Well, I disagree with a lot of these points, I’m afraid. I have always been with Greer on this one, because she discussed in particular the excessive aspect of a lot of m-t-f dress and behaviour. She was talking particularly about the pantomine aspect of it and the insult to women as they are so often perceived in our society.

I loathe the pantomine overdressing of some m-t-f – the big lipstick, over the top tits, silly girly walks – it’s all a very male and sexist view of femininity in my view – a view that being female is about wearing high heels, uplift bras and walking around waggling yr behind and giggling in a very high voice, and that feminity as such is good for a laugh. It’s the equivalent of blackface in my view – taking characteristics of one group of people and exaggerating them for a giggle and an evening’s entertainment. It is telling to me that it’s still all right to mock women in this way, but no longer acceptable to mock people of African descent by wearing blackface.

As for us all being pantomine dames – I’m sorry, but I can’t go with this either. The only reason the women I know exaggerate ‘femininity’ in the sort of way described in this piece are the ones who feel they have to play up their hair, lips and tits because that’s the only way you can get a fella these days, and because women are forced to think that their looks – and the sort of ‘feminity’ that one achieves with collegen, botox and invasive surgery – are all. The way women feel they have to dress and present these days is an absolute statement of the extent to which misogyny thrives in our society in my view. To me, feminity is healthy, normal women, with hair on her – well-fed, free of cosmetic surgery and makeup, happy and confident, and looking forward to enjoying all stages of her life. Cross dressing couldn’t be further away from supporting such a view.

A genuine desire by a man to live as a woman or by a woman to live as a man seems to me a different story. People in those categories seem genuinely to have been born into the wrong gender for them, and as you rightly say, experience great unhappiness and family strife until they are able to live in the gender that they feel they should be in. Those people aren’t looking to take the piss out of women, or men – they are simply looking to join the gender group they feel more inclined to.

Glad you put the post up, though. This is an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, though, when I see cross dressing males, I just see males taking the piss out of women and it makes me very, very angry. There is absolutely no respect or saluting there – just a very male perception that putting on a frock and stuffing some socks down yr front is good for a cheap laugh.

I have to say, Kate, that I know where you’re coming from, because I used to agree with you and with Greer. However, I now have several close friends – 3 of whom are mtf, one of whom is ftm, a couple of whom are androgynous – and a partner who are highly affected by trans issues, and I’ve done a lot of reading and I think I get it now. It’s really easy to feel angry, especially – for me – when people you know and love appear to think that they can magically transform into women by putting on lipstick and a dress. But that’s not it at all, and I know that now. For a start – as I say above – I do not even include the ‘hur hur rugby boys in miniskirts isn’t it hilarious’ sort of drag-for-a-laugh when I say ‘transpeople’. There are men out there who DO mock femininity by wearing drag on one-off occasions, to emphasise rather than explore gender differences. But this isn’t what we’re dealing with here.

‘It’s the equivalent of blackface in my view ‘
Apart from in the ‘rugby boys’ scenario – where you’re spot on – I don’t think so. The first difference being that what is being mocked by blackface is an innate, unescapable *physical* quality, whereas ‘femininity’ is different for everyone, and is different to physical femaleness, which is innate. The second is that transsexuals, as I’ve said, are very different to men wearing dresses on stag nights. They’re not trying to mock, but to imitate, to celebrate, to emulate. To take your analogy further, it’s the difference between blackface and boys from the inner cities who happen to have been born white but who want to join a gang of mainly black members adopting the traditional trappings of young, stereotypically ‘black’ urban dress and behaviour, the bling, the hoodies, the dialect, the walk, the attitude – not to mock the other gang members but to gain acceptance. Adopting these behaviours will not turn these white boys into black boys, because the behaviours themselves aren’t what make the black gang members ‘black’ in the first place – they’ve just become associated with a racial stereotype and adopted my some members of that ethnic group. Does that make more sense?

‘The only reason the women I know exaggerate ‘femininity’ in the sort of way described in this piece are the ones who feel they have to play up their hair, lips and tits because that’s the only way you can get a fella these days, and because women are forced to think that their looks – and the sort of ‘feminity’ that one achieves with collegen, botox and invasive surgery – are all. The way women feel they have to dress and present these days is an absolute statement of the extent to which misogyny thrives in our society in my view.’

Well, this is precisely my point! I’m saying that, to some extent, the notion of constructed womanhood is all we have. I think where we differ is that you believe that ‘femininity’ is somehow innate; I don’t. I disagree with Greer in that I don’t believe that we are women before we are anything else – I think that we are *people* first.

Hi,

Thanks for the response. Am out for the afternoon, so will come back a bit later. This is a very good subject – thanks again for raising it.

Yes, thanks for raising this Laurie. It was an interesting article and it was the first time I had read Julie’s pieces.

Julie is a friend of mine – although we disagree on many issues – and I think that some of the language of her first article was insensitive (as she acknowledges in her second piece). I think that it is wrong to call her transphobic though. She starts her second piece by saying “There can be no doubt that transsexual people are often targets for abuse and cruelty. Good liberals should find this appalling, and add our voices to those within the transgender rights movement, calling for an end to discrimination towards this community.”

What she is saying is that there is a debate to be had about people’s sexual identity and I think that is right. She gives very concrete cases – like who should be allowed to give female-female rape counselling or who gets to go into a female toilet – and takes a position on this issue. She might not be right, but surely it is a debate worth having. I can entirely sympathise with transgendered people who feel hurt by the tone of her remarks, but I don’t think that demonising her is the answer.

I remember, when I was working at Liberty, during the endless debates about pornography, some of the anti-censorship group argued that S&M was a type of sexuality and so restrictions on the circulation of violent and degrading sexual imagery was a form of discrimination against this community. I don’t think that my objections to this argument made me some kind of phobic!

Julie has spent all her life as a feminist and gay rights campaigner – like Peter Tatchell, another of my heroes – and I think that she has more than earned the right both to speak out on this issue and to be honoured by Stonewall if they choose to do so.

‘Some of the anti-censorship group argued that S&M was a type of sexuality and so restrictions on the circulation of violent and degrading sexual imagery was a form of discrimination against this community. I don’t think that my objections to this argument made me some kind of phobic!’

Conor, I’d respectfully disagree with you there – S’M pornography is so wildly different to the type of violent and degrading pornography that is genuinely damaging to women that the twain hardly meet. The S’M culture is little understood by the mainstream, because there is not a great deal of desire to understand it, and a lot of its members do feel discriminated against, especially since Max Mosely – I talk about this difference, and about porn censorship, in more detail here:http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2008/02/porn-what-is-it-good-for.html.

I’m aware that Julie has spent a lifetime campaigning for gay rights, and I agree that (whilst I think she’s entirely wrong about many things) she raises a lot of important points about identiry – but I entirely sympathise with those members of the gay community who she has actively attacked in the past. I’m not trying to demonise or censor her – but there’s a difference between saying that people like Julie have a right to speak and holding them up as a triumphant voice of the whole gay community. A lot of transpeople were at Stonewall, too, and the nomination makes trans people feel excluded from the entire movement, when, in fact, they are key members.

I’d also point out that the NHS often /expects/ the hyper-feminine trans-girls, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy – i’m mtf, and one NHS pchologist actually asked me why i wasn’t wearing a skirt or dress, in all seriousness, assuming i wasn’t serious about transitioning because i “wasn’t dressed in a female way”. This was a woman, of about mid-30’s. Apparently, in her mind, jeans and a T were male-only clothes.

I think that we are agreeing on the point about S&M porn Laurie.

The argument that was made at the time was that it would be wrong to censor violent and degrading porn because this would discriminate against the “S&M community”, which the proponent of the argument maintained constituted a specific sexual minority group.

I took a different view.

Laurie – “I’m not trying to demonise……her”

Really?

“personally I believe that Julie Bindel is a fascist who normally gives feminists a bad name.”
Comment on Palin, abortion, and the gender agenda

“It’s a lonely business being a feminist writer and activist. As a young feminist, I feel keenly the lack of a coherent older generation to set the standard and show us the way. Instead, most of what we’ve got is Julie Bindel, a rampant bigot who hates all men and most women, giving the rest of us a bad name in the process”
It’s a feminist jungle out there

Conor – “Julie has spent all her life as a feminist and gay rights campaigner – like Peter Tatchell, another of my heroes – and I think that she has more than earned the right both to speak out on this issue and to be honoured by Stonewall if they choose to do so”

Spot on.

It’s nice to see this issue covered here as it’s effected a few people I know and Julie Bindel’s nomination has caused a lot of hurt. Julie Bindel really has shown a complete lack of empathy with people who are transitioning, preferring to place their situation in her own realm of experience and she’s been a negative voice in the lesbian community because of it. It’s not just her first column that was a problem, she intrinsically links being trans to being homosexual in the article that Conor takes his quote from and that’s a generalisation because it assumes that people who change sex have sex with people of the opposite sex to them and that’s simply not true. Her logic really doesn’t work because it comes mainly from her point of view and she’s a lesbian, not trans.

