, suppose I'm just making the obvious point that if you want equality or to wrestle a bit of power back in the workplace, don't look to your boss (or his equality committee) to do it for you*.

*Though of course there's always a pragmatic issue about using these structures to some extent and in certain circumstances.

Edit: same issues (pretty much) covered better by stethoscope


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 24, 2018)

This is good:

LGBMI5? More on pinkwashing and guilt by association


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2018)

LDMG shut down.


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> LDMG shut down.



 and quite possibly


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 6, 2018)

Fuck sake. Any idea why, or have they just had enough?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> LDMG shut down.


Yeh echo chilango's  and


----------



## TopCat (Jun 7, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fuck sake. Any idea why, or have they just had enough?


They supported the guilty party at Hyde Park and people protested this was not on. 
Their professed reasoning for the support was child like.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 7, 2018)

TopCat said:


> They supported the guilty party at Hyde Park and people protested this was not on.
> Their professed reasoning for the support was child like.



Just as Robinson becomes a household name we’re witnessing the destruction of the already minuscule autonomous left. Maybe it’s a good thing. A change needs to happen but it doesn’t strike me as positive presently.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 7, 2018)

I gather a new legal group will form from the ashes of this one... Less some members


----------



## bimble (Jun 7, 2018)

Why did they get involved in that Hyde park case?
eta oh: http://ldmg.org.uk/files/HydeParkCornerCaseStatementApril2018.pdf


----------



## winjer (Jun 19, 2018)

TopCat said:


> They supported the guilty party at Hyde Park and people protested this was not on.


LDMG supported plenty of "guilty" parties throughout its existence, that's how anarchist legal support works


----------



## winjer (Jun 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fuck sake. Any idea why, or have they just had enough?


Only of each other.


----------



## TopCat (Jun 20, 2018)

winjer said:


> LDMG supported plenty of "guilty" parties throughout its existence, that's how anarchist legal support works


This though was akin to providing support to one party in a domestic punch up.


----------



## Edie (Jun 20, 2018)

Yep, the abusive man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)




----------



## winjer (Jun 20, 2018)

TopCat said:


> This though was akin to providing support to one party in a domestic punch up.


Utter bollocks.


----------



## TopCat (Jun 20, 2018)

winjer said:


> Utter bollocks.


Its not utter bollocks at all. They decided to support one side in a beef and the side they picked was in my opinion the wrong one.


----------



## winjer (Jun 20, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Its not utter bollocks at all. They decided to support one side in a beef and the side they picked was in my opinion the wrong one.


They supported the person arrested at a demonstration over a scuffle at a demonstration. "a _beef_"? have a word with yourself.


----------



## TopCat (Jun 20, 2018)

winjer said:


> They supported the person arrested at a demonstration over a scuffle at a demonstration. "a _beef_"? have a word with yourself.


Have a word? You are being deliberately obtuse. To support one side in the Hyde Park debacle was a political choice and the wrong choice. Now they pay the price as will those people who wont get support because of the demise. 
Ps if you use the face palm smiley at me again I will be most pissed with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Ps if you use the face palm smiley at me again I will be most pissed with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Its not utter bollocks at all. They decided to support one side in a beef and the side they picked was in my opinion the wrong one.


don't think there was a right side. hard pushed to see how ldmg could have supported the other side anyway, as none of them ended up in court.


----------



## Athos (Jun 20, 2018)

winjer said:


> They supported the person arrested at a demonstration over a scuffle at a demonstration. "a _beef_"? have a word with yourself.



"A scuffle"? Have a word with yourself.  It was sex-based violence perpetrated by a biological male who was raised and socialised as a boy/man, against a woman, where even the most cursory glance at the publicly-available footage revealed that to be the case.

I think it was a mistake to think my enemy's enemy is my friend, on the basis that the prosecution was an exercise in bourgeois law on behalf of the state.  Presumably, they wouldn't  defend e.g. fascists arrested at demonstrations, even if they purported to 'identify as' anarchists?

