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

The actual question was, would you be willing to actively share space and platform with people who hold antifeminist other views that you don't agree with, because they share views and goals on trans rights self ID) that you do agree with.

Yes, definitely.

It's the only way things ever really move forward, if we're prepared to share space with others.

It's hardly the case that most feminists don't do this, either. Like Julie Bindel collaborating with Milo. What did you think about that @Dreamwhisper ?

And trying to shame other people into agreeing with you.

@Dreamwhisper UK society IS based on being tolerant of all views that are considered "worthy of respect in a democratic society". There are a multiplicity of views. You can cherry pick your own and so can I. The way to arrive at a view is to consider it from various perspectives and angles. If you are only allowed to view from one angle, how will you know what is on the other side? Even if you don't want to know, I might, even if on seeing what's there I choose to reject it. I will stand for my right to see the other side, even if the feminist collective calls me a bad name.

Julie Bindle, just reading about it. Is it accurate that she holds trans exclusive views which appeal to people like Milo?

I'd say it's simply a very similar situation here.

The elephant in the room is not all feminists are trans exclusive, and whether you are not will massively alter your perception of people like Julie Bindle, and people holding the views at the events mentioned in the OP.

She is hardly an uncontroversial figure among feminists - "inviting women to become lesbians?" please.

I'm not "trying to shame" anyone, I thought this board was made for robust debate? If my views make you feel guilty for your own views, that's not my problem and maybe some self reflection is in order to get to the bottom of why you are feeling any type of shame.

I have people disagreeing with me as wholeheartedly as you are disagreeing with me and I feel no shame in my views.

Without freedom of speech, all our other rights mean nothing. Freedom of speech is the basis of all our rights and freedoms.

The price of free speech is that other people also have free speech, and can use it to say things you dislike or disagree with. That is a serious downside to free speech, I agree.

But the alternative is that the government or other authorities decide what is permissable to say and not say. Which is the basis of totalitarianism.

You can choose not to speak to people who you disagree with, and that's fine. But trying to stop other people from speaking and listening is fascist.

I think it's you who is feeling guilty here. You have not managed to answer any of my posts re hypocrisy.
In fact you don't answer anything at all. Is that why you feel no shame? Because you have no capacity for self-reflection?
Your aim of coming here was to shame. I think you failed. I hope other women will not let you shame them out of acting in their own best interests.

But you're just trolling me.

I'm not.

You know full well that while we can't literally thought police, that's not what being tolerant or intolerant means is it.

And you've completely ignored my above points about how society itself is structured shows us plain as day that we do not consider all views to hold equal value, to be equally okay to share.

All views are okay to hold. It's true. All views have equal value in asmuch as no views are valued qualitatively over any other view. Being 'leftwing' isn't more or less valued than being 'rightwing'.

You can think anything you like.

As for sharing, that's a very complex and nuanced issue. In some circumstances there are some views that we may be found guilty of a crime for sharing, such as threatening someone, although I'd say that wasn't 'sharing a view', more 'voicing intent'.

I'm not proposing any change or action. I'm simply expressing my belief, my belief which I believe to be self evident, that society does not hold any and all opinion as worthy of being shared or acted on.

'worthy of being shared' - this is a strange way of putting it. It's sort of like you're confusing legalities with moralities.

In the face of people playing dumb and pretending that it shouldn't matter if someone has utterly reprehensible beliefs, we should all just rub along together as long as the goal is to eradicate those pesky transes

The last bit of that para is fucking offensive, frankly. Who wants to 'eradicate' anyone, what a horrible thing to say.

As for reprehensible beliefs - people's beliefs are their own, and no, I couldn't give a flying fuck what other people's beliefs are, what matters is their actions.

Exactly how on earth am I attempting to stifle others free speech?

Just because it makes you feel bad and makes you question your own thoughts on the subject, doesn't mean I am attacking anybody's free speech, let's not get silly now.

The OP asked a question - would you work with people whose principles you don't share for a common goal. They provided some examples of what they meant specifically.

I strongly feel that no I would not work towards a common goal in the example provided, and provided my reasons consistently. How is that shutting anyone else down or telling them not to engage in their own right to free speech?

The event is going ahead, I am highly critical of the event, I would NEVER attend the event in any kind of solidarity with any views there, I've not said anyone should be imprisoned or deplatformed. I have pointed out though, as the conversation moved to the more general topic of free speech and controversial topics, that some views are considered damaging and serious enough to go from being ideas to being hate crimes or attacks on other peoples' rights.

If my views make you feel guilty for your own views

Oh, mate. Now who's trolling?!

some views are considered damaging and serious enough to go from being ideas to being hate crimes or attacks on other peoples' rights

No. They're not.

'worthy of being shared' - this is a strange way of putting it. It's sort of like you're confusing legalities with moralities

There are most definitely grey areas of cross overs between what's legal and what's moral.

Do you think that trying to destroy womens rights to safe spaces is moral?

Just because it makes you feel bad and makes you question your own thoughts on the subject, doesn't mean I am attacking anybody's free speech, let's not get silly now.