Ah, Cath. I’m not trying to demonise her in *this* piece. I do loathe most of her writing personally, however.

I think we’re going to have to respectfully disagree on that one….

Laurie. I note that you’ve chosen to censor my post by removing the first quote from you that I took from your own blog site…….

Funny how you can regret something you said in the past and expect not to be pulled up on it, and yet you’re still happy to criticise Julie for something she said in a piece years ago, which she has since voiced her own regrets about.

Double standards?

Nope, just an editorial decision, since a)I don’t think it’s relevant and b)I think the content of that quote actually contradicts LC’s comments policy, much to my shame. I’ve left the post up there, and the other two quotes. I said it when I was 20 years old and very new to this game, on a blog that at that point had a small readership, not in a national newspaper. I am always trying to learn from my mistakes, and perfectly willing to admit when I’m wrong. Which is why I sent you an email explaining why I was editing your comment before I did so- is it at all possible that we could do the rest of this over email?

I’d also be interested, as I said in that email, to get your take on the trans issues that are the main content of the post.

To move things on a bit (and I thought that was a gracious last comment from Laurie), part of what I think Julie is talking about relates back to some of the old debates about the WLM of the 1970s and the arguments about separatism and “sleeping with the enemy”.

Obviously, as a straight man, it is none of my business who either the feminist movement or the lesbian and gay community define as “belonging” to them, but I think that Julie does have a right to comment on this.

Laurie, happy to continue most of this via email, but I do think there’s an important point here that you’re missing.

Julie has expressed regrets for the tone of the original article that caused such outrage from the trans community. However, no one, including you in this piece, is giving her any credit for that, or showing any kind of acknowledgement that writers can sometimes get it wrong, and that they should be able to rethink their original position and move on.

I quoted something that you’ve made clear you very much regret writing, and so you’ve removed it from my post. You don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion, because it’s not a view you hold anymore. So why can’t you credit Julie with the same? Why is she not allowed to regret something that she wrote in the past, instead of having it endlessly quoted and linked to by those wanting to score points against her?

My take on the trans issues probably need a blog post of their own to be honest. And I’m loath to do one, because there’s far too much attempted silencing via accusations of transphobia going on in this current debate for my liking. What I will say is that I think fighting over hierarchies of victimhood and oppression gets us nowhere, and yet that seems to be what everyone involved in this issue is expending all their energies on.

Hang on a minute – was just coming back to this, and see that there seems to be some issue about Laurie removing parts of other people’s posts.

Could someone clarify what happened with that? I didn’t know that some writers here had the ability to censor other people’s comments, and would like to know whether that is or is not the case, because if it is the case, I’ll complain bitterly and start a campaign against it. We’re all equals here, and nobody has censorship rights over anyone else.

If I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, fine – can Cath/Laurie clarify what happened? Thanks, Kate.

Kate –

Alright, I removed the phrase ‘rabid, tampon-chewing sexist’, a phrase of mine which I used to describe Julie Bindel when I was younger and a lot more naive, and which I feel was and is inappropriate for LC as well as ugly and sexist itself – I was trying to be shocking, without really any point to it. It was quoted in Cath’s comment, but they were my words, and without them the comment still made the same point, so I felt okay about taking it down.

Mods have the power to remove comments (it says so in the comments policy) or parts of comments if they are offensive. That’s what online editing is about. I believe that the quote was an ugly phrase, worthy of deletion, as well as – of course – embarrassing for me, which of course was part of my decision to remove it.

In response to Cath’s points, I think something to note is that Bindel *has not* retracted a great deal of the charges she lays against transpeople. Her argument is still the same, simply phrased in less ugly language. Which is exactly what I was trying to do here. I don’t regret what I said – I do believe that Julie Bindel has done more harm than good for the modern women’s movement, although I would not deny her a platform for any money. What I regret is the way I said it.

Now, can we please, please get back to the point?

Well the point is surely that she has not “laid charges charges against” transgenered people. She has questioned whether they are part of the women’s movement or the lesbian and gay community. These are, obviously, very different things.

I don’t read Bindel’s views, or Greer’s, as ‘questioning’ – I understand them as outright declaring that transpeople don’t belong in either community.

What I dislike about the politics of groups such as Stonewall and, indeed, some feminist ideologies, is their desire for female and queer communities to remain an exclusive club – we get to say who’s in and who’s out, and if you’re out then you’re an oppressor.

I think some of the biggest anxieties of both the queer and feminist empowerment movements are expressed by the transgendered. I think that feminists and queer activists can lose a lot by dismissing them rather than by questioning themselves.

No Laurie, we can’t get back to the point of the original post just yet. The point at the moment is that you are abusing a power you think you have been given. That needs to be resolved before we return to the topic of your original post. You have no censorship rights over the rest of us at all, and that’s that.

As I understand it – certainly from the emails that were circulated before he left – Sunny had you doing some editing in his absence, and moderating blatantly obscene/abusive comments – and that was it. The end. You weren’t being put in a position of power over the rest of us, and/or where you could rewrite history when someone referred to something you once wrote and didn’t care to have repeated. You have overstepped in this case – comments moderation is about keeping trolls at bay, not about saving your own face. This is a collective site, as well. If you want to edit comments made by someone as civil and mature in her reasoning as Cath, you should at least have canvassed the views of the rest of us and explained why you wanted to take such an unusual step.

You are out of order and owe Cath and – by implication – the rest of us an acknowledgement of that, not the aggressive response you have aimed at me above. Let me repeat – you are not here to edit the rest of us, especially if you’re doing it to save yourself. God only knows I’ve said some shameful things in my time, but there ain’t no erasing any of it. I just have to wear it all. Such is the freedom to speak online. By the same token, if I ever found my comments deleted or molested, I’d post them – and any story around their deletion – on my site and my partner’s sites and anywhere else I could find a hole.

Plus – I quite like the phrase tampon-chewer, myself. Mind if I use it? Why are you so ashamed of it? And why can’t you simply look back fondly on the person you were when you wrote it? Sure, you wanted to shock – that’s what being 20 is all about. 20-year-olds who don’t like to shock are boring. Your love of shock is also one of the many things that make you such an interesting writer. Chew away, I say.

A lively – if slightly different – debate appears about to erupt!

Sorry to bow out now, but I need to catch a plane – to London. Cath, is your daughter still planning to come to Brazil at the end of the year? There is a room here with her name on it if she needs it.

What I find interesting is how reactions to discussion of the subject correspond very cloesly to reactions generated from confrontations with such issues of gender.

I find Laurie’s language somthing of a concern in using emotive words like ‘loathe’ to criticise Ms Bindel’s writing as this influences the audience by defining the context from which it is written.

This is somewhat similar to the way in which non-mainstream gender communities attempt to set the terms of definition for interaction by creating constraints on the environment through which relationships occur (such as in appearances, behaviour or language etc).

Such an aesthetic projection of identity is less often about feminity or current stereotypes of gender identity and often more about subverting those stereotypes in order to create new identities. In the end it is hard to escape the fundamental dichotomy between identification based on internalities and externalities and the form in which this takes when it is projected.

I actually think it is less helpful to the debate around gender issues to concentrate on contextualisations which create new stereotypes than it is to subvert the existing forms. So I worry when descriptions such as ‘androgynous’ come to the fore as this presumes far too great an emphasis on subjective judgement of difference rather than using inclusive measures of commonality to break down barriers.

However, as with any ambiguous topic there is clear scope of transition and the answer is inevitably mixed.

Oh, I meant to add, the shock value of phrases like ‘rabid, tampon-chewing sexist’ makes them less invalid than the insidious effect of more subtle choice of words like ‘loathe’, so my feeling is that any editing based on the removal of potential shock-value demeans the audience unless you are prepared to also neuter the whole political outlook of the comment.

Such half-hearted editing is both selfish and insulting.

Thomas, my man,

Good post, but I would argue with one aspect of it – criticism of using emotive language. Nothing wrong with Laurie doing that, in my view.

The point of posting on an online blog is to state one’s personal angle – using strong/emotive language if one wants. The audience surely knows that it is reading opinion – if someone loathes Bindel, they can surely say so? If they’re not allowed to say so, they’re then being subject to the exact constraints of expression that you say non-mainstream communities attempt to subject the rest of us to.

Interesting how this post has generally turned to a discussion of censorship.

That’s good.

I really don’t think this represents abuse of power, and I don’t think I’ve been aggressive in the way I’ve responded to these comments. For one thing, I’ve been quite open about what I’ve deleted and why. I certainly didn’t intend to be aggressive, I was merely responding to what you’ve said. I’ve said why I chose to delete that phrase already, and I don’t think I need to explain again, and I’m definitely not going to do any more apologising.

