# Disruption at Book Fairs



## PeterTCA (Dec 2, 2018)

Following on from the London, Liverpool and Manchester Anarchist Book Fairs a pattern reveals itself:

A group applies for a stall or a talk. The organisers refuse, and write to the group giving reasons why they should not attend.

Nonetheless, the group turn up. They are asked to leave. They refuse. A dialogue ensues. Eventually they are physically removed.

There follows headline news on how free speech was brutally denied.

It is questionable whether the groups involved are actually Anarchists. Yet they are swift to claim that Anarchists should conduct themselves in particular ways. Their idea of Anarchism is the hackneyed one of "Anything Goes" or "So what?" In fact, relativism is merely the flip-side of obedience. Neither side requires any consideration of the consequences of one's acts.

Yesterday's disruption in Manchester threw a negative shadow over an otherwise comradely gathering. Anarchism's erstwhile openness permits any uninvited group to walk in and use the fair to promote their own agenda. To score a particular point they are happy to see the event destroyed. In future we need to protect ourselves. As was pointed out they are free to put in the work to host their own fair, their own meetings.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2018)

Perhaps you could outline what happened at Manchester


----------



## Argonia (Dec 2, 2018)

Peter has posted 139 times and only received one like so I have doubled his like quotient.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you could outline what happened at Manchester



Four TERFS showed up and started handing out leaflets. As soon as the venue's management were informed they were asked to leave to which they repeatedly refused. Two of them eventually left, with the other two needing to be carried out. Was awkward as it was men physically removing women, few bystanders got involved on the side of the TERFS because of this. 

Apart from that yesterday's book fair in Manchester was a success, some good stalls and cracking speakers.


----------



## PeterTCA (Dec 2, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you could outline what happened at Manchester


I do not want to get into a right or wrong debates - merely recognise a pattern.

In brief, a group of TERFs arrived and began handing out a package of leaflets. They were asked to leave. A lengthy "dialogue"
took place that used up considerable time and space.


----------



## LDC (Dec 2, 2018)

They were anarchist women (and one man I think) wanting to discuss issues with aspects of some trans perspectives. They asked for a talk/discussion beforehand (one of their speakers was planned to be a trans women) and they were refused. They asked for a stall, they were refused. So a few of them gave out a few leaflets at the Bookfair. They were asked to leave having given out some leaflets when they were sitting down talking to each other. They were told a variety of reasons for having to leave including, 'You're TERFs', 'You're the same as racists', 'You've broken the safer spaces policy', and 'that the leaflets were violence' although people were also repeatedly saying they didn't have to have read the leaflets to know they should leave. They refused and were physically carried out by a few men.


----------



## LDC (Dec 2, 2018)

PeterTCA said:


> It is questionable whether the groups involved are actually Anarchists. Yet they are swift to claim that Anarchists should conduct themselves in particular ways. Their idea of Anarchism is the hackneyed one of "Anything Goes" or "So what?" In fact, relativism is merely the flip-side of obedience. Neither side requires any consideration of the consequences of one's acts.



A few of the stalls weren't anarchist at all, as I suspect neither were the men throwing the women out, so let's stop throwing that around as an intended insult as to why they shouldn't be there, especially as I know that the women involved are very definitely anarchists.

I think going to a Bookfair to give out leaflets that you know are going to result in you being thrown out and causing chaos in the meantime is not really that useful thing to do personally, but I can see that if you want to discuss this stuff there's not many options left to you when you're told you can't have a meeting or a stall.


----------



## andysays (Dec 2, 2018)

OP seems a bit short of actual info.

For those of us not in the know, who were the organisers of this event?

Have they issued any sort of statement yet?

And are those posting about what happened doing so from having witnessed the events at first hand or are have they heard about them from some other source?


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 2, 2018)

can someone post a photo/copy of the leaflet that was given out?


----------



## LDC (Dec 2, 2018)

sunnysidedown said:


> can someone post a photo/copy of the leaflet that was given out?



I think they were giving small info packs out with a few leaflets/articles in.

The event was organized by a very few people in Manchester, same few people that have put on the last ones I think. It was held here
Partisan – Manchester's Co-operative Arts and Social Space

I don't think it was a big dramatic deal tbh, especially at a gathering of political radicals that profess to be working towards a violent overthrow of the State and capitalism.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 2, 2018)

Was it the badly named "Woke Anarchist" statement they were handing out?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 2, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> Was it the badly named "Woke Anarchist" statement they were handing out?


I don’t know that statement, but I hate the term and concept “woke”. It’s just another way of saying everyone else is deluded.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 2, 2018)

> They were anarchist women (and one man I think) wanting to discuss issues with aspects of some trans perspectives.



No they didn't. They knew full well that they were breaking the Manchester bookfair's very clear ban on transphobic propagandising. They did it anyway to cause a scene so they could then claim victimhood when they were removed from the premises. Again. I see Helen's given up on pretending she's not a core participant btw, very sad that she's got mixed up with this manipulative bullshit.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 2, 2018)

Which is why I said "badly named" when I should have said shitly named.


----------



## LDC (Dec 2, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> Was it the badly named "Woke Anarchist" statement they were handing out?



This one for anyone that hasn't seen it Against Anarcho-Liberalism and the curse of identity politics

I have no idea if this was part of what was being given out though.


----------



## LDC (Dec 2, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> They knew full well that they were breaking the Manchester bookfair's very clear ban on transphobic propagandising.



I don't think the Manchester @ Bookfair people had anything to do with their meeting or stall being banned, it was Partisan that refused it as far as I know.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 2, 2018)

Yes, seen it. Entirely unimpressed.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 2, 2018)

Hmm... I was after confirmation because I was told by someone present that's what was being handed out. If it wasn't I'll shut up.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 2, 2018)

I'm not a historian of these things but is this really the first time that this has happened? That someone has thought they should be allowed to be there and other people haven't?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2018)

The Cunningham amendment is shit peter.


----------



## LDC (Dec 2, 2018)

New Internationalist, well anarchist. Less records and vegan cup cakes than other years though, one more step closer towards the revolution comrades.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 2, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> New Internationalist, well anarchist.



And?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> And?


Thought you were a trained journalist?


----------



## LDC (Dec 2, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> And?



Considering the OP was throwing around accusations that the people thrown out weren't even anarchists, I think it's entirely relevant to make a quip that some of the stalls definitely weren't. But please don't start over-analyzing my posts for hidden meanings.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 2, 2018)

Bit of a difference between tolerating leftie non-anarchists and giving space over to non-anarchist groups with a history of actively disrupting anarchist bookfair events and which overtly refuse the Ts&Cs though isn't there. Having less tolerance for bullshit which isn't even from our own movement isn't an entirely illogical note to make.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 2, 2018)

I'm sure we could wrap this all up very easily* if none of the people handing out the leaflets were anarchists, but last time I checked a good few people considered Helen Steel to be one. Which complicates things.

*or not, as the hundreds of pages of bile on this subject on Urban 75 would tend to suggest.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 2, 2018)

What was being given out?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 2, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I don’t know that statement, but I hate the term and concept “woke”. It’s just another way of saying everyone else is deluded.



It’s also used mockingly; so depends on the context.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 2, 2018)

There's a lot to parse in here, but given recent history and this particular subject it would seem likely that doing not a jot on that front would save countless hours of bilious disagreement, cross-purpose arguing and uncomradely name-calling and still end in the same place.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 3, 2018)

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of a particular situation, something that is really starting to fuck me off is the idea that freedom of speech means the right to a platform. It doesn't .


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 3, 2018)

People have always complained about "hur dur anarchist censorship" when they don't get their own way, I've even seen it from people decrying libcom - on the libcom forums. More than one person has ended up begging to be banned, presumably so they could be a proper free speech martyr and not look quite so silly.

It's a weird bit of leakage from the right-wing moral panic about student politics that we're suddenly expected to take such pompous self-entitlement seriously.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

Nobody in this situation at the Manchester bookfair on either side involved had anything to say about freedom of speech/censorship, so while it does happen that's the line of argument sometimes taken, it doesn't seem to be at all in this case from what I've seen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Putting aside the rights and wrongs of a particular situation, something that is really starting to fuck me off is the idea that freedom of speech means the right to a platform. It doesn't .


Maybe a scaffold could be organised


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 3, 2018)

Oh come on that's the heart of this whole thing. Popping off deliberately murky "reasonable questions" to provoke a reaction from people who know your real views, then claim you're being repressed. It's standard model victim tactics. If the far right was trying it you'd be on that shit in a second.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Oh come on that's the heart of this whole thing. Popping off deliberately murky "reasonable questions" to provoke a reaction from people who know your real views, then claim you're being repressed. It's standard model victim tactics. If the far right was trying it you'd be on that shit in a second.



I do think that is the case sometimes, but given the people involved at the weekend do you really think they're being that Machiavellian about it, and have no genuine political concerns? And that none of the people (mainly women) wanting to discuss this stuff have any either, and that it's all some huge plot to provoke reactions to then be able to claim victimhood?


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 3, 2018)

Of course they are, its a tiny crew of people and  this is the fourth time (to my knowledge) that they've tried it at anarchist bookfairs, three of which had clear policies on the subject. Helen has publicly suggested trans advocacy is a Big Pharma / Secret State conspiracy. Another of them was literally filmed screaming "penis" at a trans woman on a national panel show. These people aren't "reasonably" doing anything.

It's no big conspiracy (and honestly that insinuation is a poor showing, I never mentioned "huge plots" or Machiavelli), it's simply a bunch of activists using standard tactics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Four TERFS showed up and started handing out leaflets. As soon as the venue's management were informed they were asked to leave to which they repeatedly refused. Two of them eventually left, with the other two needing to be carried out. Was awkward as it was men physically removing women, few bystanders got involved on the side of the TERFS because of this.
> 
> Apart from that yesterday's book fair in Manchester was a success, some good stalls and cracking speakers.





PeterTCA said:


> I do not want to get into a right or wrong debates - merely recognise a pattern.
> 
> In brief, a group of TERFs arrived and began handing out a package of leaflets. They were asked to leave. A lengthy "dialogue"
> took place that used up considerable time and space.



You know what's great? The way you apply an abusive, inaccurate label to gender-critical women. What a pair of heroes you are, the kind of people that make anarchist gatherings so fucking tedious nowadays.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> They were anarchist women (and one man I think) wanting to discuss issues with aspects of some trans perspectives. They asked for a talk/discussion beforehand (one of their speakers was planned to be a trans women) and they were refused. They asked for a stall, they were refused. So a few of them gave out a few leaflets at the Bookfair. They were asked to leave having given out some leaflets when they were sitting down talking to each other. They were told a variety of reasons for having to leave including, 'You're TERFs', 'You're the same as racists', 'You've broken the safer spaces policy', and 'that the leaflets were violence' although people were also repeatedly saying they didn't have to have read the leaflets to know they should leave. They refused and were physically carried out by a few men.



I am so fucking fed up with this narrative of "words/leaflets are violence". If people become emotionally-disturbed by written or spoken words, they really shouldn't go to venues where they'll be in a position to be offended. I'm a Jew, yet anti-Semitic speech or writing doesn't make me (or most of the Jews I know) want to self-harm or commit suicide (two of the justifications I've heard for closing down gender-critical comment), it just makes me roll my eyes, and think "fuck off, you dull Nazi cunt".


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know what's great? The way you apply an abusive, inaccurate label





ViolentPanda said:


> I am so fucking fed up with this narrative of "words/leaflets are violence



K.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> No they didn't. They knew full well that they were breaking the Manchester bookfair's very clear ban on transphobic propagandising. They did it anyway to cause a scene so they could then claim victimhood when they were removed from the premises. Again. I see Helen's given up on pretending she's not a core participant btw, very sad that she's got mixed up with this manipulative bullshit.



Who gets to quantify what is and isn't transphobic?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> K.



Selective quotation. Who do you think you are, a journalist for The Sun?


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 3, 2018)

Yeah I'm totally misrepresenting you .


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who gets to quantify what is and isn't transphobic?



In this case, the bookfair crew/collective. You can of course criticise them for that, but it's ultimately their call.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 3, 2018)

You know how in shared flats there’s always some cunt who never does any housework, but then kicks off when they’re inconvenienced by the state of the place?

I’ve always found that with people who play the ‘words are violence’ thing - utterly unconcerned about their offensive behaviour/statements, but will go on about how they need to be respected/protected from others views.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> I am so fucking fed up with this narrative of "words/leaflets are violence".



What if they're the words/leaflets of people who claim that being trans is an act of violence?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm a Jew, yet anti-Semitic speech or writing doesn't make me (or most of the Jews I know) want to self-harm or commit suicide (two of the justifications I've heard for closing down gender-critical comment), it just makes me roll my eyes, and think "fuck off, you dull Nazi cunt".



So other people's reactions to hate speech are invalid because you're merely irked by it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> So other people's reactions to hate speech are invalid because you're merely irked by it?



Did I say that?
Nah, I didn't. I made the point that personally it "just makes me roll my eyes". I also made the point that IF you get emotionally disturbed by printed or spoken words, you shouldn't put yourself in the position to be disturbed. That was in the bit of my post you didn't quote, because it didn't suit your purposes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah I'm totally misrepresenting you .



You keep rolling your eyes like that, they'll get stuck.

You selectively quoted me. People usually do that so they can de-contextualise what you've written, and attempt to spin what was said into something else. If you are, as butchersapron claims, a journo, you'd have learned to do this long ago. I know I did. It's why I hardly ever selectively quote people.

Remember, too much eye-rolling, and your eyes will get stuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2018)

oh this is going well


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did I say that?
> I also made the point that IF you get emotionally disturbed by printed or spoken words, you shouldn't put yourself in the position to be disturbed. That was in the bit of my post you didn't quote, because it didn't suit your purposes.



OK let's address that bit then. Let's follow it to its conclusion. Let's tell people to avoid anywhere they might run into racist graffiti, or hear homophobic slurs shouted at them in the street.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You know how in shared flats there’s always some cunt who never does any housework, but then kicks off when they’re inconvenienced by the state of the place?
> 
> I’ve always found that with people who play the ‘words are violence’ thing - utterly unconcerned about their offensive behaviour/statements, but will go on about how they need to be respected/protected from others views.



The last time I thought that "words are violence" was when someone hit me with a "Unite Against Racism" placard, after I called the person holding it a dupe for the Socialist Workers Party.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 3, 2018)

Another Trans/TERF thread? Jolly good.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Another Trans/TERF thread? Jolly good.


it's terftranstic


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

I don't think that anyone here would argue that the NF doing a paper sale in Brick Lane in the 1980s was anything other than an act of violence. It was designed to make most of the people who lived in that area feel intimidated. And indeed it was the daytime respectable shop front for the acts of vandalism and violence that was also happening after dark.

So leaflets (and the context around them) can be perceived as aggression.

I'm not entirely convinced that the current leaflets are the same as that, but it is worth (lol) discussing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> OK let's address that bit then. Let's follow it to its conclusion. Let's tell people to avoid anywhere they might run into racist graffiti, or hear homophobic slurs shouted at them in the street.



That's not "its conclusion", that's merely an avenue you want to push this argument down. If, as has been stated as though it were holy writ across social media, transwomen are driven to self-harm and suicide by violent words against them, then why would you, if you believe that such words could cause you to do that, put yourself in a situation where that violence would definitely be done to you? 

As for graffiti, and name-calling, people endure such "violence" every day, and that's the point - people endure, and they do it because they HAVE to, IF they're going to live our lives and not let "the other side" win. 

And let's not get into the physical violence threatened on gender-critical women - so-called "TERFs" - for daring to have an opinion, eh?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Oh come on that's the heart of this whole thing. Popping off deliberately murky "reasonable questions" to provoke a reaction from people who know your real views, then claim you're being repressed. It's standard model victim tactics. If the far right was trying it you'd be on that shit in a second.



Quite apart from being a deliberate tactic for upsetting people, this sort of shit does great harm to those with actual reasonable questions. We've seen on these forums, and I've been guilty of it myself, that those reasonable questions are sometimes associated with this small minority of acid-spitting firebrands. This again is deliberate. It's about polarisation, about creating a situation where nobody is having open discussions in good faith. The reason for this is that TERFs know they can't win a fair and open debate, they know that they ultimately what they feel is hatred and they can't defend it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's not "its conclusion", that's merely an avenue you want to push this argument down. If, as has been stated as though it were holy writ across social media, transwomen are driven to self-harm and suicide by violent words against them, then why would you, if you believe that such words could cause you to do that, put yourself in a situation where that violence would definitely be done to you?
> 
> As for graffiti, and name-calling, people endure such "violence" every day, and that's the point - people endure, and they do it because they HAVE to, IF they're going to live our lives and not let "the other side" win.



Hold up a second, so are people supposed to avoid hatred or just put up with it?

Can you provide a list of places where trans folk aren't at risk of discrimination, persecution or abuse because of who they are? I'm sure that would come in handy.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 3, 2018)

Is ‘trans women are women’ (alongside implication - or explicit claim - that women should accept men with dysphoria into their spaces) an act of violence?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> And let's not get into the physical violence threatened on gender-critical women - so-called "TERFs" - for daring to have an opinion, eh?



And 'ACAB' is just the same as racism. 

I've not threatened any TERFs with violence, nor defended anyone who has, nor has anyone here to my knowledge. Try again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I don't think that anyone here would argue that the NF doing a paper sale in Brick Lane in the 1980s was anything other than an act of violence. It was designed to make most of the people who lived in that area feel intimidated. And indeed it was the daytime respectable shop front for the acts of vandalism and violence that was also happening after dark.
> 
> So leaflets (and the context around them) can be perceived as aggression.
> 
> I'm not entirely convinced that the current leaflets are the same as that, but it is worth (lol) discussing.



As you say, they're probably not the same thing. With the NF selling their shit in areas with large Asian populations, it was part of a deliberate strategy of intimidation in several major cities, and they were opposed physically by anti-fascists. There's no strategy at play here. The "movement" of GC women that some claim to exist is a bunch of disparate small organisations that not only barely communicate, but in some cases actively dislike each other. Their words aren't born out of nationalist or racist sentiment that sees others as less-than-human. Their words mostly - and there are a few extremists who chat nasty shite that provides fuel for people to point and exclaim "ooh, look at the nasty TERFs!" - express concerns about the erosion of sex-based rights and exemptions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is ‘trans women are women’ (alongside implication - or explicit claim - that women should accept men with dysphoria into their spaces) an act of violence?



Lucky there are no implications or implicit claims in this post eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> And 'ACAB' is just the same as racism.



Sophistry. Again.



> I've not threatened any TERFs with violence, nor defended anyone who has, nor has anyone here to my knowledge. Try again.



I haven't claimed that you or they have.

Really, try harder.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> As you say, they're probably not the same thing. With the NF selling their shit in areas with large Asian populations, it was part of a deliberate strategy of intimidation in several major cities, and they were opposed physically by anti-fascists. There's no strategy at play here. The "movement" of GC women that some claim to exist is a bunch of disparate small organisations that not only barely communicate, but in some cases actively dislike each other. Their words aren't born out of nationalist or racist sentiment that sees others as less-than-human. Their words mostly - and there are a few extremists who chat nasty shite that provides fuel for people to point and exclaim "ooh, look at the nasty TERFs!" - express concerns about the erosion of sex-based rights and exemptions.



I think that there clearly is a deliberate strategy (or perhaps strategies), VP. And it's been very effective.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lucky there are no implications or implicit claims in this post eh?



Such as?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't claimed that you or they have.
> 
> Really, try harder.



Not clear your rationale for mentioning it in the first place then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Quite apart from being a deliberate tactic for upsetting people, this sort of shit does great harm to those with actual reasonable questions. We've seen on these forums, and I've been guilty of it myself, that those reasonable questions are sometimes associated with this small minority of acid-spitting firebrands. This again is deliberate. It's about polarisation, about creating a situation where nobody is having open discussions in good faith. The reason for this is that TERFs know they can't win a fair and open debate, they know that they ultimately what they feel is hatred and they can't defend it.



What's a TERF, Frank?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's a TERF, Frank?



It's short for 'trans exlcusionary radical feminist' and it's apparently considered a slur by self-identified radical feminists whose focus is on the exclusion of trans folk from women's spaces and feminist thought. 

It's not an ideal term I'll admit, but it's well known and understood. I don't use 'gender critical' because to me that seems overly neutral considering the non-neutral views of the people I'm referring to. Also I would never criticise anyone for thinking critically about anything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not clear your rationale for mentioning it in the first place then.



I mentioned it because gender-critical women have been threatened with physical violence, with the violence occasionally being carried out. The justification for such threats being that their words are violence against trans folk.

What I'm attempting to establish is that these words don't come out of nowhere.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's short for 'trans exlcusionary radical feminist' and it's apparently considered a slur by self-identified radical feminists whose focus is on the exclusion of trans folk from women's spaces and feminist thought.
> 
> It's not an ideal term I'll admit, but it's well known and understood. I don't use 'gender critical' because to me that seems overly neutral considering the non-neutral views of the people I'm referring to. Also I would never criticise anyone for thinking critically about anything.



When the term was first used, several years ago, it had the utility of being precise. It's considered a slur now because it's used on ANY woman who speaks critically about not just trans folk, but about just about anything that SOME trans folk find annoying. It's far from ideal, because it's become a catch-all for any opposition to a particular "party line". It's become almost as ridiculous as a descriptor, as "far left" when used by idiot #FBPE centrist types.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> In this case, the bookfair crew/collective. You can of course criticise them for that, but it's ultimately their call.



As I said already the people were asked and then forced to leave by the space (Partisan), NOT the Bookfair who were up or allowing them to have a meeting/discussion space.

That's afaik, I'm happy to be corrected by a Bookfair person if it's incorrect.


----------



## PeterTCA (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Quite apart from being a deliberate tactic for upsetting people, this sort of shit does great harm to those with actual reasonable questions. We've seen on these forums, and I've been guilty of it myself, that those reasonable questions are sometimes associated with this small minority of acid-spitting firebrands. This again is deliberate. It's about polarisation, about creating a situation where nobody is having open discussions in good faith. The reason for this is that TERFs know they can't win a fair and open debate, they know that they ultimately what they feel is hatred and they can't defend it.



Right on. This post was intended to be about an "evolving pattern" and not about the rights and wrongs of gender politics.
Last year a group that wanted to address the full Manchester Book Fair on "anti-semitism" were swiftly expelled. They reported their removal to the police
and have since engaged in a crusade against Partisan. Peace News gave extensive coverage to the Liverpool Book Fair refusal to admit somebody who
had already been requested not to attend. London proved that a small group can cause severe damage in the course of mopping-up publicity for themselves.

