Disruption at Book Fairs

[LDC]

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]

Here's another....

 

[chilango]

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]

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].

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

it's all very strange

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

 

[Thora]

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].

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

 

[co-op]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

wrong

 

[Pickman's model]

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]

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]

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]

wrong

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

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

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

 

[co-op]

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

You haven't understood the point.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You haven't understood the point.

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

 

[co-op]

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

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

 

[Pickman's model]

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

an "objective" description

 

[co-op]

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]

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.