London Anarchist bookfair 2020

[butchersapron]

I've never seen anyone argue any such thing 'in my time'. I think it's a fantasy.

 

[Athos]

Athos, what you don't seem to see is that people are arguing that transphobia is acceptable, it very much is a thing and often arguing against the very concept of being trans saying that it is all mental illness etc, n yheah thats from people who also call themselves Anarchist and/or Feminists.
Even on this thread.

Where on this thread has anyone who calls themself an anarchist and/or feminist argued that transphobia is acceptable (as opposed to expressed opinions that you consider transphobic but they don't)? This is another fantasy.

 

[Rhyddical]

Somewhere in the early commentary there was something or other about "men who cut their dicks off", Women (noun) shit and stuff equating trans rights activists = pathetic liberals. I've not the time for 15 pages of finding qoutes that'll be dismissed or ignored, and tbh maybe I'm half reading or taking it out of context... IDK I have memory issues a lil.

Mid way and later stage here people are effectivley arguing that a degree of "transphobia" is ok, coz hey, it's not really transphobia right? I mean it's not really transphobic it's just stuff this person considers transphobic haha wut. Like serious think about that.
That tosh is literally said by dodge people everywhere, all the fucking time.

"It's not fascism mate, it's not my fault and can't accept other peoples opinions."

I'm not for a moment saying you are dodge, but please for a moment consider the weird way in which arguements like that are being used.

My definitions of whats transphobic come from the trans people being abused and bullied, I defer to the oppressed and this thread is chocka with dog whistles, hostility towords a policy that is there to make people safer from bigots and aggy coz ya mates one of these people the liberal/idpol/melts call a terf and shock horror, arn't nice too. I'm honestly not interested in telling people who suffer transphobic abuse what the definition of transphobia is, especially when thats generated from people, at the very least, who are willing to entertain those who would see the rights and stature of the trans community diminished.

FFS why am I getting dragged into back and forths on The Transphobia Policy yet again haha look, like it or lump it, it's what it is, I've restated it a dozen times.
The thread is about Bookfair not the nuances of Transphobia / Trans Rights, I beliueve someone already linked the thread for that elsewhere on U75.

If folk don't care for it thats fine, don't come or just respect the space innit. It's not hard.
If the people we're talking about genuinely wanted progressive dialogue they would respect that and find suitable venues for discussion instead of picketing Pride marches like the fucking Westboro baptists or sharing leaflets called trans people rapists n shit. Honestly if even an ounce of respect was afforded the trans community and respect for trans friendly spaces was given then the conversation would be much more comradely and no one would be getting themselves into a twist. Sad to say that ain't the world we live in and here we are wasting reams of text on something thats quite simple.

No bigotry will be tolerated at Bookfair 2020.
Simplez

Please stop baiting my ass, it's too easy and it's just not sportsman like.

 

[danny la rouge]

Mid way and later stage here people are effectivley arguing that a degree of "transphobia" is ok, c

I haven’t seen that, and would call that out. I think you’re mistaken.

 

[Rob Ray]

I've been keeping out of this thread, mainly because it feels pretty pointless to be moaning about/defending an event which won't take place for another year and in which only Rhydiccal is playing an even remotely constructive role. But just on the whole thing of Helen's exclusion from anarchist events for transphobia being overblown and something of an outrage due to her legendary status as an activist (I don't mean that sarcastically, I do have massive respect for her role in fighting McLibel, spycops and all the rest), I think possibly people haven't been keeping up with events:

Helen subscribing to a conspiracy theory about a shadowy organisation funding the "trans lobby" for reasons unknown, with an anti-semitic twist i can't really give her the benefit of the doubt on given how famous it is:


She was one of a half-dozen people who turned out to try and disrupt Manchester Pride as part of (another) conspiracy theory that has been rejected roundly by pretty much the entire LGBT community that lesbians are being "erased" by the presence of trans people at Pride.


