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

'worthy of being shared' - this is a strange way of putting it. It's sort of like you're confusing legalities with moralities

There are most definitely grey areas of cross overs between what's legal and what's moral.

some views are considered damaging and serious enough to go from being ideas to being hate crimes or attacks on other peoples' rights

No. They're not.

If my views make you feel guilty for your own views

Oh, mate. Now who's trolling?!

Exactly how on earth am I attempting to stifle others free speech?

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.

The OP asked a question - would you work with people whose principles you don't share for a common goal. They provided some examples of what they meant specifically.

I strongly feel that no I would not work towards a common goal in the example provided, and provided my reasons consistently. How is that shutting anyone else down or telling them not to engage in their own right to free speech?

The event is going ahead, I am highly critical of the event, I would NEVER attend the event in any kind of solidarity with any views there, I've not said anyone should be imprisoned or deplatformed. I have pointed out though, as the conversation moved to the more general topic of free speech and controversial topics, that some views are considered damaging and serious enough to go from being ideas to being hate crimes or attacks on other peoples' rights.

But you're just trolling me.

I'm not.

You know full well that while we can't literally thought police, that's not what being tolerant or intolerant means is it.

And you've completely ignored my above points about how society itself is structured shows us plain as day that we do not consider all views to hold equal value, to be equally okay to share.

All views are okay to hold. It's true. All views have equal value in asmuch as no views are valued qualitatively over any other view. Being 'leftwing' isn't more or less valued than being 'rightwing'.

You can think anything you like.

As for sharing, that's a very complex and nuanced issue. In some circumstances there are some views that we may be found guilty of a crime for sharing, such as threatening someone, although I'd say that wasn't 'sharing a view', more 'voicing intent'.

I'm not proposing any change or action. I'm simply expressing my belief, my belief which I believe to be self evident, that society does not hold any and all opinion as worthy of being shared or acted on.

'worthy of being shared' - this is a strange way of putting it. It's sort of like you're confusing legalities with moralities.

In the face of people playing dumb and pretending that it shouldn't matter if someone has utterly reprehensible beliefs, we should all just rub along together as long as the goal is to eradicate those pesky transes

The last bit of that para is fucking offensive, frankly. Who wants to 'eradicate' anyone, what a horrible thing to say.

As for reprehensible beliefs - people's beliefs are their own, and no, I couldn't give a flying fuck what other people's beliefs are, what matters is their actions.

I think it's you who is feeling guilty here. You have not managed to answer any of my posts re hypocrisy.
In fact you don't answer anything at all. Is that why you feel no shame? Because you have no capacity for self-reflection?
Your aim of coming here was to shame. I think you failed. I hope other women will not let you shame them out of acting in their own best interests.

Without freedom of speech, all our other rights mean nothing. Freedom of speech is the basis of all our rights and freedoms.

The price of free speech is that other people also have free speech, and can use it to say things you dislike or disagree with. That is a serious downside to free speech, I agree.

But the alternative is that the government or other authorities decide what is permissable to say and not say. Which is the basis of totalitarianism.

You can choose not to speak to people who you disagree with, and that's fine. But trying to stop other people from speaking and listening is fascist.

I'm not "trying to shame" anyone, I thought this board was made for robust debate? If my views make you feel guilty for your own views, that's not my problem and maybe some self reflection is in order to get to the bottom of why you are feeling any type of shame.

I have people disagreeing with me as wholeheartedly as you are disagreeing with me and I feel no shame in my views.

Julie Bindle, just reading about it. Is it accurate that she holds trans exclusive views which appeal to people like Milo?

I'd say it's simply a very similar situation here.

The elephant in the room is not all feminists are trans exclusive, and whether you are not will massively alter your perception of people like Julie Bindle, and people holding the views at the events mentioned in the OP.

She is hardly an uncontroversial figure among feminists - "inviting women to become lesbians?" please.