It was a poor decision, as a matter of principle and practical consequences.  At most, they should have taken a neutral stance, in my opinion.


----------



## bimble (Jun 20, 2018)




----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 20, 2018)

Transwomen hitting older feminists because "they are as bad as fascists" is immensely stupid for all sorts of reasons.

Stupid anarchists still need support and solidarity though. 

As do feminists who get hit at demonstrations, but in this instance they need a different form of solidarity because nobody called the cops on them.


----------



## Athos (Jun 20, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Stupid anarchists still need support and solidarity though.



Who decides whether or not they're anarchists?  Support and solidarity no matter what they've done?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 20, 2018)

Athos said:


> Who decides whether or not they're anarchists?  Support and solidarity no matter what they've done?



Punching feminists doesn’t seem like a professed anarchist position. This is why they’re having to be deemed fascists, to justify it.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jun 20, 2018)

Isn't TFW in Class War?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Isn't TFW in Class War?


tfw? e2a:ric


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 20, 2018)

Tara flic wood


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Tara flic wood


ta


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 20, 2018)

Athos said:


> Who decides whether or not they're anarchists?  Support and solidarity no matter what they've done?



Well. Probably not me, is the short answer.

I would think being a member of an established anarchist group would go in the + column though.

If someone was in a group I was involved with and they did something like that I would hope they'd be given a talking to _and also _efforts would be made to stop them going to prison or whatever.

There are obviously lots of examples of things that I personally think are beyond the pale for that sort of solidarity: genocide, pouring LSD into the water supply, trying to blow up the moon with a thermonuclear device, etc.


----------



## Athos (Jun 20, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well. Probably not me, is the short answer.
> 
> I would think being a member of an established anarchist group would go in the + column though.
> 
> ...



I understand your position, and can see how it might be within the range of responses consistent with anarchism.  Personally, whilst I wouldn't want to see a former comrade imprisoned, I think this individual forfeited the right to active solidarity by their actions (which are at odds with what I understand to be some pretty fundamental anarchist principles).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)

Athos said:


> I understand your position, and can see how it might be within the range of responses consistent with anarchism.  Personally, whilst I wouldn't want to see a former comrade imprisoned, I think this individual forfeited the right to active solidarity by their actions (which are at odds with what I understand to be some pretty fundamental anarchist principles).


always good to see people who aren't anarchists harping on about anarchist principles.


----------



## Athos (Jun 20, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> always good to see people who aren't anarchists harping on about anarchist principles.



Have I been thrown out?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)

Athos said:


> Have I been thrown out?


on yer way

you haven't been thrown out, of course. i hope to enjoy more of your posts about anarchism.


----------



## Athos (Jun 20, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> on yer way
> 
> you haven't been thrown out, of course. i hope to enjoy more of your posts about anarchism.



And I yours.   Though experience suggests likely disappointment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2018)

Athos said:


> And I yours.   Though experience suggests likely disappointment.


Yeh compared to your posts on other areas your efforts here aren't so strong


----------



## Athos (Jun 20, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh compared to your posts on other areas your efforts here aren't so strong



Damned with faint praise.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 20, 2018)

Athos said:


> I understand your position, and can see how it might be within the range of responses consistent with anarchism.  Personally, whilst I wouldn't want to see a former comrade imprisoned, I think this individual forfeited the right to active solidarity by their actions (which are at odds with what I understand to be some pretty fundamental anarchist principles).



Similarly I understand that. I'd prefer it if the movement were able to resolve these issues without involving the cops and courts. I appreciate that is utopian and unlikely, especially when non-anarchists are involved.


----------



## LDC (Jun 22, 2018)

I take it by the lack of advertising for an 'alternative' bookfair event this autumn that those who were shouting about putting something better on aren't actually doing it?


