Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Fozzie Bear

Well-Known Member
Assuming this person does attempt to attend a hypothetical future Bookfair what do people think the organisers response should be?
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

Defiantly non-premium 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.
Thanks for your reply. I'll respond properly later when I'm not at work.
 

Athos

Well-Known Member
So you see no reason to challenge andysays' account of the thread closing (it's fine for people to think that) but you choose instead to challenge smokedout's version, which is a complete fabrication for some reason and only by sheer coincidence is it actually true (fuck you Occam).

I think I see your problem Athos, your bullshit-ometer needs some serious recalibration.
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:

Athos

Well-Known Member
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.
Well, that's the crux of it, and where we'll have to agree to disagree.
 

Athos

Well-Known Member
It exposes your pretence to be in any way neutral as a lie. Once again.
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

TUC Off Your Knees
It’s an accurate representation of what happened. That you’d prefer him to lie in order to present neutrality speaks volumes.
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

TUC Off Your Knees
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
 
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.
I was talking about the reasons why the thread was closed.
 

Sea Star

have you ever explored your dark side?
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.
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? :facepalm:
 

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? :facepalm:
You didn't want a debate; you wanted the thread binned.
 

andysays

Defiantly non-premium member
Just what the thread needs, another Green Party candidate dragging their dishonest and toxic ID politics squabble into the Anarchist Bookfair...
 

Sea Star

have you ever explored your dark side?
Just what the thread needs, another Green Party candidate dragging their dishonest and toxic ID politics squabble into the Anarchist Bookfair...
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?
You didn't want a debate; you wanted the thread binned.
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.
 

Sea Star

have you ever explored your dark side?
In other words: you want the discussion to be on your terms or not at all. Which isn’t really what a debate is.
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.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
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.
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.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
You've just not looked. There's plenty. But no point discussing any of that here really is there.
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.
 

bimble

noisy but small
? There have been many people writing to their mps etc I thought that’s what you meant. Anyway, no point here imo.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
? There have been many people writing to their mps etc I thought that’s what you meant. Anyway, no point here imo.
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

noisy but small
if the 'terfs' were campaigning about it there'd be an element of lobbying mps / parliament which i for one haven't seen.
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.
ok right you are. Not enough campainging or too much pointless froth, hard to know which is worse really. :rolleyes:
 
Top