I didn’t want to bump the thread itself, but in this is a linked video where O’Malley early on shows her allegiance to ‘team peen’ and uses very vague sweeping statements which demonstrate her lack of real understanding of the groups, their histories and the nature of their involvement. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5003554-did-anyone-watch-stella-omalleys-critique-of-gc-feminists-on-youtube
The guy interviewing her confesses that he has only known about this issue for a year and by the tone of his voice and phrasing of his words, it’s clear he holds radical feminists/gender critical feminists in vicious contempt, and the way O’Malley responds- kind of bonding with him, sharing that contempt, and her patchy summary of the interested parties, shows she is signed up to team peen alongside him.
I didn’t watch very far in, I found them both too unpleasant. I get that O’Malley is feeling wounded and is grateful for allies, but she doesn’t put herself in a good light here.
Early on, she describes radical feminists being into ‘no platforming’, which is a very broad and loaded term. It is also wrong because it was radical feminists who said ‘we need to talk’ and tried to platform ‘both sides’, and it was the TRAs who consistently refused to show up at talks, on the radio, etc if radical feminists were speaking too. It was TRAs who ‘no platformed’ Bindel, Greer and so on.
The back story is that socialist feminists, after the radical feminist said ‘we need to talk’, started platforming erotically motivated men at their events as women. The radical feminists object to this.
Radical feminists aim to keep the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ clear and unfudged because this reality-based distinction of words is essential for a woman-centred focus, furthermore they also perceive male erotic crossdressing in women’s spaces, as well as the male impulse to enter women-only spaces, (and to be addressed and perceived as women), to form part of the harmful and oppressive behaviours of male dominance, male violence against women as a class, etc.
The radical feminists were never into ‘no platforming’ because of a person’s beliefs or ideology, they objected to the physicality of men, especially men they consider to be harmful to women, being platformed as women at feminist or women’s rights events, especially those which claim to give women a voice. This isn’t rooted in abstraction or ideology but in real-world harms, for example, a convicted violent male criminal (who wants to be seen as a woman) was invited to parliament to influence prison policy on sex segregation in prisons, with devastating consequences for female inmates. So, in summary, radical feminists are not ‘no platforming’ based on ideas, speech, opinion, politics, ideology, they ‘no platform’ based on sex and trying to counter male domination and male violence. In other words, no platforming men who ‘get off’ on duping and dominating women from the platform, however, if you are not a man getting off on duping and dominating women, you are welcome to platform and voice whatever opinion you like (but you will still be criticised/shredded for it if your opinion, followed through, would - from a radical feminist perspective - widen the context for violence against women and girls).
It is in actual fact the socialist feminists who denounce and no platform based on ideas, opinion and belief, for example, Posie Parker was denounced and no platformed by them because of her opinions. This motivation of ideological ‘purity’ is consistent with the TRAs and the Left.
It would be much more useful for O’Malley to split it down the Left or Right, when talking about no platforming based on ideology.