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 22, 2018)

Radical bookfair in Nottingham in November if that counts


----------



## LDC (Jun 22, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Radical bookfair in Nottingham in November if that counts



No, but thanks!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 22, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I take it by the lack of advertising for an 'alternative' bookfair event this autumn that those who were shouting about putting something better on aren't actually doing it?



Of course they’re not. Adding your name to a list of signatories is much easier than putting in actual graft.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course they’re not. Adding your name to a list of signatories is much easier than putting in actual graft.


Any bf this year would I believe be such a clusterfuck of terf trans twattery that it would make last year's little contretemps appear trivial by comparison. But it will bugger, in its sense as a technical financial term, many organisations which relied on the bf for much of their annual income.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jun 22, 2018)

TopCat said:


> This though was akin to providing support to one party in a domestic punch up.


No its not - incidents of domestic violence are almost always part of a systemic pattern of behaviour on the part of the abuser aimed at controlling a specific person or persons that they have a close relationship with (partner, family member, etc).  Even if it was a one-off incident, the effect on the victim and motivation of the abuser is different to other kinds of violence because of the close relationship.  TFW etc's behaviour was disgusting, stupid and wrong but giving legal support to someone who's done that is not at all the same as taking the side of a domestic abuser.


----------



## winjer (Jun 22, 2018)

TopCat said:


> To support one side in the Hyde Park debacle was a political choice and the wrong choice.


To support the only person prosecuted was no choice at all, and one which everybody active in LDMG at the time supported then and still does.

Anyone who thinks the end of LDMG was down to that choice is quite mistaken, and should re-read LDMG's statement after case.


> Now they pay the price as will those people who wont get support because of the demise.


It would be a mistake to think anyone active in LDMG will simply stop doing court support work.


----------



## winjer (Jun 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> "A scuffle"? Have a word with yourself.


A scuffle over a camera. This isn't even the defence account, it's the complainant's!



> Presumably, they wouldn't  defend e.g. fascists arrested at demonstrations, even if they purported to 'identify as' anarchists?


LDMG didn't defend anybody on the basis of their affiliations, with most defendants this would be impossible to ascertain.


----------



## Athos (Jun 22, 2018)

winjer said:


> A scuffle over a camera. This isn't even the defence account, it's the complainant's!
> 
> 
> LDMG didn't defend anybody on the basis of their affiliations, with most defendants this would be impossible to ascertain.



You seemed to suggest they'd defend anyone arrested at a demo.  But that can't be true, surely?


----------



## winjer (Jun 22, 2018)

How so? What other selection process is available?


----------



## Athos (Jun 23, 2018)

winjer said:


> How so? What other selection process is available?



So they'd defend a neo-nazi, say, who was arrested for beating up a black person at fascist demo? Really?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2018)

Athos said:


> So they'd defend a neo-nazi, say, who was arrested for beating up a black person at fascist demo? Really?


I'm not sure you've grasped what anarchist legal support to other anarchists and similar consists of


----------



## Athos (Jun 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not sure you've grasped what anarchist legal support to other anarchists and similar consists of



Having provided such legal support, I think I have a fair idea.  But winjer said that, in this case, it wasn't based upon any affiliation i.e. not because the defendant claims to be an anarchist (which position would at least have been consistent, and is, I think, the official LDMG stance).  So, I'm trying to establish the basis upon which winjer thinks they decided to provide support.  winjer seems to be suggesting the only quantifying condition waa prosecution following arrest at a demonstration. But I find that unbelievable (and gave a hypothetical example to make that point).


----------



## Red Sky (Jun 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not sure you've grasped what anarchist legal support to other anarchists and similar consists of



It's not what you think , it's who you know?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2018)

Red Sky said:


> It's not what you think , it's who you know?


It's not what Athos' contrarian post suggested


----------



## winjer (Jun 23, 2018)

Athos said:


> So they'd defend a neo-nazi, say, who was arrested for beating up a black person at fascist demo? Really?


No. Have you considered that perhaps you already know the answer as to why, you're just not willing to follow it through to its logical conclusions with regard to transphobes?