There are a fair few people on this site who are able to moderate comments – not everyone, but a fair few. That’s how any collaborative site works, it’s how this site works; If I had only wanted to save face I wouldn’t have sent an email to Cath explaining my actions, I’d just have deleted the whole comment and subsequent ones, and *that* would have been out of order. I think it’s you guys who are being aggressive now.

Please, can we get back to the original point – and can someone respond to Apple, above, who’s made probably the most incisive observation of this whole thread?

‘Plus – I quite like the phrase tampon-chewer, myself. Mind if I use it? Why are you so ashamed of it? And why can’t you simply look back fondly on the person you were when you wrote it? Sure, you wanted to shock – that’s what being 20 is all about. 20-year-olds who don’t like to shock are boring. Your love of shock is also one of the many things that make you such an interesting writer. Chew away, I say.’

Thank you for this, it’s heartening.

I was afraid to shock with my older work because I’ve been attacked many, many times on this site, quite viciously, for doing so. Mostly by men, mostly calling me naive, stupid, adolescent and other, worse things. I do a pretty good job most of the time at not letting it get to me, but if I can avoid being attacked for things I wrote when I *was* a little more naive, then I will. Tonight, I’m tired of just being shocking: I want to make a point, and if I can make points I’m certain of without opening myself up as LC’s whipping-girl, then I will. That’s all I was trying to do, and I didn’t see it as anything but self-censorship at the time. If I’m outnumbered, fair enough, it won’t happen if the situation arises again.

But I’m still not sorry.

God, this gets better all the time.

Who are these members of the collective who get to faff around with comments and rewrite history when it suits them?

It isn’t much of a working collective if half of us don’t know about it. I certainly haven’t heard that there’s a bunch of you out there deciding what does and doesn’t go, and I was certainly never invited to be part of that group. What an outrage. Is it a collective, or more of an inner circle? You say that’s how any collective operates, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any collective that I’ve heard of – more like the junta.

In any case, I’d like to join it and hopefully take it over entirely, so could the members of it send me the entry forms, and also a list of comments made by LC contributors over the year that have been deemed to require a haircut? Then I could republish the ones that I like.

Nothing winds me up like censorship, man. NOTHING. This is unbelievable.

‘Thank you for this, it’s heartening. I was and am afraid to shock, quite frankly, because I’ve been attacked on this site too many times and too viciously for trying to do so even when I have a point to make. When Cath posted one of my old skits which was shocking without a point, I panicked. I didn’t want the discussion derailed into a string of personal attacks, although, hey, I’m starting to wonder if that would have been any worse.’

Okay, well now it’s all starting to make more sense. Panic I can understand. The point I’d make here is this – the hell with the people who abuse you. It’s phrases like ‘tampon chewer’ that make your readers – and I’m certainly one of them – laugh out loud and applaud. You wrote something else once about ‘talking cunt’ with a bunch of women who were taking strike action, and I nearly got up off my large butt to cheer. I thought someone might try and censor you for that, though, because swearing does contravene our policy – and I would have defending you to the hilt if they had tried.

Shock away, sister, and don’t censor yourself just because this and that sad old lefty fart can’t take it. Who cares about them. You get into dangerous territory, though, when you censor yourself, especially when you censor others to do it. Censorship is an abuse of power, and no more so when you feel forced to direct it at yourself. You’ll end up writing with a very confused voice, because you won’t know who to be. And that would be a great pity – for blogging, and for future literature, I’d imagine. There are a few of us out here who think you’re one to watch.

Laurie – “For one thing, I’ve been quite open about what I’ve deleted and why.”

Only because I mentioned it on the thread rather than responding to you via email. And incidentally:

“Which is why I sent you an email explaining why I was editing your comment before I did so”

Makes it sound like I had some say in the matter, which I didn’t. Your email simply told me that you’d deleted the quote from my comment and explained your reason for doing so.

I think Kate’s right. I’ve got editing/moderating rights on the site, but I wouldn’t dream of using those to either protect my reputation or cover my arse.

And one last comment, if you’re so ashamed or embarrassed about the “tampon chewing” quote, why is there a link to it on this very piece as it appears on your PennyRed blog?

“There are a fair few people on this site who are able to moderate comments – not everyone, but a fair few. That’s how any collaborative site works, it’s how this site works;”

Indeed, lots have the power one way or another and, to my mind outside of abusive comments, we don’t use it. At least I hope “we” don’t. What, exactly, makes this practice better than what Nadine Dorries and others do and what we criticise them for? Because you’re being “polite” about it, Laurie?

Kate, read the comments policy: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/faq/#commentspolicy. It explains which comments are liable to get deleted, and why, very clearly. I’ve deleted precisely no comments in my time as a mod, even really really nasty ones that attacked me personally which I really could have deleted. This is the first time I’ve edited a comment or post that’s not been my own for anything other than spelling, punctuation and grammar.

I think any site which wants to foster a constructive debate needs a set comments policy, and people to maintain that policy. No, not everyone who is a writer or reader is a moderator – that wouldn’t work. If you want to be one, maybe email Sunny once he gets back from his travels?

Laurie, you mean the one that says this…

“We have a stringent comments policy. We welcome constructive scrutiny of our views but will deal harshly with off-topic, diversionary or trollish comments.”

??

MY GOD – Lee, are you a moderator??????

Ok – this is officially an official damn official outrage. Who do you have to shag to get to delete comments, and/or change them round a bit to taste?

I’ve read the comments policy, Laurie, and nowhere does it say that you can delete parts of other LC contributors’ comments that refer to stuff you wish you hadn’t once written.

Am now just praying that all you millions of LC comments moderators out there don’t now moderate the comments policy to include the above sentence.

Am back to thinking Cath has the right to outrage on this. Didn’t realise that she was told her comment had been fingered until it had been.

I need a drink.

Cath, Lee

I’ve got no qualms about my reputation on this site – isn’t it mud anyway? I was just not in a place today to deal with the string of nasty personal attacks which generally happen whenever I say something mildly shocking. I’m tired of shocking, today, because it doesn’t seem to do me any favours online or in the meatspace. I didn’t want to stand up and defend something I’d said a year ago and had forgotten I’d said (hence the link) because I did not, actually, want this post to be All About Me. So I thought it would be safer to just take the worst of those things away and concentrate on the things I still meant. Clearly that was stupid and wrong of me, as the ganging up has happened anyway.

Kate, thank you for understanding. You don’t know how much of a smile that puts on my face.

“I was afraid to shock with my older work because I’ve been attacked many, many times on this site, quite viciously, for doing so. Mostly by men, mostly calling me naive, stupid, adolescent and other, worse things.”

And yet you’re on record as calling Julie Bindel “a fascist”? I’d much rather be a naive, stupid adolescent than a fascist. I don’t think you’re any of those things but you have to admit that you’ve dished out a few attacks in your time.

‘I think any site which wants to foster a constructive debate needs a set comments policy, and people to maintain that policy. No, not everyone who is a writer or reader is a moderator – that wouldn’t work. If you want to be one, maybe email Sunny once he gets back from his travels?’

Yeah, and maybe ask him to remove those who’ve abused the privilege from office.

“MY GOD – Lee, are you a moderator??????”

Only because of a necessity to post netcasts. I don’t really determine it my right to moderate, so I haven’t touched moderation facilities other than to, ashamedly, correct spelling mistakes if I’m feeling particularly vain.

Lee – yes, that one. Read ALL of it.

[I'm pretty outraged that Lee's a moderator too, Kate, but hey, that's democracy for you...]

‘I’m pretty outraged that Lee’s a moderator too, Kate, but hey, that’s democracy for you…’

Well – back to being harsh, I’m afraid. The only person I can see who has abused democracy here is you. Lee has been a difficult bugger in comments sometimes, but he hasn’t tried to change them, and at the moment, he gets a few more points for that.

Take me now, Lord. This is terrible.

Hey, at least I’m a dickhead misogynist that doesn’t believe it right to censor, Laurie, just because I’m having a bad day. I tend to just step back and take a time out, not take the butchers knife to a blog.

You’re absolutely bang on, Lee.

Although – as I said above, I do understand the panic reaction, especially in one of our younger punters. What’s missing here is the apology. A mistake has been made and it needs to be acknowledged. There also needs to be a commitment made that LC contributors won’t take it upon themselves to censor each other, unless it’s put to the vote. I mean the whole vote, too – not just the ruling comments body that seems to be lurking behind the scenes here.

Cath was certainly not trolling, off topic or encouraging hatred. That needs to be acknowledged.

“[I'm pretty outraged that Lee's a moderator too, Kate, but hey, that's democracy for you...]”

No it isn’t, we didn’t vote for him. Not that I object to having you as a moderator, Lee…

Would it help if I uncensored myself, Cath and everyone else?