Book fairs are not easy to organise. They require an awful lot of thankless work. Groups that turn up with the intention of being disrespectful to the T+C's should accept their are consequences to their acts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> I mentioned it because gender-critical women have been threatened with physical violence, with the violence occasionally being carried out. The justification for such threats being that their words are violence against trans folk.



This sort of thing plays into the hands of those intent on creating polarisation. I understand where it comes from, but I don't defend it. 

When you say 'these words don't come from nowhere' are you suggesting that anti-trans rhetoric (which does undoubtedly exist, and which is distinct from 'gender critical' thought and theory) has arisen simply as a result of threats of violence from trans people? That being the case, how did these miscreants even know who to threaten in the first place?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Manchester anarchist bookfair's failure to find an accessible venue for their event. As I understand it they preferred to use a space run by an allied organisation over one which would be more suitable for a public event.

Any talk of wanting to make this a safe space for all rings pretty hollow in light of that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Hold up a second, so are people supposed to avoid hatred or just put up with it?



I'll make my point again. We don't have any choice but to put up with it. We do so and we fight for change, and sometimes we even achieve it. I'm disabled. I put up with ignorant taunts because if I punched everyone who made them, my hands wouldn't be able to hold my walking sticks anymore. We fought for change, and slowly we're getting to the stage where such crap is considered a "hate crime", but to get there we had to prove the harm. We had to show that a rhetoric around disability led to physical violence, and even now, the verbals etc are still prevalent. We have a simple binary choice, in my opinion. We put up with it, and work within a shitty system to bring about change, or we give in and top ourselves. Personally, I'd rather go down fighting.


----------



## chilango (Dec 3, 2018)

Turning on each other in ever decreasing circles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> This sort of thing plays into the hands of those intent on creating polarisation. I understand where it comes from, but I don't defend it.
> 
> When you say 'these words don't come from nowhere' are you suggesting that anti-trans rhetoric (which does undoubtedly exist, and which is distinct from 'gender critical' thought and theory) has arisen simply as a result of threats of violence from trans people? That being the case, how did these miscreants even know who to threaten in the first place?



No, I'm saying that original thought, on both sides, can be hijacked by others who have an agenda - that what we might call "noble sentiments" can be and are corrupted, mostly by power, but sometimes through ignorance. This can and does cause simplification _ad absurdum_, which is then used to fuel simplistic and reductive arguments around complex issues. We know, for example, that Crenshaw's original theories around intersectionality were hijacked, cherry-picked, simplified and misrepresented by those whose agenda was furthering a revived identity politics.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> When the term was first used, several years ago, it had the utility of being precise. It's considered a slur now because it's used on ANY woman who speaks critically about not just trans folk, but about just about anything that SOME trans folk find annoying. It's far from ideal, because it's become a catch-all for any opposition to a particular "party line". It's become almost as ridiculous as a descriptor, as "far left" when used by idiot #FBPE centrist types.



This I do understand, and I try to oppose it at my end where I see people dividing the universe up into TERFs and allies and condemning the former utterly. You don't get anywhere like that. But like you say, nothing comes from nowhere. There are organised people with a hateful agenda against trans folk, and their strategy does involve radicalising people in the middle ground. And just like with everything else, if we abandon that middle ground and the people in it because of their perceived association or sympathy with the stuff we actually oppose, then that's basically the opposite of fighting back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would be remiss if I did not mention the Manchester anarchist bookfair's failure to find an accessible venue for their event. As I understand it they preferred to use a space run by an allied organisation over one which would be more suitable for a public event.
> 
> Any talk of wanting to make this a safe space for all rings pretty hollow in light of that.



Sadly, although there's been legislation in place since about 1993 regarding accessibility, unless you're building a new venue, it's not incumbent on owners/organisations to render existing venues accessible. Similarly, public transport becomes accessible on an "as and when" basis, rather than on the basis of need. We've been trying to get London transport to take a leaf from Berlin's book re station and vehicle accessibility, but so far not a lot has been done, and that tosser Johnson nixed about £100 million of investment that would at least have got the ball rolling on the Tube - money spunked on that cable car across the Thames, and the fictitious Garden Bridge.


----------



## M Testa (Dec 3, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not a historian of these things but is this really the first time that this has happened? That someone has thought they should be allowed to be there and other people haven't?



i did a couple of bookfairs for the militant anti-fascist book and time and space are really tight on these things. you cant have people turning up and saying 'i want a room/platform' cos they have already been taken. At the london bookfair anti-fascist network started to dominate the discussion when they should have organised 1 themselves cos the book and contemporary struggle need separate discussion. so the discussion on 'what can we learn from the past' got sidelined and 1 woman shouted 'who are you?' well, im the writer of the book that this meeting is about would have been the answer to that.  we fucked off to the pub sick of it.


----------



## Santino (Dec 3, 2018)

chilango said:


> Turning on each other in ever decreasing circles.


Did Richard Briers die for nothing?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sadly, although there's been legislation in place since about 1993 regarding accessibility, unless you're building a new venue, it's not incumbent on owners/organisations to render existing venues accessible. Similarly, public transport becomes accessible on an "as and when" basis, rather than on the basis of need. We've been trying to get London transport to take a leaf from Berlin's book re station and vehicle accessibility, but so far not a lot has been done, and that tosser Johnson nixed about £100 million of investment that would at least have got the ball rolling on the Tube - money spunked on that cable car across the Thames, and the fictitious Garden Bridge.



Accessible venues are available in Manchester though, including activist-friendly ones. I know this because I've helped organised large events there before.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

Being able to avoid 4 people quietly giving out a few leaflets (that most of the people demanding the removal of the 4 people there admitted they hadn't read) hardly strikes me as an act of violence that threatens a space being safe, especially in a gathering of anarchist revolutionaries. If that's something you can't cope with how did you even get through Manchester to even get to the Bookfair, or leave your house every day?

And I'm sure there are accessible venues in Manchester, but I think it'd nice to give the Bookfair collective the benefit of the doubt that there were really good reasons (cost, availability on certain dates, etc. etc.) why they couldn't use them... or we could just do what seems to be in vogue at the moment when dealing with comrades and just publicly denounce them as fucking disabalist scum that need driving away from politics for the safety of everyone.


----------



## M Testa (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think it'd nice to give the Bookfair collective the benefit of the doubt that there were really good reasons (cost, availability on certain dates, etc. etc.) why they couldn't use them.


exactly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2018)

M Testa said:


> the book and contemporary struggle need separate discussion.


i didn't realise the material in the book bore no relationship to the contemporary struggle


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Being able to avoid 4 people quietly giving out a few leaflets (that most of the people demanding the removal of the 4 people there admitted they hadn't read) hardly strikes me as an act of violence that threatens a space being safe, especially in a gathering of anarchist revolutionaries. If that's something you can't cope with how did you even get through Manchester to even get to the Bookfair, or leave your house every day?
> 
> And I'm sure there are accessible venues in Manchester, but I think it'd nice to give the Bookfair collective the benefit of the doubt that there were really good reasons (cost, availability on certain dates, etc. etc.) why they couldn't use them... or we could just do what seems to be in vogue at the moment when dealing with comrades and just publicly denounce them as fucking disabalist scum that need driving away from politics for the safety of everyone.



_Comrades._ The favourite word of those who seek to gain the allegiance of others without actually earning it. 

I didn't say they need driving away from politics or that they're scum. Just that they've failed to provide an accessible venue, which is true. How much you care about that is up to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Being able to avoid 4 people quietly giving out a few leaflets (that most of the people demanding the removal of the 4 people there admitted they hadn't read) hardly strikes me as an act of violence that threatens a space being safe, especially in a gathering of anarchist revolutionaries. If that's something you can't cope with how did you even get through Manchester to even get to the Bookfair, or leave your house every day?
> 
> And I'm sure there are accessible venues in Manchester, but I think it'd nice to give the Bookfair collective the benefit of the doubt that there were really good reasons (cost, availability on certain dates, etc. etc.) why they couldn't use them... or we could just do what seems to be in vogue at the moment when dealing with comrades and just publicly denounce them as fucking disabalist scum that need driving away from politics for the safety of everyone.




Kind of takes us back to the "lifestyle" anarchism debate, where many of the lifestylers never gave a toss about the politics, just about wasting a couple of years pretending to be anarchists, before going off to work as uncle Tarquin's land agent on his 10,000 acres. Yes, I am guilty of being sweepingly-prejudiced against lifestyle "anarchists".


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 3, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would be remiss if I did not mention the Manchester anarchist bookfair's failure to find an accessible venue for their event. As I understand it they preferred to use a space run by an allied organisation over one which would be more suitable for a public event.
> 
> Any talk of wanting to make this a safe space for all rings pretty hollow in light of that.



You're right to highlight this. The building Partisan Collective chose is a listed building, and needs a lot of work doing to it. Unfortunately, the original founders were unable to find a more appropriate space so settled on this one. They are looking to raise £2000 shortly to pay for an access ramp, and have longer term ambitions of raising £60,000 to pay for a lift to make the space fully accessible. The latter here of course is a huge amount of money for such a small space. 

Partisan only has three part-time members of staff, and is in a financially precarious state. I appreciate that asking for more time on such an issue isn't good enough, but accessibility is a priority for the collective.


----------



## M Testa (Dec 3, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't realise the material in the book bore no relationship to the contemporary struggle



it was to discuss the history of militant AFism and to situate contemporary AFs in a long and successful struggle. the issue of the struggle against the far right today demands a separate although obviously connected discussion. bear in mind, you have only 55 minutes, 30 for the presentation, 25 for discussion and you lose the 1st 5 minutes whilst folk drift in etc so it's not very much at all. the combination of both subjects is far too big for that time slot.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 3, 2018)

‘Violent words’ perhaps not so violent 

https://www.2harecourt.com/2018/11/...nist-anti-racist-campaigner-linda-bellos-obe/


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2018)

Scary women with their ‘violent words’ must be man-handled out of the door (with no irony allowed).

What a fucking joke. The patriarchy.


----------



## Red Sky (Dec 3, 2018)

M Testa said:


> i did a couple of bookfairs for the militant anti-fascist book and time and space are really tight on these things. you cant have people turning up and saying 'i want a room/platform' cos they have already been taken. At the london bookfair anti-fascist network started to dominate the discussion when they should have organised 1 themselves cos the book and contemporary struggle need separate discussion. so the discussion on 'what can we learn from the past' got sidelined and 1 woman shouted 'who are you?' well, im the writer of the book that this meeting is about would have been the answer to that.  we fucked off to the pub sick of it.



To be fair,  you identified yourself as being part of the Anti Fascist Network on the book's jacket.  Hence the "who are you?" I suspect.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Being able to avoid 4 people quietly giving out a few leaflets (that most of the people demanding the removal of the 4 people there admitted they hadn't read) hardly strikes me as an act of violence that threatens a space being safe, especially in a gathering of anarchist revolutionaries. If that's something you can't cope with how did you even get through Manchester to even get to the Bookfair, or leave your house every day?



So if people turnedup at an anarchist bookfaor with leaflets calling the holocaust a hoax and promoting illluminari conspiracy theories we should just be fine with that as well?

I don't know what the leaflets were btw and I think it's relevent.  But the leaflets they gave out in london were a pack of lies intended to stir up as much hatred against trans people as possible.  That is their strategy, to use misinformation to recruit and radicalise people against trans people, and they could not give a fuck if the pursuit of this aim destroys what's left of organised anarchist activity in the UK completely because stopping trans inclusion (the biggest threat to women in 100 years according to Womens Place and others) is now a priority that overrides all other political objectives.  This is a scorched earth operation amongst the more virulent anti-trans activists and they are quite prepared to sacrifice the radical left in their quest. The question is do we let them succeed?


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So if people turnedup at an anarchist bookfaor with leaflets calling the holocaust a hoax and promoting illluminari conspiracy theories we should just be fine with that as well?


This is the problem. People _seriously_ equating gender critical women with Nazis.

Seriously.

Then thinking that therefore justifies a no platform response, and even violent retaliation to silence them.

Here’s the thing: women questioning transgenderism is NOT like the Nazis. It’s _nothing like_ fascism. There is not even a parallel with racism.

The vast majority of these women do not hate transgender people. They don’t wish to “eliminate” them. This is  fucking *nonsense*, but the real world impact of this hyperbole is causing vicious infighting. Pointless drama.

Stop saying “Terfs” are like “Nazis”, accept that not all women want males who identify as females in their spaces, and actually create a dialogue with these women instead of man-handling them out.

Then crack on with the real job, which has got fuck all to do with how individuals _identify_.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> This is the problem. People _seriously_ equating gender critical women with Nazis.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying they are like nazis, most illuminati conspiracy theorists aren't fully signed up nazis, I was using the analogy to show the difference between a coherent political argument, such as a critique of gender, and propaganda full of lies which is purely intended to generate hatred.  That's what the leaflets at the London Bookfair were, I don't know about Manchester but it was the same group handing them out.  

Everyone seems to acknowledge that yes, there are a few anti-trans people who are genuinely malevolent and opposed to the existence of trans people but hardly anyone seems to be acknowledging that by and large they are the ones leading this movement and it is their propaganda that is informing that side of the debate.  Get rid of them, then we can have a proper conversation, because up till now even the most reasonable debate seems to involve trans people having to show over  and over again that actually that crap Sheila Jeffries said or the Daily Mail just published or someone posted on mumsnet isn't true.  It's exhausting, it provokes anger, it makes people frightened and ultimately will lead to trans people withdrawing from radical politics - which of course is the intention of those who generate this misinformation.


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2018)

It’s no _coincidence_ you mentioned the Holocaust. That is the thought pattern behind this no platforming. It’s how Nazis are treated by the left isn’t it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> It’s no _coincidence_ you mentioned the Holocaust.


it's no _coincidence_ you round on smokedout instead of the posters who brought racism and fascism into the thread


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> It’s no _coincidence_ you mentioned the Holocaust. That is the thought pattern behind this no platforming. It’s how Nazis are treated by the left isn’t it.



I mentioned holocaust deniers, who are often at great pains to tell us they aren't Nazis.  The reason I mentioned it is that is is the most obvious example I could think of a pseudo-intellectual argument that presents itself as just innocently asking questions whilst masking a wider and more insidious agenda.  There are others, but that seems to be the best fit, and I'm not the only one who has noticed the similarity between anti-trans propaganda and anti-semitic propaganda.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Everyone seems to acknowledge that yes, there are a few anti-trans people who are genuinely malevolent and opposed to the existence of trans people but hardly anyone seems to be acknowledging that by and large they are the ones leading this movement and it is their propaganda that is informing that side of the debate.  Get rid of them, then we can have a proper conversation, because up till now even the most reasonable debate seems to involve trans people having to show over  and over again that actually that crap Sheila Jeffries said or the Daily Mail just published or someone posted on mumsnet isn't true.  It's exhausting, it provokes anger, it makes people frightened and ultimately will lead to trans people withdrawing from radical politics - which of course is the intention of those who generate this misinformation.



Plus it's quite difficult to have a conversation with someone who is just going to shout "penis" repeatedly.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

I'd be quite happy to discuss the differences and similarities between the protagonists on this issue and the far right.

The only reason I brought up the NF was to counter the idea that handing out leaflets was an ideologically and emotionally neutral activity.

I'm not sure that "no platforming" is the appropriate solution to this issue.

Physically removing someone from an event that they have been asked not to attend is not "no platforming".


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I'd be quite happy to discuss the differences and similarities between the protagonists on this issue and the far right.
> 
> The only reason I brought up the NF was to counter the idea that handing out leaflets was an ideologically and emotionally neutral activity.
> 
> ...


Maybe the more relevant part of the no platforming is asking them not to even attend, let alone discuss their ideas.

What is the justification for this?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> Maybe the more relevant part of the no platforming is asking them not to even attend, let alone discuss their ideas.
> 
> What is the justification for this?



Surely if someone has a history of causing disruption by ignoring an event's policies then there  comes a point at which it's not unreasonable to ask them not to come to future events.  Bit like how sometimes people get perma-banned on urban.

And I'm sure had they turned up without leaflets then they would'nt have been refused entry.  In fact it seems they weren't refused entry but when they broke the rules of the venue they were asked to leave and when they refused were made to leave.  That's not an unusual phenomena, and its not no platforming.


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> Maybe the more relevant part of the no platforming is asking them not to even attend, let alone discuss their ideas.
> 
> What is the justification for this?


There is a huge difference between refusing someone a stall at an event like this, asking them not to attend and eventually ejecting them when they turn up anyway and hand out leaflets, and no platforming.

The latter means attempting to deny someone any platform at all, including picketing or physically disrupting their meetings. To describe what's happened here as no platforming is not just inaccurate, it's frankly dishonest


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> Maybe the more relevant part of the no platforming is asking them not to even attend, let alone discuss their ideas.



That isn't no platforming either.


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Surely if someone has a history of causing disruption by ignoring an event's policies then there  comes a point at which it's not unreasonable to ask them not to come to future events.  Bit like how sometimes people get perma-banned on urban.
> 
> And I'm sure had they turned up without leaflets then they would'nt have been refused entry.  In fact it seems they weren't refused entry but when they broke the rules of the venue they were asked to leave and when they refused were made to leave.  That's not an unusual phenomena, and its not no platforming.


But it comes back to the question of _why_ this is a debate that cannot be had. Either at this book fair, or at other locations that women set up. 

And the answer, so far as I can tell, is because it’s women challenging men and telling them they can’t necessarily have it their way.

And then, it doesn’t even matter if it’s an _anarchists fucking book fair_ the answer will be what it’s always been. Shut your mouth or we’ll shut it for you.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> But it comes back to the question of _why_ this is a debate that cannot be had. Either at this book fair, or at other locations that women set up.
> 
> And the answer, so far as I can tell, is because it’s women challenging men and telling them they can’t necessarily have it their way.
> 
> And then, it doesn’t even matter if it’s an _anarchists fucking book fair_ the answer will be what it’s always been. Shut your mouth or we’ll shut it for you.



It is a debate which is being had. In fact sometimes it seems that people are discussing nothing else. That is very different from the most extreme protagonists (from either side) being welcomed into a specific event with open arms.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So if people turnedup at an anarchist bookfaor with leaflets calling the holocaust a hoax and promoting illluminari conspiracy theories we should just be fine with that as well?



No. And I think drawing parallels between that and a few anarcho-feminist women handing out leaflets of whatever type they were is not really helpful nor fair tbh.

E2A: Just saw your later reply which explains it a bit more, cheers.

My over-riding feeling about all of this has reached a place of resigned despair at the state of the anarchist 'movement'. With all the shit going on, all the organization and serious activity that needs work, and all the solidarity that's being cried out for, it's this and this kind of thing that takes up so much of people's time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No. And I think drawing parallels between that and a few anarcho-feminist women handing out leaflets of whatever type they were is not really helpful nor fair tbh.
> 
> E2A: Just saw your later reply which explains it a bit more, cheers.
> 
> My over-riding feeling about all of this has reached a place of resigned despair at the state of the anarchist 'movement'. With all the shit going on, all the organization and serious activity that needs work, and all the solidarity that's being cried out for, it's this and this kind of thing that takes up so much of people's time.


i preferred it when the beefs at bookfairs were personal or at least founded on anarchist thought


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 3, 2018)

A comrade who was at the Manchester and Salford bookfair confirms it was indeed the "woke anarchist" statement that Helen Steel and others were handing out. So, not a TERF leaflet then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2018)

..


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> A comrade who was at the Manchester and Salford bookfair confirms it was indeed the "woke anarchist" statement that Helen Steel and others were handing out. So, not a TERF leaflet then.


Some irony in the last paragraph


> To us anarchism is cooperation, mutual aid, solidarity and fighting the real centres of power. Anarchist spaces should not be for those who merely want to fight those around them.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 3, 2018)

It's poorly written, occasionally scattergun and all over the place but occasionally hits the spot. It's not transphobic or "TERF propaganda" and that apparently is the reason for ejecting those handing it out.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> A comrade who was at the Manchester and Salford bookfair confirms it was indeed the "woke anarchist" statement that Helen Steel and others were handing out. So, not a TERF leaflet then.



They were handing that out, but not only that. I'm trying to get hold of all the leaflets they were.


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> It's poorly written, occasionally scattergun and all over the place but occasionally hits the spot. It's not transphobic or "TERF propaganda" and that apparently is the reason for ejecting those handing it out.



I've yet to see any statement from the organisers explaining what happened and why, or any other statement of the reason for ejecting those handing out the leaflet, other than vague speculation and assumption.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> A comrade who was at the Manchester and Salford bookfair confirms it was indeed the "woke anarchist" statement that Helen Steel and others were handing out. So, not a TERF leaflet then.



It's a crap statement which includes this:



> It also amazes us that obvious parallels with right-wing politics are not seen, not least in the way feminists dismissed as ‘feminazis’ is reflected in the current use of the word ‘fascist’ against radical feminists by trans rights activists, as well as slogans calling for ‘terfs’ to be killed regularly cropping up in anarchist spaces both online and real world. It is shocking that the violence of this misogyny is being celebrated, not condemned.



Which is at best an unbalanced account of the antagonisms at work. "Gender Critical Feminists" can also fall into identity politics but they are not really mentioned.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> They were handing that out, but not only that. I'm trying to get hold of all the leaflets they were.



That would be good. There were a couple of different leaflets handed out at the London Anarchist Bookfair too iirc.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2018)

The woke anarchist thing is in no way a terf thing. If we - and i do mean people here - are going to use these terms, to engage in that politics it is really important that you get this correct. That piece is coming from the right place - and to those who are in this debate - you need to respect that. If not, then  bye. 

A load of non-anarchists getting involved here though?


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 3, 2018)

It is a crap statement, but anarchists writing crap statements shouldn't get you ejected, otherwise you'd only get about 2 stalls and a handful of visitors to most anarchist bookfairs   Agreed, it'd be interesting to find out what else they were handing out.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The woke anarchist thing is in no way a terf thing. If we - and i do mean people here - are going to use these terms, to engage in that politics it is really important that you get this correct. That piece is coming from the right place - and to those who are in this debate - you need to respect that. If not, then  bye.
> 
> A load of non-anarchists getting involved here though?



I can't help feeling that if someone came up with that on here, you'd be pretty critical of their failure to define their terms though? Or even directly quote people.

