[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)

[Athos]

You've claimed on this thread the leafleters were assaulted yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. And how is it normalised if it has only happened once in the history of the world?

I said it's part of a range of behaviour that's been normalised. (Not that I accept your proposition that its only happened once, in any event.)

 

[Athos]

Well I think that discussion is going to take place no matter what. Same as the discussion on immigration. Will either of these, can either of these, be sensible discussions in good faith?

Sadly, I doubt it. Not whilst so many in the trans lobby consider the act of discussing what it means to be a woman as bigotry or even violence.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Sadly, I doubt it. Not whilst so many in the trans lobby consider the act of discussing what it means to be a woman as bigotry or even violence.

Which is exacerbated by "so many" in the radfem/TERF lobby insisting that transwomen are men and saying that the legal proposals are "rape culture".

 

[bimble]

Has anybody got an idea of why this is all about women? Is it that men just don't care because a trans man isn't any kind of a threat or are trans men just a lot less vocal about their rights and less visible on the internet etc.

 

[chilango]

Has anybody got an idea of why this is all about women? Is it that men just don't care because a trans man isn't any kind of a threat or are trans men just a lot less vocal about their rights and less visible on the internet etc.

Is there a "male" equivalent of a TERF?

 

[bimble]

TEMRAs? don't think so.

 

[Athos]

Which is exacerbated by "so many" in the radfem/trans lobby insisting that transwomen are men and saying that the legal proposals are "rape culture".

The idea that trans women are men is their position in the discussion; they have a differing philosophical and political conception of what a woman is. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it's qualitatively different from trying to prevent women having the debate at all. If you're going to allow women to have the debate, you have to accept that some women disagree with you. You can't liken that disagreement to, say, death threats.

 

[belboid]

The idea that trans women are men is their position in the discussion; they have a differing philosophical and political conception of what a woman is. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it's qualitatively different from trying to prevent women having the debate at all. If you're going to allow women to have the debate, you have to accept that some women disagree with you. You can't liken that disagreement to, say, death threats.

Oh come on. The reactionary TERF argument as presented in those leaflets wasn't trying to 'have a debate,' they were trying to be deliberately provocative, almost as if they purposely wanted to avoid an actual debate.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

The idea that trans women are men is their position in the discussion; they have a differing philosophical and political conception of what a woman is. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it's qualitatively different from trying to prevent women having the debate at all. If you're going to allow women to have the debate, you have to accept that some women disagree with you. You can't liken that disagreement to, say, death threats.

I (if you mean me personally) haven't mentioned death threats.

"Their position in the discussion" would seem to be at variance with the equality act? Would you be so cavalier about positions which infringed the other protected characteristics?

 

[Athos]

Oh come on. The reactionary TERF argument as presented in those leaflets wasn't trying to 'have a debate,' they were trying to be deliberately provocative, almost as if they purposely wanted to avoid an actual debate.

They're at one extreme of the debate. I've already expressed my disapproval for the wording of the leaflets.

 

[belboid]

They're at one extreme of the debate. I've already expressed my disapproval for the wording of the leaflets.

And that extreme is being allowed to lead the debate, at least within 'left' circles.

 

[Athos]

I (if you mean me personally) haven't mentioned death threats.

"Their position in the discussion" would seem to be at variance with the equality act? Would you be so cavalier about positions which infringed the other protected characteristics?

The Equality Act doesn't prohibit private individuals from holding philosophical positions. Sex is also a protected characteristic. That shouldn't be redefined (e.g. through changes to the Gender Recognition Act) in a cavalier fashion (i.e. without women having the opportunity to discuss it), either.

 

[Athos]

And that extreme is being allowed to lead the debate, at least within 'left' circles.

Yes, the two extremes.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

The Equality Act doesn't prohibit private individuals from holding philosophical positions. Sex is also a protected characteristic. That shouldn't be redefined (e.g. through changes to the Gender Recognition Act) in a cavalier fashion (i.e. without women having the opportunity to discuss it), either.

OK, I'm not a lawyer and actually on reflection recourse to the law isn't that great a position anyway.

Can we agree that some philosophical positions have more potential than others to cause harm in the real world, or for victimised groups to view as deeply suspect?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

And that extreme is being allowed to lead the debate, at least within 'left' circles.

Is that what all those signatories and letters of disassociation represent?

 

[Athos]

OK, I'm not a lawyer and actually on reflection recourse to the law isn't that great a position anyway.