I said in a blog post on PR that I thought Julie Bindel was a rabid, tampon-chewing sexist. Julie Bindel IS a rabid, tampon-chewing sexist, and I believe that she hates not just men, but almost everyone.

And you know, if this is the kind of attack she recieves on CiF for trying to go back on her own mistakes, I can see why. I’m feeling pretty damn misanthropic right now.

Pass me the sodding tampax, I want it running down my chin.

PS – I’ve saved all the comments on this thread, in case some horrible accident befalls them, etc…

I’ve said already that I won’t apologise, because I don’t feel that I’ve done anything wrong, because I have a different opinion on what constitutes freedom of speech, and what constitutes trolling.

But a commitment not to censor each other and to stick to the comments policy? That’s a sensible idea, and I’ll put my hand up to it if everyone else will. Lee, Cath, anyone else?

Kate@43 -PS – I’ve saved all the comments on this thread, in case some horrible accident befalls them, etc…

Oh, stop it, you’re just being petty.

“No it isn’t, we didn’t vote for him. Not that I object to having you as a moderator, Lee…”

Indeed, I don’t know where the democracy angle came from. As long as we have people with the power that know how to use it, and only use it in appropriate situations, we should be golden. This episode has only highlighted this necessity and how important it is for the whole site to maintain integrity.

As for moderation, I wouldn’t wish to put myself in that situation of using the power. I’m well aware there is a contingent of people here that just don’t see eye to eye to me and would be wary of my intentions. I respect that, but thanks for your lack of objection

Laurie,

It’s simple. You’re being attacked for censoring. SO DON’T CENSOR. And admit you shouldn’t have.

Can’t say anyway was going to attack you for the tampon-thing – like I say, I personally was going to applaud it.

You’ve made an arse of yourself by abusing a power that you don’t have. That’s it. I’ve made an arse of myself online for ten years now. So what?

Put it this way – how would you feel if I changed any comment that you wrote?

YOU’D FEEL BAD.

Me, petty?

Never.

Ask Lee.

“But a commitment not to censor each other and to stick to the comments policy? That’s a sensible idea, and I’ll put my hand up to it if everyone else will. Lee, Cath, anyone else?”

My belief is that the line…

“We welcome constructive scrutiny of our views”

kind of covered this already. You state you’ve done nothing wrong yet you’ve brought up the comments policy to defend what you’ve done when *nothing* in there covers what you did. Our hands are already all up, Laurie, welcome to the party.

I’ve already said I won’t censor again, Kate! I’ve already said that it was stupid! What the hell else do you want me to do?

A little dance?

“Ask Lee.”

Like a spoilt seven year old, but I believe you admitted such a style of personality yourself at the Blog Nation event

LOL

Well said.

Lee, you are a good man.

Lee – in that case, we disagree on what the comments policy means. I removed one of my own comments on something someone else had posted, because I felt that it was pointlessly offensive, probably misogynist and added nothing to the debate, and I didn’t want to be attacked because of it.

Please, guys, stop ganging up. There’s only one of me.

Can I just suggest that in future if you don’t want to be attacked for things you regret having said, you should just disown them? “I said X, but I now regret saying that” basically makes you immune to any attacks. At least in the sense that anyone who did attack you for saying X would only make themselves look like an ass, not you.

This, I swear, will be my last point… but editing Cath’s comment was simply wrong, she was (potentially, I don’t know) criticising your views. This is allowed by the comments policy. Should anyone have then used that (as they still can) to abuse you then…

“But we reserve the right to delete comments deemed abusive or troll-like in our space.”

You use that to moderate THEIR comments. I have no doubt this is how you intend to moderate in the future, but I can’t help but a little bit of pride is in place here stopping you from simply saying “I got it wrong, sorry, won’t happen again”

“You use that to moderate THEIR comments.”

Was meant to say… “You use that to moderate THEIR comments, if you wish to moderate at all”.

Woobegone makes the alternative case perfectly.

‘Can I just suggest that in future if you don’t want to be attacked for things you regret having said, you should just disown them? “I said X, but I now regret saying that” basically makes you immune to any attacks. At least in the sense that anyone who did attack you for saying X would only make themselves look like an ass, not you.’

*pout* I’ll do this in future. I was afraid of disowning what I said, because I was worried I wouldn’t be beieved, and that I’d be attacked. I wonder why.

I object to being given what feels increasingly like a moral lecture. I object to it, I resent it, and by ganging up when the points have already been made you’re making yourselves look like arses, not me. You are being petty, and whingy, and off-topic, you’ve totally derailed a useful discussion long after I said that I’d mend my bad little ways.

I still believe that I’ve done little if anything wrong, although since you guys beg to differ I won’t do it again. But that’s all I’m giving you, I’m sticking to my guns.

Are you going to send me to the naughty step now?

(By the way, guys, scintillating as this little thread is I’m buggering off home, so you won’t hear from me for an hour or so. )

This is turning into another milestone in the evolution of the LC community!

I feel I ought now to defend Laurie for all the occasions I’ve been critical. Criticism is a compliment, it shows engagement and the ability to respectfully disagree (if sometimes it can be done harshly) – I don’t think any of it should be taken personally as it is all part of the ongoing learning process for all of us.

It is important to have people who are prepared to stand up and act as a lightening conductor for important issues – people who are prepared to be wrong and who are prepared to be convinced by the other side of an argument – because otherwise society will stagnate and regress.

This case is paradoxically proving in this case that censorship is sometimes necessary, if only to remind us why it is so wrong!

Laurie@24 my comment #21 was an attempt to do exactly that by making the connection between the issue and the way it is presented, because identity politics is bound up with issues of presentation

“I object to being given what feels increasingly like a moral lecture. I object to it, I resent it, and by ganging up when the points have already been made you’re making yourselves look like arses, not me.”

History will judge us! ^_^

“*pout* I’ll do this in future. I was afraid of disowning what I said, because I was worried I wouldn’t be beieved, and that I’d be attacked. I wonder why.”

On a separate point, this is why I don’t like partisan style politics. It means none of us can change views and none of us can admit we were wrong. While it may somehow work out that if politicians on front benches change their mind they become “u-turners” that can’t be trusted, I’d like to think on here we can be ultimately much more respected and respectful by engaging in the politics of being considered and considerate.

I’m not suggesting, Laurie, that you intentionally tow the line or stick to your guns…I mean the fact you did what you did shows you obviously know when your views have changed, but it just seems that a good few people on here are worried…as you say…to simply be honest and truthful to themselves and the evolution of their own views.

People that think you need to, as a person, stick to one belief and never alter course are not worth the time arguing with them, Laurie, so don’t pay them the time of day when thinking about how you’re going to act.

Woobegone:

You’ll be first against the wall, matey.

I don’t see how this is ‘censorship’. The edit didn’t change or materially affect the argument of Cath’s comment at #8, and Laurie explained her reasons for doing so.

Wow, this got interesting while I was prating about in London, meta discussions are great way of taking the temperature of an online community.

It does also show how useful allowing some html tags (like <cite>) in comments would be.

Wow, this got interesting while I was prating about in London, meta discussions are great way of taking the temperature of an online community.

It does also show how useful allowing some html tags (like cite) in comments would be.

Can I just ask the great and the good of Liberal Conspiracy, who now see themselves as an exclusive collective of writers, somewhat better than the mere commentators, why it used to be, that seconds after my words of wisdom, or whatever, had been sent, I’d see them in the thread. And yet now it doesn’t happen?

Am I in an “awaiting moderation” queue, or what?

Am I a mere serf ijn the comments, whilst the Gods that post here cast Thunder and Lightning between themselves. It is like living through Götterdämmerung. When, in fact censorship appears a tad deeper, just of late.

Genuine question. Am I being moderated, and, if so, why?

Bet this doesn’t appear immediately. Betcha.

Oh, bugger it, it did.

Douglas: Some of my stuff gets put in to moderator queue too, not entirely sure why.

Lee,

Fair enough. But I have a reasonably cogent comment on the thread “McCain campaign ‘is over’ says Fox News VP” by MatGB. And, at least according to me, it appears on the thread, but it is not appearing as a comment in the “Latest Comments” list. Why is that? And the ‘comments’ section – for the thread – reads three, although mine is fourth and, should you wish to check, appears on the thread. WTF?

OK, there are a couple of sweary words in there, bitch and shit, for instance. Though, contextually, they are very, very mild. And certainly well within the limits you guys set yourselves.

This forum ought to be self policing, and by that I mean by the commentators as well as the authors.. That way, it wouldn’t be so obviously a training ground for wanna be politicians. Now that would be a collective. I do not agree with what Kate – who seems to see the mantra that she’s an an author rather than a commentator – said here:

I’ve read the comments policy, Laurie, and nowhere does it say that you can delete parts of other LC contributors’ comments that refer to stuff you wish you hadn’t once written.

Except when under extreme provocation I doubt there is ever a case for deleting or ammending either a post or a comment. And I’d only agree with that if they were trolling idiots, of which there have been a few.