It does not make me feel bad @Dreamwhisper . And, I'm sorry, but nothing you've said has made me question my own thoughts. I mean, I'm totally open to a challenge, but your comments have been largely incoherent and where they have made sense they've been rather simplistic.

You have made several comments along the lines of how anyone who works with another group is not a good feminist and is supporting and allying themselves with anti-woman campaigns. You have been trying to argue that it's wrong for this event to go ahead and shameful for women to be involved. I'd say that constitutes an attack on others' rights to free speech, yes.

So it's okay to be racist and homophobic? There is no chance or any legal recourse for perpetuating those views? You can't face any consequences and it would never be considered bullying or harassment?

What about morally? If not illegal, is it possible to perpetuate views that are widely considered to be morally devoid? Or are all views acceptable as a default? Genuine question.

Like what? Give some examples.

Nothing I have said is incoherent, you just can't counter it in a way that doesn't involving plainly stating in some way or another that the antifeminist views these groups hold are collateral you are willing to pay in order to support any groups that advocate for the prevention or removal of trans rights.

So it's okay to be racist and homophobic? There is no chance or any legal recourse for perpetuating those views? You can't face any consequences and it would never be considered bullying or harassment?

There's a legal sanction against harassment. There isn't - and shouldn't be - any legal sanction to someone having racist thoughts or ideas.

If someone shares racist ideas in e.g. an event like this, the consequences should be other speakers refuting and disproving their ideas. Other consequences could be mockery, exclusion, getting dumped by their girlfriend.

If they incite violence, or cause physical harm, that's breaking the law.

No, I actually agree. Quite incoherent. Would be good if you could actually answer the points put to you too, dream. Maybe you think you have?

Nothing I have said is incoherent, you just can't counter it in a way that doesn't involving plainly stating in some way or another that the antifeminist views these groups hold are collateral you are willing to pay in order to support any groups that advocate for the prevention or removal of trans rights.

I've said literally nothing about trans rights. What on earth makes you think I have any interest in removing rights from people? Surely everything I've said would suggest the opposite?

Some more questions for you:

How can a feminist group hold antifeminist views?
How can antifeminist (or any) views be collateral?
How does one pay collateral? What does that actually mean?

bold fail, sorry. that was for @Dreamwhisper

So it's okay to be racist and homophobic? There is no chance or any legal recourse for perpetuating those views? You can't face any consequences and it would never be considered bullying or harassment?

You're blurring the 'holding of views' with 'bullying and harassment'. People can legally hold any views, of course they can. Believe it or not, many people are racist, homophobic, and all sorts of other things. Nobody is breaking down their doors to arrest them (although give the Scotgov six months, to be fair).

'Bullying' isn't illegal. Harassment is. It's an offence. And yes, if someone is found guilty of harassment they can have an 'aggravator' of various 'hate crimes' applied.

What about morally? If not illegal, is it possible to perpetuate views that are widely considered to be morally devoid? Or are all views acceptable as a default? Genuine question.

Morally devoid? I don't know what that phrase means.

Do you mean 'devoid of morality'?

Are all views acceptable? Do you mean subjectively, to me personally, or are you suggesting society should hold certain views as unacceptable?

I really think you might find this video interesting.

none of the groups listed are illegal or hold illegal positions though, do they?

It is not illegal to be catholic, or to believe being gay is a sin, or to believe women are biological females.

it is precisely this polarisation in thinking that has caused havoc in the USA, and that threatens to cause Brain rot in «the left» in Europe too.

we need to be able to debate and sometimes even collaborate on issues with people who hold radically different ideas to ourselves. It is vital for democracy and a well functioning society.

Are you really that dense?

If you can't see it for what it is, then that's not my problem. There's only so much one can explain. Other posters have said it better than I can, the ones who have said they wouldn't be willing to entertain these "events" because of the people involved and their antifeminist views.

The reason the OP is interested in these events and posting it here is because she is in support of one of the groups attending who are interested in making sure self ID for transpeople doesn't come into play in Scotland. She was asking is other people here thought it was worth supporting such events even though they gave platform to people who held views that were, for example, anti abortion and anti gay marriages. Stances which are considered at odds with feminist ideals.

I am clearly using "collateral" as a turn of phrase to demonstrate that feminists who say "yes it's okay" to the OP as essentially saying that yes, it's worth attending these events to support the no self ID part even if it's borne of conservativism (and so also supports those antifeminist views mentioned earlier) because in their view the self ID bit is more important than those other issues, even though those issues are also very damaging to women. That doesn't automatically mean they are ambivalent to those issues, but in my view given the context of the post including the board, that's what's going on.

People on the thread saying "no it's not okay" recognise that colluding with conservative antifeminist views is not, in their view, a good pursuit.

You might disagree with my view of the situation, but I've been on these boards long enough to feel quite confident in my assessment. And you may disagree completely, but just because you don't agree doesn't mean what I say makes no sense. It's just not what you want to hear.

I would be very shocked if you have not already attended meetings with, or even organized by, people who have different beliefs than you do, but with whom you have some interest in common. Such people are all around you, in your neighbourhood, your kids schools, at your workplace, in charitable organizations.

If you are serious about maintaining your moral purity by avoiding any common interest or action with such people you are going to have to take a big step back from society as a whole.