Last week (and consistently for a while) she was peddling the line that toilets should be policed to keep trans people out and referring to a different perspective as "indoctrination". Not only is such policing obviously not possible in real terms, to try and legislate on it would actually repress rights which have never been taken away from trans people before now.

Helen isn't a "reasonable concerns" person, she's a very well-known hardliner with a history of trying to disrupt events to push a particular transphobic perspective. It's a tremendously sad thing to see her take that path, but we can't pretend that it hasn't happened, or that her presence at anarchist events isn't therefore divisive as hell and certain to cause a massive fight.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well the last few posts do a pretty good job of confirming the concerns people had a start of this thread.

I don't think a single person on this thread has argued that transphobia be accepted or minimised. What people have argued is that it is not as simple as transphobes vs non-transphobes.

Somewhere in the early commentary there was something or other about "men who cut their dicks off",

I've searched this thread and I can find no such statement.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Somewhere in the early commentary there was something or other about "men who cut their dicks off"

The search feature isn't perfect but often good enough. A search for the word "dicks" in this thread leads to two posts: yours and redsquirrel quoting it.

Search Results for Query: Dicks | urban75 forums

 

[Athos]

Somewhere in the early commentary there was something or other about "men who cut their dicks off"

Where?

Women (noun) shit and stuff equating trans rights activists = pathetic liberals.

Where?

Mid way and later stage here people are effectivley arguing that a degree of "transphobia" is ok...

Where?

My definitions of whats transphobic come from the trans people being abused and bullied...

Why not listen to women who are being abused and bullied?


ETA: Actually, don't bother, your "like it or lump it" makes it clear you're not willing to listen to others; you seem to prefer to repeat the same old nonsense which you're unable to back up.

But God luck with the bookfair. It doesn't sound like it'll be an anarchist event, but I genuinely hope something positive comes out of it.

 

[Rob Ray]

NB// Rhyiddical you may note a certain ignoring of my post from the likes of Magnus and Athos. This is normal when things are presented to them which don't back their case, and has happened across multiple other threads (one reason I stopped bothering to engage with them). They can be decent folks on other topics but there's a lot of not very well hidden partisanship on trans rights, as you may have already noted.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

NB// Rhyiddical you may note a certain ignoring of my post from the likes of Magnus and Athos. This is normal when things are presented to them which don't back their case, and has happened across multiple other threads (one reason I stopped bothering to engage with them). They can be decent folks on other topics but there's a lot of not very well hidden partisanship on trans rights, as you may have already noted.

Actually I've shifted quite a bit towards being less partisan; I try not to engage with trans threads anymore tbh and the subject has pretty much died out on here beyond it being raised again in regards to the book fair.
And isn't the whole problem that everyone is being partisan one way or the other?

 

[Athos]

I've been keeping out of this thread, mainly because it feels pretty pointless to be moaning about/defending an event which won't take place for another year and in which only Rhydiccal is playing an even remotely constructive role. But just on the whole thing of Helen's exclusion from anarchist events for transphobia being overblown and something of an outrage due to her legendary status as an activist (I don't mean that sarcastically, I do have massive respect for her role in fighting McLibel, spycops and all the rest), I think possibly people haven't been keeping up with events:

Helen subscribing to a conspiracy theory about a shadowy organisation funding the "trans lobby" for reasons unknown, with an anti-semitic twist i can't really give her the benefit of the doubt on given how famous it is:
View attachment 182028

She was one of a half-dozen people who turned out to try and disrupt Manchester Pride as part of (another) conspiracy theory that has been rejected roundly by pretty much the entire LGBT community that lesbians are being "erased" by the presence of trans people at Pride.
View attachment 182029

Last week (and consistently for a while) she was peddling the line that toilets should be policed to keep trans people out and referring to a different perspective as "indoctrination". Not only is such policing obviously not possible in real terms, to try and legislate on it would actually repress rights which have never been taken away from trans people before now.
View attachment 182030
Helen isn't a "reasonable concerns" person, she's a very well-known hardliner with a history of trying to disrupt events to push a particular transphobic perspective. It's a tremendously sad thing to see her take that path, but we can't pretend that it hasn't happened, or that her presence at anarchist events isn't therefore divisive as hell and certain to cause a massive fight.