Though I do draw the line at robotic Viagra adverts and the like.

And I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss things on here with folk that are far more intelligent than I. The point of this site ought to be about changing, or forming, opinion.

Now, what the hell was this thread about again?

OK, and libellous stuff, obviously.

And now my comment at 68 is redundant. I am not making this stuff up. That post has sat in moderation or limbo or whatever for the best part of three hours, when the usual turn around is about three seconds. Weird, and pretty recent too.

Doug,

I have no idea why this happens either,although I’ve an idea that might sort things – can there be a separate forum on the site for talking about moderation/comments/posting issues? My HTML wizardry isn’t good enough to do anything more than set up a thread that can then be linked back to, but I’m happy to do that.

I don’t know if I count as being amongst the ‘great and good’ Douglas, but the only reason anything ends up in the moderation queue is if it triggers the Akismet spam catcher plug-in.

As for why that happens, the only I can give is ‘buggered if I know’ – unlike Spam Karma, which I prefer but which is no longer being developed, Akismet has no configuration options.

Actually, let’s clarify that further – Akismet is an external web service operated by the good folks at Wordpress, so we have no control over what it does and doesn’t flag as possible spam.

Because it is an external service, one of the reasons why comments from regulars might end up getting flagged is if, for any reason, the service is temporarily offline or overloaded – if that happens, then the automatic checking of comments will be delayed and comments may then appear as being held in the moderation queue because the plug-in hasn’t yet got a response clearing the comment as ‘not spam’.

In all, Akismet works pretty well most of the time, but its anything but transparent in how it works and lacks features that would allow us more control at this end, like our own ‘whitelist’ of regulars whose comments should not be held up.

On the general issue of censorship, I’m not sure if I’m the right person to comment as I’m about a laissez faire as its possible to get on the subject of what goes in comments but as I do have the ability to moderate the site I think I should give a personal view on this.

First off, I very rarely moderate anything here unless its spam, but on the few occasions I have pulled a comment off the site for trolling, the most I’ve done if flag is as spam and then refer it ‘upstairs’ to Sunny/Aaron for an editorial decision.

Second, I never, ever, moderate or edit comments under my own posts for precisely the reasons that have emerged here. That can and does look like censorship, even if that’s not the intention behind it. If something ships up under one of my posts that Sunny or Aaron thinks is inappropriate and they remove it that’s their call, but personally I’m big enough and ugly enough to take on any trolls out in the open and if anyone wants to play the game that way I’m more than happy to fire back.

Touching on the specifics of this one, there seems to me to be a bit of six or one and half a dozen of the other here.

Laurie should have either let Cath’s post stand or pulled it temporarily into moderation without making any changes, then raised her concerns with Cath and copied in Aaron for a second opinion. Much of what has followed could have been avoided had things been resolved behind the scenes with the help of a independent referee – and if was agreed that some of the content of the comment should be removed, then a note should have been added to acknowledge the fact that an edit had been made.

That said, while I can see where Cath was going in one sense, there was still a hint of playing the woman not the ball about that particular comment and I’m not entirely sure what bringing in remarks Laurie has posted elsewhere has added to the main topic of the debate.

Julie Bindel’s writing, generally, provokes strong reactions – personally I think she’s a monumental pain in the ass, not to mention a dinosaur who’s personal brand of feminism is both badly dated and plays into just about every negative feminist stereotype going, so I’m not exactly unsympathetic to Laurie’s POV – but the specific matter at hand is whether she deserves to be honoured as ‘journalist’ of the year in view of her making some pretty antediluvian remarks about transexuals over at Comment Is Free and not general perceptions of her status within the feminist community and, in that sense, Cath’s comment were a touch O/T, even though I can understand why she felt the Laurie’s general opinion of Bindel might be relevant.

So, what that in mind, can we all agree that…

a) Julie Bindel provokes strong reactions,

b) Laurie doesn’t like her views very much and represents one strand of (particularly) younger feminist opinion, and

c) Many older feminists (if you’ll excuse the term, Cath) consider Bindel to have paid her dues to the movement and earned the right to speak as she finds.

And now move on from the censorship thing and get back to main subject in hand.

Meanwhile, Sunny and Aaron need to take a look at this thread and maybe sort out a few guidelines on moderation for those of us LC regulars who have that facility, so we don’t get a situation like this happening again.

“… the notion that one’s biological sex does not have to dictate anything about one’s behaviour …”

“… the problem is not with transsexuals, but with our entire fucked-up construction of what is ‘male’ and what ‘female’, what ‘masculine’ and what ‘feminine’…….”

No Laurie, one’s biological sex does not have to dictate EVERYHING (but NOT ANYTHING) about one’s behaviour, And transsexuals are psychologically unbalanced – as any psychiatrist can explain.

Laurie, you are a perfect example of a research free commentator – between prejudice and finger, no brain intervenes, no pause to collect information in a systematic way, no attempt to evaluate it and analyse it. Instead, you write off-the-cuff, sometimes getting it right, but most often not.

Stephen,

You’re very wrong about the research thing. I’ve spent the last couple of years reading almost everything I can get my hands on about transsexualism and feminism, collating case studies, talking to people and generally informing myself. I can speak with about as much authority as one can get without being either a qualified psychiatrist or a transsexual myself.

Perhaps you could explain what, in your opinion, biological sex does have to determine?

“And transsexuals are psychologically unbalanced – as any psychiatrist can explain. “

Laurie, you are a perfect example of a research free commentator

Beams, specks, etc.

Ben

Unity @ 73,

Thanks for the explanation. I’d agree with Laurie that this isn’t the right place to be discussing it, so I will leave it at that.

In case anyone cares about my opinion, it’s that to describe the appalling Bindel as a ‘rabid, tampon-chewing sexist’ is an insult to the rest of us rabid tampon-chewers.

Unity – “That said, while I can see where Cath was going in one sense, there was still a hint of playing the woman not the ball about that particular comment and I’m not entirely sure what bringing in remarks Laurie has posted elsewhere has added to the main topic of the debate.”

I was simply responding to Laurie’s assertion that she wasn’t trying to demonise JB, by showing that actually Laurie has a history of doing just that. Had the thread not been derailed I would have expanded on why I think that’s an entirely relevant point to raise, but in the interests of moving this debate forward I’ll let it rest for now.

I do agree with your three points, although I do take issue with being described as an “older” feminist. Bloody cheek

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

My understanding is that Stonewall have nominated Julie for the award of journalist of the year in recognition of the work she’s produced in the past year (not 4 years ago, or even 18 months ago). On that basis, and bearing in mind that all the pieces Laurie links to are over a year old, I think Stonewall have every right to go ahead with the nomination.

I also think that some of the anti-J B stuff that’s been posted on blogs and on Facebook over the last few weeks has been shameful, and that it has done nothing to assist the development of constructive dialogue between the two sides in this debate.

And I think there is room and much need for that dialogue. I reckon it could happen if only transpeople would stop hurling accusations of “transphobe” at anyone who even suggests there are valid arguments for some women only (and by that I do mean women born women) spaces, such as domestic violence shelters and rape support facilities, and radical feminists would quit with the “man in a dress” schtick.

Unfortunately both sides have become so polarised over the Stonewall nomination that it looks like that dialogue has been set back by years.

My only point here is that us lefties still have much to learn about keeping our squabbles internal rather than fighting openly and viciously just for the point of principle

At least we’re being open and honest about our squabbles Sunny, much better than whispering behind closed doors.

As for “fighting..just for the point of principle.”

Yep, those darned principles, what on earth are we thinking. We could take lessons from the right and just not have any I guess.

I was simply responding to Laurie’s assertion that she wasn’t trying to demonise JB, by showing that actually Laurie has a history of doing just that.

I did say that I could see where you were coming from, Cath, but thought it a difficult call as to whether that first [now deleted] comment might take things just that little bit too far into deflecting the thread away from the main subject at hand an on to Laurie’s general opinions of JB, even though there’s a strong element of fair comment in the sense that JB’s more contentious comments on transexuals fall outside the current year for which her work is being considered by Stonewall.

That said, I personally would have let that comment ride for a while to see where it took the thread, if anywhere, and only if did appear to have shifted the discussion too far towards a feeding frenzy on Laurie might I have considered asking whether you’d mind withdrawing it.

It’s a tricky one, Cath and to be honest I suspect that the safe space approach of somewhere like the F-Word is a better environment for discussing someone like JB, whose views polarise opinions so strongly, rather than a more generic environment, like LC, where things could very quickly get out of hand and turn into a CiF style head-banging session – and that’s not because I think things would have got out of hand between yourself, Laurie and Kate but simply because of the risk that the thread might serve as troll-bait given that we know, from CiF, that JB has her own personal ‘hate squad’ who think nothing of stinking up the neighbourhood in order to get their jollies.