Can we agree that some philosophical positions have more potential than others to cause harm in the real world, or for victimised groups to view as deeply suspect?

With regards to real-world harm, causation is tricky one, but, with some reservations, I would say that characterisation is broadly correct.

You might need to be a bit more specific about "view as deeply suspect". But, if you mean something like 'are anathema to the intetests of' I'd agree that, too.

 

[TopCat]

Has anybody got an idea of why this is all about women? Is it that men just don't care because a trans man isn't any kind of a threat or are trans men just a lot less vocal about their rights and less visible on the internet etc.

It comes from femminist theory and practice much of which has been predicated on the basis that women are oppressed by men.
To ask femminists to accept that a person can decide for themselves to be a woman despite having no physical characteristics resembling a woman, not having been born a woman or socialised as a woman was always going to face resistence.
That the rad fems are at the forefront of this is hardly surprising. The bedrock of their behaviours has always been a loathing of men.
Trans activists demanding that trans women's voices are more legitimate than womens voices was just throwing more fuel on the fire.

 

[TopCat]

Oh come on. The reactionary TERF argument as presented in those leaflets wasn't trying to 'have a debate,' they were trying to be deliberately provocative, almost as if they purposely wanted to avoid an actual debate.

Oh come now. If the women concerned had scheduled a meeting at the bookfair for debate their meeting would have still been invaded and attacked and lied about.

 

[TopCat]

How many people have been assaulted? One as far as I can tell, in the history of trans-activism and yet you consistently push this as the norm.

The post said threatened bullied harrassed and assaulted.

 

[TopCat]

Not at all. Transwomen face abuse constantly, both for being women and for being trans. The people behind that leaflet have one intention, and that is to incite fear of and hatred towards trans-people, that's one of the reasons the leaflet is so dishonest. If it goes unchallenged (and I'm not saying I entirely agree with how that happened) then how do you think a transwoman, new to anarchism, might feel about the movement if she went to the loo and saw them stuck up everywhere? Do we really want to allow non-anarchists to make anachists feel unsafe or unwelcome at our events?

I don't agree with much of the open letter (either the contents or as a tactic) and am sad the bookfair is no more, but I find the apologism, or undermining of the damage that could be done to people by this leaflet and the group behind it pretty depressing.

Trans women dont face abuse constantly you wally. Many may never face abuse, some may do so regulary.

 

[belboid]

Oh come now. If the women concerned had scheduled a meeting at the bookfair for debate their meeting would have still been invaded and attacked and lied about.

If they posed it in those reactionary terms, of course it would be 'protested' in some form, it would hardly be the first bookfair meeting where that happened.

That doesn't mean the debate can't still be had, just excluding those who deliberately and perpetually misgender and repeat reactionary lies.

 

[TopCat]

If they posed it in those reactionary terms, of course it would be 'protested' in some form, it would hardly be the first bookfair meeting where that happened.

That doesn't mean the debate can't still be had, just excluding those who deliberately and perpetually misgender and repeat reactionary lies.

Who is going to do the excluding and decide acceptable opinions? You? Anyway what the fuck has anarchist politics got to do you anyway?

 

[belboid]

Is that what all those signatories and letters of disassociation represent?

they represent various different views, dont they? Most of which aren't particularly extreme, just expressed in a loud, shouty, way.

 

[belboid]

Who is going to do the excluding and decide acceptable opinions? You? Anyway what the fuck has anarchist politics got to do you anyway?

Dunno. Can't remember how the Catholic Worker dicks were dealt with. Were they just left to fizzle away? (edit: SPGB too, they were barred weren't they? How did that happen?)

And, same as it has to do with you I guess, as we are both Labour Party members

 

[Pickman's model]

TEMRAs? don't think so.

out of curiosity have you a horse in this race?

 

[TopCat]

Dunno. Can't remember how the Catholic Worker dicks were dealt with. Were they just left to fizzle away?

And, same as it has to do with you I guess, as we are both Labour Party members

The Catholic worker lot remain whilst Sam Ambreen and her crew of "kill all men" cunts decided sensibly never to return to the bookfair. Good thing too. Anyone shouting kill all men at me would get more than a leaflet.

 

[bimble]

out of curiosity have you a horse in this race?

Is that the same question as 'pick a side'?

 

[TopCat]

...

 

[belboid]

Fair play, by the same token, i guess you never make any comment on a thread about trots then

 

[Pickman's model]

Is that the same question as 'pick a side'?

no.