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

You have summed up my view totally. Thank you

I'd wonder what the real aim of the organisers was. I honestly can't see compromise happening between some of those groups.

I'm all for free speech, but I'd be worried that I'd be attending some sort of evangelical event to attempt to educate me out of my bad free-thinking ways.

True, it is your right. Everyone has boundaries, and we should respect them.

But that also means that people then have the right not to work with you if they find your views abhorrent. And you don't get to explain exactly what your views are, and why you believe those things, because there is no space for that to occur.

So never the twain shall meet.

Of course, this isn't so much of a problem in a modern democratic society that has largely anonymised cities, and examples of abhorrent views revolve around desiring mass deaths and genocides that only a handful of people hold, but when you scale this issue across a society, and "abhorrent views" become things like 'women are adult human females' or 'children need more safeguarding than adults', then you have a somewhat serious problem.

You’re getting muddled, Dreamwhisper.

Freedom of speech actually is a green light to say whatever you want. No one says there are no ramifications. If it’s libellous or illegal, you may be taken to court. If I disagree with it, I have the right to say so.

I can respect your right to say your opinion and still contest your ideas most vociferously is the viewpoint of free-speech advocates. Not of people who cancel meetings and try to gag the opposition.

I will work with people who I disagree with not with people who’s views I find totally abhorrent.

That’s my right too.

Of course it is but it also means that you can never work with any practising Catholic etc

I will work with people who I disagree with not with people who’s views I find totally abhorrent.

That’s my right too.

“I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
That is what free speech means.
It is not just for people whose views one approves.
When I campaigned against Scottish independence, I was working with Better Together alongside Communists, Tories, Liberals, and Labour supporters. We disagreed with each other on almost everything else, but we put that aside for the single important issue of preserving the UK.

Mosley might be pushing it a bit far especially as he is dead. Don't think he would have shared a platform with a believer in Islam either. Autocorrect obviously has right wing tendencies.

podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/the-we-hate-hate-speech-speech-with-helen-dale/id1602842758?i=1000585082793

This is a fascinating episode of Corinna Cohn and Nina Paley's podcast series, where they interview Helen Dale on the history of Hate Speech laws. The discussion covers a hugely broad field, and could actually be a good micro example of what we are discussing here, as Helen Dale is probably contentious in her views on feminism to many on this board. Yet there would still be lots to agree on. She bigs up Louise Perry. She seems to be an absolute polymath; law, classical history, anthropology, politics. Her insights into lobbying are fascinating (lots to say on trans rights lobbying).
Sooo enlightening/thought provoking on the topic of free speech, hate speech, freedom of association.
Highly recommend.

I couldn't stand along side other groups if fundamentally disagreed with their main beliefs . It was also make me question why I believed the same as them on the particular issue we shared and would worry that by standing with them I would be seen to agree with them on the other issues and so others might think I lack judgement about the shared issue. I would also question if the reason we agree is because of the same worries or because they hold another more scary rational that I wouldn't want to be associated with.

So you would never share a platform with a practising Catholic, Mosley etc. ?

That's interesting, because I would attend that meeting -- for the same reason I lurk on red pill forums, read all manner of papers (including the Weekly Worker), read a load of Wahhabi works in English after 9/11 ... I want to know why people hold the views they do.

I really don't know how we got to the point where such examinations of pluralities of thought became some sort of negative reflection on the examiner. It strikes me that it is backed by fear: fear of being assumed to be "on the wrong side" and being punished for it.

And that worries me, because behind that fear of punishment is something far more dangerous and that is the demand for conformity. You can't do this, or listen to that, or wonder about those, or reflect on that because if you do, you are bad and we must reject you.

But if we don't engage and listen and reflect with those that we disagree with, no one is ever going to get anywhere. We are all just going to become Dickensian stereotypes, locked into ridiculous caricatures.

A bit like TRAs, who demand constant conformity, a phenomenon that has now become oppressive and authoritarian in a very real way -- and have become themselves Dickensian.

I believe the law sets quite clear limits on free speech (defamation, incitement of violence against a person…), so why exactly is there this constant push to further limit free speech within these limits?

I love the „free speech is free but not without consequences“ line, regularly uttered by the same people who push to get people fired for daring to deviate from the proscribed line, be it on ‚women with penises‘, Palestine and whatnot.
Those people could live in North Korea and still believe they‘re not living under totalitarianism. Cause, hey, speech is still free, but if you say absurdities like „I think Our Great Leader lied and our astronauts didn‘t really land on the Sun“ you obviously have to live with the consequences…

bleat "free speech"

It's 'bleating', is it?

Free speech isn't necessarily easy.

'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'

I disagree very strongly with some people's politics. Doesn't mean I refuse to even acknowledge they exist. How on earth are we ever going to move forward from endless fighting without respectful debate involving those we disagree with?

It depends what you want. If you want to achieve change, you will need to build broad coalitions - the broader the better- on issues where there is agreement.
If you want to dive into feminist theory and develop it further, it is probably counter-productive.

Will I collaborate with the Right to get prisons male-body-free? Absolutely.
Will I ask for their input regarding the question, if women are innate carers who find greatest fulfillment in motherhood and should leave STEM- careers to males? Obviously not.

Why do you assume that your presence would validate the views that are offensive to you but your presence wouldn't indicate that the anti-abortionists (for example) actually agre with you? It makes no sense.

Excellent point.