Well I popped on here and read a very interesting article and looked forward to what I expected to be a lively debate about identity, sexuality and conformity. The first 10 comments were interesting, but the other 72 contained petty squabbling about trivial points which have little to nothing to do with the article.

Laurie, I was little confused with regards to your comments about Jodie Marsh, Victoria Beckham et al. Are you being critical of them? If so, I can’t see why it is fair to criticise women for exaggerating femininity but to congratulate men for doing the same.

Sunny’s comment @81 is bang on the money. I often read this discussion board because it often makes me think (and I would have been interested in a discussion about the nature of transgender/sexuality) but now I’m just depressed.

‘Laurie, I was little confused with regards to your comments about Jodie Marsh, Victoria Beckham et al. Are you being critical of them? If so, I can’t see why it is fair to criticise women for exaggerating femininity but to congratulate men for doing the same.’

I’m neither criticising nor condoning the fact that Victoria Beckham and Margaret Thatcher are exaggerating femininity in exactly the same manner as bio-men who choose to do so. I think it would be too simplistic to do either. What I’d hope would come out of discussions like this is that we question why people who identify as female – whatever their biological sex – feel the need to exaggerate their femininity by hyperconsumption and adoption of a pantomime ‘feminine’ persona. For more on this, read the excellent essay ‘Mama Cash’ by Charles Anders, available in ‘An Anti-Capitalist Reader’ (2001). Anders (who is himself a transvestite) makes the point that in contemporary consumer society, we have come to define and distinguish gender mainly by means of clothes and toys, and points out that nobody understands this more than transpeople.

NB, Jodie Marsh and Jodie Harsh, the latter of whom I reference here, are definitely not the same person!

Sunny’s comment@81 and Cath’s response@82 mark the dividing lines between the lefties and the liberals.

If LC is ever going to be successful at building stable coalitions between the two sides then someone is going to have to plot a course which steers around the choppy waters explored in this thread.

If LC is interested in building from the grass roots up then it must surely be more interested in involving people rather than just holding us proles at arm’s length and attempting to influence us with a barrage of group-think.

At present it is clear that the editorial line is confused.

Unity Julie Bindel’s writing, generally, provokes strong reactions – personally I think she’s a monumental pain in the ass, not to mention a dinosaur who’s personal brand of feminism is both badly dated and plays into just about every negative feminist stereotype going

…which is precisely the criticism you get to once you’ve waded through all the misogynist trolls on somewhere like CiF. Bindel doesn’t get to be ‘vindicated’ because she regrets the tone (but not the substance) of her views on transpeople, nor do the inevitable ‘Poor Julie’ articles that emerge in her defence deflect from the kind of anaylsis that Unity points to (and which reflect, in their own way, why I generally don’t read her work: waiting for the inevitable ‘I blame the patriarchy’ moment regardless of the evidence got too annoying in the end). If anything, Bindel’s view of transpeople is all too typical of what emerged from certain parts of the women’s movement in the 70s/80s, such as Shulamith Firestone’s work and – in particular – Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire (see Pat Califia’s Sex Changes for a particularly effective dismantling of such arguments). Whilst I understand Cath’s ’safe space’ argument, it’s odd that biological determinism re-emerges in order to enforce it, if only to exclude transpeople (well, the mtf ones from women’s spaces at any rate). Bindel’s positions on sexuality are equally of a piece with a feminism that relies on misogyny and male violence and not economics as its core and its means of generating support. Moreover, her attempt to act as ‘gatekeeper’ on policy-making on issues such as sex work and pornography conflict with her activist position on both issues. In short, Bindel may be a tireless campaigner for women, but it’s based on a particular kind of feminism that may not benefit the movement as a whole, let alone those it ends up excluding (which makes her frequent appearances in the Guardian’s women’s page even more problematic)..

Aah, OK! I’d never heard of Jodie Harsh before.

“question why people who identify as female – whatever their biological sex – feel the need to exaggerate their femininity”

Sadly, I don’t think it is possible to ignore biological sex from this discussion.

Consider where ladettes fit in with this. Ladettes reject femininity , and dress and behave in a stereotypically masculine way, but still identify themselves as female. From a transfemale perspective, I doubt whether ladette culture is particularly open to them, and because of their physical appearance are likely to need to present themselves in a stereotypically feminine way in order to be accepted as female in society.

“Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire (see Pat Califia’s Sex Changes for a particularly effective dismantling of such arguments).”

Does The Transsexual Empire need to be dismantled? I haven’t read it but from what I’ve read it’s basically accusing transexualism of being a ploy to destroy feminism. If that’s even one of the themes of the book, it doesn’t deserve criticism, it barely warrants ridicule. I mean, that’s paranoia. That’s thinking George Bush brought down the twin towers.

redpesto (and Laurie).

Louise Livesey has linked to a really interesting article on today’s F Word blog, that I think’s well worth a read.

It’s called Trashing: the dark side of sisterhood and it appeared in the April 1976 issue of Ms Magazine.

I was particularly drawn to this bit:

“But the collective cost of allowing trashing to go on as long and as extensively as we have is enormous. We have already lost some of the most creative minds and dedicated activists in the Movement. More importantly, we have discouraged many feminists from stepping out, out of fear that they, too, would be trashed. We have not provided a supportive environment for everyone to develop their individual potential, or in which to gather strength for the battles with the sexist institutions we must meet each day. A Movement that once burst with energy, enthusiasm, and creativity has become bogged down in basic survival — survival from each other. Isn’t it time we stopped looking for enemies within and began to attack the real enemy without?”

I am a bit late to this party, but I should say I pretty much agree with everything Laurie said in the article.

Oh come on Cath. Bindel’s style is to be outspoken, and rub people up the wrong way. It’s not just transfolk (although on that topic, publicly pouring ridicule on people’s genitals seems to me a step beyond something to be easily brushed off with a regret for causing offence). Here for example she accuses evolutionary biologists of “seeking to prove that those outside of the white, able-bodied heterosexual norm are inferior.” (They don’t, by the way.)

She deliberately sets out to provoke and annoy people, virtually every time she sets pen to paper. Well, that’s fine. But you don’t do that, and then start boo-hooing about being trashed when people get provoked and annoyed.

Can someone link to a Bindle article where she talks sense? I’ve heard they exist.

I enjoyed this article, although disagree with the tone of the final paragraph. I don’t think that Vivienne Westwood performs her own particular brand of femininity in order to get social acceptance, for example. God knows why women born in male bodies should have any less right to dress as they please than women born female. redpesto @ 88 basically said everything else that I wanted to say.

As a trans woman, I’m afraid I don’t find myself able engage with Bindel’s approach of ‘questioning’ – my felt gender identity is not something I *can* question, because, well, it’s just how I am; her call for a ‘debate’ with trans people smacks of entitlement (why must we constantly be called upon to justify our personal identities?). I don’t feel that this is something that can be resolved through debate anyway – I cannot *prove* my personal experience of gender for Bindel, and we are approaching the issue from incompatible viewpoints from the outset. I just wish that trans people *could* be left alone to get on with our lives.

In answer to a separate point made above, psychiatrists are required to establish that trans people are *not* psychologically imbalanced prior to prescribing hormones and surgery. Trying to dismiss our perspectives because you choose to regard us as ‘unbalanced’ would seem disingenuous and uninformed.

At present it is clear that the editorial line is confused.

lefties and liberals can be as bad as each other on arguing all the time about point of principle and very quickly losing sight of the bigger picture and where its taking them. This is why the Libdems haven’t gotten anywhere and Labour has gone too far the other way.

There is a rough line to be negotiated over having a discussion and sorting out other issues. And frankly Cath, my point about internal squabbles applied as much to bickering over edited comments as it did over the needless attacking to Julie Bindel everytime – when trans people have much bigger enemies than them.
Did this discussion get anywhere in the end? I think the consensus is obvious.

“I think the consensus is obvious.”

I can’t see much consensus.

As far as I’m concerned this is not an issue about gender, but of the lines of common humanity and equality (and is therefore easily distracted).

Politics is often a matter of theatrics and here Bindel seems to be provocatively cast in the role of the pantomime villain – as such I’d say she deserves an award for instigating debate, despite (or maybe because of) the fact she is basically in the wrong and trans-gendered people feel attacked by her.

From Cath @ 9:

“But the collective cost of allowing trashing to go on as long and as extensively as we have is enormous. We have already lost some of the most creative minds and dedicated activists in the Movement. More importantly, we have discouraged many feminists from stepping out, out of fear that they, too, would be trashed. We have not provided a supportive environment for everyone to develop their individual potential, or in which to gather strength for the battles with the sexist institutions we must meet each day. A Movement that once burst with energy, enthusiasm, and creativity has become bogged down in basic survival — survival from each other. Isn’t it time we stopped looking for enemies within and began to attack the real enemy without?”

