Transphobes gunning hard for 'paedophilia' angle all of a sudden

[SpookyFrank]

Sorry? What have I misunderstood about a mob outside a venue, there with the stated purpose of preventing someone from speaking?

I defend the right of any person, with the usual caveats, to state their view. They have the right to speak, I have the right not to listen. What no one has the right to do is turn up mob handed in an attempt to intimidate and silence.

This is of course Urban, which in many ways lost touch with reality long long ago.

Does everyone have a right to go on national TV and spout whatever lies and innuendo they like without consequence? You can't just say 'free speech' and then fold your arms as if the matter is closed forever. The question is not who gets to speak, it's who gets a platform, whose voice gets amplified and why, who has the right or the opportunity to challenge them.

TERFs don't want a free and fair debate. They know full well it would force them to show their true colours and they know they can't survive that. What they want is an exclusive, privileged platform and they'll happily shake the devil's hand to get it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think that might be the only like I've given him in this entire thread, but sure thing buddy. As for feeble minded, you're the one who's signally failed to show your workings Sass - you're currently on about the same level of debate as Staker here.

Whatever.

 

[Yossarian]

Whatever.

Why don't you fuck off if you don't have anything more than that to contribute?

 

[Cid]

"nernerner I'm not listening"

- Sas, an adult, 2023.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Now, if the mob at the front were so benign, why did that happen?

Because her entire schtick is being a professional silenced person?

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

It really is a clown show today.

(And stop parodying my ancestor with your user name )

Who, Rob Roy?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Does everyone have a right to go on national TV and spout whatever lies and innuendo they like without consequence? You can't just say 'free speech' and then fold your arms as if the matter is closed forever. The question is not who gets to speak, it's who gets a platform, whose voice gets amplified and why, who has the right or the opportunity to challenge them.

TERFs don't want a free and fair debate. They know full well it would force them to show their true colours and they know they can't survive that. What they want is an exclusive, privileged platform and they'll happily shake the devil's hand to get it.

I think the anti-trans brigade have a rather large platform, I also think that anyone who is unaware of their views must have been on a remote island for the last few years.

To say that TERF's would be 'forced' into showing their true colours is a rather strange thing to say, even as a fairly disinterested bystander, I know what their views are.

I await with some interest to see where this whole thing ends up. I cannot see it as purely a 'trans rights' vs 'women's rights' thing. The number of trans people in the UK is absolutely tiny in comparison to the population. I feel that this brouhaha is a proxy war for something else, but being no expert on the matters discussed, am a bit unsure what.

 

[cesare]

So I didn't see a woman being escorted in through the back door, accompanied by four security people?

Now, if the mob at the front were so benign, why did that happen?

I'm talking about a television news broadcast. Not speculation or supposition, a directly observed event.

I have no side whatsoever in the trans debate. People are who they are, and it is none of my business. I do have a side in the free speech debate.

But you know that free unfettered freedom of speech implicitly requires free unfettered freedom of response, yes?

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

But you know that free unfettered freedom of speech implicitly requires free unfettered freedom of response, yes?

Sadly in some cases

 

[Rob Ray]

The number of trans people in the UK is absolutely tiny in comparison to the population. I feel that this brouhaha is a proxy war for something else, but being no expert on the matters discussed, am a bit unsure what.

That's the most interesting thing you've said all day. Complex answer too.

If I were to try and hash out a very bare bones line from a left perspective, the antagonistic force here is primarily elements of the culture war right leveraging a split within left progressivism to try and advance a reactionary social agenda. It's backed by an incohate mix of relatively small feminist/LGB subsets who've gotten riled on the single issue, religious kooks, conservatives jumping on a new Hate Libs/Reds bandwagon, grifters smelling money to be made and politicals eyeing a doorstep conversation point - plus many others. As a social phenomenon it's a real case study in the toxic powers of social media as well - response drives promotion drives response.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I await with some interest to see where this whole thing ends up. I cannot see it as purely a 'trans rights' vs 'women's rights' thing. The number of trans people in the UK is absolutely tiny in comparison to the population. I feel that this brouhaha is a proxy war for something else, but being no expert on the matters discussed, am a bit unsure what.

If you're not sure what this is all a proxy for, follow the money. Some excellent work has been done upthread collating reports of where the TERFs get theirs from. TLDR: nowhere good.

 

[Epona]

Divide and rule, to phrase it in its most simplest form. If anyone doesn't recognise that the anti-trans movement where disparate parts of the feminist and civil rights movements stand alongside the religious right and fascists against trans people is doing as much damage to the progress and advances made by the feminist and gay and other civil rights movements, by driving a wedge between us all, then they're living in some sort of fantasy land.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I’m struggling to bend my head around why GC feminists would stand shoulder to shoulder with Nazis. Pointing to Posie Parker as an example is a bit of a non runner as she states she isn’t a feminist and appears to have dodgy views on race also.