I completely agree that we urgently need a lot more criticism of identity politics but I'm not sure a run through the usual stereotypes of triggering, feminazis, safe spaces etc is it. It's not as good as the stuff Red Action and the IWCA were doing 20 years ago...

If it leads to other/better things then great.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I can't help feeling that if someone came up with that on here, you'd be pretty critical of their failure to define their terms though? Or even directly quote people.
> 
> I completely agree that we urgently need a lot more criticism of identity politics but I'm not sure a run through the usual stereotypes of triggering, feminazis, safe spaces etc is it. It's not as good as the stuff Red Action and the IWCA were doing 20 years ago...
> 
> If it leads to other/better things then great.


I want an open ring - i want more people talking stuff even if it's shit. I think/hope that this may kick the door in for this. And maybe set the grounds for it. Because otherwise it's comedy stalinism that's going to win.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I want an open ring - i want more people talking stuff even if it's shit. I think/hope that this may kick the door in for this. And maybe set the grounds for it. Because otherwise it's comedy stalinism that's going to win.



OK. That would be good.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> They were anarchist women (and one man I think) wanting to discuss issues with aspects of some trans perspectives. They asked for a talk/discussion beforehand (one of their speakers was planned to be a trans women) and they were refused. They asked for a stall, they were refused. So a few of them gave out a few leaflets at the Bookfair. They were asked to leave having given out some leaflets when they were sitting down talking to each other. They were told a variety of reasons for having to leave including, 'You're TERFs', 'You're the same as racists', 'You've broken the safer spaces policy', and 'that the leaflets were violence' although people were also repeatedly saying they didn't have to have read the leaflets to know they should leave. They refused and were physically carried out by a few men.


Are you positive it was men that carried them out?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2018)

Edie said:


> But it comes back to the question of _why_ this is a debate that cannot be had. Either at this book fair, or at other locations that women set up.



The debate is being had here, on twitter, and at meetings up and down the country, some of which have been protested, and a couple moved due to the venues not wanting it, but they have happened.  For the last six months or so there have weekly onslaught against trans people from those having this debate from their newspaper columns in the national press, it is currrently being talked about non stop on Women's Hour, The Guardian has run an editorial about it, there have been billboards erected and sticker campaigns, debates in the House of Commons, a government consultation  in both England and Scotland, almost every major television station has featured documentaries about his debate, there are dozens of blogs and websites purely established to have this debate and thousands of people on social media having this debate.

I'm not entirely sure what the people claiming to be silenced actually want.  It seems they won't be happy until loudspeakers are set up on every street corner booming out slogans that women don't have penises and transwomen are men is carved into the moon.


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

The Flying Pig said:


> Are you positive it was men that carried them out?



Fuck knows how I respond to that in this context!?


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Fuck knows how I respond to that in this context!?


----------



## LDC (Dec 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The debate is being had here, on twitter, and at meetings up and down the country, some of which have been protested, and a couple moved due to the venues not wanting it, but they have happened.  For the last six months or so there have weekly onslaught against trans people from those having this debate from their newspaper columns in the national press, it is currrently being talked about non stop on Women's Hour, The Guardian has run an editorial about it, there have been billboards erected and sticker campaigns, debates in the House of Commons, a government consultation  in both England and Scotland, almost every major television station has featured documentaries about his debate, there are dozens of blogs and websites purely established to have this debate and thousands of people on social media having this debate.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what the people claiming to be silenced actually want.  It seems they won't be happy until loudspeakers are set up on every street corner booming out slogans that women don't have penises and transwomen are men is carved into the moon.



I agree, sometimes it feels like this is all people _are_ discussing ffs. But something I've heard people say in response to this it that, yes, there is a load of discussion about it in some circles, but people want to be able to talk about it with their peers and political comrades, not just listen to it on Radio 4, but they're being told they can't. Which is actually driving a fair number of people into these ever more desperate and angry positions, and so we end up with this dramatic circus playing out in another political space.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I agree, sometimes it feels like this is all people _are_ discussing ffs. But something I've heard people say in response to this it that, yes, there is a load of discussion about it in some circles, but people want to be able to talk about it with their peers and political comrades, not just listen to it on Radio 4, but they're being told they can't. Which is actually driving a fair number of people into these ever more desperate and angry positions, and so we end up with this dramatic circus playing out in another political space.



Who's telling them they can't?  If people don't agree, or don't want to endlessly talk about it that's up to them.  I don't necessarily want to have this debate every time I go to a political space.  I don't want to worry about whether if I go to an anarchist bookfair I should make sure I present as male to avoid being a subject of controversy or forced to defend who I am rather than what I believe.  Or whether I should just stay away as I suspect increasing numbers of trans people are doing.  That's the fucking irony, it's trans people who are quietly withdrawing from things because of the actions of those that claim they are being silenced.  It's trans people who can no longer discuss anything except being trans online, and who will face a barrage of abuse even for doing that.  It's trans people who are anxious about even going out in public because of organised factions attempting to convince the public we are all perverts and sexual predators.  And if people's friends and comrades are getting sick of listening to that crap then good, so am I.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2018)

I should add if all that was being handed out was the woke leaflet then I don't agree wih the decision to kick them out.  I think we need more details really, possibly from the venue rather than the organisers if it was their decision to eject them.


----------



## Edie (Dec 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I should add if all that was being handed out was the woke leaflet then I don't agree wih the decision to kick them out.  I think we need more details really, possibly from the venue rather than the organisers if it was their decision to eject them.


You’ve got guts smokedout I admire you.


----------



## Athos (Dec 3, 2018)

I've no problem with anarchists excluding disruptive non- anarchists from anarchist meets (so as to ensure those events can continue as useful focal points).

But, where the alleged disruptors are anarchists (known in anarchist circles as such, not just some blow-ins claiming anarchism because it's expedient to their own agenda), then the presumption ought to be that they won't be excluded for expressing views simply because are unpopular with many other anarchists, except in extreme circumstances.

Whether or not uninvited leafleatting is enough, then I'd say that depends on the content.  Personally, I don't think the 'Woke' leaflet is; but, I've seen much anti-trans literature that does cross the line.

Also, I think that'd it'd be better if we all recognised that,  generally speaking, organisers are doing their best to do a difficult job in good faith.  And to reciprocate that good faith e.g. by not cynically misusing the (originally 'noble') ideals of either free speech or safe spaces, to be a dick.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know what's great? The way you apply an abusive, inaccurate label to gender-critical women. What a pair of heroes you are, the kind of people that make anarchist gatherings so fucking tedious nowadays.



am sure this has been done many times before, but as I don't know the answer, can I ask : how is such a precise, essentially technical term as TERF deemed " abusive " , whats' the logic ? And the suggested alternative ? 

( full disclosure : I use it, + have no intention of stopping doing so )


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 3, 2018)

Isn’t it interchangeable with ‘transphobe’? And whilst perhaps not a term of abuse, it’s probably a label a lot of people don’t want hanging over them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

cantsin said:


> am sure this has been done many times before, but as I don't know the answer, can I ask : how is such a precise, essentially technical term as TERF deemed " abusive " , whats' the logic ? And the suggested alternative ?
> 
> ( full disclosure : I use it, + have no intention of stopping doing so )



Your own question gives you the answer. You call it a "precise, essentially technical term", when it is applied anything but precisely, and against ANY criticism of trans, from anyone, rather than applied to "trans exclusionary radical feminists".

"Precise, essentially technical term" my arse.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your own question gives you the answer. You call it a "precise, essentially technical term", when it is applied anything but precisely, and against ANY criticism of trans, from anyone, rather than applied to "trans exclusionary radical feminists".
> 
> "Precise, essentially technical term" my arse.



Bellos / Steel / many others : what part of T.E.R.F. isn't applicable to them, technically, and pretty precisely ?

( and, importantly, quite neutrally originally )


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2018)

cantsin said:


> Bellos / Steel / many others : what part of T.E.R.F. isn't applicable to them, technically, and precisely ?



If you'd mentioned you were applying it to A/B/C, perhaps you'd have got a different answer, but that wasn't what you asked, was it? You asked how the term was deemed abusive, and I told you - because it's not used in a precise or technical manner - as perhaps it might be at Bellos et al, but instead it's often used as a scattergun insult by idiots, rather than precise technical users like your esteemed self.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 3, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you'd mentioned you were applying it to A/B/C, perhaps you'd have got a different answer, but that wasn't what you asked, was it? You asked how the term was deemed abusive, and I told you - because it's not used in a precise or technical manner - as perhaps it might be at Bellos et al, but instead it's often used as a scattergun insult by idiots, rather than precise technical users like your esteemed self.



bit confused : Steel seems to have been central to the Manc kerfuffle, and you pulled someone up for using TERF in the  thread about that incident, but now we're saying it is accurate in describing her ?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 3, 2018)

There’s been a vague suggestion about Steel.


----------



## andysays (Dec 4, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s been a vague suggestion about Steel.


It's hardly a vague suggestion. It's unconfirmed or uncorroborated, like much of the story, but the claim that she was there and directly involved is pretty clear.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 4, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> I see Helen's given up on pretending she's not a core participant btw, very sad that she's got mixed up with this manipulative bullshit.



You can interpret that as ‘she was there’ but it doesn’t explicitly say that.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 4, 2018)

You can't equate Bellos with Helen.  If the former rocked up to an anarchist event I would have the arse whatever but Helen? FFS.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

For clarity, Helen Steel was one of the 4 people giving out leaflets at the Manchester Bookfair and who were asked to leave, who refused, and who were then physically removed.

The 'Woke Anarchist' bit of writing was one of 5 things given out by them as small packs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Isn’t it interchangeable with ‘transphobe’? And whilst perhaps not a term of abuse, it’s probably a label a lot of people don’t want hanging over them.



Well I don't like being called a cunt but if I'm acting like a cunt at the time then I have to concede that it's fair comment.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well I don't like being called a cunt but if I'm acting like a cunt at the time then I have to concede that it's fair comment.



And when you’re called it and you’re not acting like one?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think going to a Bookfair to give out leaflets that you know are going to result in you being thrown out and causing chaos in the meantime is not really that useful thing to do personally, but I can see that if you want to discuss this stuff there's not many options left to you when you're told you can't have a meeting or a stall.



There's not many events where you _can_ bowl up at short notice and demand space on the program. That's not how the world works. They weren't looking to have a discussion, they were looking to get thrown out. I think that's because it's sometimes easier to harp on about being threatened and bullied for your views than to actually defend those views.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And when you’re called it and you’re not acting like one?



I would take a critical look at my behaviour and if on closer inspection it fell short of my own standards I would desist and apologise. If after careful consideration I was happy with my own conduct I would brush aside the insult and continue.

If however I couldn't defend my own behaviour but didn't want to stop doing it, then a tactic I might adopt would be to focus on the injustice of the mean word itself rather than whether or not it was applicable. That way, I could sort of take my own behaviour out of the equation and thus let myself off the hook.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's not many events where you _can_ bowl up at short notice and demand space on the program. That's not how the world works. They weren't looking to have a discussion, they were looking to get thrown out. I think that's because it's sometimes easier to harp on about being threatened and bullied for your views than to actually defend those views.



I think you need to get your facts right.

They _didn't_ turn up and 'demand space' on the program. They asked months in advance for a meeting/discussion space. The Bookfair said yes, Partisan said no. They then asked for a stall. Again Partisan, not the Bookfair, said no. So they turned up to give out some leaflets.

I think a discussion on here about this can be useful. But only if people stop making things up that confuse the facts of what happened.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would take a critical look at my behaviour and if on closer inspection it fell short of my own standards I would desist and apologise. If after careful consideration I was happy with my own conduct I would brush aside the insult and continue.
> 
> If however I couldn't defend my own behaviour but didn't want to stop doing it, then a tactic I might adopt would be to focus on the injustice of the mean word itself rather than whether or not it was applicable. That way, I could sort of take my own behaviour out of the equation and thus let myself off the hook.



And if its thrown around with wild abandon to the point it loses any meaning you may well do none of the above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think you need to get your facts right.
> 
> They _didn't_ turn up and 'demand space' on the program. They asked months in advance for a meeting/discussion space. The Bookfair said yes, Partisan said no. They then asked for a stall. Again Partisan, not the Bookfair, said no. So they turned up to give out some leaflets.
> 
> I think a discussion on here about this can be useful. But only if people stop making things up that confuse the facts of what happened.


a bit confused. was the approach made to the bookfair or to partisan or to both?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

OK then there's not many events where you can bowl up after being told you're not welcome and do the thing you've been asked not to do.

The point about getting thrown out on purpose still stands.

e2a: LynnDoyleCooper


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> a bit confused. was the approach made to the bookfair or to partisan or to both?



From what I understand they approached the Bookfair as you would when booking a talk, and the Bookfair said yes, but then the Bookfair checked with Partisan who then said no. They then asked for a stall, again Bookfair checked with Partisan who said no.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> OK then there's not many events where you can bowl up after being told you're not welcome and do the thing you've been asked not to do.
> 
> The point about getting thrown out on purpose still stands.
> 
> e2a: LynnDoyleCooper



Thrown out on purpose? They wanted to stay and have a drink/chat after giving out their leaflets. I don't think they got thrown out 'on purpose'. They might have known it was likely/possible, but I don't think they wanted that at all. At least one of them was really upset at being dragged out.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Here's the text from one of the leaflets given out...

*An essential introduction *

Before you read anything else we need you to know that we support universal human rights and do not seek to deny these to those who identify as trans.

We also support the right of everyone to refuse to conform to gender stereotypes, and to be able to live their lives the way they want insofar as they do not impact on others [*].  We believe gender dysphoria exists and can be crippling. A compassionate society should make sensible adjustments and protect from abuse and discrimination those who decide to transition to alleviate this distress.

But we do not believe that rejecting gender stereotypes changes a person’s sex.

A woman is someone with a female body and any personality NOT someone with a female personality and any body

This issue is sowing difficult divisions among us, but in order for us to move forwards, identify areas of agreement (of which there are many) and possible compromise, we MUST be able to talk about it.

THE MOST WORRYING ASPECT ABOUT THIS IS THE CLAMPDOWN ON ANYONE WHO DARES TO DISAGREE.

The only way, within anarchism, to justify intolerance of different ideas, and the bullying and actual physical violence towards those who disagree with the 'line', is to equate their ideas with fascism. Hence the use of 'terf' as a moral equivalent to nazi or 'feminazi'.

If you have any doubt that it could be the case that many of us who have long histories within left-wing / anarchist movements have suddenly become bigots or fascists, then please do us the justice of reading what we have to say. If you are prepared to think for yourself.

All we are asking for is to be heard, not for you to necessarily agree.

_* [Where their actions may impact on others there must be discussion about how to resolve this potential conflict. Women suffer from endemic sexism, and women only spaces exist to counteract this discrimination. To change the definition of women to include males impacts women and they must have a right to discuss this]. _


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Here's another....


----------



## chilango (Dec 4, 2018)

Is there a reason why they didn't do what the likes of the ICC have done when refused a stall inside and just set up a trestle table outside?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Here's the text from one of the leaflets given out...
> 
> *An essential introduction *
> 
> ...




For views that never get heard I've certainly heard these views a lot. If getting your views printed in the Guardian represents a 'clampdown' then pass me the clamps because I'd kill to have as much of a platform as these lot.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> Is there a reason why they didn't do what the likes of the ICC have done when refused a stall inside and just set up a trestle table outside?



I have no idea, but it's a good question. TBH I suspect that could have been more inflammatory in some ways, and almost certainly would have ended up with them being turned over.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Thrown out on purpose? They wanted to stay and have a drink/chat after giving out their leaflets. I don't think they got thrown out 'on purpose'. They might have known it was likely/possible, but I don't think they wanted that at all. At least one of them was really upset at being dragged out.



So they didn't want to get thrown out but did a thing which they knew was likely to get them thrown out.

M'kay.


----------



## chilango (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I have no idea, but it's a good question. TBH I suspect that could have been more inflammatory in some ways, and almost certainly would have ended up with them being turned over.



I think (maybe Fozzie Bear remembers?) leafletting was being done outside the London Radical Bookfair without too much drama. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Athos (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank I suspect their preferred option would have been to disseminate their ideas unchallenged, but that second best would be ejection.  In which regard, I wonder if their opponents don't play into their hands. Why not grasp the nettle: host a talk on this subject, allow them to attend and make their points, and comprehensively dismantle their views (if they're so wrong-headed)?  I get the idea about no platforming, but except at the really extreme end, gender critical feminists can't seriously be compared to fascists.  And the current approach is just polarising, whereas a dialogue might help both 'sides' empathise with the other, and, more importantly, prevent the vast majority of people (who, in my experience, have sympathy with parts of each argument) to work through that without being forced to pick a side.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> So they didn't want to get thrown out but did a thing which they knew was likely to get them thrown out.
> 
> M'kay.



I don't get why that's such a complicated thing to grasp. We all do things sometimes where we know there's a likely or possible outcome, but you'd rather it didn't happen.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Athos said:


> I suspect their preferred option would have been to disseminate their ideas unchallenged.



I'd bet their preferred option would have been a discussion where their ideas were challenged tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> From what I understand they approached the Bookfair as you would when booking a talk, and the Bookfair said yes, but then the Bookfair checked with Partisan who then said no. They then asked for a stall, again Bookfair checked with Partisan who said no.


it's all very strange


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> So they didn't want to get thrown out but did a thing which they knew was likely to get them thrown out.
> 
> M'kay.


to be fair there've been times we've all done things which were likely to get us chucked out of places. i believe i am still banned from haringey council's finance offices after taking part in a demonstration there in 1991


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it's all very strange



I suspect there was a large dose of buck passing/decision avoidance tbh.


----------



## Thora (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Here's the text from one of the leaflets given out...
> 
> *An essential introduction *
> 
> ...


What is the problem with this text? Is it transphobic/threatening violence?


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> For the last six months or so there have weekly onslaught against trans people from those having this debate from their newspaper columns in the national press, it is currrently being talked about non stop on Women's Hour, The Guardian has run an editorial about it, there have been billboards erected and sticker campaigns, debates in the House of Commons, a government consultation  in both England and Scotland, almost every major television station has featured documentaries about his debate, there are dozens of blogs and websites purely established to have this debate and thousands of people on social media having this debate.



This is dishonest; you know how poisonous the "debate" has been and how much intimidation and abuse has been levelled at anyone daring to challenge the 'transwomen are women' line. The only way that you can justify it is to continually claim that not thinking transwomen are women, and saying that in public is literally as "violent" and "transphobic" as death threats and the torrents of abuse that go the other way.

The continual attempts to kill off this discussion by using these threats means that even now you are trying to make out that any public discussion of this constitutes an assault on trans people. It's bullshit.

You mentioned the Women's Hour segments on the trans debate over the last 3 weeks as evidence of how we are being bombarded with this. What rubbish! This is the biggest, most contentious issue in women's politics (if you think there is such a thing) in literally decades, a debate which is tearing feminism into two halves and Women's Hour has resolutely ignored it for years. The only notice WH has taken of it is to publicly slap down and silence Jenni Murray for daring to voice her opinion on it. It's a perfect example of the way that the radical trans orthodoxy was absolutely in the saddle in the BBC until its inability to kill the debate off means that we now get this tiny sliver of discussion, set round with mental health warnings and caveats apologising for doing it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> to be fair there've been times we've all done things which were likely to get us chucked out of places. i believe i am still banned from haringey council's finance offices after taking part in a demonstration there in 1991



Yes but we did those thinhs with the intention of getting chucked out. I doubt your stated aim was a frank and open discussion with Haringey council was it?


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

cantsin said:


> am sure this has been done many times before, but as I don't know the answer, can I ask : how is such a precise, essentially technical term as TERF deemed " abusive " , whats' the logic ? And the suggested alternative ?
> 
> ( full disclosure : I use it, + have no intention of stopping doing so )



The logic is exactly the same as with any other derogatory term; i.e. context is king. After all "nigger" just means "black", right? And I used to hear regularly young Aussies (used to work with a lot) drag out the "paki is just the same as aussie so why shouldn't I say that then?" argument.

I'd hope the context is obvious, but if it isn't check this TERF is a slur

But you probably know all this already right? Because you asked your question despite announcing that you "use it and have no intention of stopping doing so". Misogyny is just so damned enjoyable ain't it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> The logic is exactly the same as with any other derogatory term; i.e. context is king. After all "nigger" just means "black", right? And I used to hear regularly young Aussies (used to work with a lot) drag out the "paki is just the same as aussie so why shouldn't I say that then?" argument.



You are I assume dimly aware that TERFdom is not an innate characteristic?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> After all "nigger" just means "black", right?


wrong


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> I'd hope the context is obvious, but if it isn't check this TERF is a slur


have you another record to play? because you've worn that one out on the other thread


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> I think (maybe Fozzie Bear remembers?) leafletting was being done outside the London Radical Bookfair without too much drama. I could be wrong though.



Yeah I was going to mention that.

As far as I can remember it:

Jeni Harvey was on the Chronos (marxist/situ publisher, Postone and all that) stand handing out a leaflet/small booklet about trans issues / the gender recognition act/consultation. I realised afterwards that she was only giving them to women. (A woman I was with gave me her copy as she couldn't be arsed with it)

Chronos would usually be at the London Anarchist Bookfair and the London Radical Bookfair but are not known for this sort of material.

My understanding is that when the organisers of the LRB realised that this leaflet was being distributed they asked Jeni not to hand it out. Jeni agreed to this (and has written about what happened herself here.)

Later on that day, chilango , another (now ex-) U75 poster and I left for the pub and were given the leaflet by the same women who was outside the gates of Goldsmiths with two or three other people.

The content of the leaflet was not as incendiary as some of the material handed out at the London Anarchist Bookfair.

From Jeni's account linked above it looks like there was a bit of verbals from Goldsmiths students / people visiting the bookfair later on.

So there was less drama involved, yes. But there being less drama relies on the behaviour of the leafletters and the organisers equally.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> You are I assume dimly aware that TERFdom is not an innate characteristic?



This isn't about whether a political belief is innate you plank. It's about what turns an "objective" description into a term of abuse. A bit like my use of the word "plank" in the first sentence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> wrong


To be fair, that _is_ exactly the point co-op was making.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> This isn't about whether a political belief is innate you plank. .



It is if you're comparing 'terf' to racist abuse.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It is if you're comparing 'terf' to racist abuse.



You haven't understood the point.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> You haven't understood the point.



I have understood it, it's just a shit point.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I have understood it, it's just a shit point.



