Julie Bindel on women who self-ID as Gender Critical

Doubt it.

No.

paradox of tolerance

LOL. I think our visitor has seen a heavily-circulated internet cartoon on the subject and fancies themselves a philosophy expert now.

I'm not a philosophy expert either but the logic holes in the cartoon were so blaring that I actually did research a little bit. I suggest that poster wanging on about the paradox of tolerance try doing the same. You don't have to read a book or anything, don't worry! The wikipedia page will do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Check out this quote where Popper coined the phrase.

Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The emphasis is mine. Do you see yet who "the intolerant" are in this scenario?

Or you could try thinking about the logic of it.

Group A claims Group B is intolerant.
Group B claims Group A is intolerant.
Both claim that they can use "the paradox of tolerance" to justify violence against the other group.

Without objective criteria for defining intolerance - which that incredibly stupid cartoon doesn't provide, but Popper did,- then "the paradox of tolerance" is simply a justification for any violence any group fancies committing against any other group. That's clearly not Popper's intention.

Here, again, are the objective criteria Popper provided for identifying "the intolerant."

they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

Penny dropping yet?

One of the things I have enjoyed is working with people who don't share my views on all sorts of things but we are coming together because we do share concerns about what is happening in the name of "gender identity". I am enjoying finding common cause with people across usual political divides.

Stirring up a little in-fighting are we? Within a movement that isn't actually a movement, more a collection of rational people concerned about the rapid progress of regressive and unscientific gender ideology. Never witnessed that before.

Every gender critical woman I've interacted with has been delightful, angry, wise and has a long history of fighting for equality for women and girls. And they usually have great shoes.

I think this thread has been hijacked by people who want to comment about the poster.

As to the tweet, it is standard JB making clear she is a cut above all other women / feminists.

And or her social / twitter circles are filled with very strange women.

Quite honestly who cares.

It is part of self promotion.

And this thread has added to her cv.

Clicking around the twitter thread is interesting because it shows different strains of thought under the GC umbrella, including some tweeters who are keen to police what are acceptable views, who are acceptable people, how and where people should be able express themselves, or should not. The intolerance is strong and reminds me of the TRA approach.

"The Right Side of History" is also unappealing when it comes from GC people.

I can't see how being gender critical necessarily implies any position on abortion. I also don't see how being GC necessarily inoculates you from bigotry. It's not as if we're talking about team colours here. That's what I saw Stock's and Bindel's points as saying.

Would you agree?

In your dumb example, clearly the straight person is being bigotted. The gay person may or may not be. Insufficient information. It's perfectly possible for both parties in a confrontation to be bigotted about the other simultaneously.

Gay people eventually got their rights by not being bigotted while their opponents were.

GC people have to win the same way. Sufficient bigotry from them will turn away independents.

TRAs will only secure long-term wins if they realise this applies to them too. Independents are being turned away in droves by current TRA bigotry.

And for the screening shotting SWIW SJWs out there:

I did my A-levels while housed in a homelessness hostel. I still haven't been to uni. And I have no **ing interest in middle-class academics, from middle-class homes where no-one ever cried over the gas bill, prosetylising on how empowering the sex trade is.

If I see hungry children, I give them food, I don't tell their mother to perform sex acts on me first. And being as committed to equality as I am, I expect the same amount of human decency of men. Now go do something useful, and campaign to reverse the benefit cuts that forced women to turn to the sex trade.

I think you need a hobby.

The QTs are a roll-call of the best and the brightest. Not.

I see a fun-fem accusing Julie Bindel, of all people, of hating women in the sex industry.

Chances that the funfem has ever been in a financially precarious enough position to sell access to her body in order to pay the rent? Chances that she has ever stood in Holbeck, negotiating the price of condomless vaginal penetration?

Right, I think I get it, thanks necessaryscene.

I couldn’t work out if you were shitting on JB, BB or these unknown feminist bigots, yeahbut. I guess with the lack of context, it could have played out in any number of directions you might find pleasing. Sorry to disappoint.

You've demonstrated a fairly shallow understanding of what bigotry is.

Thank you. Feel free to demonstrate you have any understanding whenever you feel like it.

If you're posting in good faith yeahbutnaw, you really need to get away from those on the Right Side of History needing to support those on their side and to oppose those on the Wrong Side of History. Going through life using this approach will not serve you well.

Yeah but Gone fishing somewhere. The bait here is cr**p!

I usually link to tweets, so they can be seen in context, as well as supplying a screenshot.

Any particular reason you didn't do that, OP?

Any reason you didn't link to the actual tweet, OP so there was no context to comment?

Because the OP thought it was a good opportunity to passively-aggressively call everyone on here a bigot.

It does seem unusual for a feminist to refer to women as bigots for being pro-choice though.

She's calling women bigots for saying that someone (possibly wrongly) perceived as being anti-abortion should be shunned.

Do you understand what "bigot" means? "One who is narrow-mindedly devoted to one's own ideas and groups, and intolerant of (people of) differing ideas, races, genders, religions, politics, etc."

It's got nothing to do with being pro-choice or anti-abortion.

GCs should very much be the non-bigotted side here - it should be what distinguishes us from TRAs - the willingness to live and let live, rather than compel people to follow our belief.

In my experience, I've definitely seen a good few out-of-context screenshots that are then used to try get gotchas out of women mumsnet. That's fairly common imo.

Any reason you didn't link to the actual tweet, OP so there was no context to comment?