Radfem2012 banning trans people

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

Has anyone seen this? I don't really understand this bigotry against trans gendered people.
If we're trying to make the world a better and equal place through feminism, surely excluding people who also want to do this because of their genitals or the gender they assign themselves is going to make this impossible and is a bit hypocritical?

I suspect the conference hall took the cowards way out in face of very serious threats of violence and vandalism against the building.

Give it 24 hours and they'll be blaming their venue insurance for banning Jeffries. God forbid, anyone take actual responsibility for misogyny,

Sheila Jeffreys has never given a talk about transgenderism, and there is no reason to believe this was going to be the topic of her speech at this event.

I think it is bizarre that people have this response to her. Like Jeffreys, Germaine Greer has written against transgenderism, and yet she seems to be on TV all the time.

I wonder if Sheila Jeffreys had been speaking at some other event she would have been banned.

WW I wouldnt do anything if my dd was transexual..it wouldnt be the same issue with FTM. But if my hypothetical son was MTF, then I hope he would respect female only spaces. If not then it is an issue we would have to disagree over

kim it seems that your definition of being a woman equals hating men and masculinity

Radical feminists are not trying to silence proponents of transgenderism with threats of violence (or in any other way).

Notice who is doing the silencing here, who is issuing threats of violence.

This is a political conference for people who subscribe to or have a genuine interest in radical feminism. Trans people have not been 'banned' or silenced. They have not been invited, just as labour party supporters don't get invited to tory meetings.

All this has been said before by other posters upthread. How many times does it have to be repeated to be understood?

Actually she has talked about trangenderism although it was within the wider context of a talk about sex roles.

It's beside the point though. It's outrageous that a radical feminist leader is being no-platformed at a radical feminist event. We are having our politics dictated to us by outsiders.

"Sheila Jeffreys has never given a talk about transgenderism, and there is no reason to believe this was going to be the topic of her speech at this event."

She's been pretty vocal about her opposition to the "practice of transgenderism" and that she wants it banned.

Where have I condoned death threats? I'm just saying that the claim that there's no reason to believe that SJ would talk about transgender, when she's just published a book about it is disingenuouos.

out of interest, assuming there were any trans who wanted a civilised debate (who may well not exist in reality), what would we do? Decline the offer or accept the 'challenge'?

What would we be debating Julia?

WW you will simply not engage with any of the points made to you and quite frankly it is getting dull.

I want to be able to talk about the terrible situation for women (you know, the people who are born to a cry of "it's a girl" and then raised in accordance with the prevailing female gender norm in that country/religion/whatever) without being told that to do so is transphobic.

Not too sodding much to ask you wouldn't have thought. Apparently so.

The thread title could now be changed to "Radfem2012 - trans people banning radfems from speaking"

It's terrible. Who are the ones guilty of hate speech - the ones who critical of the trans concept/movement (but not making threats of bodily harm), or the ones who make death threaths against the former?

"the ones who critical of the trans concept/movement (but not making threats of bodily harm)"

Don't you think that her lobbying for the banning of gender reassingment treatments could be perceived as pretty hefty threat by those who it affects?

SQ - I can hand that compliment right back to you.

re hate speech - well it's not the rad fems who have been calling people 'scum' on Twitter.

Is the 'Die cis scum' pic still doing the rounds on there?

Is she lobbying for them to be banned?

Whatever.

I am seriously pissed off and I can't be arsed really.

No response to this "I want to be able to talk about the terrible situation for women (you know, the people who are born to a cry of "it's a girl" and then raised in accordance with the prevailing female gender norm in that country/religion/whatever) without being told that to do so is transphobic."

No thought not.
Because obviously these issues and the threats of violence to women and children to stop them gathering to discuss them are just A - O - fucking - K.

Vashti we could debate the big issue - change your body to suit society or change society to suit your politics - why not?

There are different types of meeting - one where you debate/decide what you think, one where you know what you all think and decide what to doabout it. The first can/possibly should have opposing views, the second not so much

thoughts???

In 10 years time, when the likes of Nadine Dorries have gained more traction in spreading their anti-women views because forums for discussion of issues that affect the group formerly known as women have been taken over yet again by trans-issues, it will be days like this that I remember.

This was not conference for discussing trans issues, as far as I am aware. Probably will be now.

That would be another meeting not this one. This is a female only event to discuss radical feminism, so women can experience women-only organising and space. Maybe Mumsnet could hold a trans debate.

rulers' post

I think the radfems should call the event off?
As a protest? Or would that be cutting off nose?

Why discuss transgender issues? It's not what the conference is about