Is it okay to work with groups whose principles you dont share as a feminist, but there is a common cause?

I've tried hard to understand you, Dream. You have not expressed yourself very clearly and you keep moving the goalposts and refusing to answer questions.

I expect the frustration you're feeling is a reflection of the fact that you're struggling to express your viewpoint. You feel you're right, but you haven't got the reasoning for it, so people are making you angry with their requests for reason and logic. But you have to appreciate that this is what you need to bring if you hope to persuade anyone to your point of view.

... so if you have any issues report them.

I'm happy with how I've conducted myself on this thread thanks.

I actually have and I have explained that bit about why posting on a feminist forum online and attending an event in person organised by pro life and anti gay marriage at an evangelical church is different in my eyes.

I've even copy pasted a post from earlier. I don't know what else you want from me. You should at least read my posts before you tell me I haven't responded. Just because it's not what you agree with doesn't mean I haven't addressed it.

I don't think a single person here has adequately addressed why it is not antifeminist and immoral to attend the event. But I don't keep badgering you for your views, I am simply explaining my own as best I can.

with respect, you are attributing bad faith where there is none.

It's quite possible to express anger without insulting people.

Yes. Anyone who wants to avoid associating in any way with groups whose views they don't share 100% on every issue are going to end up quite isolated.

It must be very hard to find a venue, staff, sponsors, organisers, participants and attendees with whom one accords completely.

Because I'm expressing anger at feeling deliberately misunderstood and taken in bad faith.

Are you really that dense?

No, you actually haven't. And you haven't explained why it is that you coming to FWR and discussing issues with women here is fine and doesn't mean you're aligning with anyone else's views or supporting them, but a woman going to this event would be aligning with and supporting views of the other attendees.

You have no idea what my views are on anything. You are engaging with me but how do you know you're not engaging with someone who has views you would totally disagree with on other topics?

Can you please explain why you think sharing a space or even a platform with someone means you're supporting and aligning with them?

Again though, there is a huge spectrum of morality between "purity politics" and using your critical thinking and nuance to reflect on the context your beliefs are existing in.
It's very nice to acknowledge that holding x view doesn't make one a bad person, or that it's the only view they hold. But you still have the responsibility to not go too far down that path. In my personal view, no it is not okay to nurture a political relationship with groups that represent ideas that I cannot abide. I can respect everyone's right to personal belief especially over emotive issues like abortion.
But I cannot respect or abide anyone who feels that it is okay to try and legally remove other women's right to choose. Any sort of collusion with those groups (groups are not individuals subject to the same nuance as a human being and therefore do not need or deserve the same empathy as a human).
You also can't conflate political groups with individuals for the above stated reasons - being emotive about how it's not right to judge people and it's denying their free speech blah blah doesn't cut it when what you are actually talking about is rejecting an organised group pushing for certain policies

I've copy pasted my point here which i feel address the why. I have to leave the thread now at least for a while as my children are home.

Are you really that dense?

Why do you keep insulting people?

I actually have explained why I feel that way, in several of my earlier posts.

I am clearly using "collateral" as a turn of phrase to demonstrate that feminists who say "yes it's okay" to the OP as essentially saying that yes, it's worth attending these events to support the no self ID part even if it's borne of conservativism (and so also supports those antifeminist views mentioned earlier) because in their view the self ID bit is more important than those other issues, even though those issues are also very damaging to women.

Thanks for your explanation, However, I've said a few times that yes I would be happy to attend this event. Not sure why you think I'm trying to hide that? I've made it super clear.

Where we disagree is your idea that to attend this event means "supporting" other views on other issues. You have not yet given an explanation as to why that should be the case.

I would be very shocked if you have not already attended meetings with, or even organized by, people who have different beliefs than you do, but with whom you have some interest in common. Such people are all around you, in your neighbourhood, your kids schools, at your workplace, in charitable organizations.

If you are serious about maintaining your moral purity by avoiding any common interest or action with such people you are going to have to take a big step back from society as a whole.

Are you really that dense?

If you can't see it for what it is, then that's not my problem. There's only so much one can explain. Other posters have said it better than I can, the ones who have said they wouldn't be willing to entertain these "events" because of the people involved and their antifeminist views.

The reason the OP is interested in these events and posting it here is because she is in support of one of the groups attending who are interested in making sure self ID for transpeople doesn't come into play in Scotland. She was asking is other people here thought it was worth supporting such events even though they gave platform to people who held views that were, for example, anti abortion and anti gay marriages. Stances which are considered at odds with feminist ideals.

