Edinburgh International Book Festival has not invited authors of gender critical books

[IwantToRetire]

Scotland’s biggest book festival has provoked fury after claiming the authors of best selling gender critical books have not been invited to take part because the issue is too divisive.

Edinburgh International Book Festival Chief Executive Jenny Niven told a complainer: 'We do not want to be in a position that we are creating events for spectacle or sport, or raising specific people’s identity as a subject of debate.'

The event, part funded by public cash, features 700 authors from 35 different countries across the world but has been criticised for ignoring gender critical voices in the books and speakers it is promoting.

Full article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14965579/Book-festival-boss-criticised-lack-invite-authors-gender-critical-books.html

See also https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14965583/JENNY-LINDSAY-touch-literary-world-long-ludicrously-one-sided-gender-debate.html

Bully.

Have you read the responses to your previous posts?

Thanks for the info - will follow up on those sources. I will admit to looking up only Jenny Lindsay's book for which I found no info on sales or best seller rating. But again though, just because they're deemed bestseller doesn't automatically mean that they should be included on a book festival lineup. I would suspect there's a fair few authors who once had a best selling book for a bit, that haven't been included in many book festivals across the years, this year included.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue with this conversation as I find it so disheartening and sad to see women adopt mob mentality and thrive on vitriolic hatred towards other women and I do include Trans women in that definition. As a feminist, it's a tough watch and a sad day to see well educated women lowering themselves to the pages of the Daily Mail, The Spectator and the airwaves of GB News, outlets you would previously have railed against, without any shred of embarrasment or realisation that you're being used by misogynistic right leaning politics to further weaken solidarity amongst women. Historically and currently both women and trans people share the same enemies and should be standing together to overcome them in spite of our differences. But I don't suppose that matters enough to you more than winning whatever it is you think you're winning.

@DistantBlue transwomen are male. It's the only way to be a transwoman - be born male, say you're a woman. That's the process.

Being male, they are in fact men.

thankfully the supreme court has defined what a woman is and it doesn’t include transwomen in that definition. Your post basically just reads: be kind ladies and play nicely.
Fuck that.

and here’s a question for you @DistantBlue
You’re not going to answer the question but I’m going to ask anyway:

why do you include transwomen in your definition of women? What is it specifically that places a trans woman, biologically male; into the category of woman?
I’ll wait…

Well, that boils down to "these authors definitely weren't cancelled but they should have been", accompanied by a generous deployment of the Big Waggy Finger.

That doesn't work any more I'm afraid.

The law in Britain still deems abortion to be illegal in some instances and I don't agree with that ruling either. And it's a pretty sad state of affairs when you start berating someone who would prefer that people were kind to each other. I'm not going to apologise or be made to feel less than for not wanting to be constantly angry and pissed off at people. I don't have that time to waste.

And so in answer to your question, I include trans women in that definition because I choose to. In the same way that you choose to not. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

I didn't say anything either in favour or against cancellation. I actually don't think that cancelling someone is the right way to deal with any difficult and contentious subject at hand. I just said that there are most likely several reasons why these authors were not included on the book fest bill. The expectation that these authors have that they should be included just because, is to me, self entitled.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, kind about lying to children that it is possible to change sex, that there are no consequences for their health and for their future lives. There is also nothing kind about telling women that they are not allowed to say no to men just because they think, or claim to think, they are women. This is not kindness , this is cowardice.

because you “choose to”
LOL
Powerful argument! Not.
(my argument, which is based on biology and the law, seems more compelling somehow.

I mean clearly this is the kind of exclusive event that only literary titans like (checks programme) unemployed maharajah Tariq Ali get invited to, so the audience can soak up the political wisdom of someone who was (checks notes) a big cheese in the International Marxist Group over 50 years ago.

This is not to pick on Tariq particularly - him being invited to literary festivals is one of those custom and practice things, like how you can't have a TUC event without Billy Bragg popping up.

But if we're going to get into harrumphing about how the authors of best selling books don't fit the profile of the festival... well, that's a bit revealing of the festival. And has been for years, even before Scotgov bailed it out.

Because LOL and invoking 'not' at the end of a sentence is the most powerful and salient of arguments, of course.

the wonderfully amusing thing about posters like you and Bee @DistantBlue is that you know there’s no counter argument and so you fail to explain what you mean time and time again whilst at the same time berating women for having the audacity to have any other point of view which they’ve used material reality, actual facts to present. Your argument is basically “be
kind and give men what they want”
“Because I choose to” isn’t an argument and shows that you’ve really not a clue why you think transwomen are women. It does make you look quite foolish.

