Conway Hall no-platforms Rad Fem Event

[Nyac]

The group formerly known as women is not allowed to organise politically. The law disallows it.

conwayhall.org.uk/statement-regarding-radfem-2012

"Statement Regarding RadFem 2012
In consultation with the organisers of RadFem 2012 and our legal advisors, Conway Hall has decided not to allow the booking in July 2012 to proceed. This is because it does not conform to our Terms and Conditions for hiring rooms at Conway Hall. In addition, we are not satisfied it conforms with the Equality Act (2010), or reflects our ethos regarding issues of discrimination.

We had sought assurances that the organisers would allow access to all, in order to enable the event to proceed at the venue. We also expressed concern that particular speakers would need to be made aware that whilst welcoming progressive thinking and debate, Conway Hall seeks to uphold inclusivity in respect of both legal obligations and as a principle."

WW we've been through all this

Someone linked a ?twitter? conversation between two people about lesbians being transphobic for not wanting to have sex with pre-operative MTF trans

Someone on the thread said that's all made up

The conversation had mentioned the event where it was happening

So I found it and posted a link

Didn't you see that? It was quite a lengthy exchange.

WW how do you know which conference oncemoreintothe was asking for a link to???

Here you go, WW pleasureandpossibilities.com/programming/workshop-descriptions/

It was on the last thread.

If only it were a figment of our imaginations.

Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: breaking down sexual barriers for queer trans women

"Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling will explore the sexual barriers queer trans women face within the broader queer women?s communities through group discussions and the hands-on creation of visual representations of these barriers. Participants will work together to identify barriers, strategize ways to overcome them, and build community. Open to all trans women and MAAB genderqueer folks."

Cross posted, sorry

There's the Toronto Planned Parenthood conference that Proles linked on the previous thread and one in Philly.

Can't link as on phone but both are easily googleable.

You do not need a legal exemption to organise men or women's only events meetings in public spaces - I know, I organise both. You need to be able to prove there is a good reason for having women only or men only meetings/events. That is all. There is nothing illegal about this conference.

"WW how do you know which conference oncemoreintothe was asking for a link to???"

You mean the posting which asked for information about a conference you mentioned, right after the posting you mentioned it in? Don't need to be Sherlock Holmes (or Miss Marple, if you prefer) to work that one out.

The description of the workshop actually doesn't even read that vile to me as it had been made out in the other thread, even though the title probably could have been chosen less provocatively - I can imagine that trans people of whatever orientation have a problem when and how to come out to potential sexual partners. And probably get a lot of heartbreak and atacks from it.

Now I guess if you fancy someone, thinking she was a woman, and she turns out to be trans, that's quite a shock. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'd probably would have to have a think if it happened to me.

But that doesn't mean that it's not an issue trans people should not be able to discuss. They'll have it harder finding accepting sexual partners, just because of their nonconformance with stereotypes. And it's not as if it's a lifestyle choice. Not sure whether I agree with the exclusion of non trans/gender queers, but I wonder whether that's for the same fear of disruption/atack which radfems cite as reason for their exclusion policies.

WW I mentioned 2 conferences.

Didn't you read all the stuff on the other thread?

And interested to see you think it is OK for that meeting to exclude lesbians when they are the group being discussed. Yet that was a big reason given for trans having to have access to fem 2012, even though a huge range of topics were being discussed and AFAIK there was no session to talk specifically about trans.

"Not sure whether I agree with the exclusion of non trans/gender queers"

They aren't excluding them, as long as a person is MAAB they can go.

They are only excluding FAAB people.

This is not good.

Blame the backlash, blame transactivists, blame Conway Hall, blame patriarchy, blame all or none of them.

But just THINK about what this means.

I know there are a lot of people on here who don't get on with radical feminism. OK whatever. But put that to one side for a minute and really consider what this means.

Even if you, as a woman, don't see the point of women only spaces (i.e. women meeting together as an oppressed group), are you happy that the choice to have them or not is being eroded?

Think carefully.