The commentary doesn't reflect the content of the tweets to which they refer!

 

[Rob Ray]

Actually I've shifted quite a bit towards being less partisan; I try not to engage with trans threads anymore tbh and the subject has pretty much died out on here beyond it being raised again in regards to the book fair.
And isn't the whole problem that everyone is being partisan one way or the other?

Good to hear if so, as I say I've been trying not to get drawn into it so much, got enough stress in life as it is!

 

[smokedout]

Well the last few posts do a pretty good job of confirming the concerns people had a start of this thread.

I don't think a single person on this thread has argued that transphobia be accepted or minimised. What people have argued is that it is not as simple as transphobes vs non-transphobes.

I asked on the other thread if anyone, who wasn't trans, was prepared to give a definition of what they thought transphobia was, and no-one took it up. I think this is a problem, because I hear lots of people saying of course I;m opposed to transphobia but I very rarely see those people actually acknowledge that anything but the most pantomime alt right stuff or outright bullying is actually transphobic. There seems to be no acknowledgement that transphobia, much like other prejudices, can be indirect, unconscious or unintentional, and at times highly sophisticated - in fact deliberately highly sophisticated because those with a genuinely transphobic agenda have learned from anti-Semitism and other forms of organised bigotry how to use symbols, codes and nudge nudge phrases which on the surface seem perfectly innocent - adult human female t-shirts for example, but which in reality are signalling a much more malign set of views.

 

[danny la rouge]

NB// Rhyiddical you may note a certain ignoring of my post from the likes of Magnus and Athos. This is normal when things are presented to them which don't back their case, and has happened across multiple other threads (one reason I stopped bothering to engage with them). They can be decent folks on other topics but there's a lot of not very well hidden partisanship on trans rights, as you may have already noted.

Rob, nobody is “ignoring” your posts. You have outlined why you think Helen Steel has gone down a conspiracy-ridden rabbit hole.

But unless I’m mistaken, Helen has not posted on this thread. And yet Rhyddical has claimed there are people making transphobic comments and arguing that “a degree of transphobia is OK” on this thread. I must have missed it. Nobody has argued any such thing.

This seems to me to be what happens when we divide into identity ghettoes. Any disagreement becomes perceived as bigotry.

This is why I try to keep away from the trans/gender critical debate.

 

[Rob Ray]

I'm going to bow out before getting much further onto the roundabout, but my point with noting a lack of response to the post was in the choices people make with what they respond to. It's been pretty standard that factual rebuttals (eg. on Helen's actual activities vs how she's characterised in a public letter) rarely get a reply and drop into the memory hole before, maybe a few threads down the line, the subject gets brought up again as though nothing had happened. Meanwhile an inaccuracy is leapt on with full force. I know that's sometimes part and parcel of a fractious thread, but got so endemic on trans issues that I just didn't see the point engaging in it all.

On which note imma do my thing and get back to work, laters all .

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I'm going to bow out before getting much further onto the roundabout, but my point with noting a lack of response to the post was in the choices people make with what they respond to. It's been pretty standard that factual rebuttals (eg. on Helen's actual activities vs how she's characterised in a public letter) rarely get a reply and drop into the memory hole before, maybe a few threads down the line, the subject gets brought up again as though nothing had happened. Meanwhile an inaccuracy is leapt on with full force. I know that's sometimes part and parcel of a fractious thread, but got so endemic on trans issues that I just didn't see the point engaging in it all.

On which note imma do my thing and get back to work, laters all .

Often on message boards people engage mostly with what they disagree with. That means that posts in which others take no issue will often get no response or sometimes some likes. Although, Athos did give a reply of sorts to it.