This arrogance that GC women only think the way they do because of the Daily Mail, The Spectator and GB News. And the delusion that they themselves are not influenced by the other side of the culture war. Stonewall, The Guardian and the Scottish government etc.

Did you click on the link just provided? Radio 4’s Front Row describes it as a bestseller.

Also, a literary festival is going to great pains (from the sounds of it) to explore Us politics and Israel/ Gaza but is seemingly oblivious to a debate that is happening right on its doorstep. Involving a bestselling (yup, it is!) book and a world-famous author. Because ‘now is not the right time’. Right.

I'm also interested to know where you found the figures for these books to be recognised as best sellers? Although, even if they are, again it doesn't automatically mean they should be on a book festival bill.

Obviously, it's difficult to prove discrimination when something or someone is just left out or ignored. With this particular topic though, we know women are routinely cancelled and ostracized for daring to understand biology and have views on women's rights that are in line with science and the law. In fact that ostracism is exactly what several of these books are about. We have plenty of situations now where women have brought court cases and paper trails have revealed that kind of discrimination being discussed and agreed on. We see the same in the recent case of WWWW being excluded from an NLS exhibition when it had been voted in - so the only reason to exclude it was political censorship.

With the book festival, it's also very clear that they do recognise this is a strongly felt debate, and they've said they want to avoid that, but they're platformed several of the people on the other side of that debate - the far more toxic side in terms of behaviour. Harry Josephine Giles, who was in 6 events, was active in the ostracism of Jenny Lindsay and (along with several others on the edbookfest bill) in attacking the Scottish Poetry Library for saying they wouldn't bow to bullying and would be inclusive of different views, so you can imagine the same demands being made of the bookfest.

A look at selling figures on Amazon shows that pretty much every GC book you can name, including Trans, Time to Think, Material Girls, Hounded and WWWW, all massively outsell Giles and several other genderist bookfest stars. Furthermore WWWW and Hounded are by/include Scottish authors who used to be invited to all the literary scene stuff, certainly if they had a new or bestselling book out.

If all that doesn't make you go "hmmm" then you must be trying very hard not to see something.

I mean, I could tell you that 80% of violence against women is Intimate Partner Violence so you’re more likely to be raped, assaulted or murdered by a man you are close to than any other demographic so wasting your time protesting trans women is making women no safer.

I could tell you that trans people make up less than 1% of the population and thus much less of a threat to you than men – who make up nearly 50% of the population and won’t give a shit about coming into a woman’s toilet to cause harm.

I could tell that trans woman are 4 times more likely than cis gendered women to be attacked, raped and assaulted and your persistent demonisation of them are contributing to how unsafe they continue to be. And the perpetrator of that violence is the same demographic which carries out the majority of assaults and attacks on cis women and so perhaps your time would be better spent working with transwomen rather than against them and try and make us all safer.

I could argue that for every one Isla Bryson there are 1000s of transwomen who are good people and are just trying to get on with their life in peace and quiet without having to justify their existence to a baying mob in which a trans person’s existence really doesn’t have much of an impact on their lives beyond maybe having to go to the toilet in a cubicle next to them at some point, which you might not actually notice because they pass for an actual woman.

I could argue that I have biological female friends who identify as such, who have been misgendered in the past because they don't look stereotypically female and are now concerned about being questioned when going to the bathroom because of the supreme court ruling

I could argue that you don’t seem bothered by the idea of transmen which leaves a massive hole in your argument

I could argue that this is yet another schism within feminism created by privileged women – of which there have been many over the years including with working class women, women of colour and lesbians. Always borne out of the fear that the inclusion of these other demographics, might water down your argument.

At a push I could maybe see that there is a conversation to be had about trans women in sport, but your Queen Bee JK Rowling put paid to that by having a pop at a female boxer – a biological woman no less – because she looked too much like a man and ridiculing any sensible discussion that might have been had.

I could argue that one of the main things that feminism was borne out of was the frustration of being told what a woman can and can’t be, what she should and shouldn’t look like, and yet this is exactly what you’re doing and the hypocrisy of that is eye watering.

I could argue that just because it’s the law, it doesn’t mean it’s right – in the case of, as I’ve already pointed out, abortion and most recently the proscription of Palestine Action which has seen an unnecessary amount of innocent people, including a 90 year old woman and a blind disabled man be criminalised, merely for speaking out against a genocide that we are all having to helplessly watch.