----------



## winjer (Jun 23, 2018)

Athos said:


> which position would at least have been consistent, and is, I think, the official LDMG stance


It is not.


Athos said:


> So, I'm trying to establish the basis upon which winjer thinks they decided to provide support.


I do know the basis on which LDMG decided to provide support.


----------



## andysays (Jun 23, 2018)

I would suggest that the best place to find the basis on which LDMG decide(d) to provide support would be the statement from LDMG themselves. 

And luckily for all concerned it was linked to recently on this very thread...


----------



## winjer (Jun 23, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I take it by the lack of advertising for an 'alternative' bookfair event this autumn that those who were shouting about putting something better on aren't actually doing it?


I guess it rather depends on on your view of "something better", but one example could be:

"We are a group of anarchist feminists who have come together to organise an anarchist feminist bookfair in Edinburgh in the summer of 2018."
Edinburgh Anarchist Feminist Bookfair/Edinburgh Anarchist Feminist Bookfair 2018


----------



## Athos (Jun 23, 2018)

winjer said:


> No. Have you considered that perhaps you already know the answer as to why, you're just not willing to follow it through to its logical conclusions with regard to transphobes?



Of course. But you're moving the goal posts. Now, support is predicated on people's politics, which is different to what you seemed to be saying earlier. And it makes the question quite different: whether or not someone whose politics justifies sex-based violent is someone anarchists should support.


----------



## Athos (Jun 23, 2018)

winjer said:


> It is not.



I think you're wrong about that; their stated principles include:

'To give unconditional support to anyone arrested or injured.'


----------



## winjer (Jun 23, 2018)

Athos said:


> 'To give unconditional support to anyone arrested or injured.'


Indeed. And yet not "a neo-nazi, say, who was arrested for beating up a black person at fascist demo"

And as I said earlier: "LDMG didn't defend anybody on the basis of their affiliations, with most defendants this would be impossible to ascertain."


----------



## winjer (Jun 23, 2018)

Athos said:


> And it makes the question quite different: whether or not someone whose politics justifies sex-based violent is someone anarchists should support.


"sex-based violence"


----------



## Athos (Jun 23, 2018)

winjer said:


> "sex-based violence"


That's not really apposite to this discussion.


----------



## Athos (Jun 23, 2018)

winjer said:


> Indeed. And yet not "a neo-nazi, say, who was arrested for beating up a black person at fascist demo"
> 
> And as I said earlier: "LDMG didn't defend anybody on the basis of their affiliations, with most defendants this would be impossible to ascertain."



You are inconsistent.


----------



## LDC (Jun 23, 2018)

winjer said:


> I guess it rather depends on on your view of "something better", but one example could be:
> 
> "We are a group of anarchist feminists who have come together to organise an anarchist feminist bookfair in Edinburgh in the summer of 2018."
> Edinburgh Anarchist Feminist Bookfair/Edinburgh Anarchist Feminist Bookfair 2018



In London I should have said.


----------



## winjer (Jun 24, 2018)

andysays said:


> I would suggest that the best place to find the basis on which LDMG decide(d) to provide support would be the statement from LDMG themselves.


Indeed.

However, as at the dissolution I had been involved for fourteen of its twenty-four years, I think it's fair to claim some knowledge of the context of both recent statements, and discussions which led to them.


----------



## winjer (Jun 24, 2018)

Athos said:


> That's not really apposite to this discussion.


It is entirely apposite.


Athos said:


> You are inconsistent.


Really not.

Most defendants who benefited from LDMG's support were not affiliated to any organisation/philosophy/ideology, and seldom were they arrested or injured on that basis alone where they did have those affiliations. It was conflict with law enforcement which either brought them to our attention or had them contact us.

Fascists have their own legal support structures (e.g. Shieldwall). Transphobes can apply to Soros if they wish to start their own.


