Disruption at Book Fairs

[SpookyFrank]

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]

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]

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]

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]

But X is a statement which amounts to 'you don't belong where you say you belong'.

It's not tautologous.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's not tautologous.

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

 

[phillm]

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]

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]

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]

 

[kabbes]

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]

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]

.

 

[cantsin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Edit

Now on the other thread.

 

[smokedout]

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]

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]

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.