The reason "transphobic" views are equated with fascism is so that idiots get to live out some "Antifa " fantasy by punching 60 year old female librarians rather than taking their chances with male scaffolders in their mid forties.
London Anarchist bookfair 2020
- Thread starter Treacle Toes
- Start date
The reason "transphobic" views are equated with fascism is so that idiots get to live out some "Antifa " fantasy by punching 60 year old female librarians rather than taking their chances with male scaffolders in their mid forties.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
once people agree that fascists - such as members or supporters of the nf, bnp or generation identity, say - should be excluded and where they gain admission assisted to the nearest exit, it's only a matter of determining which other views are sufficiently abhorrent to receive the same treatment. i only hope our organising committee can come up with a list which will be widely accepted.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Remember Green Anarchist, Alternative Green and the "Heretics Bookfair"?
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Alternative Green were given pretty short shrift as soon as they split from Green Anarchist, Green Anarchist were always allowed at the Bookfair, and then the short lived Heretics Boofair was something quite different. All that Third Position and National Anarchist stuff they started getting into.
In a similar vein there's rows involving Deep Green Resistance, Derrick Jensen, and Lierre Keith to do with trans stuff, but really my life is too short (and they're all too marginal) to be bothered about looking into that.
In a similar vein there's rows involving Deep Green Resistance, Derrick Jensen, and Lierre Keith to do with trans stuff, but really my life is too short (and they're all too marginal) to be bothered about looking into that.
Effectively there's broad consensus on what fascism and ultra nationalism are and why they're inimical to our movement, there is no such consensus over "transphobia" , "gender critical feminism " and associated themes so now we resort to rules and physical force.
Last edited:
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Indeed, and there was the spat between Stewart Home and Green Anarchist. With him basically labelling them fascists iirc.
It got sorted, despite being nowhere near as simple as wearing a "kick 'em out" t-shirt.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
I vaguely remember that came shortly before he started calling all anarchists fascists...?
Read it and weep...
Stewart Home:Anarchist Integralism
Anarchism is reactionary, anarchists are stupid
And dare I mention him.... Larry O'Hara....
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's not really about what people think as individuals is it though? It's about people distriibuting leaflets full of lies which accuse trans rights of being rape culture, stickers/flyers in the toilets designed to make trans people feel unwelcome and the ever present threat of a huge row blowing up or someone like Venicce Allen turning up sticking cameras in peoples crotches to post on social media, then you are effectively creating an event trans peoople cannot attend, or will not want to attend.
I don't know how you square this circle, but the idea that there are no consequences to allowing GC propaganda and activists to have a political presence at the bookfair is consequence free just isnt true.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
I can’t recall Stewart labelling all anarchists as fascist but instead drawing links between the anti-semitism and love for secret societies that Bakunin had, and the anti-working class bullshit that Green Anarchist came out with.
Indeed, from what I can remember Anarchist Integralism distinguishes between “sussed” anarchists like the ACF and GA - and expresses surprise that they would share a platform.
Worth remembering that the old bookfair was happy to host meetings discussing these very criticisms, btw.
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
If you bother actually reading the steaming pile of shite that Anarchist Integralism is, you'll find amazing distortions of ACF positions and so yes, Home is just as hostile to "sussed" anarchists like the ACF as he is to GA.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
I can’t be arsed to read it again to be honest, Charlie. I’d agree with you that Stewart was hostile to the ACF but would say that he criticised it for different things than GA.
From what I can remember ACF/AF’s “in the tradition” articles were a good distillation of the parts of anarchist/communist history that influenced the org and obviously that did not include the maddest aspects of Bakuninism.
Athos
Well-Known Member
My starting point would be that anarchists should be free not just to think but also to speak (and hear) the ideas they want to. That freedom should extend to views with which other anarchists disagree, consider to be untrue, or even find offensive. Freedom of conscience and expression ought to trump any 'right' not be disagreed with or offended, for the health of anarchist thought and practice.
As such, the only political opinions that should be banned from being expressed at the bookfair are those so obviously inconsistent with anarchist principles that no anarchist would entertain e.g. fascism. Notably, no such consensus has yet been reached with regard to gender critical feminism; whilst all anarchists would condemn transphobia, a great many consider women's right to organise against patriarchal oppression on the basis of their material reality (i.e. biology) not to be a transphobic position.
And so, like all contentious opinions short of fascism, I'd say that issue can and should be argued out amongst the attendees.
Notwithstanding my point above, I would accept however, that there is certain conduct which might justify the banning of individuals. Personally, I don't think peacefully handing out leaflets crosses that line, whereas photographing someone's crotch would (albeit I'm not aware of that having happened at the bookfair); I'd have no problem with anyone doing that being asked to leave.