No, really you haven't. But thanks for trying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> To be fair, that _is_ exactly the point Coop was making.


nigger doesn't just mean black, it always means a person and also generally signifies the user's perceived position with regard to the person it's used to, ie when used by a white person to a black person almost always with the message 'i'm above you'. it carries with it a host of connotations. nigger is not and never has been





co-op said:


> an "objective" description


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> nigger doesn't just mean black, it always means a person and also generally signifies the user's perceived position with regard to the person it's used to, ie when used by a white person to a black person almost always with the message 'i'm above you'. it carries with it a host of connotations. nigger is and never has been


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> nigger doesn't just mean black, it always means a person amd also generally signifies the user's perceived position with regard to the person it's used to. it carries with it a host of connotations.


I think you’re missing the fact that co-op was clearly saying that.

It’s hard enough to discuss this issue without us also misunderstanding each other’s rhetorical devices.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)

I am amazed that anyone on U75 would think that wading into this thread and asking a question like _"Hey what is a TERF anyway guys?"_ is a constructive thing to do.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> So there was less drama involved, yes. But there being less drama relies on the behaviour of the leafletters and the organisers equally.



I think this is important. The people doing the throwing out on Saturday had, in my opinion and from what I saw, already decided to throw out the people leafleting _irrespective of the content of the leaflets_. Indeed, a few claimed they hadn't even read the leaflets. Now, this may be a fair position depending on the people and their history with this sort of thing, but it is worth noting I think.


----------



## killer b (Dec 4, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I think you’re missing the fact that co-op was clearly saying that.
> 
> It’s hard enough to discuss this issue without us also misunderstanding each other’s rhetorical devices.


pretending to misunderstand each other's rhetorical devices even.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think this is important. The people doing the throwing out on Saturday had, in my opinion and from what I saw, already decided to throw out the people leafleting _irrespective of the content of the leaflets_. Indeed, a few claimed they hadn't even read the leaflets. Now, this may be a fair position depending on the people and their history with this sort of thing, but it is worth noting I think.



Exactly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I think you’re missing the fact that co-op was clearly saying that.
> 
> It’s hard enough to discuss this issue without us also misunderstanding each other’s rhetorical devices.


fair enough.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Someone had plastered the Bookfair with trans supportive posters, which for a brief optimistic moment I thought might have been the response to the expected leafleting that had been decided upon.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> I think you’re missing the fact that co-op was clearly saying that.
> 
> It’s hard enough to discuss this issue without us also misunderstanding each other’s rhetorical devices.



TBF with Pickman's there is a deep psychological need to misunderstand people generally and me in particular. I'm not sure what SpookyFrank's reason is. The point seems obvious to me; context is all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Someone had plastered the Bookfair with trans supportive posters, which for a brief optimistic moment I thought might have been the response that had been decided upon.


after the last fifteen months that was a forlorn hope


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Fixed by my IT department.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> TBF with Pickman's there is a deep psychological need to misunderstand people generally and me in particular. I'm not sure what SpookyFrank's reason is. The point seems obvious to me; context is all.


i misread while in a hurry, my bad. you by contrast have a sorry history of talking bollocks about me from the laughable 'little clarkson' on one of the cycling threads to your rather more serious but equally bollocks claim i've posted anti-semitic stuff. i wonder what psychological need that satisfied in you.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

And then this article was printed as a leaflet as well.

Gay Rights and Trans Rights – A Compare and Contrast


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Copy of another one of the leaflets handed out...



2:


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)




----------



## Edie (Dec 4, 2018)

> A woman is someone with a female body and any personality NOT someone with a female personality and any body



Making this statement, no matter how practically trans inclusive you may be, is what defines you as a “Terf”.

This is what you are no longer allowed to say.


----------



## LDC (Dec 4, 2018)

Thanks, that's better Pickman's model.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 4, 2018)

Edie said:


> Making this statement, no matter how practically trans inclusive you may be, is what defines you as a “Terf”.
> 
> This is what you are no longer allowed to say.



I suppose I'd better accept that I'm a Terf, then.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 4, 2018)

or identity politics masquerading as materialism. 'working class identity politics.' inter-scene squabbling as they continue to lose their social base and ascend to the middle classes themselves. But hey I'm not invested in this debate. 2010s anarchist movement doesn't really seem to care for disability politics at all. and disability is the modality through which i live economically.

Thread on ignore but still seems to be showing up in my recent threads list.


----------



## chilango (Dec 4, 2018)

I would like this thread to be more about how we* are able to proceed logistically/practically during these times and in the face of atomised and polarised camps entrenching themselves - and less about repeating the terf/trans arguments that rage elsewhere.

*and whilst I fully admit that I'm barely part of this "we" anymore,  this kinda thing is dissuading me from changing that anytime soon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> I would like this thread to be more about how we* are able to proceed logistically/practically during these times and in the face of atomised and polarised camps entrenching themselves - and less about repeating the terf/trans arguments that rage elsewhere.
> 
> *and whilst I fully admit that I'm barely part of this "we" anymore,  this kinda thing is dissuading me from changing that anytime soon.


perhaps by having at least clear statements on who is responsible for what. it's confusing to find that the venue, the partisan, and the event, the bookfair, seem to have had different rules, that where the bookfair seems to have been happy to host their stall the venue refused.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 4, 2018)

Edie said:


> Making this statement, no matter how practically trans inclusive you may be, is what defines you as a “Terf”.
> 
> This is what you are no longer allowed to say.



And yet you just said it.  This is just UKIP pub bore stuff except coming from the other direction - look how brave I am saying the forbidden terrible thing that everyone keeps saying everywhere you fucking look.

But I agree with chilango really, can't we keep this for the other thread and let this be a thread for anarchists to discuss how this conflict is affecting anarchist organising.


----------



## Edie (Dec 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> And yet you just said it.  This is just UKIP pub bore stuff except coming from the other direction - look how brave I am saying the forbidden terrible thing that everyone keeps saying everywhere you fucking look.
> 
> But I agree with chilango really, can't we keep this for the other thread and let this be a thread for anarchists to discuss how this conflict is affecting anarchist organising.


Sure, I’ll duck out.


----------



## Athos (Dec 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> I would like this thread to be more about how we* are able to proceed logistically/practically during these times and in the face of atomised and polarised camps entrenching themselves - and less about repeating the terf/trans arguments that rage elsewhere.
> 
> *and whilst I fully admit that I'm barely part of this "we" anymore,  this kinda thing is dissuading me from changing that anytime soon.



I agree in principle. But it's difficult in practice, as the question of who should be allowed to do what at which events turns very much on the specifics of what they're doing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

e2a: Nah, forget it.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> You just fucking said it though.



The women who handed out leaflets saying it were bodily removed.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The women who handed out leaflets saying it were bodily removed.



That's all the leaflets said was it?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2018)

Saying, "but you just said it" strips the statement "you can’t say X" of all context.  The point isn't that it is illegal to say X, it is that to say it makes one a pariah in the community to which one feels one should belong.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Saying, "but you just said it" strips the statement "you can say X" of all context.  The point isn't that it is illegal to say X, it is that to say it makes one a pariah in the community to which one feels one should belong.



Not everyone belongs where they think they belong. Isn't that rather the main thrust of TERF thought?

A few people have been forced to leave these halls because of these issues. None, to my knowledge, have been on the side of those now claiming to be silenced or made pariahs.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2018)

The fact that people are being confronted with the statement "not everyone belongs where they think they belong" is the entire meaning of the statement "you can't say X".


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not everyone belongs where they think they belong. Isn't that rather the main thrust of TERF thought?
> 
> A few people have been forced to leave these halls because of these issues. None, to my knowledge, have been on the side of those now claiming to be silenced or made pariahs.


yeh i was under the impression that "gender critical"/terf people thought that they were the majority and i have never heard of a majority which considered itself pariah-ised.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The fact that people are being confronted with the statement "not everyone belongs where they think they belong" is the entire meaning of the statement "you can't say X".



But X _is _a statement which amounts to 'you don't belong where you say you belong'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh i was under the impression that "gender critical"/terf people thought that they were the majority and i have never heard of a majority which considered itself pariah-ised.


 
Old white men in pubs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Old white men in pubs?


even in happier days when there were more pubs if not more auld white men they were not a majority


----------



## chilango (Dec 4, 2018)

None of this helps sort out the real danger to what little infrastructure a weakened anarchist movement has at the moment. 

That's what I want to discuss.


----------



## phillm (Dec 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe a scaffold could be organised


I used to love The Scaffold - though 'Lily the Pink' would no doubt need to be parsed carefully to check it conforms with contemporary radical mores.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But X _is _a statement which amounts to 'you don't belong where you say you belong'.


It's not tautologous.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It's not tautologous.



It's not a triple fudge ice cream sundae either, what's your point?


----------



## phillm (Dec 4, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I want an open ring - i want more people talking stuff even if it's shit. I think/hope that this may kick the door in for this. And maybe set the grounds for it. Because otherwise it's comedy stalinism that's going to win.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> The logic is exactly the same as with any other derogatory term; i.e. context is king. After all "nigger" just means "black", right? And I used to hear regularly young Aussies (used to work with a lot) drag out the "paki is just the same as aussie so why shouldn't I say that then?" argument.
> 
> I'd hope the context is obvious, but if it isn't check this TERF is a slur
> 
> But you probably know all this already right? Because you asked your question despite announcing that you "use it and have no intention of stopping doing so". Misogyny is just so damned enjoyable ain't it?



" nigger " / "paki " is a dismal , lazy, hopeless comparison to make.

S.J.W. / M.R.A, both political acronyms, one with an implied / contextual critique contained within, would at least make some sense.

Not biting on the misogo twaddle


----------



## killer b (Dec 4, 2018)

cantsin said:


> S.J.W. / M.R.A, both political acronyms, one with an implied / contextual critique contained within, would at least make some sense.


It would - and anyone going 'what do you mean, social justice warrior is a slur? you're a a warrior for social justice aren't you?' would be rightfully dismissed as being disingenuous or too thick to live.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

phillm said:


>


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not a triple fudge ice cream sundae either, what's your point?


That it's fucking childish and stupid to say, "nobody's stopping you saying it!"


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you'd mentioned you were applying it to A/B/C, perhaps you'd have got a different answer, but that wasn't what you asked, was it? You asked how the term was deemed abusive, and I told you - because it's not used in a precise or technical manner - as perhaps it might be at Bellos et al, but instead it's often used as a scattergun insult by idiots, rather than precise technical users like your esteemed self.



putting my hands up here ( and it's a bit of a sudden conversion, I'll admit) , but having seen the sheer violence / vitriol / hatred in the link
*co-op *put up, ie : the context in which TERF is being sprayed about by some online, I see both your p.o.v.'s a bit clearer here , and I'd be reluctant to use the term in a public facing context going fwd now.

Think it's probably pretty obvious everyone needs to do what they can to try and diffuse all this.... it's just crazy to have to be thinking of the likes of Helen S as some kind of political opponent .


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2018)

.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2018)

killer b said:


> It would - and anyone going 'what do you mean, social justice warrior is a slur? you're a a warrior for social justice aren't you?' would be rightfully dismissed as being disingenuous or too thick to live.



SJW is an incredibly light slur though, water off a ducks back, however hard 4 channers + co might go on it.... am not saying TERF is the same, as the (mainly online) heat and conflict around this particular issue is so intense at the moment, just the fact that there's nothing intrinsically demeaning in the term.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

cantsin said:


> putting my hands up here ( and it's a bit of a sudden conversion, I'll admit) , but having seen the sheer violence / vitriol / hatred in the link
> *co-op *put up, ie : the context in which TERF is being sprayed about by some online, I see both your p.o.v.'s a bit clearer here , and I'd be reluctant to use the term in a public facing context going fwd now.



Fair play, there is a further debate here but I'm going to leave the thread as it's really for anarchists to debate this one, which I didn't notice when I started posting on it.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> Fair play, there is a further debate here but I'm going to leave the thread as it's really for anarchists to debate this one, which I didn't notice when I started posting on it.



one last thing about the Terf is a Slur vileness : the amount of likes and RT's of those individual tweets barely gets above 1/2 per tweet - these are the bottom of the barrel brigade, with virtually no engagement / traction by the looks of it ( doesn't change my shifting position )


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

cantsin said:


> one last thing about the Terf is a Slur vileness : the amount of likes and RT's of those individual tweets barely gets above 1/2 per tweet - these are the bottom of the barrel brigade, with virtually no engagement / traction by the looks of it ( doesn't change my shifting position )



There are reasons for that - i.e. people recording these tweets grab them early in the process because they will be refreshing a search. 

This really is a different debate (ie how representative the crazy end of the spectrum are) - but the problem for those who want to fence them off as unrepresentative headbangers is that they have logic on their side. If "transwomen are women", no discussion allowed, no exceptions, no ifs or buts whatsoever, then everything else follows. They might be venomous and reactionary but I can't fault their logic. If you buy the logic, then the abuse is justified (which is exactly what those using that abuse say - it's retaliation for 'transphobia')


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> None of this helps sort out the real danger to what little infrastructure a weakened anarchist movement has at the moment.
> 
> That's what I want to discuss.



Same. But the blue touchpaper has now been lit so my guess is that we'll end up with another 500 page thread like the last one. And the one before that.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> There are reasons for that - i.e. people recording these tweets grab them early in the process because they will be refreshing a search.
> 
> This really is a different debate (ie how representative the crazy end of the spectrum are) - but the problem for those who want to fence them off as unrepresentative headbangers is that they have logic on their side. If "transwomen are women", no discussion allowed, no exceptions, no ifs or buts whatsoever, then everything else follows. They might be venomous and reactionary but I can't fault their logic. If you buy the logic, then the abuse is justified (which is exactly what those using that abuse say - it's retaliation for 'transphobia')



hadnt thought of the 'early grab' aspect, and grappling w/ interesting main point, ta


----------



## crossthebreeze (Dec 4, 2018)

I'm not feeling great today, so not engaging much, but thanks LynnDoyleCooper and Fozzie Bear especially for finding/putting out evidence for what actually happened.  I've seen a right lot of shit on facebook about this which I thought couldn't be true, and when "both""sides" are basing their argument on rumours and lies its not going to do anyone - or the anarchist movement - any good.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> I'm not feeling great today, so not engaging much, but thanks LynnDoyleCooper and Fozzie Bear especially for finding/putting out evidence for what actually happened.  I've seen a right lot of shit on facebook about this which I thought couldn't be true, and when "both""sides" are basing their argument on rumours and lies its not going to do anyone - or the anarchist movement - any good.



thanks - I agree that this is one of the main problems (not the only problem, but this one is relatively easy for us to do something about)


----------



## chilango (Dec 4, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Same. But the blue touchpaper has now been lit so my guess is that we'll end up with another 500 page thread like the last one. And the one before that.



Yeah.

...and if so, once again I (and I suspect others) will stop contributing to an argument i don't want to have.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 4, 2018)

cantsin said:


> one last thing about the Terf is a Slur vileness : the amount of likes and RT's of those individual tweets barely gets above 1/2 per tweet - these are the bottom of the barrel brigade, with virtually no engagement / traction by the looks of it ( doesn't change my shifting position )



It's fringer than fringe and more importantly it's over, the only trans people who have posted on the punchaterf hashtag in the last two years have been denouncing it.  And as many of those twitter accounts on terfisaslur no longer exist its impossible to know their provenence.  There certainly was a period when this kind of thing was more common on twitter, killallmen, diecisscum etc, but it seems to have died down and was mostly a US anarcho thing as far as I could tell, it never really caught on here.

It's also worth pointing out that those tweets almost all predate the current row by some time, and back then, TERF meant those who were radically anti-trans, believe trans women rape womens identities and steal female energy as Janice Raymond put it and who have been very active in the states trying to prevent and prtesting against trans health care.  This is where the whole terfs want to kill us rhetoric came from, because many people consider that healthcare life saving.  The more traditional TERF movement were quite open in their desire to see trans healthcare banned or significantly reduced and any legal protections for trans people scrapped in the aim of eliminating transsexuality from society.  That is why the response was (wrongly in my view) so vitriolic, and it doesn't apply to most of those who are trans critical now in the UK, although it does apply to several of those who have been speaking from a platform at the various meetings.

But its not a term I generally use because I think the priority really should be finding a way to build bridges and move forward, and not acting in a way that pushes people further towards the anti-trans conspiracy theories which seem to be taking hold on mumsnet and elsewhere.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2018)

cantsin said:


> putting my hands up here ( and it's a bit of a sudden conversion, I'll admit) , but having seen the sheer violence / vitriol / hatred in the link
> *co-op *put up, ie : the context in which TERF is being sprayed about by some online, I see both your p.o.v.'s a bit clearer here , and I'd be reluctant to use the term in a public facing context going fwd now.
> 
> Think it's probably pretty obvious everyone needs to do what they can to try and diffuse all this.... it's just crazy to have to be thinking of the likes of Helen S as some kind of political opponent .



The problem there is there's a minority - on each side - who actually thrive on a polarisation. Simple black v. white narrative fit that purpose. A bit of nuance, a bit of "jaw-jaw" doesn't fit that purpose. The "minority" I talk - both sides - about generally isn't those that are genuinely concerned about equity and equality, it's the underbelly of interests that see benefit in conflict, the religious right, the pharma interests that smell a killing, etc.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> But its not a term I generally use because I think the priority really should be finding a way to build bridges and move forward, and not acting in a way that pushes people further towards the anti-trans conspiracy theories which seem to be taking hold on mumsnet and elsewhere.



You don't "generally" use it? Just special occasions? If the first 3/4 of your post is true then & you really want to build bridges etc why not just condemn it? 

I do not for the life of me see any way there are any bridges that can be built while the "transwomen are women" claim is a shibboleth, that transwomen are literally women. 

Someone somewhere is going to have to do some massive backing up.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem there is there's a minority - on each side - who actually thrive on a polarisation. Simple black v. white narrative fit that purpose. A bit of nuance, a bit of "jaw-jaw" doesn't fit that purpose. The "minority" I talk - both sides - about generally isn't those that are genuinely concerned about equity and equality, it's the underbelly of interests that see benefit in conflict, the religious right, the pharma interests that smell a killing, etc.



This is true but the debate has been utterly dominated by the question of whether any debate or discussion is permitted. That's come from people trying to shut down the gender critical pov, not the other way round.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)

Edit

Now on the other thread.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 4, 2018)

co-op said:


> You don't "generally" use it? Just special occasions? If the first 3/4 of your post is true then & you really want to build bridges etc why not just condemn it?
> 
> I do not for the life of me see any way there are any bridges that can be built while the "transwomen are women" claim is a shibboleth, that transwomen are literally women.
> 
> Someone somewhere is going to have to do some massive backing up.



I've replied to this on the other thread.  Perhaps people can post there if they want to discuss broader trans issues and keep this thread to what it was intended for.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I've replied to this on the other thread.  Perhaps people can post there if they want to discuss broader trans issues and keep this thread to what it was intended for.



Good plan.


----------



## co-op (Dec 4, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> One useful trade off would be if
> 
> 1. trans people and their allies stopped using the word TERF.
> 
> 2. Gender critical feminists stopped deliberately misgendering trans people. (Which to be clear, doesn’t have to mean that they have to accept that trans women are women. Or that trans men are men)



TBH I don't think your suggestions will work. I won't go into the second because that seems like it's just an invite to re-open the whole ghastly argument.

But for the first, I think you're missing the point; 'terf' is a slur for contextual reasons - i.e. it's been used that way by people hostile to GC feminists. But just stopping using the specific slur is beside the point - the point is that it was used for two key reasons;

1. to identify radical feminists as the principle enemy of trans people (and not for example, the reactionary right) and 
2. to bully those feminists into silence.

This is the problem, not any given slur, which is in itself petty. The 'give' that has to be made here is that gender critical radical feminists need to be allowed to argue their case. Good luck with that one.


----------



## sihhi (Dec 4, 2018)

chilango said:


> None of this helps sort out the real danger to what little infrastructure a weakened anarchist movement has at the moment.
> 
> That's what I want to discuss.



If anyone reads about these events from the wider liberal/left pool the fisticuff aspect always dominates soon the equation will be bookfair = punch up about gender.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 4, 2018)

sihhi said:


> If anyone reads about these events from the wider liberal/left pool the fisticuff aspect always dominates soon the equation will be bookfair = punch up about gender.


I think that's a bit unfair.

Bookfair = punch up. It could be about anything.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 4, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yeah I was going to mention that.
> 
> As far as I can remember it:
> 
> ...


Not worth going over this just for the sake of it, but there is reason to i think as its says a lot about the nature of these GRA bookfair visits. My understanding of what happened on that occasion is: initial drama was defused through discussion, and by agreement they handed out pamphlets outside the gates.....but then breaking that agreement Jeni and her spoiling-for-a-fight partner came back on the grounds  specifically after seeing a small group of genderqueer people, beelined over to them, and handed the leaflets to them, and lo and behold a fight immediately broke out, just like they wanted, and full martyrdom was complete. They filmed that argument on a phone, as they probably thought it would make great propaganda, except likely on looking back at the footage they realised they looked like idiots and it never made its way to the net.

Eventually that final fight was also defused but there then followed the obligatory sprint to the nearest computer for maximum impact write-ups, retweets and boycotting emails. Jeni's account is full of inaccuracies if not deliberate lies, but life is too short to pick through them. Her partner wrote even worse victimised bollocks. Of course those who weren't there and actively want every worse presentation of it to be true, duly repeat and repost without a care about the reality or the implications, confirmation bias on overdrive.

I am convinced people like this actively seek drama and confrontation and feed off it. A relatively peaceful resolution was found on the day, but that would've meant them leaving without enough drama, so they *deliberately *went and found themselves some beef before the day was done. Vampires.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Should trans-related issues be discussed in anarchist and movement spaces - in theory yes of course. But its the attitude of some of those activists involved that makes that impossible. By now everyone recognises how volatile an issue this can be and so in the spirit of lack of disruption of our precious few spaces, and in the spirit of finding unabusive solutions, you'd expect everyone to be tiptoeing as lightly as possible for the greater good. Clearly not. Instead its abusive stickers up in the womens bogs, lets film what happens if i hand this flyer to a genderqueer student, back track on agreements with organisers etc etc etc etc.

In short, the window for peaceful debate in our shared spaces has closed, and there are still plenty of people wanting to lob bricks through that window for good measure. THEY have made the issue off limits from discussion and no one else.