Excellent post NonnyMouse1337
If you're a medic, a teacher, in retail, hospitality or even a neighbour, you'll work with, live near people with views you fundamentally disagree with. Society operates because we acknowledge other's rights to hold views we disagree with. Over the years I've taught teenagers who are member of racist organisations, supporters of Islamic extremism, muggers of old ladies, sex offenders, burglars & knife carrying gang members. Every single one received appropriate professional behaviour, good teaching, pastoral care and my time when needed.

Sorry OP but it's exhausting seeing these repeated purity spirals demanding that women only operate inside some pure bubble dictated by faceless people with incessant demands for their version of ideological purity.

It was also make me question why I believed the same as them on the particular issue we shared and would worry that by standing with them I would be seen to agree with them on the other issues and so others might think I lack judgement about the shared issue. I would also question if the reason we agree is because of the same worries or because they hold another more scary rational that I wouldn't want to be associated with.

It's a pity TRAs and others don't seem working with groups such as WPATH that promote enunch children and the lowering of the age of consent.

I don’t think free speech is the same as freedom to speak without consequences, and people are allowed to have opinions and reactions to what you’re saying - including negative ones.

For me, it depends on how extreme the views are, and exactly what we disagreed on.

Reading that article - it seems like a slightly odd choice for Women for Scotland, as it feels like the evangelical group would detract from what they were saying. Don’t know too much about academics for academic freedom so can’t comment on that. I couldn’t find much about stand by me scotland apart from the masks thing.

I think a temporary collaboration for the greater good is fine even if that means making a pact with the proverbial ‘devil’.

As long as it’s clear that when it comes to issues like abortion, there’s absolutely no collaboration, pact or even common ground.

Whether it's right or not is up to you as an individual. I will never support groups who are anti-abortion and anti-same-sex marriage, regardless of whether or not they say something I agree with on trans issues, and I personally refuse to give legitimacy to them by e.g. signing petitions they host (e.g. CitizenGo) or sharing their news articles.

Ok @landOFconfusion I'll bite, what are the limits to free speech and who sets them?

I think this pretty much sums it up for me

there are things that I personally wouldn’t do and views that i find abhorrent that in a group situation I’d feel i have to challenge but its my right to have those feelings, as prion says some other people would hold their nose

and i am ‘friends’ with people who have views i am never ever gonna have and will never agree with but I don’t think id have any friends if they had to agree with me all the time on big issues

My presence there would be seen as a validation of those extremely offensive views.

As other posters have said, freedom of speech doesn’t mean the right to destroy others.

How can we ever debate ideas is everyone involved in the debate can only have prescribed views to start with? Why do you assume that your presence would validate the views that are offensive to you but your presence wouldn't indicate that the anti-abortionists (for example) actually agre with you? It makes no sense.

Of course freedom of speech doesn't include inciting violence, was there any suggestion that was a concern?

Free speech absolutism is an example of ideological extremism.

All forms of ideological extremism are dangerous because adopting extreme beliefs makes it impossible to recognise or reconcile the limitations and contradictions caused by those beliefs.

Free speech does have its limits … in much the same way that the freedom to swing a fist ends at the tip of another person’s nose.

It’s healthy to discuss and debate where the limits to speech should be as they’re not fixed in place. But an outright refusal to accept or acknowledge the existence of limits is a peculiar form of idiocy that deserves its sobriquet … freeze peach.

Unless you relish living in an authoritarian regime, people differ and disagree on all kinds of social and political views.

If there are deeply concerning public policies and legislation that can affect people's lives, you need broad public discussion to build common ground and common cause, so that effective citizen opposition can be sustained.

A mature democracy should be able to handle a diverse range of views, even ones that people might find offensive.
There were plenty of religious groups that opposed the deeply flawed Hate Crime Bill in Scotland, and reading some of their submissions to parliament they sounded far more sensible that the spineless secular organisations that didn't seem able to make a strong stand for free speech and liberty. What a bizarre and shameful state of affairs!

The most important common ground that people in Scotland have at the moment, in spite of deep disagreement and differences on other issues, is that sex is immutable and relevant in many aspects of our lives, especially for women. People shouldn't be harassed, penalised or criminalised for refusing to comply with ideological beliefs (such as everyone has a gender identity, people can change sex, men are literally women in every sense if they say so etc).
Many of these ideological beliefs are being pushed by the government and civil service, which is undemocratic.
Children are being indoctrinated in schools and parents are being undermined by teaching materials withheld from examination, and children being encouraged to keep secrets, 'changing gender' without their knowledge etc. This concerns ALL parents irrespective of their personal views on abortion or same-sex marriage.

The safety and rights of women and children don't 'belong' to feminists - everyone has a right to be concerned by what is happening in Scotland and how it affects them personally or their families and loved ones. A conference that brings together a broad range of speakers who might be bitterly opposed to one another on other issues, but have enough maturity to recognise a bigger threat that is affecting schools and universities is a good thing.

There's nothing stopping other groups and feminists from organising their own conferences - I think there was a public talk organised by Sole Sisters and the venue (Augustine United Church I believe) refused to host the event at the last minute.

I support the right of people to meet and discuss issues that concern them, irrespective of whether I agree with their views or not, and even if it's on topics that I disagree with, or find objectionable or offensive. Because unless people are actively calling for violence or harm, they have a right to express themselves. It's the principle that matters, not whether your personal views and politics align with everyone you meet.
It's sad that this needs to be stated again and again in a Western democracy. I have lived in countries where people can only dream of the sort of freedom and plurality available to people in the UK.