----------



## Athos (Jun 24, 2018)

winjer said:


> It is entirely apposite.
> 
> Really not.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but I don't buy the idea that the support for this person did not take their politics into account.  I think it was a bad decision.


----------



## winjer (Jun 28, 2018)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry but I don't buy the idea that the support for this person did not take their politics into account.


It matters not a bit that you don't buy it, it remains entirely true. We supported Tara in other cases in earlier years when we had no knowledge of her politics.

We're supporting people on trial this week for organising Scumoween in 2015, despite not even asking them if they actually like techno, for all we know about them so far they may prove to be neither _hardcore_ nor even know _the score_.

We also, perhaps more directly contradicting your proposition, ironically supported one of the _gender-critical_ 'credible identifying witnesses'* (who leafleted the bookfair, and not entirely coincidentally assisted the police with their inquiries leading to Tara's arrest at a Jack the Ripper Museum protest organised by Class War Women's caucus) with their case in 2017 after they were arrested at a Jack the Ripper Museum protest organised by Class War Women's caucus in 2016.

I highly doubt LDMG's successors/descendants would support that person in the future, but that wouldn't be because of their politics, it would be because of their actions.

* Because 'grass' is probably a _slur _these days.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 28, 2018)

winjer said:


> * Because 'grass' is probably a _slur _these days.



You don’t think women who are violently attacked should contact the police? 
There’s times and places where ‘grass’ should carry weight, but not every situation, surely?


----------



## winjer (Jun 28, 2018)

I don't accept either of the premises of your first question are applicable to the relevant incident, which to restate what should really by now be trite words, was a scuffle over a camera.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You don’t think women who are violently attacked should contact the police?
> There’s times and places where ‘grass’ should carry weight, but not every situation, surely?


I have lost count of the number of times I have seen women who have been "violently attacked" by the police. Would you consider it right and proper to advise those women to contact the police?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 28, 2018)

winjer said:


> I don't accept either of the premises of your first question are applicable to the relevant incident, which to restate what should really by now be trite words, was a scuffle over a camera.



So if you propose a line should be drawn, where do you draw it? 

(I’m playing devil’s advocate here so you don’t have to play if you don’t want to; I have enormous respect for your work)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 28, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I have lost count of the number of times I have seen women who have been "violently attacked" by the police. Would you consider it right and proper to advise those women to contact the police?



Is that what we’re discussing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is that what we’re discussing?


Right. So some women you might not suggest contact the police.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 28, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Right. So some women you might not suggest contact the police.



The bourgeois courts are a load of shit but I’m not convinced the left’s efforts are any better.
You’d be the first to point out eg Comrade Delta.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The bourgeois courts are a load of shit but I’m not convinced the left’s efforts are any better.
> You’d be the first to point out eg Comrade Delta.


So you're flexible on the take matters to cops thing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 28, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> So you're flexible on the take matters to cops thing.



It’s not for me to decide, is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s not for me to decide, is it?


at last


----------



## winjer (Jun 28, 2018)

I propose you draw a line under playing devil's advocate.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 28, 2018)




----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 28, 2018)

If it’s difficult to discuss then I’m fine with that.


----------



## winjer (Jul 8, 2018)

frogwoman said:


> the GRA consultations have now been shelved anyway (maybe someone can confirm this?)


It finally started this week, will end just in time for No Book Fair 2018.

Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2018)

Something is brewing........
#nottheanarchistbookfair


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Something is brewing........
> #nottheanarchistbookfair


arse  i've just agreed to work the 20th of oct (which is something i don't usually do as the anniversary of the 20/10/90 brixton poll tax march/riot thing)


----------



## ska invita (Aug 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> arse  i've just agreed to work the 20th of oct (which is something i don't usually do as the anniversary of the 20/10/90 brixton poll tax march/riot thing)


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 12, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Something is brewing........
> #nottheanarchistbookfair



I’ve talked myself into doing a talk...