I think organisers are well in their rights to put a moratorium on the discussion of anything related to this issue, and they should have the widest of support in so doing, no matter where you might stand on the issues. Why should broader events be spoiled by those wishing to weaponise this dispute over and over again? Sad state of affairs but what other option is there in the short term?

Incidentally, does anyone know when the government will make its announcements on the GRA? I thought its due quite soon now. My only hope is once the governments procedure is over it will take some of the heat out of this. That might be wishful thinking though.


PeterTCA said:


> *To score a particular point they are happy to see the event destroyed. *In future we need to protect ourselves. As was pointed out they are free to put in the work to host their own fair, their own meetings.


Impossible not to agree with that. These woke anarchist leafleters know full well that bookfairs are shutting down in the wake of this debate, clearly incapable of dealing with the ruptures and conflicts that arise, yet off they happily trot up to Manchester, despite knowing they aren't welcome and that being there will guarantee disruption.

For all the talk of anti-divisiveness, bigger picture class struggle allegedly cared about in that Woke Anarchist text, off they go once again without a care that the single issue they are focussed on might destroy any chance of that wider work being nurtured.


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 5, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Plus it's quite difficult to have a conversation with someone who is just going to shout "penis" repeatedly.


Cheers - just spluttered coffee out of my nose. Trying to catch up with the thread when I should be working. 20 minutes go I was in exactly the situation you describe, albeit with a 6 year old boy:

Me:How are you feeling this morning?
6yo: .........
Me: Mummy tells me that you were unhap
6yo: penis
Me: py with how thin
6yo: penispenis
Me: gs went yesterday after
6yo: penispenispenis
Me: noon.
6yo: you're a penis and mummy's a penis
Me: Have you seen the new spiderman com
6yo: penispenispenis
Me: ic I brought in today
6yo: spiderman's a penis
Me: .................
6yo: penispenisPENISPENISPENISPEEEEEEEENIIIIIIIIIIIIS *runs off down corridor*
Me:  (but also )


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 5, 2018)

Sweet FA wow that's an amazing start to the day


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 5, 2018)

Great post ska invita . 

I was at the event on Saturday, as I've said before, it was great. Just a shame that so much discussion since then has been spent on about 30 minutes of (relatively) minor disruption by four individuals who knew they weren't welcome.


----------



## LDC (Dec 5, 2018)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Great post ska invita .
> 
> I was at the event on Saturday, as I've said before, it was great. Just a shame that so much discussion since then has been spent on about 30 minutes of (relatively) minor disruption by four individuals who knew they weren't welcome.



Were they unwelcome because of the leaflets they gave out, things they'd given out or done in the past, or some other reason? Not trying to be obtuse, but I think it's important.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 5, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Were they unwelcome because of the leaflets they gave out, things they'd given out or done in the past, or some other reason? Not trying to be obtuse, but I think it's important.



I don't know.

*Edited as I don't want to speculate.


----------



## LDC (Dec 5, 2018)

Threshers_Flail said:


> I don't know as I was too far away to hear everything, but I think they were asked to leave because of things done in the past.



OK, so that's quite important.

Things they'd all done in the past, or just some of them? And does that mean they're not welcome at events even if they don't give out leaflets?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 5, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> OK, so that's quite important.
> 
> Things they'd all done in the past, or just some of them? And does that mean they're not welcome at events even if they don't give out leaflets?



I don't know mate, I was there but hardly in the middle of things.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 5, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> OK, so that's quite important.
> 
> Things they'd all done in the past, or just some of them? And does that mean they're not welcome at events even if they don't give out leaflets?



I'd suggest that speculating about this in a public forum is unhelpful and ask you to note the edit above.

Inevitably there will be different bookfairs with different views on this and seemingly some venues will also have policies/views too.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 5, 2018)

Yeah I just repeated hearsay in the above post #248 so please ignore.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 5, 2018)

Also reading that back my last post looks a bit pompous, sorry! 

Limited time on here and I didn't want to come back to several pages of derail and speculation. (Something I have often contributed to myself obvs)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 5, 2018)

Edie said:


> Making this statement, no matter how practically trans inclusive you may be, is what defines you as a “Terf”.
> 
> This is what you are no longer allowed to say.



You can't really claim to be being inclusive of transwomen if your starting point is that transwomen are not women though, can you? Which is not to say I want to have the fight with you. But it sounds like you're claiming that people hold this view but are also trying really hard to be inclusive of transwomen and I'm not sure I've seen any of that from any one.

This thread has been interesting to me as a 'trot' and therefore probably basically a Stalinist to many who will attend the Bookfairs. 

I guess I have three basic points: 

1) This group of people sound like attention seeking wankers. There, I've sidestepped 'TERF', although they sound pretty rad fem, even if they do have some legitimate criticisms of identity politics and its influence on the broad labour movement. 

2) If you think TERF, or for that matter SJW or anarcho or Tankie or Trot or whatever are terms of abuse, I've got to conclude you went to a posh school. 

3) I realise they're not directly comparable events and they have a different ethos. But whenever we do big public events where people from other left traditions critical of our politics are likely to turn up (I'm in the SP) Chairs of discussions are always given strict instructions to welcome people from other orgs or political backgrounds, give them extra speaking time to make their points, and generally facilitate them. It would be lovely to say that this was purely about having the most democratic debate possible, and of course that aspect can be stressed, but of course it is in fact partially to allow critical voices to raise their criticisms, then allow everyone in the room to berate them, and give them the choice of whether they want to meekly listen to the responses in a polite fashion or kick off and make themselves look daft. It avoids anyone being able to claim they are 'silenced' or that we don't believe in free debate etc. 

Obviously the organisers are under no obligation to provide a platform to anyone they don't want to. But it seems like the general idea of not allowing 'gender critical'/bigot voices (there I didn't say TERF) at events is failing, because it's allowing quite an elderly fringe to portray themselves as being silenced and oppressed, rather than simply not being very relevant or useful. 

PS The fact that men physically ejected women def not a good look.


----------



## andysays (Dec 5, 2018)

ska invita said:


> ...Should trans-related issues be discussed in anarchist and movement spaces - in theory yes of course. But its the attitude of some of those activists involved that makes that impossible. By now everyone recognises how volatile an issue this can be and so in the spirit of lack of disruption of our precious few spaces, and in the spirit of finding unabusive solutions, you'd expect everyone to be tiptoeing as lightly as possible for the greater good. Clearly not. Instead its abusive stickers up in the womens bogs, lets film what happens if i hand this flyer to a genderqueer student, back track on agreements with organisers etc etc etc etc.
> 
> In short, the window for peaceful debate in our shared spaces has closed, and there are still plenty of people wanting to lob bricks through that window for good measure. THEY have made the issue off limits from discussion and no one else.
> 
> ...



I think I'm coming to the conclusion that the best (probably actually least bad) way forward is, as you suggest, a moratorium on the discussion of anything related to this issue at events like bookfairs which are aimed at being gatherings of anarchist sympathizers where a variety of discussions on a variety of subjects can take place.

Rather than attempting to exclude people or groups whose views or actions around this subject are seen as objectionable by some others, and therefore being viewed as taking sides even if that's not the intention, better to focus on issues where general constructive dialogue is possible, even where people's opinions understandably differ.

And if those at both extremes of the debate want a platform to carry on their discussion, maybe they should organise such things themselves rather than attempting to parasite on and inevitably disrupt the activities of others.

I said it once already but I still think it's hugely ironic and completely lacking in any awareness that after having their attempts to get a stall etc declined, these people turned up and handed out leaflets claiming that


> To us anarchism is cooperation, mutual aid, solidarity and fighting the real centres of power. Anarchist spaces should not be for those who merely want to fight those around them.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> You can't really claim to be being inclusive of transwomen if your starting point is that transwomen are not women though, can you? Which is not to say I want to have the fight with you. But it sounds like you're claiming that people hold this view but are also trying really hard to be inclusive of transwomen and I'm not sure I've seen any of that from any one.
> 
> This thread has been interesting to me as a 'trot' and therefore probably basically a Stalinist to many who will attend the Bookfairs.
> 
> ...


SpackleFrog I don’t _think_ I’m an anarchist (although sometimes interested, in any road never been to an anarchist meeting) so said I said I’d not get involved. 

Does raise questions of how dissenting voices (or people with different ideas or possibly even just _women_) are treated in this kind of political space tho so still reading.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 5, 2018)

Edie said:


> SpackleFrog I don’t _think_ I’m an anarchist (although sometimes interested, in any road never been to an anarchist meeting) so said I said I’d not get involved.
> 
> Does raise questions of how dissenting voices (or people with different ideas or possibly even just _women_) are treated in this kind of political space tho so still reading.



Fair enough. But what about this transwomen are not women/being inclusive of trans women dichotomy? What do you mean about being practically inclusive of transwomen while simultaneously arguing that transwomen are in fact men presenting as women?


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough. But what about this transwomen are not women/being inclusive of trans women dichotomy? What do you mean about being practically inclusive of transwomen while simultaneously arguing that transwomen are in fact men presenting as women?


Briefly then, happy to share the bogs, less happy to share a hospital ward or compete in sport, don’t literally consider them female.

Ie not completely excluding them, whilst simultaneously recognising that being female-*sexed* is the basis for much of women’s discrimination.

Now I promised to say no more.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 5, 2018)

Edie said:


> SpackleFrog I don’t _think_ I’m an anarchist (although sometimes interested, in any road never been to an anarchist meeting) so said I said I’d not get involved.
> 
> Does raise questions of how dissenting voices (or people with different ideas or possibly even just _women_) are treated in this kind of political space tho so still reading.



Perhaps some perspective would help.

I have personally attended these two meetings at the London Anarchist Bookfair

1. In the mid-90s Stewart Home and Fabian Tompsett continually wound up the anarchist movement by pointing at some slightly obscure tendencies it had towards fascist thought. These were mainly historical, like Bakunin's anti-semitism. Or loony but current like the nonsense Green Anarchist came out with.

Stewart and Fabian held a meeting about this at the Anarchist Bookfair at Conway Hall. It was fractious, it was shouty, it was probably pointless. But it happened.

2. In the early noughties the Hackney Branch of the IWCA held a meeting at the bookfair which given the IWCA's strategy around elections (which anarchists pretty much universally reject) and many of its prominent members hostility to anarchism ("it will never work") was also surprising.

That was actually a great, comradely respectful meeting.

More generally you will see stalls at the bookfair from Catholic Worker in the same room as a massive banner at Active Distribution saying "Religion Is Stupid".

I'll probably think of more examples in a minute.

Bob Black famously once said "If anarchists can put up with each other, they will put up with anyone".

I think recent events are showing that even anarchists have limits.


----------



## Edie (Dec 5, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Perhaps some perspective would help.
> 
> I have personally attended these two meetings at the London Anarchist Bookfair
> 
> ...


And what a surprise those limits are women.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 5, 2018)

Edie said:


> And what a surprise those limits are women.



I've seen a lot more physical confrontations with dissenting men at the Bookfair than women, if that helps. That will have to wait for another time though as I am off to the post office before it closes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 5, 2018)

Edie said:


> Briefly then, happy to share the bogs, less happy to share a hospital ward or compete in sport, don’t literally consider them female.
> 
> Ie not completely excluding them, whilst simultaneously recognising that being female-*sexed* is the basis for much of women’s discrimination.
> 
> Now I promised to say no more.



That's fair enough, thanks for engaging. Still seems a difficult circle to square.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 5, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> I'm not feeling great today, so not engaging much, but thanks LynnDoyleCooper and Fozzie Bear especially for finding/putting out evidence for what actually happened.  I've seen a right lot of shit on facebook about this which I thought couldn't be true, and when "both""sides" are basing their argument on rumours and lies its not going to do anyone - or the anarchist movement - any good.


This.


----------



## Riklet (Dec 5, 2018)

Definite lesson for future bookfairs, pretty sure this will be a big topic for Bristol.  Not to throw out the obsessed trans bashers or beligerent trans rights fanatics of either side. Not a good look 4 women being physically removed from an anarchist bookfair, I agree.

There has to be a reasonable debate, but more than that youd imagine and hope that any anarchist bookfair would have engaging important stuff going on that it could eclipse and move beyond the never-ending trans madness.

If people cant have their views rigerously challenged at an anarchist event without having a huff, maybe they shouldn't be there.


----------



## LDC (Dec 5, 2018)

Riklet said:


> ...you'd imagine and hope that any anarchist bookfair would have engaging important stuff going on that it could eclipse and move beyond the never-ending trans madness.



Yes, indeed, you would hope.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2018)

Riklet said:


> Definite lesson for future bookfairs, pretty sure this will be a big topic for Bristol.  Not to throw out the obsessed trans bashers or beligerent trans rights fanatics of either side. Not a good look 4 women being physically removed from an anarchist bookfair, I agree.
> 
> There has to be a reasonable debate, but more than that youd imagine and hope that any anarchist bookfair would have engaging important stuff going on that it could eclipse and move beyond the never-ending trans madness.
> 
> If people cant have their views rigerously challenged at an anarchist event without having a huff, maybe they shouldn't be there.


Book 2 venues for the bookfair, and have the gender critical / terf meeting at the smaller of the two. Perhaps in Telford.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Book 2 venues for the bookfair, and have the gender critical / terf meeting at the smaller of the two. Perhaps in Telford.



Yeah. Fucking Telford.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2018)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah. Fucking Telford.


I'm thinking of places near-ish Bristol, if you've a better suggestion I'd gladly hear it


----------



## ska invita (Dec 5, 2018)

Edie said:


> And what a surprise those limits are women.


Not sure exactly what you mean? perhaps worth considering and remembering what happened at the anarchafeminist all-dayer in 2014

I wasnt there so cant tell you exactly what happened but my recollection is
.. The organisers got badly burned by the fighting on the day and aftermath storm and won't be organising another one (such a shame and waste that, gutting, i think it was a really useful initiative)
.. have a guess what issue it was that created all the stress
.. some of the same names cropped up there as other events under discussion here. Pretty sure Helen Steel was one of those involved (apologies if i got that wrong)

Heres a write up with one of the people involved on a practical level, written in the immediate aftermath

"A group of trans exclusionary radical feminists (known as TERFs for short) tried to undermine the event. Someone who had been on the organiser list from the start lied about their willingness to uphold the inclusion policy to other organisers. They then positioned themselves to help present the Introduction to Anarcha-Feminism where they went off the presentation planned with the co-facilitator in order to spout some transphobic bile. At the same time they were seen conferring with other terfs before they dispersed into each session and parrot the same transphobic talking points, and appeared to be using the quiet space to regroup and plan.

Attempts were made to remove the TERFs by some of the organisers but this unity was undermined and they used the confusion caused by sabotage of the consensus we had otherwise forged for the event to hang about. Despite this betrayal and sabotage, everyone I talked with found that any move towards transphobic discussion was quickly shut down and made unwelcome, and that the issue was handled better than most events. However, there was still a lack of consistency on how those breaking with the safer spaces agreement were dealt with."

That account basically matches what a friend who was there says happened.
"Betrayal and sabotage", too strong? Hard to disagree with that. I think thats what it amounts to.

A reminder of their publicly stated inclusion policy


> Who is the conference open to?
> 
> Our conference is open to all people who are the target of gender oppression, by which we mean sexism, misogyny, trans misogyny, cissexism, transphobia and binarism. If this applies to you, you are welcome as long as you act in accordance with our safer spaces policy.
> 
> We wish in particular to stress that, as anarcha-feminists, we take transphobia very seriously. Feminism and anarchism as movements have historically excluded and marginalised trans people, and continue to do so. Trans women, in particular, have been excluded from many branches of feminism.  Because of this, we want to be especially clear that including trans women is a high priority for the conference.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm thinking of places near-ish Bristol, if you've a better suggestion I'd gladly hear it



Telford is the best place for these people! Just agreeing.


----------



## JHE (Dec 6, 2018)

The authorities are to be warmly commended for ejecting the impertinent and heretical women.

If we allowed unauthorised opinions to be expressed, people would be offended. There would be uncontrolled debate and the risk of propagating problematic ideas. Sheer anarchy.

Ducking stools are no longer allowed - apparently, there is a risk of drowning - but I can see no H&S objection to using this nifty little contraption.







The part that goes into the mouth holds down the cis scum's tongue and so prevents hate speech.

Traditionally it was known as a scold's bridle, but the appropriate committee may decide to rename it a safe-space mask or terf-muter.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 6, 2018)

JHE said:


> The authorities are to be warmly commended for ejecting the impertinent and heretical women.
> 
> If we allowed unauthorised opinions to be expressed, people would be offended. There would be uncontrolled debate and the risk of propagating problematic ideas. Sheer anarchy.
> 
> ...



Measured response there.


----------



## Edie (Dec 6, 2018)

I’m genuinely surprised this safe space stuff is now in anarchist meetings. It’s making mumsnet look like radical politics on this issue.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 6, 2018)

Mumsnet's a perfect example of what happens when these idiots are allowed free rein. Anything to do with trans issues gets leapt on by people making vicious bigoted comments. It actually got so bad that they had to spell out new guidelines this year telling people not to be bigoted tossers.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 6, 2018)

It’s how people get to form a hierarchy in a non hierarchical setting. 



Edie said:


> I’m genuinely surprised this safe space stuff is now in anarchist meetings. It’s making mumsnet look like radical politics on this issue.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 6, 2018)

No it isn't, don't be ridiculous. Honestly this is on about the same level as "organised anarchists? Haha".


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 6, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> No it isn't, don't be ridiculous. Honestly this is on about the same level as "organised anarchists? Haha".



It’s interesting that it was originally conceived as a means of protecting women and is now being used against women who hold the wrong views.

This is a pretty good critique on it:

For your safety and security… | We are Plan C


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 6, 2018)

It's being used against people who deliberately come in to upset and disrupt events, not quite the same thing. 

But I was actually referring to that shallow dismissive tone you've employed. I have lots of my own criticisms about safe spaces, mostly around the problems of clarity, consistency and enforcement by small groups of organisers, but they have been employed to good effect before now and one line sneers about hierarchy is lazy crap.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 6, 2018)

It might serve useful purposes but you can’t really wriggle out of the fact that it’s hierchical. It’s a system of rules that has to be policed.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 6, 2018)

If you think anarchism is a system without rules that can be enforced I refer you back to "organised anarchism, haha". Wriggle indeed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 6, 2018)

Well no I don’t think that. But there has to be accountability. Anyway, enoughof this derail.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 6, 2018)

ska invita said:


> My understanding of what happened on that occasion is: initial drama was defused through discussion, and by agreement they handed out pamphlets outside the gates.....but then breaking that agreement Jeni and her spoiling-for-a-fight partner came back on the grounds  specifically after seeing a small group of genderqueer people, beelined over to them, and handed the leaflets to them, and lo and behold a fight immediately broke out, just like they wanted, and full martyrdom was complete. They filmed that argument on a phone, as they probably thought it would make great propaganda, except likely on looking back at the footage they realised they looked like idiots and it never made its way to the net.
> 
> Eventually that final fight was also defused but there then followed the obligatory sprint to the nearest computer for maximum impact write-ups, retweets and boycotting emails. Jeni's account is full of inaccuracies if not deliberate lies, but life is too short to pick through them. Her partner wrote even worse victimised bollocks. Of course those who weren't there and actively want every worse presentation of it to be true, duly repeat and repost without a care about the reality or the implications, confirmation bias on overdrive.
> 
> I am convinced people like this actively seek drama and confrontation and feed off it. A relatively peaceful resolution was found on the day, but that would've meant them leaving without enough drama, so they *deliberately *went and found themselves some beef before the day was done. Vampires.



Honest and open debate being violently repressed, clearly.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 6, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The women who handed out leaflets saying it were bodily removed.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 6, 2018)

JHE said:


> The authorities are to be warmly commended for ejecting the impertinent and heretical women.
> 
> If we allowed unauthorised opinions to be expressed, people would be offended. There would be uncontrolled debate and the risk of propagating problematic ideas. Sheer anarchy.
> 
> ...


It really isnt about free speech at this point. Its about how to stop/avoid fights (verbal and physical) breaking out, disrupting peaceful events, again and again and again and again and again and again.

Freedom of speech is an enlightenment ideal, and who would be against that? But the notion of debating in a reasoned manner to find a deeper truth needs to be set out with that goal in mind. A debating chamber has rules and expectations of behaviour. These restraining rules and expectations are out the window in whats happening at public meetings.

Funnily enough the likes of radio, tv and print media bring back some of those rules of conduct, which is partly why the debate can be had fairly safely and reasonably within those spaces.

In a free for all space of a corridor or hall or toilet or speakers corner its gloves off, take no prisoners and no backing down from either side. Its fuck the organisers requests, fuck the organisers guidelines, fuck any attempts to defuse confrontation, fuck the other side, fuck who ever gets caught in the fray, and fuck the long term consequences for others, maximum upset for retweets. <<<what has any of that got to do with freedom of speech? (other than as a figleaf of martyrdom to guilt trip with in the aftermath)


----------



## likesfish (Dec 7, 2018)

feminists who want to exclude transwomen rather run into the hard fact.
  That their view is unpopular and runs against current opinion law and science but of course, some men hate women so much they go through years of shit just so they can "invade" a sacred female space.


----------



## Edie (Dec 7, 2018)

likesfish said:


> feminists who want to exclude transwomen rather run into the hard fact.
> That their view is unpopular and runs against current opinion law and science but of course, some men hate women so much they go through years of shit just so they can "invade" a sacred female space.


This is what women are up against.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 7, 2018)

So transwomen are going through all the shit they go through just to help oppress women really


----------



## Edie (Dec 7, 2018)

God what a dim thing to say. And _liked_ by the parrot pickmans of course.


----------



## JHE (Dec 7, 2018)

ska invita said:


> It really isnt about free speech at this point. Its about how to stop/avoid fights (verbal and physical) breaking out, disrupting peaceful events, again and again and again and again and again and again.
> 
> Freedom of speech is an enlightenment ideal, and who would be against that? But the notion of debating in a reasoned manner to find a deeper truth needs to be set out with that goal in mind. A debating chamber has rules and expectations of behaviour. These restraining rules and expectations are out the window in whats happening at public meetings.
> 
> ...



I see. It's not really anarchocrats silencing women dissidents, then. It's just honest bobbies trying to keep the peace for the benefit of all. I'll take your word for it.

Just out of interest, though:

How often do the peace-keeping anarcho-bobbies eject the screaming trans fanatics?
How often do they eject the heretical feminists whose crime is to refuse to chant that transwomen are women?