 

[Mungy]

I think the anti-trans brigade have a rather large platform, I also think that anyone who is unaware of their views must have been on a remote island for the last few years.

To say that TERF's would be 'forced' into showing their true colours is a rather strange thing to say, even as a fairly disinterested bystander, I know what their views are.

I await with some interest to see where this whole thing ends up. I cannot see it as purely a 'trans rights' vs 'women's rights' thing. The number of trans people in the UK is absolutely tiny in comparison to the population. I feel that this brouhaha is a proxy war for something else, but being no expert on the matters discussed, am a bit unsure what.

The TERFs are ideologically aligned with Christian fundamentalists in the US who are happy to fund and push their schtick about transgender people. Many don't realise that it's a thin end of the wedge. Those fundies don't want the LGB never mind the T. The T is the perceived weak link. It probably is, there isn't that many of us Ts in the UK, though I'm sure most of us also align with LG or B. This alignment the TERFs have with the fundies also tends to include the fascists, as they don't particularly like LGBT people that much. All this has been said before, though. So, you might have missed the point. Or, indeed, I might have missed the point.

edited to clarify about the alignment between fundies, TERFs and the fash.

 

[Cloo]

This is the thing that needs to be talked about again and again. Not 'define a woman', not the contents of people's underwear, not who is using what toilets and changing rooms. We need to talk about who is behind this and their endgame, which is to prevent transition, put queerness back in the closet or even in prison, roll back women's rights so their lives can be circumscribed by what men want, and we need to talk about making sure it doesn't happen here. Because places like Florida show it can happen.

 

[Cloo]

Not to mention rolling back rights of people of colour through back door disenfranchisement and the framing of social justice as 'hate speech against white people'.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

This is the thing that needs to be talked about again and again. Not 'define a woman', not the contents of people's underwear, not who is using what toilets and changing rooms. We need to talk about who is behind this and their endgame, which is to prevent transition, put queerness back in the closet or even in prison, roll back women's rights so their lives can be circumscribed by what men want, and we need to talk about making sure it doesn't happen here. Because places like Florida show it can happen.

I think I’m of the opinion that Posie Parker might be a female Tommy Robinson; using this issue to pursue an alt right agenda in the same way that Robonson’s ‘concerns’ about paedophilia was a smokescreen for an anti-Muslim agenda.
But are we saying that the likes of eg Helen Steele are pursuing those same objectives?

 

[Rob Ray]

Steel's quite a specific case tbh, like how many of the transphobe brigade literally lived with a spycop? I think she's behaved fairly reprehensibly by allowing herself to be used by people with far fewer scruples and far worse agendas, but I mostly feel sorry for her, and sad at a legend being brought low.

 

[SpookyFrank]

.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Steel's quite a specific case tbh, like how many of the transphobe brigade literally lived with a spycop? I think she's behaved fairly reprehensibly by allowing herself to be used by people with far fewer scruples and far worse agendas, but I mostly feel sorry for her, and sad at a legend being brought low.

Fair point. But I still don’t understand why genuine feminists would stand shoulder to shoulder with ultra conservatives, given the position of the latter on eg abortion rights or, elsewhere, how women are treated in ultra conservative societies like Afghanistan.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Fair point. But I still don’t understand why genuine feminists would stand shoulder to shoulder with ultra conservatives, given the position of the latter on eg abortion rights or, elsewhere, how women are treated in ultra conservative societies like Afghanistan.

They're not genuine feminists.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

They're not genuine feminists.

A GC feminist automatically becomes an ingenuine feminist? Interesting take.

 

[Rob Ray]

In some cases they may not be "genuine feminists" perhaps (it's very much not my place to make that judgment), but it's definitely more complicated than a summary sentence and it'd be wrong to dismiss the existence of women who have contributed huge amounts to the feminist cause in the ranks of the crap allies set. Folks like Julie Bindel for example who, vile arsehole though she's being atm, has a long history of genuinely fighting for women's rights. It's a legit discussion to look at how such people got sucked down the pipeline towards far-right acceptance.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

In some cases they may not be "genuine feminists" perhaps (not that it's my place to make that judgment), but it's more complicated than that and it'd certainly be wrong to dismiss the existence of women who have contributed huge amounts to the feminist cause do inhabit the ranks of the crap allies set. Even among some of the worst cases you have folks like Julie Bindel who, vile arsehole though she's being atm, has a long history of genuinely fighting for women's rights. It's a legit discussion to look at how such people got sucked down the pipeline towards far-right acceptance.

Yeah that’s also who I was thinking of. And Greer obvs.