 

[Athos]

... my point with noting a lack of response to the post was in the choices people make with what they respond to. It's been pretty standard that factual rebuttals (eg. on Helen's actual activities vs how she's characterised in a public letter) rarely get a reply and drop into the memory hole before, maybe a few threads down the line, the subject gets brought up again as though nothing had happened.

Both of us responded within six posts!

 

[Athos]

I asked on the other thread if anyone, who wasn't trans, was prepared to give a definition of what they thought transphobia was, and no-one took it up. I think this is a problem, because I hear lots of people saying of course I;m opposed to transphobia but I very rarely see those people actually acknowledge that anything but the most pantomime alt right stuff or outright bullying is actually transphobic. There seems to be no acknowledgement that transphobia, much like other prejudices, can be indirect, unconscious or unintentional, and at times highly sophisticated - in fact deliberately highly sophisticated because those with a genuinely transphobic agenda have learned from anti-Semitism and other forms of organised bigotry how to use symbols, codes and nudge nudge phrases which on the surface seem perfectly innocent - adult human female t-shirts for example, but which in reality are signalling a much more malign set of views.

How about:

'Unjustified differential (and prejudicial) treatment (direct or indirect) of trans people, because of their trans status.'

What's your opinion of that? Do you have a better definition?

 

[nyxx]

Rob, nobody is “ignoring” your posts. You have outlined why you think Helen Steel has gone down a conspiracy-ridden rabbit hole.

But unless I’m mistaken, Helen has not posted on this thread. And yet Rhyddical has claimed there are people making transphobic comments and arguing that “a degree of transphobia is OK” on this thread. I must have missed it.

Surely it's obvious to anyone who's been following this issue that the classic / glaring example of who exactly might be excluded by this bookfair's policy would be Helen Steel. And Rob Ray has helpfully shown exactly why this is the case, and why it should not be controversial.

 

[Pickman's model]

How about:

'Unjustified differential (and prejudicial) treatment (direct or indirect) of trans people, because of their trans status.'

What's your opinion of that? Do you have a better definition?

What would justified differential (and prejudicial) treatment (direct or indirect) of trans people, because of their trans status look like? Not sure' unjustified' necessary

 

[danny la rouge]

Surely it's obvious to anyone who's been following this issue that the classic / glaring example of who exactly might be excluded by this bookfair's policy would be Helen Steel. And Rob Ray has helpfully shown exactly why this is the case, and why it should not be controversial.

Hi nyxx, thanks for the response.

As a provincial anarchist who has been in London maybe 5 times in his life, and who has never attended a London anarchist book fair, it’s not obvious to me at all where the specific battle lines are drawn. Which is why I asked the question early on.

However, in this instance I was not taking issue with Rob Ray ’s criticism of Helen’s tweets. As it happens, I don’t agree with her. Further, I fully back the ACG statement that Serge Forward helpfully posted upthread.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I offer solidarity and support to Rhyddical ’s efforts in taking on the book fair, even though I am unlikely to be able to afford the time or money to attend.

The point I made to Rob Ray and to Rhyddical is that there has not on this thread been anyone arguing that “a degree of transphobia is OK”. If anyone had argued such a thing, I’d have disagreed with them on it.

Nor has anyone on this thread, except Rhyddical, mentioned severed dicks.

 

[redsquirrel]

I asked on the other thread if anyone, who wasn't trans, was prepared to give a definition of what they thought transphobia was, and no-one took it up. I think this is a problem, because I hear lots of people saying of course I;m opposed to transphobia but I very rarely see those people actually acknowledge that anything but the most pantomime alt right stuff or outright bullying is actually transphobic. There seems to be no acknowledgement that transphobia, much like other prejudices, can be indirect, unconscious or unintentional, and at times highly sophisticated

Well, one point that I would agree with Rhyddical on is that I don't think trying to define transphobia is useful. As you point out all prejudices can be 'indirect, unconscious or unintentional', so I don't think trying to pin point whether certain viewpoints are transphobic or not is very useful.