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 7, 2018)

Seriously though folks doing the "rules in anarchy haha" thing really is cringeworthy, pls do everyone a favour and stop embarrassing yourselves.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 7, 2018)

Edie said:


> God what a dim thing to say. And _liked_ by the parrot pickmans of course.



still less stupid than being a Terf  or a rad fem


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2018)

Edie said:


> God what a dim thing to say. And _liked_ by the parrot pickmans of course.


what a spectacularly stupid thing to say.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 7, 2018)

likesfish said:


> still less stupid than being a Terf  or a rad fem



I don't think you realise the irony of this given the simplistic nonsense you posted.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 7, 2018)

Not really because the people they are protesting are people who are willing to listen to their nonsense and the idea that all women are oppressed all the time by all men is nonsense of the worst kind.


----------



## co-op (Dec 7, 2018)

likesfish said:


> Not really because the people they are protesting are people who are willing to listen to their nonsense and the idea that all women are oppressed all the time by all men is nonsense of the worst kind.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 7, 2018)

likesfish said:


> still less stupid than being a Terf  or a rad fem



Terfery =/= radical feminism. A lot of radical feminists would consider enforcement of a rigid gender dichotomy anthithetical to feminist ideals.

Not the that the terfs will tell you that of course. They'd have you believe that all of known feminism supports their cause, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2018)

The misogyny just a scratch beneath the surface of the left wing is disgusting. And frightening.


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2018)

Tbf I'm not sure if likesfish is particularly left wing.


----------



## andysays (Dec 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> The misogyny just a scratch beneath the surface of the left wing is disgusting. And frightening.


So you're happy to portray the whole of the left wing as misogynist just beneath the surface, on the basis (presumably) of one comment from likesfish, while simultaneously complaining about (supposedly) all women questioning trans inclusion as TERFs.

Sounds legit...


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2018)

andysays said:


> So you're happy to portray the whole of the left wing as misogynist just beneath the surface, on the basis (presumably) of one comment from likesfish, while simultaneously complaining about (supposedly) all women questioning trans inclusion as TERFs.
> 
> Sounds legit...


It’s not based on one comment by likesfish. My god.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> It’s not based on one comment by likesfish. My god.



Well you didn't add much in the way of context tbf.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 8, 2018)

I now  represent the left in the uk  which explains sooo much


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 8, 2018)




----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Terfery =/= radical feminism. A lot of radical feminists would consider enforcement of a rigid gender dichotomy anthithetical to feminist ideals.
> 
> Not the that the terfs will tell you that of course. They'd have you believe that all of known feminism supports their cause, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.



Do you seriously think that any "radical feminist" around today considers enforcement of a rigid gender binary to be part of their thinking? If you do, you really really haven't understood what you're talking about. If the multiple radical feminisms out there have one linking thread it'll be the abolition of gender fullstop let alone "rigid gender binaries". 

One of the basic grounds for rad fems contesting trans ideology is because it's de facto (or quite openly) pushing a deeply reactionary gender binary; this is were many would say the ideological split started. 

Of course the water's now got pretty muddy since everyone's coming out with different theories "queer" and otherwise left, right and centre - and some of those do seem to me to be anti-gender. But you only have to look back at some of the reactionary "male brain/female brain" garbage Aunty Stella used to come out with on these pages a few years back to see that "rigid gender binaries" has - for many trans activists - been utterly intrinsic to their way of looking at the world. Of course rad fems rejected this - rightly so.


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op exactly. 

It’s not just fucking dunce comments like likesfish that make me despair. It’s shit like SpookyFrank “authoritatively” explaining about terfs, other feminists, and the gender binary, whilst talking out of his fucking arse.

It’s women being patronisingly told ‘we’ve decided this isn’t up for debate at anarchist bookfairs, so that’s that’. Or the hounding of university professors. Or feminist meetings being shut down (by young men in balaclavas screaming ‘my pronouns are they, cunt’). And how quickly the men on the left are to dismiss women, en mass, to support men who _feel_ like they’re women. 

The misogyny of likesfish post is blatant and contemptible. The misogyny dressed up as open mindedness is far more dangerous. But I’ve got the measure of it.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> co-op
> 
> It’s women being patronisingly told ‘we’ve decided this isn’t up for debate at anarchist bookfairs, so that’s that’. Or the hounding of university professors. Or feminist meetings being shut down (by young men in balaclavas screaming ‘my pronouns are they, cunt’). And how quickly the men on the left are to dismiss women, en mass, to support men who _feel_ like they’re women.



Not one meeting has been shut down, not one.  There's been a couple of bodged attempts to disrupt meetings and some protests, which given some of the rhetoric at some meetings is unsurprising.  You can't have meetings where speakers attempt to claim an entre community of people are perverts and sex pests without expecting some blowback.

The  other thread is full of lefty men criticising the trans side of the debate.  And anarchist bookfairs have never been a free for all, non-anarchists and non-anarchist ideas have never been permitted formal space.


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

Edie said:


> co-op exactly.
> 
> It’s not just fucking dunce comments like likesfish that make me despair. It’s shit like SpookyFrank “authoritatively” explaining about terfs, other feminists, and the gender binary, whilst talking out of his fucking arse.



It is weird the strength of opinion combined with the degree of ignorance on display; in recent weeks or months posters have utterly piled into me for;

a) talking about "self-ID" (to paraphrase - 'how ridiculous! No one's asking for that!' - as if the past 12 months haven't been completely dominated by just this topic), 

b) 'because I support feminism that thinks that women are intrinsically better than men' (haven't heard that one since the 1980s)

c) 'radical feminists believe in a rigid gender binary' - which is just wtf?

In holding these beliefs they can just write women like Helen Steel and Ruth Serwotka out of the debate because they are embarrassed by their very existence.

In some ways it's kind of reassuring because most of these people are fighting against absurd ideologies that simply don't exist (I mean you can probably find some loony who holds these views if you dredge the internet hard enough but I haven't heard them expressed in the flesh either ever or in 35 years). So many 'trans allies' just have no idea what the ideological terrain is and no idea of what they're talking about and maybe once they start to grapple with reality we'll get some more interesting progress. 

In another way of course it's just profoundly depressing because it's hard to believe that this degree of ignorance would be excusable anywhere else, to the extent that it's hard not to see underlying misogyny as being the root of it. It's like the Daily Mail fulminating about the "hard left' - and lumping anarchists, the SWP, the USSR and Momentum all into that category. It could be that they don't know any better but it's a hell of a lot more likely that they don't care because they just hate them all and conflating them together and deliberately misreporting their beliefs suits their wider political agenda.

For a certain sort of lefty bloke, the opportunity to put the boot into teh feminists is irresistible it seems.


----------



## Edie (Dec 8, 2018)

I’m just finding it profoundly depressing.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> It is weird the strength of opinion combined with the degree of ignorance on display; in recent weeks or months (randoms) have utterly piled into me for;



- Being a rapist for selling pronoun badges
- Being part of a Big Pharma conspiracy for voicing support for trans people
- Being a conspiracy theorist for highlighting that the "reasonable questions" strategy used by Helen and co was in fact deliberately designed to cause an argument and misrepresented their real views (lo and behold...)

It's almost as though there's people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT who are intent on trying to win it by pitching the other side as comprising solely of ignorant bigoted wankers. And yes, it is profoundly depressing, especially when people have so little respect that they think by repeating the same crap over and over again they can win the argument through sheer pig-headedness.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> But you only have to look back at some of the reactionary "male brain/female brain" garbage Aunty Stella used to come out with on these pages a few years back to see that "rigid gender binaries" has - for many trans activists - been utterly intrinsic to their way of looking at the world..



Lies. There's plenty of evidence showing that transgender is largely rooted in neurology. Plenty. I tried to talk about that but i kept getting "lady brains" shouted back at me by the TERFs so I gave up.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Lies. There's plenty of evidence showing that transgender is largely rooted in neurology. Plenty.


Can you link to it?


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Can you link to it?


honestly i have done so many times before and people have just disregarded it. If i do there will be pages and pages of abuse aimed at me so I'd rather not. Besides, it'd be a major thread derail. As I've been told before I'm not enough of an anarchist to have the right to post in one of these threads because I'm shit Green Party. 

If there was a thread about trans science and it was given a neutral title I would post there - like i used to - and try to be honest, and I wouldn't troll, I wouldn't try to undermine it. I'd accept differences of opinion if it was genuinely about the science, about evidence and about reality and not just smears and lies and long debunked crazy theories being brought back in purely as a way to attck trans women. 

I would - but if I started such a thread it would go to shit from page 1 and be shut down so it's not down to me. I'm just a passive observer here now only putting my oar in to defend myself when i feel i need to.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2018)

OK.  I've been studying brain science this year, is all, and it's come as a real surprise what you say because it seems to fly in the face of my understanding of it.  I would have read any studies.  But so be it.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> OK.  I've been studying brain science this year, is all, and it's come as a real surprise what you say because it seems to fly in the face of my understanding of it.  I would have read any studies.  But so be it.



Here's an evidence review.   Note Sea Star wassn't saying it had been proved, just that there is evidence supporting the position.


----------



## JHE (Dec 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Lies. There's plenty of evidence showing that transgender is largely rooted in neurology. Plenty. I tried to talk about that but i kept getting "lady brains" shouted back at me by the TERFs so I gave up.



Was it you who posted a vid about this on another thread? I thought it was very interesting, but it was largely ignored. I suppose it just wasn't what other people wanted to talk about.

It seems to me highly plausible that some - but very few - people do have an innate propensity to see themselves as belonging to the other sex.

However, thinking that this is probably the case with Jan Morris (just to choose a very famous example)  is one thing. It is a very different thing to think this is probably the case with most of the avalanche of youngsters - highly disproportionately many autistic and highly disproportionately many lesbians - who in the last few years have suddenly declared themselves trans.

Do you agree that the probable existence of some cases of innate gender dysphoria does NOT justify:

ignoring women's concerns that some predatory men will exploit self-id to prey on women?
providing confused adolescents with irreversible medical treatments, including surgical mutilation?
deceiving children still young enough to believe in fairy stories that they can choose to be boys or girls, as if there were a magic wand?
bullying people who refuse to go along with ideological fashion?
pretending that it is somehow a blow against gender stereotypes (rather than in fact an extraordinary return to stereotyping) to encourage 'tomboy' girls to think they are not really girls or 'sissy' boys to think they are not really boys?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Here's an evidence review.   Note Sea Star wassn't saying it had been proved, just that there is evidence supporting the position.


These are definitely interesting results, and prenatal sex hormone levels have been shown to affect brain organisation in various ways. However, a lot of what is spoken of in that review suffers the same problems as the studies that found differences in the hypothalamus between gay men and straight men. If you accept that trans is a real thing, that people aren't just pretending to feel deep down that their bodies don't match their gender identity, then that will of course show itself in the brains of those people if you look for it hard enough: it must do, otherwise they wouldn't feel it. 

The study is rightly cautious, mostly, but this kind of thing rings alarm bells for me:



> While the above studies only involved MTF trans-gender individuals, they nonetheless provided evidence of *neuroanatomical pathway alteration as an explanation for transgender identity*.



That's kind of equivalent to saying that enlarged sections of the motor, auditory and visual spatial areas of the cortex are the explanation for musical skill. You won't get that skill without thousands of hours of practice, and that is what is reflected in those enlarged areas.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> These are definitely interesting results, and prenatal sex hormone levels have been shown to affect brain organisation in various ways. However, a lot of what is spoken of in that review suffers the same problems as the studies that found differences in the hypothalamus between gay men and straight men. If you accept that trans is a real thing, that people aren't just pretending to feel deep down that their bodies don't match their gender identity, then that will of course show itself in the brains of those people if you look for it hard enough: it must do, otherwise they wouldn't feel it.



That wouldn't explain the growing evidence of a genetic element.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Here's an evidence review.   Note Sea Star wassn't saying it had been proved, just that there is evidence supporting the position.



That is an interesting evidence review indeed.  There's some very interesting studies referenced. Given the initial claim, I was expecting something a little more based around cause and effect rather than correlation, but it certainly shows considerable evidence that psychology and biology are linked.  It's worth bearing in mind, though, that such a perspective is actually mainstream stuff -- it's mostly viewed as axiomatic that anything that happens psychologically -- even due to a social cause -- has a corresponding biological effect.

What I am struggling with in that review is anything that really supports is conclusion that there is a biological _aetiology_ for transgenderism.  I'm not sure how the authors come to that conclusion.  As noted above, we already know that the social and psychological has impacts on the biological as well as the inverse.  It should therefore not be a surprise that there will be a biological commonality between those who share particular social or psychological circumstances.  But which came first?  That's crucial if you're going to rule on aetiology.  The grey matter post-mortems (for example) don't help in that regard.

I'm also surprised the conclusion of aetiology doesn't acknowledge the problems with this claim that are mentioned in the main review.  In particular, if there is biological aetiology, how comes it is so common for those with the same biology not to share transgenderism?  The majority of the female-assigned patients in the DSD study did _not_ initiate a gender change.  The majority of monozygotic twins did _not_ share common transgenderism.  It's an odd thing for the authors to do this.  Whatever the biological component is (and there is no doubt that the review provides evidence that such a biological component is worth looking for), it is clearly heavily mediated by other environmental factors that mostly tend not to cause transgenderism to be expressed.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 8, 2018)

And then there's JHE, who seems to think that "concerns that some predatory men will exploit self-id" have been ignored (they haven't) but has nothing to say, for example, on the recent relevation that the bathroom predators myth (which in legal terms was always nonsense in Britain) was popularised by a US anti-gay hate group. And who actively lies that adolescents are given "irreversible medical treatments, including surgical mutilation" (reversible hormones are available but rarely used pre-16, surgery is only allowed for 18s and over). I mean fucking hell, this stuff has been gone over again and again, you must know it, yet you're accusing other people of behaving in an unjustified manner?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> That wouldn't explain the growing evidence of a genetic element.


I haven't proffered an explanation, tbf. Would be good to see the actual study there to see what kinds of numbers we're talking about, including how many men with those gene variants don't go on to become transgender. This kind of finding isn't necessarily incompatible with the gender-critical position. In a society with less rigid gender expectations, those who feel that they have 'feminine' or 'masculine' attributes as a result in part at least of the actions of sex hormones in their early development may not end up feeling alienated from their own bodies as a result.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I haven't proffered an explanation, tbf. Would be good to see the actual study there to see what kinds of numbers we're talking about, including how many men with those gene variants don't go on to become transgender. This kind of finding isn't necessarily incompatible with the gender-critical position. In a society with less rigid gender expectations, those who feel that they have 'feminine' or 'masculine' attributes as a result in part at least of the actions of sex hormones in their early development may not end up feeling alienated from their own bodies as a result.



Maybe not.  We can't know.  But that's not the society we live in is it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Maybe not.  We can't know.  But that's not the society we live in is it?


It's not, no. Good thing to highlight and aim for for the good of all, though, no? And more importantly a good point of common interest that can potentially be shared by all.


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Lies. There's plenty of evidence showing that transgender is largely rooted in neurology. Plenty. I tried to talk about that but i kept getting "lady brains" shouted back at me by the TERFs so I gave up.



How's it "lies"? I characterised your position as being based on a male brain/female brain split and here you are - as far as I can see - saying exactly that again. Why object to the 'ladybrains' jibe if that's what you believe?

You're entitled to your opinion and you can bring 'evidence' for it from all sorts of academics if you like, it isn't going to stop me thinking this is reactionary right wing junk, exactly analogous to clever Victorian academics "proving" that women suffered from hysteria and needed their wombs ripped out to make them talk sense.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not, no. Good thing to highlight and aim for for the good of all, though, no? And more importantly a good point of common interest that can potentially be shared by all.



Yes and that's exactly what many trans people are aimng for, probably proportionately more so than non trans people.  But that doesn't change the fact trans people have to live now, not after the hoped for downfall of patriarchy.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> You're entitled to your opinion and you can bring 'evidence' for it from all sorts of academics if you like, it isn't going to stop me thinking this is reactionary right wing junk, exactly analogous to clever Victorian academics "proving" that women suffered from hysteria and needed their wombs ripped out to make them talk sense.



Are you for real?  Have you read the evidence?  Only an unscientific zealot would insist there is absolutely no possibility of some kind of biological basis for gender identity being found given a growing body of carefully considered peer reviewed evidence that suggests in fact there may well be.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> These are definitely interesting results, and prenatal sex hormone levels have been shown to affect brain organisation in various ways. However, a lot of what is spoken of in that review suffers the same problems as the studies that found differences in the hypothalamus between gay men and straight men. If you accept that trans is a real thing, that people aren't just pretending to feel deep down that their bodies don't match their gender identity, then that will of course show itself in the brains of those people if you look for it hard enough: it must do, otherwise they wouldn't feel it.
> 
> The study is rightly cautious, mostly, but this kind of thing rings alarm bells for me:






> While the above studies only involved MTF trans-gender individuals, they nonetheless provided evidence of *neuroanatomical pathway alteration as an explanation for transgender identity*.



Can you say why it rings alarm bells for you without making the musical skill comparison please? What does it mean to you?


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> - Being a rapist for selling pronoun badges
> - Being part of a Big Pharma conspiracy for voicing support for trans people
> - Being a conspiracy theorist for highlighting that the "reasonable questions" strategy used by Helen and co was in fact deliberately designed to cause an argument and misrepresented their real views (lo and behold...)
> 
> It's almost as though there's people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT who are intent on trying to win it by pitching the other side as comprising solely of ignorant bigoted wankers. And yes, it is profoundly depressing, especially when people have so little respect that they think by repeating the same crap over and over again they can win the argument through sheer pig-headedness.



I routinely post (the obvious) point that this argument is never going to get anywhere via the 'your wankers are worse than our wankers' line. Especially with the internet you can find some crank somewhere saying just about any shite - and I don't doubt that there is deliberate confusion being sown both by 4-chan/MRA style dickheads and darker, more politically-focussed content providers.

My point wasn't that your wankers are worse than my wankers, it was that I routinely encounter posts on this specific forum from specific posters slating "radical feminism" who have an utterly bizarre and erroneous version of what RF is - I mean they have beliefs about it that are just crazily wrong (even allowing for the fact there are multiple versions of it - just as there are with trans/queer ideology).

And yes I attribute some of that to misogyny - that's my personal take on it. But the actual, observable ignorance is real. 

Of your 3 examples of false claims about trans thinking (none of which seem to be from this forum?);

1) "Being a rapist for selling pronoun badges" - sounds so like some weird and partially reported incident that I'm not going to try and work out what's going on there.

2) "Being part of a Big Pharma conspiracy for voicing support for trans people" - yes there's plenty of people who see trans as an excellent opportunity for big pharma to make a healthy profit whilst at the same time doing some good PR for itself as the facilitator of a hip new marginalised group - it makes a change from being the scumbags that they obviously are. You don't have to believe that the trans movement is a Big Pharma Conspiracy - it obviously isn't - to think that Big Pharma loves it. What's so weird about that view?


3) "Being a conspiracy theorist for highlighting that the "reasonable questions" strategy used by Helen and co was in fact deliberately designed to cause an argument and misrepresented their real views (lo and behold...)" - this just sounds like a standard political strategy argument to me - you have a pov so you reject the "reasonableness" of the questions and endorse the exclusion of those seeking to ask them, people with the opposite pov think oppositely - what's so odd about this?


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Maybe not.  We can't know.  But that's not the society we live in is it?



But as radicals we seek to change society to accommodate our human reality, not change the individual to conform to the demands of an unjust class society, right?


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> I routinely post (the obvious) point that this argument is never going to get anywhere via the 'your wankers are worse than our wankers' line.



Yes but you also deny outright that one side has a problem. The reality is that you are _part _of the problem, to the point of putting your fingers in your ears when presented with evidence contradicting you.


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are you for real?  Have you read the evidence?  Only an unscientific zealot would insist there is absolutely no possibility of some kind of biological basis for gender identity being found given a growing body of carefully considered peer reviewed evidence that suggests in fact there may well be.



Yep I am quite old-fashioned about this stuff. I don't think clever scientists can "prove" much about who we "really" are, nor can they come up with a clever "objective" proof about social categories like race or gender. 

They are just going to come up with whatever best fits the matrix of funding, ideology and political demands that they are working under at any given time.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 8, 2018)

so Irelands did this and hasn't collapsed into a rape ridden dystopia driven by men pretending to be women so the UK won't either  and next summer I can't get a certificate declaring I'm a lesbian even though I sleep with a woman and have a cat and moved in after our first date couldn't be more of a lesbian stereotype if I tried


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 8, 2018)

likesfish said:


> and next summer I can't get a certificate declaring I'm a lesbian even though I sleep with a woman and have a cat and moved in after our first date couldn't be more of a lesbian stereotype if I tried




What does this even mean and why is it funny?

Lesbian stereotype? wut?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> 2) "Being part of a Big Pharma conspiracy for voicing support for trans people" - yes there's plenty of people who see trans as an excellent opportunity for big pharma to make a healthy profit whilst at the same time doing some good PR for itself as the facilitator of a hip new marginalised group - it makes a change from being the scumbags that they obviously are. You don't have to believe that the trans movement is a Big Pharma Conspiracy - it obviously isn't - to think that Big Pharma loves it. What's so weird about that view?



The fact that there are no trans specific drugs, all the drugs trans people take were developed for other conditions and both estrogen and testerone are very cheap and produced in the human body so impossible to patent.  There is a small global cottage industry of trans healthcare, much of it based around surgery and that's all.  Big pharma couldn't give a shit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 8, 2018)

.


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> *Yes but you also deny outright that one side has a problem*. The reality is that you are _part _of the problem, to the point of putting your fingers in your ears when presented with evidence contradicting you.



No I don't think I have - it's obvious that my views are niche and I disagree with loads of people on both "sides". I have repeatedly spoken about both sides having wankers. I'm not sure what "evidence" you're referring to?


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 8, 2018)

JHE said:


> Was it you who posted a vid about this on another thread? I thought it was very interesting, but it was largely ignored. I suppose it just wasn't what other people wanted to talk about.


I posted it to specifically refute something another poster was saying but they chose to ignore it. C'est la vie. 



JHE said:


> It seems to me highly plausible that some - but very few - people do have an innate propensity to see themselves as belonging to the other sex.
> 
> However, thinking that this is probably the case with Jan Morris (just to choose a very famous example)  is one thing. It is a very different thing to think this is probably the case with most of the avalanche of youngsters - highly disproportionately many autistic and highly disproportionately many lesbians - who in the last few years have suddenly declared themselves trans.