I can see why you would elide those two things, but they're different, and the difference is really significant. Obviously, the bookfair should not become a place that trans people cannot attend e.g. be excluded by organisers or be at risk of physical harm. But we should recognise that, if they don't want to because, say, it's too upsetting to them to hear ideas with which they disagree, then, sadly, so be it. Whilst it's quite right for the organisers to take robust steps to protect trans people's physical safety, and whilst it's incumbent on all of us to try to express ourselves in a way that minimises upsetting comrades, hurt feelings aren't a proper basis to restrict the exchange of ideas.
True. But there are also consequences of banning them. Again, to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
Personally, I consider the consequences of going down the road of bans for those who won't toe the organisers' 'party line' about a subject on which there's so little consensus amongst anarchists to be pretty disastrous for the future of anarchism.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
tbh the expression of any political view which is predicated on hierarchy has no place at the bookfair, hierarchy being plainly incompatible with anarchist principles. you don't have to reach all the way to fascism to start finding things which shouldn't be at the bookfair. if your rcg-er wants to wander round and browse the stalls, i'd expect them to be free to do so. if they want to have a meeting, on the other hand, they have the remainder of the world in which to do it.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's probably right. But fascism was an 'e.g.' rather than an 'i.e.'. Your point doesn't really impact on what I was saying; I don't think all the views that some would like banned are hierarchical, and so obviously at odds with anarchist principles.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no, but a lot of them are - individual hierarchies of what constitutes a man or woman, for example.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
anyway squabble among yourselves, i've got things to do and people to meet
Athos
Well-Known Member
But genuine gender critical views are about tearing down those hierarchies (though I appreciate some transphobic stuff tries to hide behind claims of GC, but isn't genuine).
Perhaps worth remembering that one of the original non anarchist GC disrupters gloated about being responsible for the demise of the bookfair on twitter. On the recent mumsnet thread about the Owen Jones attack it moved from I dont like him but I condemn violence to he's lying, exaggerated, lefties have it coming because milkshakes and antifa are the real terrorists within a few pages. There are people explicitly opposed to everything anarchism stands for now embedded within GC circles who would delight in being able to destroy another bookfair. There are wider considerations about whether this political grouping should be given a presence and as there is no openly anarchist GC group I'm aware of then excluding them seems entirely uncontroversial to me.
Athos
Well-Known Member
The question of whether non-anarchists should be given space at the bookfair, is a slightly different question from whether or not certain positions are incompatible with anarchism. I'd agree that, say, christian fundies who express GC views didn't ought to have a space, but I don't think anarchists who express a GC position should be deprived of a space (as long as they're not threatening/abusing trans people, of course).
And also hierarchies of who gets banned, and who decides.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's almost as if the anti-fascism the bookfair organisers lay claim to, doesn't recognise the fascism inherent to "policing" people on the basis of rumour and innuendo.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Sadly true. Anti-fascism is saturated with weekend warriors, and "antifa" of the Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism type - people to whom physical force anti-fascism is anathema, and to whom grassing on genuine anti-fascists to the old bill is proper behaviour.
As for that cunt "Flick" Wood, you can bet they'd beat the 8 second 100 metres running from a real fascist.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Nah, he has to be mentioned 3 times by the same person before he appears through your mirror, and rips your throat out.
Rhyddical
May or may not look sexy in Hi Vis.
This isn't how it happened at all, there were no leaflets.
Helen and friend went in, pretty much went to a table after a quick browse and sat down.
The organisers spoke with the venue and the venue decided to eject summarily as HS had made her position on trans people quite clear since prior events.
They asked her to leave, she refused.
They told her exactly how they were going to remove her.
They removed her.
Source; my own eyes.
They also had a anti transphobia policy and aside from that incident it was a pretty good day.
The fascist/Transphobe parrallels are unfortunatly quite strong, not just in the intensity and furiousity in which some of them act but for some transphobic people and groups it is a full on connection, politically and economically. Remember this isn't a "we don't like HS policy" it's a policy against transphobes. Many of whom have strong ties to right wing Christian movements fromt he states and who share fascist ideologies / Free Tommy shit. Some of the people that get lumped into "feminists concerned about womens spaces" are full on out right bigots and even in that realm many women have noticed the extremly dodgy shit their peers are saying.
I mean I don't know if any of you kept up with things at the time but after 2017, the transphobes not only called the police but they gloated about wrecking the bookfair.
They arn't comrades.
That others such as Helen ended up in their camp is really dissapointing and a lot of people were really hurt by that and subsent slides into transphobia to the point where upon our announcing, the day after she shared posie's meme that amounts to "trans women are men" and that shit.. that shit aint cool.
An Anti-Transphobia policy (or any anti bigotry position) is not about specific people, it's deeply problematic to reduce it to that. We are all quite differant. HS isn't Posie Parker or Graham Lineham, HS also isn't Steve from Slough who "just doesn't get the trans thing". We can't write a policy for everyone and their cat, so we have broad sweeps. I don't know if Luke sharing the "Stronger borders" leaflet is in the EDL but he's going to get ejected anyways.
