Disruption at Book Fairs

[The Flying Pig]

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]

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]

Are you positive it was men that carried them out?

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

 

[Edie]

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

 

[LDC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There’s been a vague suggestion about Steel.

 

[andysays]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.