I am clearly using "collateral" as a turn of phrase to demonstrate that feminists who say "yes it's okay" to the OP as essentially saying that yes, it's worth attending these events to support the no self ID part even if it's borne of conservativism (and so also supports those antifeminist views mentioned earlier) because in their view the self ID bit is more important than those other issues, even though those issues are also very damaging to women. That doesn't automatically mean they are ambivalent to those issues, but in my view given the context of the post including the board, that's what's going on.

People on the thread saying "no it's not okay" recognise that colluding with conservative antifeminist views is not, in their view, a good pursuit.

You might disagree with my view of the situation, but I've been on these boards long enough to feel quite confident in my assessment. And you may disagree completely, but just because you don't agree doesn't mean what I say makes no sense. It's just not what you want to hear.

none of the groups listed are illegal or hold illegal positions though, do they?

It is not illegal to be catholic, or to believe being gay is a sin, or to believe women are biological females.

it is precisely this polarisation in thinking that has caused havoc in the USA, and that threatens to cause Brain rot in «the left» in Europe too.

we need to be able to debate and sometimes even collaborate on issues with people who hold radically different ideas to ourselves. It is vital for democracy and a well functioning society.

So it's okay to be racist and homophobic? There is no chance or any legal recourse for perpetuating those views? You can't face any consequences and it would never be considered bullying or harassment?

You're blurring the 'holding of views' with 'bullying and harassment'. People can legally hold any views, of course they can. Believe it or not, many people are racist, homophobic, and all sorts of other things. Nobody is breaking down their doors to arrest them (although give the Scotgov six months, to be fair).

'Bullying' isn't illegal. Harassment is. It's an offence. And yes, if someone is found guilty of harassment they can have an 'aggravator' of various 'hate crimes' applied.

What about morally? If not illegal, is it possible to perpetuate views that are widely considered to be morally devoid? Or are all views acceptable as a default? Genuine question.

Morally devoid? I don't know what that phrase means.

Do you mean 'devoid of morality'?

Are all views acceptable? Do you mean subjectively, to me personally, or are you suggesting society should hold certain views as unacceptable?

I really think you might find this video interesting.

bold fail, sorry. that was for @Dreamwhisper

Nothing I have said is incoherent, you just can't counter it in a way that doesn't involving plainly stating in some way or another that the antifeminist views these groups hold are collateral you are willing to pay in order to support any groups that advocate for the prevention or removal of trans rights.

I've said literally nothing about trans rights. What on earth makes you think I have any interest in removing rights from people? Surely everything I've said would suggest the opposite?

Some more questions for you:

How can a feminist group hold antifeminist views?
How can antifeminist (or any) views be collateral?
How does one pay collateral? What does that actually mean?

No, I actually agree. Quite incoherent. Would be good if you could actually answer the points put to you too, dream. Maybe you think you have?

So it's okay to be racist and homophobic? There is no chance or any legal recourse for perpetuating those views? You can't face any consequences and it would never be considered bullying or harassment?

There's a legal sanction against harassment. There isn't - and shouldn't be - any legal sanction to someone having racist thoughts or ideas.

If someone shares racist ideas in e.g. an event like this, the consequences should be other speakers refuting and disproving their ideas. Other consequences could be mockery, exclusion, getting dumped by their girlfriend.

If they incite violence, or cause physical harm, that's breaking the law.

Nothing I have said is incoherent, you just can't counter it in a way that doesn't involving plainly stating in some way or another that the antifeminist views these groups hold are collateral you are willing to pay in order to support any groups that advocate for the prevention or removal of trans rights.

Like what? Give some examples.

So it's okay to be racist and homophobic? There is no chance or any legal recourse for perpetuating those views? You can't face any consequences and it would never be considered bullying or harassment?

What about morally? If not illegal, is it possible to perpetuate views that are widely considered to be morally devoid? Or are all views acceptable as a default? Genuine question.

Just because it makes you feel bad and makes you question your own thoughts on the subject, doesn't mean I am attacking anybody's free speech, let's not get silly now.

It does not make me feel bad @Dreamwhisper . And, I'm sorry, but nothing you've said has made me question my own thoughts. I mean, I'm totally open to a challenge, but your comments have been largely incoherent and where they have made sense they've been rather simplistic.

You have made several comments along the lines of how anyone who works with another group is not a good feminist and is supporting and allying themselves with anti-woman campaigns. You have been trying to argue that it's wrong for this event to go ahead and shameful for women to be involved. I'd say that constitutes an attack on others' rights to free speech, yes.

Do you think that trying to destroy womens rights to safe spaces is moral?