 

[Knotted]

Greer and Bindel aren't standing shoulder to shoulder with religious conservatives and fascists though. I don't think Greer is much interested in the trans issue at all tbh. We are talking about a particular gender critical wing exemplified by KJK who doesn't call herself a feminist.

 

[Rob Ray]

I think it's more the increasingly loud silence that's the problem for a lot of these folks, at least when it comes to far-right acceptance. Thanks to their level of organisation and plethora of prominent figureheads they have an outsized influence in how that movement reacts to the attempted entry of fundies and fascists, and it really can't be said they don't know what's happening. That they're turning the other way strongly suggests they're intensely relaxed about the far-right's presence, where they're not actively in cahoots. That said it should be noted Bindel specifically did initially have a go at Posie Parker and the entry of the fundies:


But she's also remained well in with the likes of JKR and Maya Forstater, who have no problem at all with retweeting and bigging up hard right types, so her principles clearly don't go quite so far as to actually cause a serious ruckus that might put her on the outs with serious players. Which I think is probably a factor in thinking about Magnus's question - one thing about the growth of a movement (of any type) once it gets to a certain size is that it creates webs of influence and power that have to be negotiated.

 

[Sasaferrato]

This is the thing that needs to be talked about again and again. Not 'define a woman', not the contents of people's underwear, not who is using what toilets and changing rooms. We need to talk about who is behind this and their endgame, which is to prevent transition, put queerness back in the closet or even in prison, roll back women's rights so their lives can be circumscribed by what men want, and we need to talk about making sure it doesn't happen here. Because places like Florida show it can happen.

I don't think that Christian religious fundamentalists number that many in the UK. Religious belief in general declines year on year, understandably perhaps.

The US is different, in parts.

It is saddening that splits are appearing in the LGBT+ community, it is an oppressed community as it stands, and internecine feuds don't help.

 

[Epona]

It's not an internecine feud though, it's bigotry against a small and marginalised section of society.

 

[smokedout]

Does everyone have a right to go on national TV and spout whatever lies and innuendo they like without consequence? You can't just say 'free speech' and then fold your arms as if the matter is closed forever. The question is not who gets to speak, it's who gets a platform, whose voice gets amplified and why, who has the right or the opportunity to challenge them.

TERFs don't want a free and fair debate. They know full well it would force them to show their true colours and they know they can't survive that. What they want is an exclusive, privileged platform and they'll happily shake the devil's hand to get it.

What frustrates me most about the whole debate over Stock is that no-one is discussing the quality of her work. She is not an expert on trans issues by any of the usual academic criteria. She has only ever published one article on the subject in peer reviewed journal and it hardly set the world on fire. And I'm not surprised, much of what she says on the subject would be unlikely to stand up to peer review. She cherry picks evidence, misrepresents studies and openly mocks the idea that she should read or engage with the existing literature on the subject.

Her understanding of the history of trans rights, and even her own movement is poor, leading to her making ludicrous statements like trans lesbians only invented themselves into existence 10 years ago when the entire genesis of the trans/terf conflict was over whether trans women should be included in lesbian feminist communities in the 70s. She offers no counterpoint to the scientific consensus on gender identity and merely writes it off as a fiction. She's frequently conspiratorial in her analysis and her views are often evasive and inconsistent. She's little different to antivaxxers and climate cranks in her approach to the subject and much of her rhetoric is just her spouting off with none of the academic rigour you would expect from an expert.

Which is fine if she's giving a talk down the local pub or at a gender critical demo or something. But surely people invited to speak at universities should demonstrate some academic credentials on the subject they want to talk about. Or does free speech mean any old crank who's flavour of the month in the right wing press now gets to mouth off in elite educational establishments regardless of whether what they say has any academic merit?

 

[smokedout]

A GC feminist automatically becomes an ingenuine feminist? Interesting take.

It's probably best to think of the gender critical movement as one that contains some feminists (and also conservatives, religious fundamentalists etc) but which is not explicitly feminist beyond opposition to trans people on the basis that so-called trans ideology harms women.

I've read a lot of the chat amongst gender critical people about working with the far right and two things stand out. One is that some have convinced themselves that trans people and Queer theory are such an existential threat that they believe working with anyone is legitimate. The other is that the movement contains a lot of very middle class newly politicised people who don't really seem to take the threat posed by the far right seriously. It's all a bit of an edgy game to them, they have no background in the history of antifascism or even the history of fascism and also they're mostly white and middle class so don't see fascist views as a personal threat. They kind of seem to see them as the embarrassing uncle who's a bit racist and out of touch but who's heart is in the right place.

I read a thread on mumsnet where someone posted footage of a far right kick off against the police and they were palpably shocked. But they're like football hooligans someone said, I was like oh really. They have no idea in a lot of cases who they are actually getting involved with.