The problem with a plea for ‘unity’ (or at least a plea that ‘men/sexism is the real enemy’) is that it can also be used to silence precisely the dissenting voices which need to be heard: in this case those transpeople whose identity is under discussion/criticism, and whose experiences might not fit the pattern that Bindel (and others) describe for them.

I’ve skim-read the article, and I’d just like to make a quick comment re. this:

There is, of course, a fine line between trashing and political struggle, between character assassination and legitimate objections to undesirable behavior. Discerning the difference takes effort.

I’ve posted on articles by Bindel on CiF where’s she’s also responded, and – I hope – I’ve stuck to the arguments – not to any kind of character assassination. This isn’t about some kind of ‘tall poppy’ argument; it is – in my view – a debate about what feminism is and/or stands for, where I happen to have a pretty basic disagreement, even if I recognise her commitment to the cause.

Greetings all,

Wanted to come back to this – been thinking on it for a few days.

A couple of points: I think it was right to pick up on the issue of the edited comment. I felt at the time that Cath had made sure that issue turned up in the thread, because she was concerned about it and it had not been resolved to her satisfaction. That to me meant the issue was in the public domain and a point of order. It was a point about freedom of speech. That might sound a bit cute, but I really felt it was about that. One of the key reasons people write, comment and generally appear online is for the editorial freedom. Any transgression of that needs to be called. I feel as strongly as that about it, and was horrified to think that one of our number – writer, commentator or reader – was abusing an editorial power.

I agree absolutely with Cath when she says that it is better to have those – indeed all – issues out in public. Don’t think there’s much choice, anyway. I just don’t think there is any such thing as private space these days – any issue that is raised privately on email can turn up on a thread, quick as you like – that’s the space we’re all in. I sometimes half-wish there was such a thing as a private online conversation, and no doubt will at some time in the future, what with the way I carry on and all, but there is not, and I would rather there was not, if the upshot of that is less freedom.

I disagree with Unity’s view that this sort of article needs to published and commented on in a women’s only space, though. My whole person rejects that sort of segregation – I can almost feel myself being patted on the head and told to go off to the girls’ corner and play with nice dolls. I want women to be equal in a male space like this. I think we’re up to it, and able to compete and account for ourselves and able to beat back the trolls. We have to be up to it – we can’t just cry foul when things get tough (I can really see this coming back to bite me, but it is what I think underneath it all).

I am not entirely convinced that we do get a harder time of it online, either – I don’t like that suggestion. It suggests to me that people think that women can’t compete, or aren’t up to life online – and we are. I am also aware that men are extremely aggressive towards each other in online political spaces – see the Tim Ireland-Iain Dale interface for a living example – so it’s difficult to say, really, whether or not that aggression takes on a different force when it’s directed at us women. Blatantly obvious comments about our looks and shaggability are sexist, but I don’t know whether aggression itself is sexist. If it is, I want to be here fighting it and even enjoying it. Which I do.
All of that said, I think those of us who insist on enjoyng editorial freedom need to be put our money where our mouths are and engage in all aspects of that freedom. It is with that in mind that I would like to repeat that I think Laurie Penny is a marvellous writer and an unusual voice, and one to watch both now, and for the future. The anger I directed at her for her actions above – and at others, from time to time – is not something I’m looking to adjust, though – it is something I feel is hard-won, and an entitlement I have helped myself to, as a person/woman online. I now even rather enjoy it. Such is ego. Women are entitled to massive egos and mine is expanding by the hour, before my very eyes. Excellent.

I am prepared to be disliked and hated for that, and indeed I am. People attack me and my views and galloping ego left right and centre online. So what? That’s their prerogative. That’s freedom. That’s a result. This is politics, and a place where ideas – and principles – are passionately held and fought over. Women are capable of doing that, and are in an envrionment where they can. Long may it last. I hope Laurie and Cath continue to contribute their fine pieces to all the online forums that they work in and that we can all argue to the wire on all of them, in public, in front of each other and men.

Et cetera.

PS – I don’t think this thread was derailed – I think it turned into a discussion about what it’s all about.

I would say that, but still.

So – my two cents, again. Troll away, boys.

I think part of the reason I got so frustrated is that I perceived that the issue had already been called – and I had given my explanation and said I wouldn’t do it again – long after certain people were still hurling accusations. But fah, **hatchet/bury**, thank for saying nice things, it is appreciated.

Anyway, back to the rest of what you were saying. The whole ‘wimminz can’t cope online’ and ‘women’s spaces’ is something on which I take a similar position to yours. Why should we need to be protected, to ghetto ourselves? The whole notion of female/feminine-only spaces is one that angers me, particularly as if anyone were to suggest that society also needs male-only spaces a huge fuss would be kicked up, not least by me. And what disturbs me most about this is that so often it’s self-defined feminists who call for women-only groups/spaces/whatever. This has cropped up at a few recent femactivist meets I’ve been to. I can see the objections to men in ‘feminist’ space, but the point about gender equality is that we can’t segregate ourselves anymore. We have to live together. We have to act together. And any discussions of gender policy and politics have to involve men, women and everyone else.

This, of course, brings us right back to the whole trans issue. The trouble with a lot of ’safe’ ‘women’s’ spaces both online and in the meatspace is that the centre tends to be controlled by a small group who get to decide what a woman is or isn’t. Some such spaces specify ‘female identified’; others will let you in only if you’re a femme-identified biological woman; for still others, ownership of a pair of ovaries qualifies you however you identify.

redpesto – “The problem with a plea for ‘unity’ (or at least a plea that ‘men/sexism is the real enemy’) is that it can also be used to silence precisely the dissenting voices which need to be heard”

No, not at all. I definitely wouldn’t wish to silence anyone; it’s the nature of the opposition/dissent that concerns me here. I think Unity mentioned upthread about playing the woman not the ball, and I think that’s what’s been happening far too much in this recent debate re Stonewall. Trans activists have every right to speak out and voice their views about Julie’s nomination, and to put their case as to why they feel her arguments about trans issues are wrong. However, I see no call for the personalised attacks that have been launched upon her, and the trashing she is currently being subjected to across the blogosphere. It’s unhelpful, it’s offensive, and as I said in one of my earlier posts, it goes no way towards helping move the debate forwards.

On the issue of women-only spaces, again I’m going to have to disagree with you Laurie. There are valid reasons why women still need room to organise separately, mainly to do with the fact that we haven’t got anywhere close to achieving equality yet. Although I agree that we don’t necessarily need safe spaces online, I’ll fight to the death to maintain the women-only spaces we have in trade unions for example (and which do include transwomen, just to be clear). It may not meet with your “we’re all equal now (!) so we need to learn to get along” cosy and privileged view of the world, but sadly these spaces are absolutely necessary in that they enable some women to find their voice when they wouldn’t otherwise speak up.

Cath,

According to the ever reliable Wikipedia:

There are no reliable statistics on the prevalence of transsexualism. The DSM-IV (1994) quotes prevalence of roughly 1 in 30,000 assigned males and 1 in 100,000 assigned females seek sex reassignment surgery in the USA. The most reliable population based estimate of the incidence occurrence is from the Amsterdam Gender Dysphoria Clinic[26] The data, spanning more than four decades in which the clinic has treated roughly 95% of Dutch transsexuals, gives figures of 1:10,000 assigned males and 1:30,000 assigned females.

Which is a statistically tiny number. I’d have thought, correct me if I am wrong, that arguing about this tiny minority was to take our eye off the ball of genuine gender imbalance?

It seems to me to be a diversion. Obviously these folk should have exactly the same human rights as the rest of us. Other than treating them as a canary down a mine, I don’t really see them as a group that is likely to effect the larger agenda.

Talk me down.

“The only reason the women I know exaggerate ‘femininity’ in the sort of way described in this piece are the ones who feel they have to play up their hair, lips and tits because that’s the only way you can get a fella these days, and because women are forced to think that their looks – and the sort of ‘feminity’ that one achieves with collegen, botox and invasive surgery – are all”.

How is that any different to what men have to put up with to look masculine (note I didn’t use inverted commas – masculine/feminine are very well defined) , a suit and tie, shaving daily, using deodorant, carrying man bag et al just to conform to what women expect a “modern” man men to look like (generally a cross between a hedge fund manager and a social worker). You think we dress like that because we like it ?? Or because unless we do we won’t attract any women ?

This whole thread to me just shows you all have serious issues around self-identity and femininity and clearly need several years, if not decades on the analysts couch to untangle the damage done to you by your baby boomer parents and the left wing media.

My attempt to make peace:

http://gts-kjb.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-to.html

Matt,

I would never

Ever

Ever

Under any circumstances

Have sex

With a man who

Had a

Man Bag.

Even if I was asked.

That aside, I think you are right to say men are feeling the pressures of the external appearance millennium, if I can put it that way.

And yes, I think us girls have serious issues around femininity and identification, but in my case at least, that is because people keep commenting on the size of my balls.