Avalanche? Really? You really shouldn't believe everything you read in the Mail and the Express. There hasn't been avalanche of youngsters - just the numbers you'd expect given that for years trans people just could not be open about ourselves. There is a huge backlog - but the numbers of kids presenting themselves as trans right now are perfectly in line with the current belief that around 1% of the population are transgender. 



> Do you agree that the probable existence of some cases of innate gender dysphoria does NOT justify:
> 
> ignoring women's concerns that some predatory men will exploit self-id to prey on women?
> providing confused adolescents with irreversible medical treatments, including surgical mutilation?
> ...



Wow - well, respond to these then: 


not ignored - has been responded to many, many time, including by cis women who have taken this point on and responded to it in support of trans people being able to self id for GRC's, even on U75. 
does not happen - & what evidence do you have that any of these things happen or that such children are confused? I certainly wasn't confused when i was a teenager and knew i was a girl. I knew. 
it's not deception. For years i believed the bullshit, that i could never be a woman. But I am a woman and if I was told that at age 4 then i wouldn't be fucked up like i am now.
medical truth isn't ideological fashion and it's trans people being bullied into silence. 
doesn't happen. Trans boys aren't "tomboys" and trans girls aren't sissy boys. The fact that you claim that clearly indicates you do not have a mind open enough to be able to discuss this stuff in good faith.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 8, 2018)

A joke which references U-Haul (a brand of rental "move-it-yourself" trucks and trailers) became well known in North American lesbian culture.[4]

Question: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?

Answer: A U-Haul.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/06/...lmates-and-the-stereotype-is-completely-true/


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> But as radicals we seek to change society to accommodate our human reality, not change the individual to conform to the demands of an unjust class society, right?



Show me an individual that hasn't changed or compromised their authentic selves to conform to the demands of an unjust class society?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> Yep I am quite old-fashioned about this stuff. .



Indeed, pre-enlightenment it appears.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Here's an evidence review.   Note Sea Star wassn't saying it had been proved, just that there is evidence supporting the position.


tbh the only thing i wanted to "prove" was that I've never bought into the male brain/ female brain thing - at least not since i was about 20 years younger anyway -  but it's a thing i get stuck on me over and over.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 8, 2018)

likesfish said:


> https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/06/...lmates-and-the-stereotype-is-completely-true/



Wow...they actually published that.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> Yep I am quite old-fashioned about this stuff. I don't think clever scientists can "prove" much about who we "really" are, nor can they come up with a clever "objective" proof about social categories like race or gender..


a posh way of saying you're just going to ignore any scientific evidence that contradicts you.


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> a posh way of saying you're just going to ignore any scientific evidence that contradicts you.



TBF I'll also ignore the scientific evidence that "supports" me.


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Show me an individual that hasn't changed or compromised their authentic selves to conform to the demands of an unjust class society?



Of course I can't; but the fact that we are all dealing with the society we are born into doesn't mean that we just cave in to all its demands and accept them as objective reality.

ETA bit surprised to have to be arguing this point on these boards.


----------



## co-op (Dec 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Indeed, pre-enlightenment it appears.



LOL at the idea that thinking that science has ideological bias makes me pre-enlightenment. Post-enlightenment science has, among other things, "proved" that Africans are inferior to Europeans and Jews are descended from a completely different evolutionary line than non-Jews.

ETA also a bit surprised to have to be making these kinds of points on a board like this.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

co-op said:


> LOL at the idea that thinking that science has ideological bias makes me pre-enlightenment. Post-enlightenment science has, among other things, "proved" that Africans are inferior to Europeans and Jews are descended from a completely different evolutionary line than non-Jews.
> 
> ETA also a bit surprised to have to be making these kinds of points on a board like this.



It has neither proved, nor claimed to prove either such thing.  Of course science is influenced by ideology, but gene's aren't.* 

If genetic markers could be found for transsexuality, and those gene grouping are known to influence hormonal activity and sex development, and further evidence suggests that pre natal exposure to hormones in the brain might inform gender/sex identity and there is physical evidence of this found in trans brains, then that is worthy of further enquiry wouldn't you suggest?  That doesn't mean any of it is proved, it's not there yet, but that is a hypothesis many researchers are examining, and given the scope of recent projects we may have some more solid data soon.

Of course even this won't tell us much except there is something diferent about trans brains, and that difference appears to relate to areas of the brain and genetics related to sex development/identity.   And of course further research may throw doubt on it.  But it's not made up.  It is hard data.  How robust that data is, and how strong correlations prove to be will really inform how the science develops.  But to write off hard verifiable science like this completely is just silly and does your credibility no good.

ETA *waits for some epigenetics cunt to go actually.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

Kind of funny really, the science is all ideology and I refuse to look at it because the conclusions contradict what I believe.  Do you not see the problem with this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Can you say why it rings alarm bells for you without making the musical skill comparison please? What does it mean to you?


What kabbes said really regarding correlation and causation. Finding neural correlates for particular conditions doesn't necessarily explain them. In this case saying a trans person is trans because they have a trans brain doesn't really explain anything. You can  equally say that they have a trans brain because they're trans.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What kabbes said really regarding correlation and causation. Finding neural correlates for particular conditions doesn't necessarily explain them. In this case saying a trans person is trans because they have a trans brain doesn't really explain anything. You can  equally say that they have a trans brain because they're trans.



If you're talking about brain plasticity then whilst you might be correct that surely raises question about whether socialisation based on born physical sex is quite as clear cut as often regarded.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> tbh the only thing i wanted to "prove" was that I've never bought into the male brain/ female brain thing - at least not since i was about 20 years younger anyway -  but it's a thing i get stuck on me over and over.


The evidence review I was pointed to does in fact make claims about male brain / female brain.  Again, the authors seem to presume that correlation implies causation in a particular direction.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The evidence review I was pointed to does in fact make claims about male brain / female brain.  Again, the authors seem to presume that correlation implies causation in a particular direction.



It's not controversial that there are different tendencies between male and female brains probably down to socialisation imo but hormones play a part and it is possible there is an innate component


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> If you're talking about brain plasticity then whilst you might be correct that surely raises question about whether socialisation based on born physical sex is quite as clear cut as often regarded.


I think this stuff is anything but clear cut and the evidence of prenatal hormone influence is growing and persuasive, particularly as it has also been shown in other mammals. We are animals, much less in control of ourselves then we all like to fancy.

Here, I would repeat something I said to sea star a while back. I'm sure she doesn't give a shit what I think, but I'll say it again anyway: it is important not to base a fight for rights and space and dignity on science. These things need to be fought for and won over recognition of lived experience and the right to space and dignity on that basis. Today you might find some scientific findings that you like, but tomorrow's findings might not be so much to your liking. Your right to live as you want and need to live needs to exist and justify itself independently of any finding from neuroscience. While we are all animals much less in control of ourselves than we like to fancy, we are also highly social animals who find all kinds of meanings at a social level. Those meanings all have a neural correlate, but we do not mediate them at the level of neurology. We mediate them at a social level.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think this stuff is anything but clear cut and the evidence of prenatal hormone influence is growing and persuasive, particularly as it has also been shown in other mammals. We are animals, much less in control of ourselves then we all like to fancy.
> 
> Here, I would repeat something I said to sea star a while back. I'm sure she doesn't give a shit what I think, but I'll say it again anyway: it is important not to base a fight for rights and space and dignity on science. These things need to be fought for and won over recognition of lived experience and the right to space and dignity on that basis. Today you might find some scientific findings that you like, but tomorrow's findings might not be so much to your liking. Your right to live as you want and need to live needs to exist and justify itself independently of any finding from neuroscience. While we are all animals much less in control of ourselves than we like to fancy, we are also highly social animals who find all kinds of meanings at a social level. Those meanings all have a neural correlate, but we do not mediate them at the level of neurology. We mediate them at a social level.



I don't really disagree with this, and I think there are political dangers is placing too much emphasis on biology, as there are political dangers in the search for a gay gene.  My interest in this is personal as someone who largely believes gender is a social construct but finds that theoretical idea struggles to match my lived experience. I've been like this as long as I remember, it feels like I was born this way, I'm curious why that is.

But there's no doubt a biological driver would cut the legs off a lot of transphobic myths  such as that it's all a fetish, delusion or misogyny, or that there's no such thing as trans children, or that trans men are all confused lesbians. Although not sure it would make such a difference  as we've just seen, those with the most virulent trans critical views have little interest in science.


----------



## co-op (Dec 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Although not sure it would make such a difference  as we've just seen, those with the most virulent trans critical views have little interest in science.



My point which - you refuse to understand - is that believing that science will step in and resolve complex intrinsically political questions about social relationships is just plain stupid. It's routinely used by right wing liberals to valorise a reality which they endorse. It's like thinking that "the economy" would be best run by a committee of experts who really understand it (which lots of people do think). 

Appealing to "science" as a solution to social conflict is never going to work on me. This is nothing to do with whatever crazy mis-reading of the latest science that trans activists have come up with - I am not in the slightest bit interested in science that "proves" the opposite either - because I think it does no such thing.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2018)

This is about anarchist bookfairs? Why not discuss trans ideology and science and that on another thread?


----------



## andysays (Dec 9, 2018)

TopCat said:


> This is about anarchist bookfairs? Why not discuss trans ideology and science and that on another thread?


You're *so* gonna get accused of being a typical leftie male no platforming women who just want to talk about issues that concern them...


----------



## maomao (Dec 9, 2018)

TopCat said:


> This is about anarchist bookfairs? Why not discuss trans ideology and science and that on another thread?



A specific trans science thread might actually be quite interesting and serve to carve off one particular part of the conversation from others so we don't end up with 500 page fights.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2018)

TopCat said:


> This is about anarchist bookfairs? Why not discuss trans ideology and science and that on another thread?



I did try.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 13, 2018)

Don’t wake me, I plan on sleeping in: some comments on the “woke anarchists” and related matters

Cracking stuff.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2018)

I’ve seen that pop up before on Social Media. Interesting blog. 
My one gripe (which I think is where I’m currently at politically rather than any points the blog makes, or even this topic) regarding anarchism is that it’s always the theory that rules, and everything else follows. Which is how we end up placing the people we need on board ending up as bigots and us not being relevant or moving forward for another few decades.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2018)

And this Trans debate is revealing as to where we’re actually at in the game. Time is ticking on everything now with the environment etc the WC are being attacked on a massive scale in the UK and yet we’re preoccupied about competing rights for groups under Neo-liberalism  and calling each other bigots. All while the life support indicator is flat lining.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 14, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And this Trans debate is revealing as to where we’re actually at in the game. Time is ticking on everything now with the environment etc the WC are being attacked on a massive scale in the UK and yet we’re preoccupied about competing rights for groups under Neo-liberalism  and calling each other bigots. All while the life support indicator is flat lining.









QED


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 14, 2018)

You could argue that anarchism is being attacked via this issue, but that doesn’t alter the point that it’s a weak spot that leaves it open to attack.


----------



## Riklet (Dec 14, 2018)

The repeated failing to come up with a coherent approach to take is a symptom of the problem though, maybe.

It's not like anarchism itself isnt now beset with the same identity politics competing groups.  And the trend is very much that of stopping things than starting things, it seems to me.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 14, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You could argue that anarchism is being attacked via this issue, but that doesn’t alter the point that it’s a weak spot that leaves it open to attack.



I think that’s true, but the reasons why it’s a weak spot remain valid. Anarchism’s inclusivity and anti-authoritarianism is both its strength and its weakness. 

The communist in me thinks that some recalibration is overdue though.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Dec 15, 2018)

I wouldnt go to anarchist bookfairs.  Since the kick off with Occupy in 2012, and now this "terf war", I feel like I wouldnt be safe attending them, physically safe probably, but not psychologically safe.  

I am not a radical feminist, I'm a Marxist feminist...so I'm not a TERF by those who use the term accurately, but I am most definately a TERF to those who would use it as a slur.  I am becoming *frightened* at some aspects of the trans movement.  I have seen cis women assaulted, hounded online, lost employment, lost reputation, been excluded from their faith community, kicked out of events and suffer the serious emotional illhealth through of this.

I dont think that "woman" is a synonym for "adult human female".   But I knew for damn sure that some of the people who were male assigned at birth who have uttered the magic words "_I am a woman_" are men.  Not all, definitely not all, but a number of them....and that number is growing.

Who can seriously think that the child murderer Huntley is a woman (and a lesbian no less). 
Who can seriously think that Wolsht is anything other than a creepy man with an unhealthy obsession with children.
Who can seriously think that Yaniv (who appears to have extensive power over major publishing platforms) is not simply seeking out "acceptable" ways to abuse young girls.

Back in the 1970s, the Gay Rights movement (as it was then) was infiltrated by the pedophile information network, before finally kicking them to the kerb in the early 80s.   Ignoring of the dangers of this organisation, dangers that women had been pointing out to them, cost them dearly.  The 80s backlash which conflated gay men and child abusers severely impacted their health, wellbeing and lives, in the face of the AIDS crisis. I believe that there will be a horrible backlash against trans people unless the trans community acts to root out the creepy, rapey cis men in their midst who are piggybacking on their legitimate struggle.

These are exactly and specifically the type of men that I dont want to be around....ever  ....and they are exactly and specifically the men that are now demanding access to those areas designed to keep them the fuck away from us.   

Trans women's boundaries are by definition blurred, there are different modesty rules for female and male children for example.  Trans women have used public facilities with men pre-transition.  Trans women have not been targetted in the same way by creepy rapey men (they may well have been targetted, but the tactics used to victimise children who are AFAB and AMAB differs).   Trans people's creep radar is different....and the transphobia of trans people being seen as freaks leads them to a level of empathy with other AMAB people who are also seen as freaks.  Just like in the 1970s Gay Rights movement, many older gay men remembered a frustrated gay youth and wanted the next generation to be proud in their sexuality.  But there needs to be an awareness that there are bad men out there, who groom people to accept the unacceptable.

This conversation needs to start happening urgently in the trans community.  Cis women are highlighting it because it is being ignored, and that is taking a massive toll on the feminist community.  The feminist community is fighting shitload of issues - universal credit, housing crisis, child poverty, NHS services, WASPI, spycops, gender paygap, metoo, sexual harassment, vaginal mesh, school cuts - all of which disproportionately affect women.  This whole thing takes up so so much energy - the endless highlighting of the issues, the hounding, the psychic field hospitals that have to be set up around some women who are taking absolute psychological batterings online....those who disappear never to speak about it again, because speaking is too risky.

I dont feel safe any more in any environment where the term "TERF" is not seen as hate-speech.

I dont feel safe writing this.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Who can seriously think that the child murderer Huntley is a woman (and a lesbian no less).
> Who can seriously think that Wolsht is anything other than a creepy man with an unhealthy obsession with children.
> Who can seriously think that Yaniv (who appears to have extensive power over major publishing platforms) is not simply seeking out "acceptable" ways to abuse young girls.
> 
> Back in the 1970s, the Gay Rights movement (as it was then) was infiltrated by the pedophile information network, before finally kicking them to the kerb in the early 80s.   Ignoring of the dangers of this organisation, dangers that women had been pointing out to them, cost them dearly.  The 80s backlash which conflated gay men and child abusers severely impacted their health, wellbeing and lives, in the face of the AIDS crisis. I believe that there will be a horrible backlash against trans people unless the trans community acts to root out the creepy, rapey cis men in their midst who are piggybacking on their legitimate struggle.



And there it is, trans equal paedo, based on one creepy weirdo, one very strange eccentric and an unconfirmed and probably made up tabloid story youve managed to find by searching the worlds media.  Interesting how the boundaries keep edging outwards to include the wider LGBT community and kink as well.  Are you going to go full loon and claim its all some giant paedo conspiracy next?  

But anyway, there's another thread for this, this thread is for anarchists discussing bookfairs.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I dont feel safe writing this.



How safe do you fucking think trans people feel with you lot running round trying to smear us all as paedophiles to anyone who'll listen?

anyway, other thread, sorry.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> And there it is, trans equal paedo, based on one creepy weirdo, one very strange eccentric and an unconfirmed and probably made up tabloid story youve managed to find by searching the worlds media.  Interesting how the boundaries keep edging outwards to include the wider LGBT community and kink as well.  Are you going to go full loon and claim its all some giant paedo conspiracy next?
> 
> But anyway, there's another thread for this, this thread is for anarchists discussing bookfairs.


Did you actually read the post before you went charging into it?  Because it literally says the opposite of this.


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

Back to bookfairs then...

I know it's easy to get stuck on the 'trans issue' that's come up, but if people recall that was only the most antagonistic of the issues at London's Bookfair last year. There were calls to ban the Active Distro 'Religion' banner and demands that the Bookfair change all sorts of things. And at Manchester this year there was a boycott around the lack of wheelchair access.

So, what to do about the whole package? How does anyone organising a bookfair cope with all these external demands for policing the event?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2018)

Telling external people to sling their hook might be a start


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 15, 2018)

I think it's worth listening to people who have comradely criticisms, especially if they are offering to help resolve things. Which isn't the same as writing an open letter on a blog with a series of demands.


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Telling external people to sling their hook might be a start



If we had a membership list yeah, but not that easy. Plenty of the people making demands consider themselves/are anarchists. We're suffering from the last 30-40 of being a home for every weird malcontent about.


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

The Bookfair has had demands placed on it to ban people for years and has managed it well, it's only the last few years that it's been so fractious and disruptive at our events.


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it's worth listening to people who have comradely criticisms, especially if they are offering to help resolve things. Which isn't the same as writing an open letter on a blog with a series of demands.



This.

Self-organising innit?

Not demanding stuff from "authorities".


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

chilango said:


> This.
> 
> Self-organising innit?
> 
> Not demanding stuff from "authorities".



Yeah, that's what's happened so far and it's worked mostly. But it's clear that this is not working now with the shift in people's politics and expectations, so what to do about it? Ignore it, take a clearer political line for clarity, let the warring factions sort it out between themselves, or try and accommodate some things and not others?

(Actually the answer is probably all of the above at different times.)

And this isn't just happening at bookfairs, but in social spaces, groups, and meeting all over the place.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Did you actually read the post before you went charging into it?  Because it literally says the opposite of this.



Fuck off kabbes, if you want to discuss the latest fantastical smear about paedophile infiltrating transgender then take it to the other thread and let it be exposed for the nasty bigoted shit it is  I'm not going to respond to any of this crap further on this thread. 

Or better still fuck off to mumsnet.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Fuck off kabbes, if you want to discuss the latest fantastical smear about paedophile infiltrating transgender then take it to the other thread and let it be exposed for the nasty bigoted shit it is  I'm not going to respond to any of this crap further on this thread.
> 
> Or better still fuck off to mumsnet.


How is it a smear?

And I think they prefer actual mums on mumsnet, so I’ll stay here, ta.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 15, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There were calls to ban the Active Distro 'Religion' banner


Eeee.... I'd forgotten about that little gem... er anti religious stuff is 'racist' smacks of 'colonialism' etc (clearly said by someone who has no clue about the role of missionaries in the forging of empires)


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, that's what's happened so far and it's worked mostly. But it's clear that this is not working now with the shift in people's politics and expectations, so what to do about it? Ignore it, take a clearer political line for clarity, let the warring factions sort it out between themselves, or try and accommodate some things and not others?
> 
> (Actually the answer is probably all of the above at different times.)
> 
> And this isn't just happening at bookfairs, but in social spaces, groups, and meeting all over the place.



I know I'm a grumpy old fart, but one of the appeals of the anarchist movement back in the day for me was the whole "no demands", DIY ethos that ran thru it.

This whole culture of making demands on others doesn't really sit right with me. It's like SWSS 2.0.

But I'm grumbling from my armchair.


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

chilango said:


> I know I'm a grumpy old fart, but one of the appeals of the anarchist movement back in the day for me was the whole "no demands", DIY ethos that ran thru it.
> 
> This whole culture of making demands on others doesn't really sit right with me. It's like SWSS 2.0.
> 
> But I'm grumbling from my armchair.



I agree generally, but I guess one of the problems now is the ethos of 'no demands' over the years is that the bit of no demands/boundaries on the politics of people calling themselves anarchists and coming to anarchist events and spaces has led to a load of people who's idea of anarchist politics is very different to what it has been historically, and is partly the cause of some these problems.


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I agree generally, but I guess one of the problems now is the ethos of 'no demands' over the years is that the bit of no demands/boundaries on the politics of people calling themselves anarchists and coming to anarchist events and spaces has led to a load of people who's idea of anarchist politics is very different to what it has been historically, and is partly the cause of some these problems.



That has been the case as long as I can remember, to a degree. 

But I'm speculating idly here whether it's a) because we're weak right now and/or b)because the Trot style left isn't available as an alternative arena for some of these types any more?


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

Yeah, the Trot left dying was a factor I'd say, but I think mostly it's issues around the historical shift from anarchism being an externally focused antagonistic anti-capitalist and anti-State movement to an inwards looking activist/campaign/general misfit scene, then the increasing general weakness of even that in the last 5 years, the vitriolic rows on the internet spilling over into physical spaces, and of course mixed in there's some actual real issues that need to be dealt with.

E2A: Just thinking out-loud, none of these are new observations obviously.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 15, 2018)

Back in the day, it was usually a case of "that bunch over there are wank... grumble grumble ignore". These days, people feel duty bound to "no platform" the buggers and anyone who has qualms about such tactics. Also, those often doing the "no platforming" often have pretty dire politics. 

Incidentally, the current notion of "no platform" isn't exactly how I remember it (eg loads of bottles raining down on the Little Driver rather than just being outraged and just shouting over someone).


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> If we had a membership list yeah, but not that easy. Plenty of the people making demands consider themselves/are anarchists. We're suffering from the last 30-40 of being a home for every weird malcontent about.


Yeh I'm talking about external ones, which clearly means people who don't consider themselves anarchist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And this Trans debate is revealing as to where we’re actually at in the game. Time is ticking on everything now with the environment etc the WC are being attacked on a massive scale in the UK and yet we’re preoccupied about competing rights for groups under Neo-liberalism  and calling each other bigots. All while the life support indicator is flat lining.



Wait, so it's the machine that's dying, not the patient?


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Or better still fuck off to mumsnet.



Thanks for giving me my new favorite insult.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> How safe do you fucking think trans people feel with_* you lot running round trying to smear us all as paedophiles*_ to anyone who'll listen?
> 
> anyway, other thread, sorry.




smokedout  You are wrong. That isn't what was posted. Stop frothing/attacking and read it again.