For example I feel trying to work out in what circumstances it is or is not transphobic to argue for cis/natal-women only spaces seems to be to be a fruitless enterprise that is only going to lead to more division. There have been eloquent and considered posts on U75 about why some people have problems with domestic violence shelters not (having the option of) being cis/natal women only spaces, I don't think it is useful to label all those that hold such a view as transphobes (that's not to say that there are not some undoubted full-blown transphobic arseholes that are support cis/natal women only spaces).

Surely we can better address the real practical problems you talked about in your previous post by recognising that it is inevitable that the transphobia and sexism (and all other prejudices) systemic to our society is going to require us all to think about how we negotiate our prejudices.

 

[Athos]

What would justified differential (and prejudicial) treatment (direct or indirect) of trans people, because of their trans status look like? Not sure' unjustified' necessary

I.e. it'd be justified to treat trans women differently from cis women to offer prostate exams.

 

[Rhyddical]

If I'm wrong with the "men cut of dicks " bits, thats great... I'm 90% positive I read past something that said that here, happy to be wrong.

I would argue tho that it's very clear that some people here are trying minimise the impact of transphobia (in part by attempting to define what is transphobia so that it doesn't include XYZ) and petty foggle definitions and suggest that "possible transphobes" - depending on your definition) be provided a welcome and platform at a space that has said very clearly that it is providing a safer space for the trans community.

If none of you believe that transphobia is ok then you shouldn't have an issue with an anti-transphobia policy... so your issue is that trans people shouldn't have the capicty to decide or define what is predjudical against them.

Yes, let's leave it to people who are being called transphobic to decide what transphobia is.

Smart.

I'm not saying every trans person is a scholar and the judge jury and exectioner but the community has been pretty clear about what cross the line...

Shit like calling all trans people rapists, peadophiles and sexual devients. Thats transphobic yeah?

Misgendering people on purpose, doxxing them and capitalising on overt transphobic memes, phrases and undermining lanuage (Trans women are men etc etc)

I hope we all agree that the above is transphobic yeah? That's whats not welcome.

If I appear glib at times it's because I'm speading a great portion of my time in similar discussions and to be honest it's heartbreaking that Anarchist comrades need this very simple shit explaining to them. That's mixed in with a lot of disengenous shit stirring by people who know very well what poison they sow and to be honest, I'm sort of burnt out from being patient.

If people have concerns that a space isn't welcoming transphobes then thats their malfunction and I truly, 100% hope they come along and spend some time at Bookfair2020 and join in with the discussions that develop our anti bigotry positions as anarchists,revolutionaries and comrades.

I'm not the twat I appear to be on thread at times ;p

 

[danny la rouge]

I would argue tho that it's very clear that some people here are trying minimise the impact of transphobia and petty foggle definitions as that be provided a welcome and platform at a space that has said very clearly that it is providing a safer space for the trans community.

Who is trying to minimise the impact of transphobia? I must have missed it.

I can’t follow the second part of your paragraph.

 

[Athos]

I would argue tho that it's very clear that some people here are trying minimise the impact of transphobia...

You keep making these accusations, and repeatedly falling to back them up with any examples when challenged.

 

[Athos]

... it's heartbreaking that Anarchist comrades need their very simple shit explaining to them.

Have you considered that it might be better to spend some time listening to comrades, rather than "explaining" stuff to them? And the possibility that it's not as "simple" as it superficially appears?

 

[Athos]

If people have concerns that a space isn't welcoming transphobes...

I'm genuinely bemused as to whether you're stupid or disingenuous to keep making this point.

 

[smokedout]

What would justified differential (and prejudicial) treatment (direct or indirect) of trans people, because of their trans status look like? Not sure' unjustified' necessary

I'll bite just this once because that answer really sums up the problem in my opinion. The justified justifies everything, its really just a sliding scale and you get to pick where to draw the line. So it could be prisons, sports, refuges, trans people in the military, trans people working in schools or healthcare and on and on.