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 17, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Something is brewing........
> #nottheanarchistbookfair



Wondering if I should start a thread for this (ie listing events etc)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 17, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Wondering if I should start a thread for this (ie listing events etc)



Yes please. Otherwise this one will go get n forever!


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 17, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yes please. Otherwise this one will go get n forever!



Protest and direct action forum or politics and news forum?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 17, 2018)

I'd say P&D same as this. I'd do it myself but am dashing about.


----------



## LDC (Sep 30, 2018)

Been hearing the Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair isn't happening this year due to worries about the same topic erupting that got the London one cancelled. 

Anyone got any more detailed news?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 30, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Been hearing the Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair isn't happening this year due to worries about the same topic erupting that got the London one cancelled.
> 
> Anyone got any more detailed news?



No idea about Sheffield, but london sort-of-bookfair appears to be organised by the gender-ID supporting crowd (based on many of the talks, and the apparent exclusion of/boycott by/not bothering with by the ACG


----------



## ska invita (Sep 30, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Been hearing the Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair isn't happening this year due to worries about the same topic erupting that got the London one cancelled.
> 
> Anyone got any more detailed news?



My understanding is that someone at last years Sheffield fair had a TERFy pamphlet, someone objected to it and asked them to not display it. It ended up on the stall still...the stall got harrassed..the organisers were upset about the whole thing...and it would appear have decided they dont want the hassle.





MadeInBedlam said:


> No idea about Sheffield, but london sort-of-bookfair appears to be organised by the gender-ID supporting crowd (based on many of the talks, and the apparent exclusion of/boycott by/not bothering with by the ACG


Theres no central organising....different venues are organising their own things.
ACG are doing something at the MayDay Rooms.


----------



## Serge Forward (Sep 30, 2018)

ska invita said:


> ACG are doing something at the MayDay Rooms.


Details of the ACG event here: The Dead End of Corbynism – ACG meeting: London 20/10/18 – Anarchist Communist Group


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 30, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> Details of the ACG event here: The Dead End of Corbynism – ACG meeting: London 20/10/18 – Anarchist Communist Group



Yes I’m hoping to get along to that. 

Noticeably though it’s not listed on the anarchist festival website/Facebook thing - whereas the anarchist festival is hosting eg sisters uncut and RITB (the latter call for a labour vote)

Does feel like it’s to do with last years fall out - and that this years ‘bookfair’ event is mostly involving those on the anti-‘TERF’ side of that fall out


----------



## ska invita (Sep 30, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes I’m hoping to get along to that.
> 
> Noticeably though it’s not listed on the anarchist festival website


yes it is
Programme of events


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 30, 2018)

ska invita said:


> yes it is
> Programme of events



My bad. Wasn’t when I last checked (or at least I couldn’t find it)


----------



## ska invita (Sep 30, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> My bad. Wasn’t when I last checked (or at least I couldn’t find it)


things are getting added all the time, liable to change too.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 30, 2018)

ska invita said:


> things are getting added all the time, liable to change too.



True. And the most popular event listed is the one I’m putting on 

We might need a bigger room. 

I’m bricking it haha


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 30, 2018)

Over one thousand people going/interested. 

Fahking hell!


----------



## ska invita (Sep 30, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> the anti-‘TERF’ side of that fall out


just a general observation of what ive seen written and acted on by self-proclaimed anarchists over the last year, the majority seem to have come down on a side and that side is "anti-TERF", so if you're picking up a bias i think thats just a reflection of the majority view. Thats how it looks to me anyhow, i havent done a poll


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 30, 2018)

ska invita said:


> just a general observation of what ive seen written and acted on by self-proclaimed anarchists over the last year, the majority seem to have come down on a side and that side is "anti-TERF", so if your picking up a bias i think thats just a reflection of the majority view. Thats how it looks to me anyhow, i havent done a poll



Fair enough, I just made an (probably wrong) assumption based on the organisers of this years thing, the events I saw listed and what appeared to be the non-involvement if the ACG.


