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

[IwantToRetire]

Education not indoctrination
The events was organised by a coalition of groups including the Christian Institute, which opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia, Stand By Me Scotland, which opposed the wearing of facemasks in schools during the pandemic, Academics for Academic Freedom and For Women Scotland, which opposes Scottish government plans for people to be able to self-identify their legal gender.
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/education-not-indoctrination-tickets-426737442177

Glasgow venue cancels booking for cancel culture conference
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/04e3fa4a-6696-11ed-9c3b-2d9184d0076f?shareToken=4ffe4f56d755905a476b686c75b65dd0&fbclid=IwAR1UHupPu9Xu4bD_gF0JoJb0A9u-bE2RDTcRqmbt9c8bpRUird9JTGbG8o8

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

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

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.

@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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?