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.

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?

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!

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

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

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.

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.

“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?

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*

So… Does plant juice work…?

Can I order about a bucket

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.