And what SQ said. Plus I agree with NarkedPuffin.

what are 'gender queers'?

wikipedia definition of gender queer

Still don't see what is offensive about trans women discussing a problem they face and can't escape at all. I'm grateful that I don't have to and never had to worry about coming out to a potential sexual partner and possibly risk ridicule if not worse.

WW did you not read the entire conversation on the other thread about this exact topic?

We've been through all of this.

So OK for trans women to get together to talk about how to break through the "cotton ceiling" with anyone MAAB who cares to come along.

Not OK for a group of FAAB women who have experienced sexual abuse to get together to talk about that.

Righty-ho.

Just so long as we all know where we stand

You know, something that would be theoretically interesting, is if all the gains for women's status and rights that have their origins in radical feminism, disappeared overnight. For a year.

A lot of people might reconsider their position.

I agree, this is not good. I wasn't planning on going but I see a great deal of value in holding these events.

I am a socialist, I am permitted to attend meetings with like minded people without the threat of the EDL turning up to a closed meeting and being antagonistic and threatening. I see this in similar terms, women need safe spaces without threat or fear to discuss issues that are specific to them. If at the end of the day RadFems come away from the meeting and decide in future to engage with the trans community all well and good too but they will never reach that conclusion without open discussion which simply won't happen if trans people attend.

Good idea Beach. Most people don't realise or maybe acknowledge just how radical the suffragettes were for example. Some were too radical for me really!

There is a bit of a silence on what is included in the "Terms and Conditions" bit, which appears to be outside of the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010. I'd spent a few years booking venues and being questioned closely on what we/I plan to do (usually relatively harmless TU events). And people DO get twitchy if it's at all 'political' or in any way controversial....

But isn't this a case possibly of the organisers negotiating their way into a corner, of their own making? i.e "we want to do something potentially illegal". Answer: "well you can't do it here. Sorry. " Response: "That's not fair and we are appalled!"

Naive in the extreme?

SardineQ, you say, "If you accept that sex = gender and gender = a feeling, then logically sex does not actually exist and there is no such thing as oppression of women worldwide and people born with vaginas aren't necessarily women and people born with penises aren't necessarily men. It totally removes the framework for discussing any issues relating to sex, therefore no discussion can be had."

Race used to be seen as a biological entity. It is now seen as primarily a construct (but still has a biological element, eg it's a useful statement to say, "medical condition X is more prevalent in ethnic group Y".) Ethnic groups have also never had hard-edged definitions - despite occasional ludicrous attempts to do so.

None of this makes it impossible to discuss historical racial oppression, or means that race-the-construct-or-the biology-element doesn't exist, or removes the framework for discussing race. It's just harder work.

Given which I don't see why discussion of sex and gender can't also cope with fuzzy-edged groups. Again, it's harder work - one has to add more context. But adding context is good, it copes with all sorts of sophistications which ought to be part of the discussion anyway. Eg some of the previous trans discussions got into, "but trans people can't bear children" - cue women-born-women popping up to say they couldn't have children either but that not having that shared experience didn't make them less women. Similarly, I've lived in a context where to be a white woman was to be the historical (and possibly current) oppressor of a black man - because race trumped gender in that context. It didn't make it impossible to discuss historical oppression of women - one just had to make clear what one was talking about.

But oppression of women is not historical.

I don't see how making sex "fuzzy around the edges" and agreeing that women can have penises and all the rest of it is going to help a girl being married off at 10 in pakistan or a women bearing child after child because she does not have the means to control her fertility.

Sitting around saying that these female might actually be men so it's not really a feminist issue and all the rest of it isn't going to help them is it.

The meeting is political, what else would it be. Is it controversial, well it is now because the Transgender community have been very vocal.

I might be way of the mark but my intuitive reaction to this is that MtF transgener people want to be accepted as women, however the biggest stumbling block isn't how others perceive them at all. They know it, just as Radfems know it, they are not women. It just seems like a petty case of if " i can't have something neither can you" Thing is if you make women as a sex, less that "perfect" or absolute, then you make the very thing you crave the most lose all of its integrity.