----------



## Serge Forward (Sep 30, 2018)

Why would an imagined ACG non involvement suggest "anti TERF" organisers??? We are also opposed to "TERF" politics.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 30, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> Why would an imagined ACG non involvement suggest "anti TERF" organisers??? We are also opposed to "TERF" politics.



Well there’s another mistake by myself. 

I thought the ACG split from the AF over disagreements on TERF-gate last year


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 30, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> Why would an imagined ACG non involvement suggest "anti TERF" organisers??? We are also opposed to "TERF" politics.



I thought the ACG made a statement against IDENTITY politics, and coming on the heels of last year’s debacle is an easy conclusion to draw.


----------



## Serge Forward (Sep 30, 2018)

Aye, its maybe understandable and I suppose a fair few people have made a similar mistake. Yes we are critical of the recent shift towards anti oppression politics within anarchist circles and we were also critical of how the last London bookfair kicked off. Disagreeing with certain anarchos doesn't make us pro TERF though.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 30, 2018)

ska invita said:


> self-proclaimed anarchists



Always fun when the old "self-proclaimed" gets cracked out. Though yes, Terf events are not welcome in most anarchist spaces at this point. As far as I know they've been told to sling their hook from all the remaining bookfairs and not the anarchist bookfair has an explicit policy on the subject. Even so, venues have been getting emails from some charming folks demanding that pro-trans events be taken off the schedule because it's "enabling rape culture."


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Always fun when the old "self-proclaimed" gets cracked out. Though yes, Terf events are not welcome in most anarchist spaces at this point. As far as I know they've been told to sling their hook from all the remaining bookfairs and not the anarchist bookfair has an explicit policy on the subject. Even so, venues have been getting emails from some charming folks demanding that pro-trans events be taken off the schedule because it's "enabling rape culture."



I take it you mean the sisters uncut event? Sisters uncut who defended  punchy Tara flick wood?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 1, 2018)

Also your link doesn’t go to the policy your referring to Rob Ray . Got a better link?


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 1, 2018)

It does, but if you need the actual quote pulled:


> We want to take a broad approach to anarchism, as long as it's anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist it's in. *We will not accept any events that are racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic etc* and the policies of each venue must be followed as usual. We want to have an emphasis on getting new people involved in anarchist politics so introductory/ easily accessible events are especially wanted.



And I didn't mention which event I meant. It's rather telling though that you refer to Sisters Uncut, renowned for being both all-female and one of the most active groups in the country in taking direct action to protect services for women particularly related to domestic violence as "Sisters uncut who defended punchy Tara flick wood". Really puts a lovely spin on your attitude (this kind of shit is exactly why I've stopped posting on Urban's trans "debate" threads).


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 1, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> It does, but if you need the actual quote pulled:
> 
> 
> And I didn't mention which event I meant. It's rather telling though that you refer to Sisters Uncut, renowned for being both all-female and one of the most active groups in the country in taking direct action to protect services for women particularly related to domestic violence as "Sisters uncut who defended punchy Tara flick wood". Really puts a lovely spin on your attitude.



That link doesn’t take you the policyjust takes you to the Facebook group. 

And yes, why would anyone take issue with a group that defends a man who attacks a 60 year old woman


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 1, 2018)

And it’s the sisters uncut meeting you are referring to? ‘Telling’ that you mentioned this vaguely as ‘pro-trans’


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 1, 2018)

It takes you to the post which has the quoted passage, which I cut and pasted direct. And the page itself has that same post pinned to the top.


MadeInBedlam said:


> And yes, why would anyone take issue with a group that defends a man who attacks a 60 year old woman



Yeah that shit. Fucking revolting spinning so you don't have to think about why it is that a prominent all-woman group might have rejected Terf politics. If you want to do that nonsense don't expect me to engage with it.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 1, 2018)

Defending Tara Wood a wee bit more than ‘rejecting TERF politics’. Knock yourself out with your frothing if you want though


----------