“That aside, I think you are right to say men are feeling the pressures of the external appearance millennium, if I can put it that way. ”

What millenium? People have been concerned with their appearance since they worked out that you could make yourself look nice by painting your face with plant juice. Except for those too poor to have time to worry about it, appearance has always been a big issue. Probably more so for women than for men, but not drastically so.

man bag… balls… insert joke.

I think Sally O@96 underlines how misdirected the suffering of those involved is.

Nobody is ever just ‘left alone to get on with our lives’ because politics always intrudes – if something is ever a problem then it is an issue which must be dealt with.

Assimilation vs integration vs segregation is a debate which continues in many areas and will continue to be controversial in each until separate individual identities grow to outstrip those of the group and enable the unavoidable contact and communication with the rest of society to be made on an equal footing.

Every person has multiple layered identities, but this only causes problems if the emphasis is in the wrong place.

I’d like to encourage Sally O to return and participate in discussions which are less of a personal specialism – then we’ll be able to see you for who you really are!

‘People have been concerned with their appearance since they worked out that you could make yourself look nice by painting your face with plant juice.’

So… Does plant juice work…?

Can I order about a bucket

Cath: ‘It may not meet with your “we’re all equal now (!) so we need to learn to get along” cosy and privileged view of the world, but sadly these spaces are absolutely necessary in that they enable some women to find their voice when they wouldn’t otherwise speak up.’

My argument against women-only spaces is definitely *not* predicated on an assumption that we’re all equal now. We’re not equal now. But I happen to think that it’s more useful to find other ways of encouraging women to speak up that don’t involve self-segregation. We need to learn to defend ourselves and stand up for ourselves in mixed space and, more importantly, men need to learn that denying us that platform is no longer acceptable.

Obviously, this argument applies only to spheres of socio-political debate, organisation, argument, etc. I’m not about to ban battered women’s shelters. But where debate happens, it has to happen in mixed space, otherwise we’re just talking to ourselves.

Kate: what’s your problem with man bags? *baity mcbait*

Matt @ 104: the type of appearance-fascism that women have to deal with every day from an early age is an entirely bigger problem than what men face. This isn’t me playing oppression olympics, it’s just a fact. Although the balance is slowly shifting, apparently: soon, you guys will be just as miserable, because *everyone* is equal before the market…

“How is that any different to what men have to put up with to look masculine (note I didn’t use inverted commas – masculine/feminine are very well defined) , a suit and tie, shaving daily, using deodorant, carrying man bag et al just to conform to what women expect a “modern” man men to look like (generally a cross between a hedge fund manager and a social worker). You think we dress like that because we like it ?? Or because unless we do we won’t attract any women ?”

We won’t?

‘Problem with man bags…’

Remember that scene in Friends when Joey takes a man bag to an audition? Man, it was terrible. It was almost like he’d left his testicles at the door in a sad little heap. I do like a good pair of testicles, me, and that was just terrible. Totally emasculating. He would have been twice the man in a frock.

Which kind of takes us back to your original post… I had a batshit idea about this – any chance you could re-post your post, so that we could start again on the actual topic? I was looking forward to getting into it at the time, and got into you instead – and so life goes, but it was a good post and it would be good to address it directly now that everyone is sane again.

Just an idea.

“the type of appearance-fascism that women have to deal with every day from an early age is an entirely bigger problem than what men face. This isn’t me playing oppression olympics, it’s just a fact.”

In terms of appearance… stress (not fascism, it has nothing to do with Mussolini) women probably do get it worse, however men face other stresses more than women. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that women over all are more miserable than men. I know rates of “depression” are much higher in women, but the diagnosis of depression used to calculate those statistics is questionable. And suicide rates and rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness etc. are all much higher in men as is delinquency, the chance of being a criminal or being the victim of violent crime.

It would be ridiculous to say that men have it worse than women overall, but it would be equally ridiculous to say the opposite. That would indeed be playing the oppression olympics. How many extra women have to suffer depression to “balance out” one extra man drinking himself to death? It just doesn’t work.

Kate,

Apparently you think men who want to carry bags are something to laugh about?

I think you’ve got your feminist hat on backwards.

Having followed up in the meantime on what Julie Bindel has been writing I think a lot of the criticism for her award can be traced to different interpretations of what ‘journalism’ is and what it is for – in other words the criticism is political.

Should journalism be straight reporting of facts and editorial conclusions, or should it present those facts in a way which challenges readers preconcieved ideas and stimulates our own thought processes?

I think Laurie’s ability to draw large numbers of comments shows she can stimulate the intellectual exploration required to engage readers and encourage us to contribute our own experiences. This is far more democratic and open-minded than the prescriptive doctrinaires would have her do, so I find it ironic that she isn’t celebrating Bindel’s achievement!

But lest we forget, public debate depends on difference and nothing gains public attention quite like the drama of a controversy – oh how we love a cat fight!

@112: don’t listen to them Ben, you’re lovely.

I can’t stand Bindel but she is actually right on this. It is not possible to change ones sex. Having hideously mutilating surgery will not turn a man into a woman or vice versa. I am sorry about his but I am afraid you will just have to learn to live with who and what you are.

I’m coming rather late in the day to this thread, but there’s just one or two things I’d like to get down in black and white here, for whatever it’s worth.

I don’t want to comment on the gender politics of it, as Penny, Kate Belgrave and others have already thrashed those issues out in some detail. What I do want to challenge is Penny’s inference that there exists a unanimity of ‘outrage’ on the part of ‘queer campaigners and feminists alike’. Penny creates the impression that Julie Bindel is a lone voice, opposed by the solid ranks of the righteous without a dissenter among them.

It would be more accurate to say that ‘SOME feminists and queer campaigners’ are outraged- there are many who are taking this in their stride and see the demonisation of Julie Bindel as a shameful, anti-democratic roadshow. I know many, many queer and feminist activists and writers – including trans people – who are not outraged at all, who disagree with some of what Julie says, and certainly wish she would moderate her tone sometimes, but who have great respect for much of her work, and certainly for her courage in resisting those who attack her, often very personally.

I’ve posted elsewhere on this site on my opposition to the language of ‘phobias’, whether trans, homo, islam, or any other. I think a little analysis of Penny’s opening references to this issue makes my point for me:

“Bindel is a notoriously outspoken transphobe (her insulting and upsetting remarks about transpeople in national newspapers can be found here, here and here)”

My question is this. If Bindel is a ‘notoriously outspoken transphobe’ for making remarks that are ‘insulting and upsetting’, what language do we have left to describe the many, many people who would deny civil rights to trans people, incite violence against them, or commit it themselves?

Whether or not we agree with employing the language of phobias at all – and I don’t, seeing it as a means of dodging positive engagement with unpleasant ideas – surely we should take care to calibrate our language more carefully? Whatever your take on Julie Bindel’s opinions, it strains credibility to compare her to someone actually consumed with hate and ready to take violent action enacting that hate. Julie might make you mad, she may hurt or anger you, you may think she’s spectacularly wrong and misinformed, but she’s not a hater or a ”phobe’ of any type, and it doesn’t reflect well on those of the left who persist in labelling her so.

Do we have to be so hectoring and censorious of opinions we dislike? Do we have to pathologise those who insult or hurt? Can we not distinguish between those dishing out real, live hate and seeking to foment violence, from those who are not? Slapping condemnatory, phobic labels on people we have profound, serious disagreements with is undermining our democratic process, encouraging dangerously communalist politics, and making it increasingly difficult to debate important, complicated subjects in the public sphere.

The moral certainty in which this language has its roots disturbs me. It’s the certainty of the censor, the thought police. As a queer man, working in both the arts and campaigning and acting on queer human rights issues, I find this tendency disagreeable. Of course, after ten years of New Labour it’s very much in the zeitgeist, but that doesn’t mean we can’t seek to call a halt to it.

While I’m taking issue with Penny’s opening tactic, this is not intended to be an attack solely on Penny – this sort of language has become second nature to many thoughtful people on the left with firm commitments to human rights and equality.

I just wonder whether we can’t challenge that first reflex to demonise, and skip straight to the meat of our arguments?

‘The moral certainty in which this language has its roots disturbs me. It’s the certainty of the censor, the thought police. As a queer man, working in both the arts and campaigning and acting on queer human rights issues, I find this tendency disagreeable. Of course, after ten years of New Labour it’s very much in the zeitgeist, but that doesn’t mean we can’t seek to call a halt to it.’

I think a lot of the fury that many within the trans movement feel towards Bindel is because *she was supposed to be on our side*. She has one of the largest queer platforms in Britis journalism and she’s choosing to use it against us. We don’t just feel attacked: we feel betrayed.

I take issue with your ‘thought police’ jibe, but you make a lot of other good and interesting points.

Incidentally, see http://www.t-can.org.uk/. for more on how this debate has developed. The Trans Community Activist Network is a direct result of the Stonewall protest.