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

Is there no longer a recognised difference between “working with …” and “taking part in a conference/discussion with …”?

I guess it depends how extremist the groups are, and where the funding is coming from. For example, I’d attend a conference on animal welfare if PETA were taking part and attending, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with their methods and consider some of their aims extremist. If the conference was being run by them and would benefit them financially, then I might not attend, though if there was a preponderance of more reasonable groups attending and speaking, that I wanted to hear, then I might hold my nose and attend.

So this is a nuanced situation, in my opinion. To suggest that any groups that come together for discussion on a topic must therefore be considered to be “working together” is a false representation of what appears to be happening here. A reasonable group could just as easily listen to the points made, work out whether those points change their own viewpoints or strengthen them, and learn from the experience. That’s why discussion is important.

@Dreamwhisper couldnt agree more! I have real issues with the self ID idea but there’s no fucking way I’m going to join with homophobic groups who are anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti women in general to discuss those 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.

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.

Looks like the panel comprised of people with a range of political views and others with no expressed or known political affiliation, you're unlikely to find two people who would agree with a single speaker on every issue. I'm able to take a pick and mix approach to political issues without thinking other people are "bad" if they don't agree with me, I attribute that to maturity.

Stuart Waiton is described as having "far left" political views, are you OK with feminists sharing a platform with him or is his Brexit stance too problematic for him to be accepted into the left wing fold? How about Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, anti racist but not CRT anti racist, is she OK? Why have you focussed on the panelists with conservative/right wing views as if they make up the majority of the panel?

The majority of the panel seem to be academics or educators. More power to all of them for supporting democracy by be willing to share a platform with each other. I think it would have been an interesting event.

Feminism needs to grow up and stop allowing the left to define what the movement stands for. Purity spirals are exhausting and keep us connected to politics which do not serve us well.

Also, absolute bollocks. Freedom of speech is a freedom to put your views on the table, which I respect.

Freedom of speech is not a green light to say whatever you want with no ramifications. I can respect your right to say your opinion and still contest your ideas most vociferously.

Wouldn't share space with that Family Party. Ffs have some bloody respect For Women Scotland ! You don't need to do that. Will more harm than good.

The reason you will see this argument so frequently on this particular board is because posters are well aware that there is a huge cross over between the anti trans rhetoric that permeates these boards and heavily right wing ideas such as the ones outlined in the OP.

I assume it's an argument used to make peace with this, instead of it being a glaring red flag that a progressive movement like feminism is intersecting so heavily with extreme conservative views.

Best to just brush that under the carpet and bleat "free speech"

You can acknowledge their right to free speech without having to stand by and support their personal beliefs.

Don't let people tell you that you have to work alongside people whose other beliefs you find abhorrent, in the name of free speech.

It would be a cold day in hell before I stood by someone advocating in the name of anti abortion and anti same sex marriage rhetoric.

The ends do not always justify the means.

@MangyInseam thats a strange argument. I believe in free speech but there’s not a chance in hell I’d attend a meeting organised by a group who opposes the idea of same sex marriage and gay clergy. That’s stretching a point til it snaps.

Look, if you have any kind of belief in pluralism, free speech, freedom of thought and belief, you are already in a certain sense ok with people who have a huge variety of views being able to bring them to the table, and you are ok with including them in the public discourse.

If you are not ok with that I would suggest that maybe you are not, in fact, a supporter of those principles in a serious way.

It sounds fantastic, great to get such a broad range of views in one event. Ridiculous that the venue couldn't appreciate that.

Yes ofcourse it is. People often do that's where the saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend comes from