Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Well ideally the organisers of the hypothetical Bookfair would have attempted to work through this scenario in advance and come to a collective decision about what to do.
[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)
- Thread starter Kate Sharpley
- Start date
Well ideally the organisers of the hypothetical Bookfair would have attempted to work through this scenario in advance and come to a collective decision about what to do.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Thanks for your reply. I'll respond properly later when I'm not at work.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Let's be honest, quite apart from the difference in how the two were framed and the fact that what Smokedout claimed had been posted on that thread hadn't, andysays' version is intrinsically more likely.
Very broadly speaking, there were two 'sides' on that thread. One favoured women's right to discuss this matter; the other opposed it (with some openly calling for the thread to be binned). Fridgemagnet (who was up-front about his own stance on this issue) presented a open goal to the second group, by saying it'd be closed if there were more reports. Lo and behold, reports followed, and it was closed. Do you really think those reports came from those in favour of discussion, or those who sought to prevent discussion?
I suspect it was closed because those who don't want women to be able to discuss the impact upon them of these issues made spurious reports of transphobia. Which, along with Smokedout's history of dishonesty in these matters, is why, although I didn't endorse the precise formulation andysays used, I was less inclined to challenge it.
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
That’s a lie. There wasn’t opposition to women discussing it, there was objection to the way that certain women (who you largely supported) framed the discussion.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's very hard to trust anything which appears after these three words. like 'trust me, i know what i'm doing', 'let's be honest' undermines any faith you may have had in the speaker.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Well, that's the crux of it, and where we'll have to agree to disagree.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It exposes your pretence to be in any way neutral as a lie. Once again.
It’s an accurate representation of what happened. That you’d prefer him to lie in order to present neutrality speaks volumes.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't purport to be 'neutral' (whatever that means).
My position is that, whilst I consider trans women to be women (and I'm broadly pro-inclusion), I don't believe that any woman who refuses to accept that uncritically is necessarily a transphobe (though, of course, some are).
As such, I believe women have a right to discuss issues of gender, given the social backdrop of misogyny and violence towards women. I believe that should be done respectfully to feelings of trans people, to a point; they have no right to veto what women can discuss.
I also have every sympathy for the suffering of trans people, and think that we should do what we can to alleviate that; I utterly condemn transhobia and abuse of trans people.
I don't think it's a zero sum game, though; I think that there are points around which solidarity can be built. In which regard I think the '#nodebate' stance that is prevalent in social media is positively unhelpful. As is much of the shrill IDPol stuff that's happening IRL.
I'm sorry if that position is too nuanced for you to cast me as the bogeyman. But I find it pathetic that you'd deliberately misrepresent me to score points.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It’s a grotesquely distorted version of the truth. One that you agree with. The presentation of a small subset of women as all women (as he does again, above) is highly dishonest. if you refuse to see that, that’s your problem.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Nuanced? Please, it’s just a patronising load of drivel. Your frequent misrepresentations (repeated on this thread) expose you.
You’re just a cut price Lionel Hutz.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I haven't done that. 'Women' can mean some women, or all women. It's obvious from the context that I mean the former; the latter would be nonsensical. (But I think you know that.)
Athos
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. Your opinion of me (which I'm sure others share) isn't really something I worry about. And I'm happy for anyone who's interested to read what I've posted on this issue, in this and other threads.
I was talking about the reasons why the thread was closed.
Furthermore, people using post reporting as a means of stifling or closing down debate is a tactic I’ve seen employed previously by the very same people.
Sea Star
have you ever explored your dark side?
or was it people reporting posts to get the moderators to do something about the worst of the transphobia and the frequent fabrications, scare mongering and personal attacks so that a debate could actually be had? hmmm?
Athos
Well-Known Member
or was it people reporting posts to get the moderators to do something about the worst of the transphobia and the frequent fabrications, scare mongering and personal attacks so that a debate could actually be had? hmmm?
You didn't want a debate; you wanted the thread binned.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
or was it people reporting posts to get the moderators to do something about the worst of the transphobia and the frequent fabrications, scare mongering and personal attacks so that a debate could actually be had? hmmm?
Quite.
Sea Star
have you ever explored your dark side?
Me being in the Green Party is nothing to do with this. I don't ally myself with ID politics, my roots politics is socialist, but I spent the 90s being active in groups that involved anarchists and socialists.
But I am transgender, and I am invested in this struggle, unlike you. But that's your really problem with me isn't it? You don't want trans people being able to speak up so regardless of my actual politics you will claim that just being trans makes me ID Pol.
Sea Star
have you ever explored your dark side?
That's so dishonest of you. I tried really hard to take part in a reasonable discussion and to keep it focused on the actual issue - that of streamlining and fixing the way that trans people can obtain a revised birth certificate - but it was a shit show of personal abuse, and lies about trans women that went completely unchallenged most of the time.
I tried to keep on topic, but when most of the posters have already made their mind up that I'm not a woman, and I'm not worth even talking to then fuck that thread. It needed to be better moderated. It needed those who claimed not to be transphobic to be challenging all lies, not just piling on to the very few actual trans people contributing.
When it was binned it was right to do so. That thread was just trash and was going absolutely nowhere.
In other words: you want the discussion to be on your terms or not at all. Which isn’t really what a debate is.
Sea Star
have you ever explored your dark side?
That's not what I said.
If you think actual lies and smears and personal attacks are a valid way of conducting a debate then you're party of the problem.
No one actually engages with what I say any more, I'm just having to constantly defend myself against rubbish like this. So I'm not going to continue to do this. I will interject when I see bullshit but if people can't stay on topic then I'm not going to feed that bullshit.
The TERFs are constantly saying they want a debate about the GRA and then when any trans person tries to engage it's anything but about the GRA. Most seem to take issues with rights trans people have had for years already. I appreciate this is a thread about the anarchist bookfair bit is straying into discussing other threads and trans issues in general and I reserve the right to jump in when I see complete bullshit.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
How can you know this?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
tbh if any of you were interested in having a debate about the gra then you'd be having a debate about the gra and not a general slag off contest of each other which isn't from my pov about informing people. if the 'terfs' were campaigning about it there'd be an element of lobbying mps / parliament which i for one haven't seen. if the trans activists were interested in having a debate about the gra then there wouldn't be this constant insulting litany of references to terfs.
bimble
floofy
You've just not looked. There's plenty. But no point discussing any of that here really is there.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no, there isn't. not when the long awaited consulation hasn't yet opened, although the scottish government held a consultation earlier in the year.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh, no point until the government lays out the detailed proposals in the consultation. all the letters and so on up to that point will be no more than frothing.
bimble
floofy
ok right you are. Not enough campainging or too much pointless froth, hard to know which is worse really.
Similar threads