Anarchism is about sharing ideas and winning people over yes, and there will be talks and workshops no doubt for that very purpose, but if your political starting point is one entrenched in bigotry or you come to protest trasn rights or share transphobic leaflets you can fuck off.
This policy seems pretty clear and you know what, there is SO MUCH MORE interesting stuff about Anarchist Bookfairs than having a shitty disengenous discussion about the nuance of a broad policy.
Truly, If any of you happen to be transphobic, just stay at home or sort out another event or whatever. This is a space that will be welcoming to the trans community. It will also be a space where we protect other vunerable members of the Anarcho scene by not allowing bigots of any fashion to occupy and disrupt the space.
If for a moment they were actually Anarchistic they would accept our choice of free association. Women's Place or whoever are more than welcome to rent a space in London on the same day and share their ideas whatever, none of our bees wax really.
It's not like we're going to have mind readers at the door is it. Most people who might be "not cool" with the trans stuff who might attend will have the decency to respect the space and just go about enjoying the other 99% of Anarchistic shit that they care for.
I think that policy is pretty clear and it's the last I'll go on about it, accept it or don't that's readers choice. It's just how it is.
Out of interest.
Can anyone name an distinctly Anarchist organisation/network that does not believe transphobia to be counter to Anarchism? I'm aware of a few individulists who are anti-trans but not any one that would want a stall. Just curious really.
Last edited:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Anyone who's familiar with even the basics of anarchist theory knows prejudice is not as simple as 'hating X'.
The people that I consider comrades (and yes I DO still consider them comrades) are opposed to the physical/verbal abuse of transpeople, want equality for transpeople but they disagree with others about what the equality actually means in practice. They have some concerns and the GR act, they believe that cis/natal-women sometimes have the right to organise in cis/natal-women only spaces, they sometimes have issues with transwomen appearing on all women shortlists. Now you might agree or disagree with those positions but they are clearly (a) more complex than simply 'hating transpeople' and (b) not remotely equivalent to fascism.
Frankly I don't for a minute believe you are not aware of this. You know full well that the people that you've blocked on twitter/facebook are not calling for transphobia to be acceptable, rather what they see as transphobia is different to what you see as transphobia. We all all know that there are gray-zones where there will be differences of opinion over whether something is prejudiced or not. No one doubts abusing someone as a kike Is anti-semitic but clearly opinions differ as to whether BDS or being opposed to a Jewish state are anti-semitic. The pretence that having an anti-transphobia policy is a problem is totally disingenuous, you know that is not what people are taking issue with.
The people that I consider comrades (and yes I DO still consider them comrades) are opposed to the physical/verbal abuse of transpeople, want equality for transpeople but they disagree with others about what the equality actually means in practice. They have some concerns and the GR act, they believe that cis/natal-women sometimes have the right to organise in cis/natal-women only spaces, they sometimes have issues with transwomen appearing on all women shortlists. Now you might agree or disagree with those positions but they are clearly (a) more complex than simply 'hating transpeople' and (b) not remotely equivalent to fascism.
Frankly I don't for a minute believe you are not aware of this. You know full well that the people that you've blocked on twitter/facebook are not calling for transphobia to be acceptable, rather what they see as transphobia is different to what you see as transphobia. We all all know that there are gray-zones where there will be differences of opinion over whether something is prejudiced or not. No one doubts abusing someone as a kike Is anti-semitic but clearly opinions differ as to whether BDS or being opposed to a Jewish state are anti-semitic. The pretence that having an anti-transphobia policy is a problem is totally disingenuous, you know that is not what people are taking issue with.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Rhyddical - Genuinely, thank you for taking on this thankless task, even though I don't agree with every aspect of how you've gone about it.
Whilst it's not an opinion I share, are you able to explain why the idea that trans women are men is inimical to anarchism per se? (Please note that's not the same thing as saying some people who hold that opinion do so for reasons that are incompatible with anarchist principles, or that some that hold those views also holds views which are anathema (both of which are undoubtedly true).)
That'd be a good start to building a consensus, absent which bans for 'heresy' look like the high-handed exercise of power by those at the top of a hierarchy (the organisers) over those at the bottom (anarchists who'd like to attend) .
ETA: redsquirrel is right - no anarchist argues that transphobia should be accepted; the argument is about whether or not certain positions are necessarily transphobic. Something your rhetoric seems to skip over as a given.
Whilst it's not an opinion I share, are you able to explain why the idea that trans women are men is inimical to anarchism per se? (Please note that's not the same thing as saying some people who hold that opinion do so for reasons that are incompatible with anarchist principles, or that some that hold those views also holds views which are anathema (both of which are undoubtedly true).)
That'd be a good start to building a consensus, absent which bans for 'heresy' look like the high-handed exercise of power by those at the top of a hierarchy (the organisers) over those at the bottom (anarchists who'd like to attend) .
ETA: redsquirrel is right - no anarchist argues that transphobia should be accepted; the argument is about whether or not certain positions are necessarily transphobic. Something your rhetoric seems to skip over as a given.
Last edited:
Similar threads