I could argue that there’s a genocide happening in Palestine and why should we bother giving a shit about your petty ‘nose out of joint’ complaints about less than 1% of the population that most likely has no bearing on you or your day to day life

But what’s the fucking point because unless I say yes, you’re right! I 100% agree with you and believe it was all the vitriol I can muster, you’ll never hear or accept what I have to say, and you’ll just keep coming back with biology, the law and fucking toilets.

And so, much like Bee most likely – whoever that is – every now and then we feel that maybe it’s worth trying to have some sort of engagement with this argument rather than that just writing off your opinions without taking time to hear them. And then this happens, and we realise once again that it’s a waste of fucking time and rather than engage with this toxic discussion we ‘choose to’ walk away. So, fire on – sit back and pat yourself on the back for whatever empty victory you think it is you’ve won by me walking away from this discussion.

And just to correct you, my point wasn't that GC views are influenced by those particular outlets, it's that your views are supported by those outlets. And I have to say if anything I espoused was supported by The Daily Mail or GB News I'd be fucking mortified.

Well, that's a pretty stupid argument. Your position is supported by Socialist Worker. How do you feel about being on the same side of an argument as literal rape enablers?

Also:
I could argue that this is yet another schism within feminism created by privileged women – of which there have been many over the years including with working class women, women of colour and lesbians. Always borne out of the fear that the inclusion of these other demographics, might water down your argument.

That's a pretty fucking big assumption to make about the demographics of posters here, and an extremely inaccurate one.

I could tell that trans woman are 4 times more likely than cis gendered women to be attacked, raped and assaulted

I also call bullshit on this, unless you're using the common tactic of comparing the safety of women and girls in the UK to the safety of transwomen engaged in street prostitution in Sao Paulo.

I mean, I could tell you that 80% of violence against women is Intimate Partner Violence so you’re more likely to be raped, assaulted or murdered by a man you are close to than any other demographic so wasting your time protesting trans women is making women no safer.

Then that would also go for TW being around men, right?

so you’re more likely to be raped, assaulted or murdered by a man you are close to than any other demographic so wasting your time protesting trans women is making women no safer

So you agree TW are a demographic of men?

As men, they are statistically way more dangerous to women than other women are, hence single sex spaces and categories existing in the first place. However, statistically, TW are in fact more likely than men generally to be sex offenders - so they are more dangerous and women being scared of them in their spaces is completely rational.

I could tell you that trans people make up less than 1% of the population and thus much less of a threat to you than men – who make up nearly 50% of the population and won’t give a shit about coming into a woman’s toilet to cause harm.

Just like men who are builders, or men with ginger hair, or men with one arm, they are all small minorities of men but that doesn't mean they should be excepted from the rules that keep males out to keep women safe, Allowing any males in significantly increases risks to women, but particularly a demographic that is statistically more likely to sex-offend - even if they are 1%.

I could tell that trans woman are 4 times more likely than cis gendered women to be attacked, raped and assaulted

In line with them being males. Males are at even greater risk of violent attack by males than women are. This is because they are aggressive and get into fights. If you are talking about world statistics, it also includes TW who are prostitures which is also very high-risk, for whoever does 8t.

and your persistent demonisation of them are contributing to how unsafe they continue to be.

Facts and genuine risks are not "demonisation" I have never ever seen or heard a GC feminist saying ALL TW are dangerous or sex offenders. That is not the point, it's about statistical likelihood.

Since TW claim to be at risk from men in male spaces, are they saying all men are dangerous or sex offenders?

Lastly if men attack a TW for reasons of transphobia, homophobia or hatred, why would that be because of what women think? Do thuggish bigoted men normally listen to feminists? (Clue: no)

And the perpetrator of that violence is the same demographic which carries out the majority of assaults and attacks on cis women and so perhaps your time would be better spent working with transwomen rather than against them and try and make us all safer.

I'd be happy for TW to be safer and for that work to be done. Just as I'm in favour of reducing violence against anyone. That doesn't mean males should be in women's spaces. "Working with" TW does not have to mean giving them whatever the demand or believing them to be women.

I could argue that for every one Isla Bryson there are 1000s of transwomen who are good people and are just trying to get on with their life in peace and quiet without having to justify their existence to a baying mob in which a trans person’s existence really doesn’t have much of an impact on their lives beyond maybe having to go to the toilet in a cubicle next to them at some point, which you might not actually notice because they pass for an actual woman.

