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."

Yy beachcomber too many women take it for granted

yes, mini, that concern around what 'makes a woman' has been covered in literature, angry and v personal debate for years. It's only just raised it's defined head now ( and latterly on MN) due to transgendered being a 'protected characteristi'c under the Eq. Act, which has massive legal implications, of which this decision by the Conway Hall is but one. (assuming CH receives public funding, so it isn't private).

'they know they are not women, as do rad fems..'.....so backward it's not worth discussing with you I'm afraid - it's been thrashed out here for months.

Pan, I don't think I understand your post.

Do you mean that you think all MTF transpeople are women? As in, exactly the same as biological women?

As in with the same issues, oppression, politics, socialization, biology, biological concerns and identity?

Beachcomber - re the 'advances due to origins in rad feminism' - not really? Massive gains by millions of people, mostly women, who would run a mile from such a definition of themselves. Empowered through new technologies which are fairly gender neutral, liberal feminists who don't have a 'over throw the patriarchy' as an agenda, and just women who have come to 'know their worth' and can work stuff out for themselves.

Are you trying to be funny Pan?

Or are you just not aware/concerned by the gains for women that have their origins in radical feminism?

Much of the feminist activity around the world looks pretty radical to me.

A liberal approach won't get very far in many countries.

"Knowing your worth" won't help girls in scores of countries around the world.

I am not sure what the new technologies stuff is about.

I am guessing the new technologies made lighter work so that women don't have to compete to do manual hard labour in the modern work environment.

SQ - "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."

Sorry, I can't follow you - what do trans rights in the UK have to do with forced marriages in Pakistan? Nothing. Why would it make it less of a feminist issue when you accept that trans women aren't men? How does your transphobia help the girl access birth control?

I actually reject the idea that a feminist issue is one which only concerns xx women. The shape of one's genitals have nothing to do with whether one can (or should) be a feminist.

I think this is actually an issue where women RadFems are in line with the views of who wouldn't necessarily identify themselves as 'feminist'.

Yes, washing machines and dishwashers are gender neutral.

We can all relax laydeez, our oppression has been brought to an abrupt halt thanks to technology .

Beach - I don't understand your post. Are you saying that people are born into an immutable gender, and there is nothing about their development subsequently that can in any way compromise that?

Funny? This isn't a matter of easy humour at all. It may be just difficult to know that women=women's rights=feminism=radical feminism isn't an equation that most/ a lot of women recognise.

The women moved

an issue where RadFems are in line with the views of women who wouldn't necessarily identify themselves as 'feminist'.

Gender is an outer label. Sex is written in our DNA.

Beach - now you are the one trying to be 'funny'.

I am pretty sure this will just go the same way as most 'discussions' will go re transgenderedness and rad fem, ie a bit pointless so I'll leave you to it, thanks.

WidowWadman are you accusing SQ of transphobia?

(I know it is the latest anti feminist buzzword but MN doesn't approve of personal attack on the basis of political disagreement.)

Of course SQ can speak for herself but IMO her point is obvious. The global oppression of women is in the main part due to our biology (we are the group that bears children and have been historically oppressed as a consequence).

Feminism is concerned with violence and injustices against women under male supremacy - a supremacy which is founded on the (previously referred to) major biological difference between men and women.

It is quite simple really.

An immutable gender?

Blimmin eck.

WW I don't think I'm transphobic, thanks. Thanks for chucking that one at me though

I am also not sure why you are under the impression that feminist conferences (radfem or otherwise) only talk about issues in the UK. The ones I have been to have mainly focussed on things happening around the world.

Pan, gender is a social construction. Imposed on us all by our social system (patriarchy).

Sex is a concrete physical biological reality.

Ask women who don't identify as feminist how they feel about sharing changing rooms, domestic violence shelters etc with people who have intact male genitalia who are sexually attracted to women.

And I'm interested in where you think this vague but powerful 'women knowing their worth' effect has come from?

WW-"Still don't see what is offensive about trans women discussing a problem they face and can't escape at all."

In the context of trans-activists shutting down this conference because women who are born as women can't escape that fact either. And suffer from it in ways that are far beyond going to bed with whom they think they are entitled to do so or the dilemma of using toilets, tough though those things may be to deal with.

And, quite frankly, there were other ways of dealing with the fact that men don't want to be men than co-opting women's spaces and shoe-horning their way into feminist conferences. For what? To stop personhood laws in the US? To eradicate rape myths? To fight against forced marriages of pre-teen girls? To ensure that women the world over have control of their fertility? To combat male violence against women? Or to validate their own feelings? Feminists should not be marching alongside trans. Trans should be marching alongside feminists, if they feel like they are women and want to show some solidarity.

And no, I'm not paranoid. Do you know what's happening in the US? And do you know that many of our conservative politicians take "summer schools" over there to learn from them? The battle against anti-women legislation is nigh. And squabbling over trans issues is taking the focus off issues that really affect women.

Well said Rulers.

I'm interested to know something about the naysayers.

Is it really that you have an issue with women only spaces, or is that that you have an issue with radical feminism? And this whole transpeople debate is just another stick with which to beat radical feminists?

Genuine question. Think. Dig deep.

I suspect that latter.

I find what you are saying about Trans trying to validate their own feelings interesting RulersMakeBadLovers. What feelings are they trying to validate? You see I think part of the problem is not that other women don't accept them as women but that they themselves actually have a problem understanding who/what they are and where they fit into a society that since time began only has two distinct biological sexes. The way this translates is to make sex a fuzzy and ambiguous concept to accommodate their own insecurities and feelings of confusion.

Gender is "fuzzy". And so it should be, cos generally it's a load of bullshit. Sex isn't. (apart from the tiny number of intersex people - this isn't and never has been about intersex people).

I have infinite sympathy with those struggling with gender. I do too. I got called a "complicated bird" the other day. I'm a) not a bird and b) not complicated. I am, though, too complicated to fit into one of that man's little boxes into which women should fit. If he only paid a teeny bit of attention to what I say and do, he will see I am perfectly straightforward. I'm Northern, ffs, and pretty much brought up to to be what you see is what you get. That my "complicated" bits were more masculine than he could deal with is not my problem. Admittedly, my outer persona is quite feminine and I think he feels I fooled him...

Masculine should be in "" because I am just me.

Resonates with me, rulers, enjoyed that post.

So you look "feminine" (or actually just having strongly female appearance even when not adorned with too many gender trappings) and then your personality doesn't tie in, in the expected way.

Something as simple as having blonde hair and doing something like playing pool quite well / being a good driver / drinking pints / being good at maths. Cue a vast, vast number of males quite literally not being able to understand this at all in any way shape or form. Literal brain version of "computer says no".