Julie Bindel, new book - feminism for women, the route to freedom. Interviewed by Emma Barnett on women’s hour today

I wonder how would those who believe no one should be no-platformed react if a speaker from an incel community was booked by a university?

I think I have come around to thinking it may be less dangerous. But if course its uncomfortable. The idea that we should not allow speakers who may upset a religious group I find terrifying to be honest.

I examined my reaction to doodles post about the banning of page 3, my immediate reaction was but that's different. I still think it is primarily for me because of the age of some of those involved, and because I am not sure breasts = free speech. However we banned page 3 (which I too campaigned for) and what we have now (extreme types of porn, often accessible to young people whatever safeguards you put in) inasmuch worse. Now there may be no link there but it did make me think about the unintended consequences of banning.

Young people are far more accepting of trans lives though. Queer / trans theories have been taught in universities for over 20 years. It would be farcical if they were allowed to read / listen to those theories in lecture halls & libraries but not in the university union. Not to mention, there will be a fair number of trans students in larger universities and young people in general are far more open to those ideas.

Response to Galaxy at 9.56 btw.

trisher

I wonder how would those who believe no one should be no-platformed react if a speaker from an incel community was booked by a university?

Incels preach forced sex (rape) though. Even if they're censored in their speech, there is the background idea that rape is acceptable.

But then again, the previous POTUS was accepted despite admitting sexual assault.

Its the question of who decides isnt it. So no incels but Boy George (convicted of assault) would presumably be ok. There is no coherence.

That's a general statement by the way not aimed at you gagajo.

The idea that we should not allow speakers who may upset a religious group I find terrifying to be honest
So Galaxy do you think holocaust deniers and anti-semitist speakers should be able to speak?.

Galaxy

Its the question of who decides isnt it. So no incels but Boy George (convicted of assault) would presumably be ok. There is no coherence.

I think (just an opinion mind) that it should be no one on the sex offenders register. I presume Boy George is on it if he was convicted.

I dont know trisher I listened to a Jewish man the other day saying that for minority groups the danger of curtailing speech is more dangerous than allowing a few extremists to speak, because it is always the minority groups that suffer first when speech is curtailed. Some religious groups are strongly opposed to gay marriage for example, I dont think we should not talk about gay marriage because it might offend people.

trisher

I wonder how would those who believe no one should be no-platformed react if a speaker from an incel community was booked by a university?

That's a good question. It's tricky, although don't think anyone has said that no-one should be no-platformed. I think the only people who seem to posting with certainty that they are right are those who want to ban those who disagree with them.

I am unsure, except that I agree with Iam that it is patronising to suggest that listening to a POV will lead to bullying. I have heard several ideas with which I have disagreed, but they have never made me decide to discriminate against, or be abusive to others. I don't see students as empty vessels who allow the unfiltered ideas of others to be poured into their brains, though. They are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. Yes - there are occasional ones with mental health conditions that make them vulnerable to persuasive extremists, but that is also true of the rest of the population.

Would I allow an incel speaker? I think it would depend on the context. In a module about gender, or about sociology, or criminology there might be a place for it, but I would probably put him on a panel of speakers with different views.

I can't imagine many students turning up to listen to him if he were giving a general talk or recruiting in Freshers' Week. Actually, now I've said that, I don't think I would allow him to have a stall at FW (but again, my experience suggests that he would be booed off anyway, and that his stall would be boycotted).

Anyway, the concept of no-platforming is not just about university staff not booking guest speakers. That only happens within modules anyway, and there would always be a context. It is more about people being hounded for saying 'the wrong thing' (eg Alan Carr), and having other areas of their career damaged for Tweeting about something that has nothing to do with it (eg JKR). It's coercive control by mob.

As I said, I was guilty of a milder form of that in my own youth in the days before social media added power to my elbow. The difference was that it wasn't personal, as it is in the above examples, but I can't say with certainty that my 18 year old self wouldn't have tried to silence Irving or have the Sun banned altogether if I could have. I don't know.

(The Daesh example doesn't hold up, as it would contravene the Prevent rules, and it would be actually illegal to knowingly have them on the premises, whatever the context.)

I think I saw an incel speaker on TV a few years ago, wasnt there a man who basically advised men how to coerce woman into sex, I may be mixing up a couple of issues I cant remember, but he was deeply misogynistic and basically everyone laughed at him.

