Julie Bindel at Queer Question Time (96)

OK...would very much like to take this debate up off board, since it is so easy for stuff to get spiralled out of all context in the public eye.

If you are correct that JB is so out of line with mainstream LGBT thinking, then that is good and heartening. I am not sure about that. And i mean not sure, as opposed to having definitive evidence either way.

Part of the issue here is that whilst the Gay rights movement (for men) always appeared to be a fairly straightforward struggle for recognition and acceptance, the lesbian counterpart seemed (note: "seemed"...again, if you wish to provide evidence either way, i am all ears) to take on an added political dimension.

Specifically, the Leeds dimension in the UK, which, pace Bindel, appears to suggest that Lesbianism is also a political choice and a duty (?) of women challenging the patriarchy, etc., etc.

So, there does still seem to be a fair bit of anti-trans sentiment in the LGBT community but motivated slightly differently according to the roots from which it draws. Both Gay and Lesbian critics do consider it to be a sort of half-hearted attempt to go gay: the actions of someone who is femme, but hasn't the courage of their convictions sexually (I think): but on the lesbian side, that view is tinged with a lot of theory about patriarchal colonisation and some frankly disgusting stuff about withdrawing treatment, "curing" the condition or, in some cases, "forcibly curing" the condition.

Ugh!

j

Absolutely. New Labour got in and wanted to do something about gender and sexual inequality, but nothing too progressive that might scare off their middle England vote, so Harman, McTaggart and co made some clumsy attempts at mild social engineering by introducing some shit policy to boost their stats. In terms of changing wider gender relations, it's done absolutely fuck all; in fact, it's encouraged misogyny. Ask your average feminist working in academia whose research has been systematically ignored or refused funding by Labour in favour of the socially conservative spin Bindel and co spit out that happens to back their policy plans up (and there's going to be new policy introduced that further hampers progressive research if the government of the time don't believe it to be "useful" -- under the Tories, a scary thought indeed), and they're enraged and disillusioned. The Dangerous Pictures Act is a fine example, in fact. It also, as demonstrated so neatly by BSL and cookie on the Patriarchy thread, allows the general populace to dismiss any potentially progressive thinking about gender equality upon the logic that feminism means 'female advancement'. And cookie did hit the nail on the head (just briefly ) when he suggested this is what the feminism at Westminster looks like in terms of policy. That's how I see it, anyway.

At the same time, it's the second wavers who are still doing most of the dirty work -- running the women's shelters, Rape Crisis, etc. But it's still important work, and I have a certain amount of respect for their passion and dedication. Your average 20 something feminist is far more likely to volunteer for an LGBT centre than the former, and that's got a lot to do with the attitudes they know the older generation of women espouse. There's also a major class issue within contemporary feminism, in that the younger generation are almost all educated and, in the main, middle-class. But that's for another day...

"Well-behaved women rarely make history"
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk

Yep, massive overlap between this transphobic and trans-mysogynistic crap and anti-BDSM viewpoints, at least within feminism. (Probably within the gay rights movement too, at a guess.)

She's a political lesbian. Who knows? More importantly, who cares? Her sex life is none of our business.

Yeah, and that's the problem. A lot of the anti-prostitution feminists don't want to make that distinction, and really don't want sex workers to have a voice. (You may wonder why that's on a site called Questioning Transphobia. As I said, lots of overlap.)

Let me put this as politely as I can: the whole point of the protest was that the protesters didn't want a debate. In fact, some of them have debated Julie Bindel on this issue before, and she just doesn't listen.

The pub in question is apparently normally a valuable safe space for trans* and queer people, which is to say one where it wasn't up for debate whether core parts of their identity were in fact genuine or were evil patriarchal lies. Complaining that Bindel wasn't given a fair debate is like if some guy who believed that all lesbians really just needed a good fucking got to speak at your favorite lesbian space and complained when he got shouted offstage.

The expectation that the validity of trans people's transness is up for debate at all times is a classic tactic of oppression. You should really know this already, being a feminist...

Edit: also, I see the Guardian has put up a CiF article attacking the evil trannies for censoring Julie Bindel (and in particular Aunty Sarah, whom I have a lot of respect for). Hello - who's the one published in a national newspaper again?

Edited 31 Jan 10, 5:34 PM by sharktooth

I know. I know. The pub in question is one of my favourite places.

I don't think she should have been given a platform there in the first place. But *as she was given* that platform, there were two options really: the dignified boycott which took place outside, or going in and hoping that the panellists would absolutely take her apart for our amusement, with the input of a few incisive questions. The third option, shout over her until she cries, the panel lecture the audience, and her bestest mate in the word has to write in her defence in the Guardian, was... not such a good one.

I don't think there's any question that she's horrendously transphobic and holds views that are oppressive to transpeople. At all. The problem I had with the event was the way that we as a community dealt with her being there.

The comments are good though.

Are you saying free speech is oppressive?

Everythings up for debate, if say its an argument that the world is flat its not going to get very far.

As far as I know issues and the science of sexuality and sexual identity are far from settled and the issue concerning transexuality is the level of mis-diagnosis so needs debating.

Your attitude does a disservice to trans-folk as well as scientists and others.

Whats going to happen when Verte et al come up against a wall that they are collaberators and there arguments are a tactic of oppression?

What I find sad about the left and political correctness(here I mean neo-marxist debating tactics) is that their names are also on the list but they just haven't been got to yet, or realised it.

The whole objective is of, "The baby boomer" generation is to ensure their politics are set in stone, its as if they came up with all the answers in the 60's and that was that.

They may be alternative but they are neither progressive or Liberal. Neither is the Grauniad or a lot of its journos, your better of reading Salon.com than giving people like what this thread is about the time of day.

Veritatis simplex oratio est. Seneca, Roman Statesman Ca. 65 A.D. The language of truth is simple.

I have about the same views on religion as Richard Dawkins, but I wouldn't try and present them in my local church.