> Back in the 1970s, the Gay Rights movement (as it was then) was infiltrated by the pedophile information network, before finally kicking them to the kerb in the early 80s. Ignoring of the dangers of this organisation, dangers that women had been pointing out to them, cost them dearly. The 80s backlash which conflated gay men and child abusers severely impacted their health, wellbeing and lives, in the face of the AIDS crisis.* I believe that there will be a horrible backlash against trans people unless the trans community acts to root out the creepy, rapey cis men in their midst who are piggybacking on their legitimate struggle.*


----------



## ska invita (Dec 15, 2018)

Serge Forward said:


> Eeee.... I'd forgotten about that little gem... er anti religious stuff is 'racist' smacks of 'colonialism' etc (clearly said by someone who has no clue about the role of missionaries in the forging of empires)


A guy called Jacob Joyce made the complaint, very publically so no problem naming him here (open letter, much shared social media post) - he's not in any way an anarchist it turns out, on being asked. So no big surprise. A  problem is the actions of people with no particular commitments to anarchism and no investment in its success, or care in their actions helping to bring it down. That Jen Isaacson tweet above represents it perfectly.

But blaming others aside, it shouldnt be so easy for a handful of people to upset the ecosystem to such an extent. What about anarchist/community 'policing'? The trans supporters at the London fair said they were acting in that spirit, and its a fair point. If anyone has thought out ideas on that Id be interested to hear them.

What is a traditional anarchist response to (potentially violent) disagreements? Anarchist FAQ mentions a book called *Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice *as a source of ideas. God knows. The Anarcho Feminist group set out clear lines and positions, on paper, for their event, but when people wilfully break those guidelines, what happens next? A more open united clear response is needed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2018)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think that’s true, but the reasons why it’s a weak spot remain valid. Anarchism’s inclusivity and anti-authoritarianism is both its strength and its weakness.
> 
> The communist in me thinks that some recalibration is overdue though.


I like recalibration, it sounds so much better than purge


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2018)

ska invita said:


> But blaming others aside, it shouldnt be so easy for a handful of people to upset the ecosystem to such an extent.



Just picking up on this.  I think the London situation was pretty unique and one problem was that a very large and difficult event had been organised for a long time by an ever shrinking group of people who in retrospect were not given the support that was necessary for the event to be robust enough to weather  things like this, particularly as personal relationships were also very much a factor.  A more broadly organised bookfair, with more people putting in some graft, would probably have survived.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 15, 2018)

ska invita said:


> A guy called Jacob Joyce made the complaint, very publically so no problem naming him here (open letter, much shared social media post) - he's not in any way an anarchist it turns out, on being asked. So no big surprise. A  problem is the actions of people with no particular commitments to anarchism and no investment in its success, or care in their actions helping to bring it down. That Jen Isaacson tweet above represents it perfectly.
> 
> But blaming others aside, it shouldnt be so easy for a handful of people to upset the ecosystem to such an extent. What about anarchist/community 'policing'? The trans supporters at the London fair said they were acting in that spirit, and its a fair point. If anyone has thought out ideas on that Id be interested to hear them.
> 
> What is a traditional anarchist response to (potentially violent) disagreements? Anarchist FAQ mentions a book called *Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice *as a source of ideas. God knows. The Anarcho Feminist group set out clear lines and positions, on paper, for their event, but when people wilfully break those guidelines, what happens next? A more open united clear response is needed.



Ah 're Jacob Joyce I was under the impression they are an anarchist. Not doubting what you say but would deffo be interested to see where they clarified this.


----------



## LDC (Dec 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Just picking up on this.  I think the London situation was pretty unique and one problem was that a very large and difficult event had been organised for a long time by an ever shrinking group of people who in retrospect were not given the support that was necessary for the event to be robust enough to weather  things like this, particularly as personal relationships were also very much a factor.  A more broadly organised bookfair, with more people putting in some graft, would probably have survived.



I think that's an optimistic take on it seeing as many other events and groups have imploded along similar lines, I think the London Bookfair was more spectacular as it was bigger and is more of a established event, rather than it being unique.


----------



## co-op (Dec 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> And there it is, trans equal paedo, based on one creepy weirdo, one very strange eccentric and an unconfirmed and probably made up tabloid story youve managed to find by searching the worlds media.  Interesting how the boundaries keep edging outwards to include the wider LGBT community and kink as well.  Are you going to go full loon and claim its all some giant paedo conspiracy next?
> 
> But anyway, there's another thread for this, this thread is for anarchists discussing bookfairs.



Why don’t you address the very specific examples of dodginess raised by qwerty rather than just throwing up your usual smokescreen of “transphobia!”? You’re such a fraud - you pretend that you’re this impeccable liberal all concerned with the rights of an oppressed minority but the minute you get real feedback about people’s fears and experiences of real life you just start the parrot chant of “bigot” and all the rest of it. You don’t give a shit about anyone outside of your little club.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 15, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Ah 're Jacob Joyce I was under the impression they are an anarchist. Not doubting what you say but would deffo be interested to see where they clarified this.


Was asked online Are You An Anarchist and said something about queer theory - sounded like a clear No to me. The thread has since been deleted.



LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think that's an optimistic take on it seeing as many other events and groups have imploded along similar lines, I think the London Bookfair was more spectacular as it was bigger and is more of a established event, rather than it being unique.


agree. Its not about numbers/relations of organisers but about how to deal with irreconcilable conflict IMO


----------



## co-op (Dec 15, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I wouldnt go to anarchist bookfairs.  Since the kick off with Occupy in 2012, and now this "terf war", I feel like I wouldnt be safe attending them, physically safe probably, but not psychologically safe.
> 
> I am not a radical feminist, I'm a Marxist feminist...so I'm not a TERF by those who use the term accurately, but I am most definately a TERF to those who would use it as a slur.  I am becoming *frightened* at some aspects of the trans movement.  I have seen cis women assaulted, hounded online, lost employment, lost reputation, been excluded from their faith community, kicked out of events and suffer the serious emotional illhealth through of this.
> 
> ...




Spot on. Absolutely spot on. There are so many people on here who are afraid to say what they think because they know that the repercussions on their lives are real and dangerous. People who can’t post because they can’t quite remember who knows who they are from some U75 offline gig 15 years ago and might get their job fucked up now for saying something forbidden by the trans police. Fuck you smokedout you’re a dishonest arsehole, weeping about your oppression while demanding that I “name names”.

Fuck you.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 15, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Was asked online Are You An Anarchist and said something about queer theory - sounded like a clear No to me. The thread has since been deleted.
> 
> 
> agree. Its not about numbers/relations of organisers but about how to deal with irreconcilable conflict IMO




I do wonder then, why they give a shit about what goes on at bookfair


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think that's an optimistic take on it seeing as many other events and groups have imploded along similar lines, I think the London Bookfair was more spectacular as it was bigger and is more of a established event, rather than it being unique.



Maybe you're right, but I got the impression the organisers were pretty burnt out before this  even started and the row and aftermath was enough to make them call  it a day.  Manchester seems to have weathered the storm so far, as did the Radical Bookfair in London.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 15, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> I do wonder then, why they give a shit about what goes on at bookfair


because he pracitices an african religion and Its Not Stupid. Open letter incoming >>>>>>>>>>

(in case that wasnt clear, he was arguing about the Religion Is Stupid banner, and it was the soruce of his open letter and social media attack postings)


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 15, 2018)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I wouldnt go to anarchist bookfairs.  Since the kick off with Occupy in 2012, and now this "terf war", I feel like I wouldnt be safe attending them, physically safe probably, but not psychologically safe.
> 
> I am not a radical feminist, I'm a Marxist feminist...so I'm not a TERF by those who use the term accurately, but I am most definately a TERF to those who would use it as a slur.  I am becoming *frightened* at some aspects of the trans movement.  I have seen cis women assaulted, hounded online, lost employment, lost reputation, been excluded from their faith community, kicked out of events and suffer the serious emotional illhealth through of this.
> 
> ...


This is one of the most bigoted and disusting diatribes I've ever read on Urban -or anywhere. Full of bullshit and stitched together from smears, lies and innuendo. Not an ounce of evidence. It's fucking appalling and you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## co-op (Dec 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This is one of the most bigoted and disusting diatribes I've ever read on Urban -or anywhere. Full of bullshit and stitched together from smears, lies and innuendo. Not an ounce of evidence. It's fucking appalling and you should be ashamed of yourself.




I hope people read it and compare it with this post of yours.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Dec 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This is one of the most bigoted and disusting diatribes I've ever read on Urban -or anywhere. Full of bullshit and stitched together from smears, lies and innuendo. Not an ounce of evidence. It's fucking appalling and you should be ashamed of yourself.



As someone who wants to find out more about the issues here, you've completely lost me as an interested listener with this attack on what seemed to me to be a well written post.  If you think it's bullshit - set out why, with a reasoned argument and some evidence to back it up.  Otherwise, you are the one that comes over as a bigot.


----------



## Athos (Dec 16, 2018)

Struwwelpeter said:


> As someone who wants to find out more about the issues here, you've completely lost me as an interested listener with this attack on what seemed to me to be a well written post.  If you think it's bullshit - set out why, with a reasoned argument and some evidence to back it up.  Otherwise, you are the one that comes over as a bigot.


Good luck with that. Lol.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 16, 2018)

Struwwelpeter said:


> As someone who wants to find out more about the issues here, you've completely lost me as an interested listener with this attack on what seemed to me to be a well written post.  If you think it's bullshit - set out why, with a reasoned argument and some evidence to back it up.  Otherwise, you are the one that comes over as a bigot.


the post i criticised contained no evidence - why are you not asking them to provide evidence for what they said? I don't really take kindly to having to prove i'm not a paedo or a paedo apologist - how about you?


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 16, 2018)

honestly if you want a reasoned debate about trans issues then it has to be lifted out of the gutter. The claims of child abuse and rape, etc has been addressed to death on Urban but people keep going there.If you want to learn stop pissing everyone else off with unsubstantiated and bigoted claims.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Dec 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> honestly if you want a reasoned debate about trans issues then it has to be lifted out of the gutter. The claims of child abuse and rape, etc has been addressed to death on Urban but people keep going there.If you want to learn stop pissing everyone else off with unsubstantiated and bigoted claims.


I've not made any claims - I'm ignorant in this, I'll admit.  But your attitude has turned me off wanting to learn more of your side of the argument.  I am prejudiced about loud screamy types who want to shut down discussion (on both sides), but since you are louder and screamier, you've lost me.  Now, I'll just keep out of this whole issue and probably continue in my ignorance and in your view bigotry.  I expect you'll chalk that up as a win.


----------



## PeterTCA (Dec 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Maybe you're right, but I got the impression the organisers were pretty burnt out before this  even started and the row and aftermath was enough to make them call  it a day.  Manchester seems to have weathered the storm so far, as did the Radical Bookfair in London.



The constant de-railing of this post reflects the intrusions of Book Fairs over the past few years. Nothing at all is said about the 
20-odd stallholders, the speakers and the networking at Manchester. To gain publicity all you have to do is disrupt an event.

Book fairs are only one part of the movement. They are organised by small groups of activists. Securing city-centre premises
is not always easy. Venues come with T&Cs (no smoking, no alcohol, or as was the case with Partisan, no trans-phobes).

I would be happy to see many more Book Fairs, arranged around the country, by a variety of people. You do not need
permission. You just take on responsibility.

All you need to do is spend a few months working on the idea, investing some money, drumming up publicity, and inviting stallholders and speakers.
It's thankless work. And as an organiser, you end up branded as a Fascist (London) or a Stalinist (Manchester).


----------



## Riklet (Dec 16, 2018)

I still feel very stuck between both the sides on the whole trans stuff. And the vitriolic posts online only make me less sure. I think that's a good post from qwerty to some extent but I can also see the other side - to deny that many trans people dont suffer and arent seriously oppressed is to have your head in the sand.

When so many shit things happen to women daily around the world often pretty much unchallenged, focusing on trans people as a particularly risk seems pretty loony.

But it's the risk of identity politics and only viewing people as a little happy homogenous collective group - criticism of a few scumbags is taken as an insult to all. Which community or society around the world doesnt have people making mistakes? fucking up? or worse, doing horrendous things. 

The feeling for me is that this can now no longer be discussed or approached fully at left/anarchist events because someone might take it as an affront to their identity, their rights etc.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 16, 2018)

PeterTCA said:


> And as an organiser, you end up branded as a Fascist (London) or a Stalinist (Manchester).



still way better than being branded a perverted,misogynist child rapist.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 16, 2018)

Riklet said:


> I think that's a good post from qwerty to some extent



But why? Was it the bit that said weirdo trans people assigned male at birth like me were more likely to sympathise with child rapists?


----------



## Riklet (Dec 17, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> But why? Was it the bit that said weirdo trans people assigned male at birth like me were more likely to sympathise with child rapists?



I think as a post it's coherent and honest and sincere and attempts to address some of the issues in a rational manner.  You have consistently failed to do exactly that.  This is not to attack you as a person or to invalidate the struggles you have faced or to act out of spite - I think all of those things have happened in this thread btw - but merely my perception of a difficult issue where there is a lot of grey areas.

FWIW I didn't interpret their post as saying that or being written out of biggotry and I dont agree with everything they said anyway.  And I definitely wouldn't agree with what youve written.  I feel sad and angry to see the hate coming out towards trans people, even though I think it's just more out in the open now, more messy.  More public than before.  I do have hope that with dialogue and communication at least some of the issues can be addressed and lives can be made better as a result.  I don't however believe these complicated challenging issues can be solved by magic though, just by blindly accepting gender self-definition and "shutting down" anyone who might cause offense to some group in society.  Critically analyzing whether any 40 year old man can expect to just suddenly "become" a lesbian woman and have everyone accept that as in some way positive is perfectly valid, even without mentioning Ian Huntley at all.

The growing perception all across society right now is that people cannot really express themselves freely, cannot say what they want, or that debate must be censored.  I think this is often exaggerated but there is some truth in it.  The behaviour by activists on both sides does seem to contribute to this at the moment.  The physical assaults, abuse and insults, shit behaviour on social media, stalking, pressuring people's workplaces, cancelling events etc.  I am not saying there is never a time and a place for these things, I think they are all appropriate in certain situations of gravity - but not in a debate about fucking unisex toilets or what's best for teenagers.  People have to be listened to and included in a free and fair debate - education cannot happen if people are not free to participate, to challenge or even to reject.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 17, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> the post i criticised contained no evidence - why are you not asking them to provide evidence for what they said? I don't really take kindly to having to prove i'm not a paedo or a paedo apologist - how about you?



But nobody has called you a paedo or a paedo apologist.  So you don't have to prove anything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

ska invita said:


> Not sure exactly what you mean? perhaps worth considering and remembering what happened at the anarchafeminist all-dayer in 2014
> 
> I wasnt there so cant tell you exactly what happened but my recollection is
> .. The organisers got badly burned by the fighting on the day and aftermath storm and won't be organising another one (such a shame and waste that, gutting, i think it was a really useful initiative)
> ...



It's interesting that the author states "Attempts were made to remove the TERFs by some of the organisers but this *unity* was undermined...".

Attempts by "*some* of the organisers" kind of contradicts the talk of "unity", doesn't it.? As for the self-backpatting about dealing with transphobia, that is kind of "ew!", given that a predicate of anarchism is equality, and that means a forum for both sides of the trans argument, or none at all, not a taking of sides, as appears to have happened.

Apols for late response.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

ska invita said:


> It really isnt about free speech at this point. Its about how to stop/avoid fights (verbal and physical) breaking out, disrupting peaceful events, again and again and again and again and again and again.



A "crime" that both sides of the argument are guilty of.


> Freedom of speech is an enlightenment ideal, and who would be against that? But the notion of debating in a reasoned manner to find a deeper truth needs to be set out with that goal in mind. A debating chamber has rules and expectations of behaviour. These restraining rules and expectations are out the window in whats happening at public meetings.



*IF* your meeting has a policy of ruling out a particular subject, or a particular group of people, then it's not so much a public meeting, as a private endeavour.


> Funnily enough the likes of radio, tv and print media bring back some of those rules of conduct, which is partly why the debate can be had fairly safely and reasonably within those spaces.
> 
> In a free for all space of a corridor or hall or toilet or speakers corner its gloves off, take no prisoners and no backing down from either side. Its fuck the organisers requests, fuck the organisers guidelines, fuck any attempts to defuse confrontation, fuck the other side, fuck who ever gets caught in the fray, and fuck the long term consequences for others, maximum upset for retweets. <<<what has any of that got to do with freedom of speech? (other than as a figleaf of martyrdom to guilt trip with in the aftermath)


I'm sorry, but that's bollocks. Have you ever been in a "free-for-all" melee? They usually end in serious injury at the least, not just bruises and bloody noses. As for the suggestion that either side is deliberately provoking conflict in order to garner material for social media, grow the fuck up.[/quote]


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

likesfish said:


> Not really because the people they are protesting are people who are willing to listen to their nonsense and the idea that all women are oppressed all the time by all men is nonsense of the worst kind.



No such idea really exists in feminisms. The "all men" refers to male-dominated institutional and structural inequality being an oppressive force on women all of the time. It's called patriarchy.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2018)

it's an oppressive force on men all of the time, too, which is why men should all be feminists and _not ''_MRAs''.

i'm only saying because I meet men all the time who do not get this simple fact (probably not here at Urban but elsewhere definitely).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Wow...they actually published that.



It's Pink News. They're pretty much the _sine qua non_ of anti-lesbian publishing, at the moment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> it's an oppressive force on men all of the time, too, which is why men should all be feminists and _not ''_MRAs''.
> 
> i'm only saying because I meet men all the time who do not get this simple fact (probably not here at Urban but elsewhere definitely).



It's an oppressive force mainly via class for men, in a much more asymmetrical way than it is for women though, IMO. That is, the higher up the class hierarchy a man ascends, the exponentially less influence patriarchy exerts. Women further up the class hierarchy still have the overarching expectations of their supposedly-primary gender role - to produce and rear offspring.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's Pink News. They're pretty much the _sine qua non_ of anti-lesbian publishing, at the moment.



Do you feel the same about Diva who have been equally trans supportive?

Are you going to join the ranks of straight men currently carefully explaining to trans supportive lesbians why they aren't proper lesbians?  I thought you were better than this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Fuck off kabbes, if you want to discuss the latest fantastical smear about paedophile infiltrating transgender then take it to the other thread and let it be exposed for the nasty bigoted shit it is  I'm not going to respond to any of this crap further on this thread.
> 
> Or better still fuck off to mumsnet.



The problem is that paedophiles infiltrate *anywhere* that provides them an opportunity to access children. We know this from the sheer diversity of situations in which paedophiles have been found, including political, ideological and philosophical movements.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I like recalibration, it sounds so much better than purge



Soft git.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

PeterTCA said:


> The constant de-railing of this post reflects the intrusions of Book Fairs over the past few years. Nothing at all is said about the
> 20-odd stallholders, the speakers and the networking at Manchester. To gain publicity all you have to do is disrupt an event.
> 
> Book fairs are only one part of the movement. They are organised by small groups of activists. Securing city-centre premises
> ...



No smoking and no alcohol are easy "black and white" issues to police. "No transphobes" is always going to be a matter of opinion that will vary with the ideology of the person policing the rule. Too easily abused, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Do you feel the same about Diva who have been equally trans supportive?



No.


> *Are you going to join the ranks of straight men currently carefully explaining to trans supportive lesbians why they aren't proper lesbians*?  I thought you were better than this.



What does the above have to do with my point that Pink News is lesbophobic?

I thought you were better than putting words in other peoples' mouths. Seems I was wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Soft git.


the thing about these sorts of words is what they convey to the purgees or, as i might say, the people awaiting recalibration. you don't want to spook them before it's necessary: and talk of a purge would put their backs up.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> No.
> 
> 
> What does the above have to do with my point that Pink News is lesbophobic?



Are the lesbians who write for Pink News lesbophobic?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are the lesbians who write for Pink News lesbophobic?


perhaps self-hating


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps self-hating



Surely self hating lesbians turn into trans men


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are the lesbians who write for Pink News lesbophobic?



Who knows? Of course, as a sometime journo yourself, you should be aware that most publications expect their reporters to follow an editorial line, and Ben Cohen has certainly proven to be lesbophobic.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who knows? Of course, as a sometime journo yourself, you should be aware that most publications expect their reporters to follow an editorial line, and Ben Cohen has certainly proven to be lesbophobic.



No, Pink News has opposed a very small sect of lesbians who oppose trans rights.  It's no accident that after the anti-trans incursion at London Pride, trans people and lesbians marched together at the front of Pride marches all over the world.  The anti-trans faction have loud voices and Murdoch to back them up (for now) but from what I can see with the huge outpouring of support for trans people from lesbian and gay people after the Pride debacle, they do not represent mainstream lesbian or LGBT opinion.  It may be your opinion, but Pink News isn't written for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No, Pink News has opposed a very small sect of lesbians who oppose trans rights.  It's no accident that after the anti-trans incursion at London Pride, trans people and lesbians marched together at the front of Pride marches all over the world.  The anti-trans faction have loud voices and Murdoch to back them up (for now) but from what I can see with the huge outpouring of support for trans people from lesbian and gay people after the Pride debacle, they do not represent mainstream lesbian or LGBT opinion.  It may be your opinion, but Pink News isn't written for you.



Isn't it?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't it?



Not if you think they shouldn't support trans people no.  It's an LGBT publication.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Not if you think they shouldn't support trans people no.



You're putting words in my mouth. Again. 



> It's an LGBT publication.



That is asymmetrically about Gay and Trans issues.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's an oppressive force mainly via class for men, in a much more asymmetrical way than it is for women though, IMO. That is, the higher up the class hierarchy a man ascends, the exponentially less influence patriarchy exerts. Women further up the class hierarchy still have the overarching expectations of their supposedly-primary gender role - to produce and rear offspring.



Women are expected to give up working so as to parent, men are expected to give up parenting so as to work. Which is worse is endlessly debatable isn't it.

Of course for a lot of unemployed, separated men this may mean no parenting AND no work. Not a recipe for any kind of health or happiness.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're putting words in my mouth. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> That is asymmetrically about Gay and Trans issues.



And yet a brief scan of theitr current pages shows just one story about trans issues, a few about lesbians and many more about things which affect lesbian and gay, and LGBT people equally.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jan 2, 2019)

Fucking hell drop in briefly to find Panda insinuating that Pink News is lesbophobic because it's got a pro-trans stance, wtf is even happening on this thread any more. Bonkers.


----------

