Radical feminists are acting like a cult

[SandraJane]

Radical feminists are acting like a cult


The banning of trans people from RadFem2012 is just one of the disturbing aspects of this monolithic conference


Roz Kaveney, guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 May 2012 07.07 EDT


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012


Twitter has been flooded with controversy for the last week about the RadFem2012 conference, currently booked into the Conway Hall, which announced its membership as restricted to "women born women and living as women" (it originally said "biological women", but that got changed after much mockery). This disturbed the trans community, which it is meant to exclude, but also those feminists who regard trans-exclusion as something other than radical.

To be clear, I know no trans women, still less trans men, who want to spend time in a space organized by people who slander us. However, one of the main speakers at the conference is Sheila Jeffreys, who has a forthcoming book critiquing trans medical care. In much of her earlier writing (see, for example, page 71 of this journal), she calls for "transsexualism" to be declared a human rights violation and then surgery banned by international law, so it's fairly clear that we have an interest in the debate. What Jeffreys proposes has, of course, other implications for all women – the Vatican would love to make similar declarations about reproductive freedom.

[dalebert]

A comment said this is a tiny fringe movement that's unrepresentative of mainstream feminism. I'm just curious how small it is? They're attitudes are definitely upsetting to me, to put it lightly. I'm just curious if we're better off not giving them a lot of free press by talking about them if they are, in fact, really tiny and don't seem to be gaining any momentum.

[Renee D]

I don't have a big issue with them wishing to exclude a group of people they wish to. Its their conference, their rules. I don't care for some of their ideas, but then I don't care for some of the stuff from the trans side either. 

[dalebert]

Its their conference, their rules.

Of course I agree with that and I wouldn't try to interfere with their freedom of speech or try to impose myself where I'm not welcome. That said, I have freedom of speech as well and if they're trying to spread horrible ideas, I think the proper action is to respond with speech of my own. This is how societies evolve, IMO.

[peky]

I hope they go the way of the Dodo bird 

[Jamie D]

There is also, more importantly, the question of whether what Jeffreys and her supporters say about trans people constitutes hate speech.

The conference is in London, and I am not sure of the laws concerning "hate speech" in the UK.

In the United States, such an opinion might be considered "hateful," but it would be within one's constitutional rights.

[suzifrommd]

I know it's a private conference and they can invite anyone they want. But I still have to say.

Exclusion sucks.

Just about anytime someone says "you can't be here because you're not like me" it stings.

Especially hard for transgenders because distinctions tend to be made based on physical characterstics. No way to "prove" that our insides don't match our outsides.

[dalebert]

I know it's a private conference and they can invite anyone they want. But I still have to say.

Exclusion sucks.

Exactly! Look, I'm a HARDCORE libertarian (note the small-L which means it's not my political party) and yes, I respect that they have a right to their free speech (and their private space which they're paying for and their rules). But I have a right to my speech as well. I won't try to stop them with any sort of violent intervention from doing what they're going to do, but that doesn't mean I have to sit down and shut up either. I'm going to call them out on their bull->-bleeped-<-.

I just hate when libertarian(ish) types act dismissive of social issues on that basis. Just because I don't believe that violent (and that usually means violence from the government) intervention is acceptable, that doesn't mean I can't do something myself or teamed up with other people who care that doesn't involve violence.

[Kelly J. P.]

 I saw the title and said to myself, "What else is new?"

[justmeinoz]

Greer is 73, they will all die off before too much longer.

[Cindy]

I have little interest in such people, but I do think about what is a conference and a debate?

In my, quite wide scientific experience conferences and debates are about exchanging information. In particular debating thoughts and opinions different to your own. That way we can grow, and start to explore more ideas and then debate them and disagree etc.

So having a conference that has a limited and controlled audience defeats the whole purpose.

"I'm know going to start a debate on something we all agree on"; seems to be self defeating.

Good Luck to them

[Jamie D]

"Preaching to the choir."

[dalebert]

"I'm know going to start a debate on something we all agree on"; seems to be self defeating.

Bingo. This is a common tactic of people who's beliefs are on shaky foundations to begin with. They're looking to shore up that belief by surrounding themselves with yes-people. Evangelism is another tactic, but you'll notice that evangelists typically clam up when you actually start seriously questioning whatever idea they're evangelizing. They're spamming their evangelism until they can find the easy targets and focus on them, the folks who are desperate for something they can cling onto to feel like they've got all the answers figured out.

If the foundations of your beliefs are strong, you'll welcome questions and open discussion about it as an opportunity to inform or even to learn more yourself and possibly change your own beliefs if that's called for.