I refer you to the stats above, plus most TW have a penis which is not passing as a woman in my book.

The only "baying mobs" I have seen in this whole phenomenon have been on the genderist side.

I really am not in the least bothered that "trans people exist". to me that is like saying "christians exist" or "homeopaths exist" Of course they do. I just don't have to agree with them that they are one of the opposite sex.

I could argue that I have biological female friends who identify as such, who have been misgendered in the past because they don't look stereotypically female and are now concerned about being questioned when going to the bathroom because of the supreme court ruling

A result of trans poeple having been lied to about their actual rights and massively overstepping, causing women to feel on edge and on the alert in their own spaces.

I could argue that you don’t seem bothered by the idea of transmen which leaves a massive hole in your argument

TM are in the main vulnerable, autistic, traumatised, sexual-assault-survivor or lesbian females who want to escape from womanhood, and I do not feel they are a threat to me - certainly not to the same degree as males statistically.

What argument? You've decided our "argument" is "we hate trans people" but it's actually not. It's "males shouldn't be in women's spaces, categories and sports and children shouldn't be told they can choose their sex and be led down a path to lifelong harm".

I could argue that this is yet another schism within feminism created by
privileged women – of which there have been many over the years including with working class women, women of colour and lesbians. Always borne out of the fear that the inclusion of these other demographics, might water down your argument.

You could, but you'd be lying.
Most feminists are feminists on behalf of and in defence of all women.
All women does not include males.

At a push I could maybe see that there is a conversation to be had about trans women in sport, but your Queen Bee JK Rowling put paid to that by having a pop at a female boxer – a biological woman no less – because she looked too much like a man and ridiculing any sensible discussion that might have been had.

Ummm... do you mean Khelif? Khelif is male.
If you mean someone else, a biological female, my apologies for not knowing who you mean.

I could argue that one of the main things that feminism was borne out of was the frustration of being told what a woman can and can’t be, what she should and shouldn’t look like, and yet this is exactly what you’re doing and the hypocrisy of that is eye watering.

Women are of the female sex and can be anything that that allows (they cannot for example father children)
Saying women can be male equals not more freedom for women, but less, because then males harm their freedoms, safety and privacy and take their medals and scholarships.

Your false argument is like saying we should give chickens protection and freedom by saying foxes can be chickens.

I could argue that just because it’s the law, it doesn’t mean it’s right – in the case of, as I’ve already pointed out, abortion and most recently the proscription of Palestine Action which has seen an unnecessary amount of innocent people, including a 90 year old woman and a blind disabled man be criminalised, merely for speaking out against a genocide that we are all having to helplessly watch.

Totally agree, there are self-ID laws in other countries and I don't think they're right.

I could argue that there’s a genocide happening in Palestine and why should we bother giving a shit about your petty ‘nose out of joint’ complaints about less than 1% of the population that most likely has no bearing on you or your day to day life

There are atrocities happening in lots of places. Yet you think TW should get to take women's rights and their "petty nose out of joint" complaints are important.

But what’s the fucking point because unless I say yes, you’re right! I 100% agree with you and believe it was all the vitriol I can muster, you’ll never hear or accept what I have to say, and you’ll just keep coming back with biology, the law and fucking toilets.

Because your arguments are specious and not based on reality, but on twisting, misrepresenting and lying, as shown above.

And so, much like Bee most likely – whoever that is – every now and then we feel that maybe it’s worth trying to have some sort of engagement with this argument rather than that just writing off your opinions without taking time to hear them. And then this happens, and we realise once again that it’s a waste of fucking time and rather than engage with this toxic discussion we ‘choose to’ walk away. So, fire on – sit back and pat yourself on the back for whatever empty victory you think it is you’ve won by me walking away from this discussion.

OK. Or you could actually engage in good faith, apply logical thought and realise that female people are defending their rights from males, and it's not all about hating TW. If TW acknowledged they're male, stayed in their lane and showed us respect as women (some do) we would not have had to fight to keep our rights.

And just to correct you, my point wasn't that GC views are influenced by those particular outlets, it's that your views are supported by those outlets. And I have to say if anything I espoused was supported by The Daily Mail or GB News I'd be fucking mortified.

That a view I have is also held by someone dislikeable isn't any reason not to hold it. I try to consider and discuss different aspects and come to my own conclusion, which you are welcome to try here. I could point to some awful supporters of transgenderism, such as Ayatollah Khomeini. I am a vegetarian, as was Hitler. Etc.