@Dreamwhisper UK society IS based on being tolerant of all views that are considered "worthy of respect in a democratic society". There are a multiplicity of views. You can cherry pick your own and so can I. The way to arrive at a view is to consider it from various perspectives and angles. If you are only allowed to view from one angle, how will you know what is on the other side? Even if you don't want to know, I might, even if on seeing what's there I choose to reject it. I will stand for my right to see the other side, even if the feminist collective calls me a bad name.

And trying to shame other people into agreeing with you.

The actual question was, would you be willing to actively share space and platform with people who hold antifeminist other views that you don't agree with, because they share views and goals on trans rights self ID) that you do agree with.

Yes, definitely.

It's the only way things ever really move forward, if we're prepared to share space with others.

It's hardly the case that most feminists don't do this, either. Like Julie Bindel collaborating with Milo. What did you think about that @Dreamwhisper ?

I'm not a "feminist". I'm a feminist.

I'm not telling you what to think? I'm telling you what I think, and why. Free speech.

I think that the rest of us were talking about women's rights, Dream.

But you're just trolling me. You know full well that while we can't literally thought police, that's not what being tolerant or intolerant means is it. And you've completely ignored my above points about how society itself is structured shows us plain as day that we do not consider all views to hold equal value, to be equally okay to share.

I'm not proposing any change or action. I'm simply expressing my belief, my belief which I believe to be self evident, that society does not hold any and all opinion as worthy of being shared or acted on. In the face of people playing dumb and pretending that it shouldn't matter if someone has utterly reprehensible beliefs, we should all just rub along together as long as the goal is to eradicate those pesky transes

Yes, I think it does. Only it's not a game.
You want to shame people out of associating with people you deem to be 'unpure', while at the same time refusing to accept your hypocrisy. The Labour Party wants to take women's rights away too. Abortion is not the only women's right.
Who decides what is intolerant? I would rather listen to anti abortionists, knowing I will never, ever agree with them, than be told what I can and cannot listen to.
As I said in a previous post, this technique was used to shame women out of reading papers like the Times and the Telegraph. That would have been a mistake too, as the left wing press have ignored the issue or worse.
Why don't you try to make some headway with the left? Or have you? Cos it's failed.

For clarification. There are no illegal views in this country.

'hatecrime' is not a thing in itself, it can be used as an aggravating factor when sentencing where a crime has been committed. There is no crime in thinking any specific thoughts.

It's simply a common belief or debate tactic among people who share views that are considered by many to be intolerant or bigoted, especially in the online political debate world.

Wow, well done for coming right out and saying it, Dreamwhisper: free speech is a bigot’s tactic. Well, it’s certainly not a genderist tactic, that’s for sure.

My admiration for those who try heroically to debate with people who openly oppose free speech increases all the time.

Me too on both counts. I don't like be told what to think by "feminists" any more than by any other group. Opinions need to be able to be robustly supported and continually questioned.

There's no need to be insulting, DreamWhisper. We're having a discussion. It's okay.

'You can't seriously think that society is based on being tolerant of all views?'

I ask you again: What is the alternative you are proposing?

Thoughtcrime is not illegal.

You can't seriously think that society is based on being tolerant of all views?

Hello? are you serious? Is your brain on?

That's why some things are illegal

That's why some things are protected

That's why some things are hate crimes

My god.

Intolerant of what? Organised groups who are proponents of banning abortion and same sex marriage?

Yes, I suppose I am intolerant of those things. Does that mean you win the game?

Right, I see. This?

all views, no matter how intolerant, need to be tolerated and considered on the same level as other less fringe or taboo views.

But what on earth is the alternative? What are you suggesting? That we don't tolerate certain views? How do we do that?

A purge? Re-education? Armed struggle? And exactly what 'taboo' views are you talking about? Christian beliefs? Being anti abortion isn't exactly taboo.

No, the thing I specifically outlined in the next paragraph I wrote which you chose not to quote.

So you don't believe that they are misogynist and antisemetic? Really? Really?
Interesting...
Also, who defines what is tolerant?
You?
Cos from where I'm sitting, you seem like the intolerant one.