But more importantly that is trans discrimination which is a consequence of transphobia. To apply that definition to another field as an example would mean holocaust denial and promotion of conspiracy theories are not anti-semitic. Transphobia is an ideology, one that is clearly laid out in texts such as Transsexual Empire and whhich has underpinned the much of this debate. Why have we spent so much time discussing the superceded and discredited 40 year old theories of a dodgy old reactionery like Blanchard. No-one should have even heard of the autogynephilia theory unless they work in that field and yet it is everywhere and has been bastardised way beyond even what Blanchard claims. This is not accidental. Jeffreys, Raymond and others have been pushing it for years and it was seeded directly into the architecture of the fledgling GC movement against self ID. And its a very effective strategy, invoking as it does the very legitimate fear of male sexual violence and also the illegitimate social prejudice that feminine or effeminate 'men' are dangerous or predatory. This has the added advantage of creating an enemy that feminists and the conservative right can rally against, and in fact that is exactly what's hapenning. This isn't the only example, to browse through mumsnet sometimes its as if someone decided to rewrite Transsexual Empire in the form of a message board conversation as some kind of edgy literery experiment.

Now that doesn't mean that anyone who asks questions about autogynephilia is a transphobe, of course people are going to ask questions its everywhere. But it's clearly not objective that this decades old theory, which just happens to be the one most socially damaging to trans people, is given so much prominence in this debate when there is a huge amount work available, from trans, queer and feminist scholars, researchers and writers which is far more up to date and evidence based and which goes undiscussed or is glibly dismissed. Much like the excitable conspiracy theorist who sincerely believes David Icke means lizards and stuff, and is probably not personally anti-semitic themselves, some in the GC movement along with fellow questioners may not see themselves as transphobic but are still pursuing a narrative that has been very finely honed with the aim of encouraging support for morally mandating transsexuality of out existence by eliminating the medical and social institutions which support it.

That's why this debate can be so difficult for trans people. The entire narrative is framed in transphobia, whether conscious or not, which is unsurprising when we live in a transphobic society. To even discuss this a lot of the time means taking a deep breath and overlooking a lot of the unconsciously held transphobic ideology as well as the nonsense like stories about fucking Ian Huntley or some creepy oddball 3000 miles away, before even getting to the pragmatic issues which are important and which I fully agree now need to be discussed if anarchism and the wider left is to make any progress on this.

And I don;t really want to get back into the broader debate despite writing all that. I'm just trying to show how this debate looks and feels to a lot of trans people who know the history of both the ideology and some of the players involved in seeding those ideas into GC feminism, and hoping that some people might bear it in mind before declaring I'm not transphobic but...

 

[Athos]

... The justified justifies everything, its really just a sliding scale and you get to pick where to draw the line. So it could be prisons, sports, refuges, trans people in the military, trans people working in schools or healthcare and on and on.

Of course it's a sliding scale, and a matter of where the line is drawn. But, importantly, I think (in the context of the bookfair) it should be about where there's a consensus amongst anarchists about where the line should be.

But more importantly that is trans discrimination which is a consequence of transphobia. To apply that definition to another field as an example would mean holocaust denial and promotion of conspiracy theories are not anti-semitic.

No, I think that'd be captured by the "indirect" part of my proposed definition.

But I'd be quite happy to hear any definition you care to posit?

Much like the excitable conspiracy theorist who sincerely believes David Icke means lizards and stuff, and is probably not personally anti-semitic themselves, some in the GC movement along with fellow questioners may not see themselves as transphobic but are still pursuing a narrative that has been very finely honed with the aim of encouraging support for morally mandating transsexuality of out existence by eliminating the medical and social institutions which support it.

Of course there's transphobes who don't consider themselves transphobic. But there's also people who don't consider themselves transphobes, who aren't transhobic!

... the pragmatic issues which are important and which I fully agree now need to be discussed if anarchism and the wider left is to make any progress on this.

But not at bookfair?