Doodledog I am unsure, except that I agree with Iam that it is patronising to suggest that listening to a POV will lead to bullying.
I don't think it will lead to bullying I think it is bullying. If I stand in front of a crowd and question your existence and your rights I am by definition bullying you and sayng you cannot be what it may have taken you years to come to terms with. By refusing to use the name you wish to be called by insisting you must use the terms I prefer I would be bullying you.

But by that criteria all those saying TWAW would be banned immediately. It is a right under law to have single sex places so therefore those saying that spaces should be mixed are denying womens rights.

trisher

Doodledog I am unsure, except that I agree with Iam that it is patronising to suggest that listening to a POV will lead to bullying.
I don't think it will lead to bullying I think it is bullying. If I stand in front of a crowd and question your existence and your rights I am by definition bullying you and sayng you cannot be what it may have taken you years to come to terms with. By refusing to use the name you wish to be called by insisting you must use the terms I prefer I would be bullying you.

But nobody denies the existence of those people with opposing beliefs

I follow science therefore I don't believe it's possible to change sex. I don't believe in an innate gender identity, or in some cases many internal gender identities. I don't believe in the religious doctrines of Islam. I don't believe in the religious doctrines of Judaism. I don't believe in a great many things, what I can't and don't do is deny the existence of people that do believe these things. Not agreeing with these belief systems does not make me transphobic, bigoted, islamaphobic, or anti-Semitic. Not agreeing with does not equate to denial of existence. I don't assume that people that disagree with me are denying my existence although many seem quite happy to deny me my sex based rights, and indeed Stonewall is campaigning for their removal.
What do you think about people who insist on using the term "cis" as a descriptor which many find offensive and inaccurate? The refusal to use somebody's preferred name is a different issue.

trisher

Doodledog I am unsure, except that I agree with Iam that it is patronising to suggest that listening to a POV will lead to bullying.
I don't think it will lead to bullying I think it is bullying. If I stand in front of a crowd and question your existence and your rights I am by definition bullying you and sayng you cannot be what it may have taken you years to come to terms with. By refusing to use the name you wish to be called by insisting you must use the terms I prefer I would be bullying you.

Well I could counter that by saying that I feel bullied when people stand in front of a crowd and deny that I exist as a woman, and that my defining characteristic is one that anyone has a claim to and it must be accepted.

As for the name I wish to be called - what if I wish to be called 'a real woman' and so do all my friends of the female sex? Would it be bullying me to suggest that I have no right to do so, or would that be acceptable to you?

No you can be called whatever you wish Doodledog (as I think I have said before)
But no one is denying you exist as a woman. I'm quite prepared to call people by the pronon they prefer and to acknowledge the gender and the name they prefer. Why would doing that mean I couldn't or wouldn't accept you want to be known as a "real woman"? Inclusivity is just that. Everyone is included.

You may not be denying it, trisher, but it's a massive generalisation to say that nobody is.

Would you be happy with someone having Doodle F Dog, (she/her/real woman) on their Zoom profile or email signature?

Did you miss my "cis" question trisher?

I've done the Cis thing so many times Rosie I'm a bit tired of it. I don't use it. I don't think it originated as a term of abuse, just a way of delineating birth and trans women. I have said if you don't like it and you want a defining term why not come up with your own? They're all just women to me.
I've no idea about the Zoom thing Doodledog but I believe we were discussing no-platforming at universities. So let's stick to the subject. If you appear at a University and insist someone uses a name or pronoun they reject but you prefer you are bullying them.

But accepting someone else is a woman is not denying you are one Doodledog.

As far as I am aware Julie Bindel uses pronouns I have certainly seen her use she for a transwoman.

I've no idea about the Zoom thing Doodledog but I believe we were discussing no-platforming at universities. So let's stick to the subject. If you appear at a University and insist someone uses a name or pronoun they reject but you prefer you are bullying them.
I was responding to your point in this quote:

If I stand in front of a crowd and question your existence and your rights I am by definition bullying you and sayng you cannot be what it may have taken you years to come to terms with. By refusing to use the name you wish to be called by insisting you must use the terms I prefer I would be bullying you.

Threads wander, but you took us into the territory of preferred names and gender pronouns.