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

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.

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 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?

It is not an extreme to believe that you cant change sex. It also falls under protected belief.
Thank God there are people around to decide what is acceptable speech.
The likelyhood that the people making those decisions have never said anything 'unacceptable' is of course zero but I am sure that doesn't matter.

Yes, agree trisher. A representative of Daesh wouldn't be allowed to speak on a uni campus, so I guess allowing extremes of anything are to be avoided. An Imam from a local temple yes. BNP no. Conservative MP yes.

It seems patronising to suggest the prevention of free speech comes from a good place, eg to prevent bullying.
But that is exactly where it does come from Iam64 it comes from concerns that there may be people in the university who have endured abuse and found their gender problems difficult to deal with, and that someone speaking who denies their existence, or questions their rights, will cause them more pain. It's something which has been used for other types of hate speech, stopping people speaking who might have made students of certain religious faiths or racial origins feel uncomfortable.
In the broader spectrum of things I would say no one should be no platformed and public events shouldn't be cancelled but universities and other places of education offer safe spaces where difference is protected. If someone proposes to speak and advocate that difference is questionable they shouldn't be surprised when they are told they aren't welcome.

Rosie51, thanks for the link. I hadn’t heard of Debbie Hayton and found her article interesting and informative.

I remain of the view that men can support feminism. I respect men who describe themselves in that way, rather than claiming to be feminists. I support BLM, I acknowledge the complexities people with gender dysphoria face. That doesn’t mean I fully understand their lived experience.

Galaxy and Doodledog have expressed concerns about cancel culture/no platforming that I share. Young people don’t need protecting from scary women like Germaine Greer or JK Rowling. Debate and disagreement is a key element of growing up.
It seems patronising to suggest the prevention of free speech comes from a good place, eg to prevent bullying.

* sorry for the repeated "really"

FarNorth

GagaJo

Me too AmberSpyglass. I also believe that although most feminists are women, that it's perfectly possible for men to be feminists. Patriarchy/sexism also has very negative effects for men therefore feminism benefits everyone.

GagaJo the first mention of transwomen, completely out of the blue on page 1, was from AmberSpyglass saying :
I am a die hard feminist and dislike her intensely. My feminism has always and will always include trans women.

Followed by you agreeing, as above.

Yes that was what I said at 19.48.

I wonder why on any thread about women or feminism transwomen are shoe-horned in at the earliest opportunity. It really as if women really mustn't have anything that is for females only.
This is a good read by the transexual transwoman Debbie Hayton, a transwoman and science teacher, quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/
I fully expect to hear Debbie is the wrong kind of transwoman!

Oops, not Riverwalk sorry.

I didn't make any accusation, btw. I referred to 'people' who had introduced transwomen into this topic for no reason.

You asked why Riverwalk mentioned them - that was why.

GagaJo

Me too AmberSpyglass. I also believe that although most feminists are women, that it's perfectly possible for men to be feminists. Patriarchy/sexism also has very negative effects for men therefore feminism benefits everyone.

GagaJo the first mention of transwomen, completely out of the blue on page 1, was from AmberSpyglass saying :
I am a die hard feminist and dislike her intensely. My feminism has always and will always include trans women.

Followed by you agreeing, as above.

I'm not sure that young people need to be protected from views that challenge them - particularly by one another. That seems supremely arrogant to me, in an 'I know what is good for you better than you know yourself' sort of way. Young people usually hate it when adults take that view, and it has to be worse when it's their peers doing it.

Also, how do they know from whom to protect their friends if they aren't allowed to listen to views that don't conform? And conform to what? It doesn't take much imagination to work out how dangerous it is to have a situation in which idealistic young people are allowed to take charge of what others are allowed to debate.

I can't see what was wrong with letting 6th formers watch Question Time either. They could watch it at home, or online anyway. Far better to see a numptie like Griffin challenged in the studio and then to debate his ideas in a structured environment led by an adult.

I disagree with the no-platforming in general and particularly in universities. If you have sound arguments against something then be prepared to make them in a robust way.

It isn't just banning people because some disagree with the views. I think it probably stems from the fact that young people have been raised to challenge bullying and they are protecting others this is "protecting others" by bullying someone else, not a good look.

Protecting others from different opinions in university is disastrous though.

I think the no-platforming in universities in particular actually comes from a good place- that of concern for minorities and those who might have had more difficult life journeys like transpeople. It isn't just banning people because some disagree with the views. I think it probably stems from the fact that young people have been raised to challenge bullying and they are protecting others.

Yes exposure finished Nick Griffin, I wonder if he would get that exposure now.

I should add, BTW, that they were a 6th form class.

Asking isn't necessarily automatically seen as aggressive. At times it is the manner in which the question/request is posed.

The no-platforming thing is a difficult one. I remember when Nick Griffin was on Question Time, many years ago. I had a class at the time that was particularly interested in politics (an MPs son was in the class). They begged to be able to watch a clip from it at the end of the lesson (last lesson on Friday). I was very against it. I was worried they'd be exposed to inappropriate right-wing propaganda. But they persuaded me. And in the end, they were right. He made a right pigs ear of himself.

So, maybe blanket banning isn't always the best idea. BUT then some exposure is dangerous. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon/aka Tommy Robinson for example.

or self id and give female only care
something which is always just dismissed and it is SO important

how is asking in any way aggressive??

It's very difficult isnt it doodledog. I think the page 3 thing is different, some of those women were 16. I know you are not supporting page 3! However in terms of free speech I am beginning to think that suppression of speech is more dangerous than allowing extremist views. And who gets to decide what is extremist. I loathe Chubby Brown and everything he stands for but the ban that has just been announced makes me uneasy. The inconsistency is one reason, Frankie Boyle tells hideous jokes about rape, complete misogynist in my view yet he would not be banned and certainly until recently was a regular on TV.

trisher you are perfectly entitled to believe transwomen are women, just as you are entitled to any other belief system eg religion. When it comes to a belief that transwomen should be allowed to enter the female sports category, take awards and positions reserved for females, enter female safe spaces etc then your belief, if enacted, impacts negatively on those who do not agree.

In the interests of accuracy the very first person to mention transwomen was AmberSpyglass at 10.41 with I am a die hard feminist and dislike her intensely. My feminism has always and will always include trans women. At 10.46 GagaJo started a reply with Me too AmberSpyglass Until those two posts there had been no mention of transwomen.

Ilovecheese

I don't think though that when people believe that trans women are women they are willing to listen to a different opinion. It is a belief, and people don't change their beliefs very easily.

They just "know " that they are right, and very often get quite angry about being challenged.

I think those of us with differing views have listened to the people who refuse to accept transwomen, pointed out the problems with their lack of acceptance and agreed that anyone is entitled to their own opinion. Where we have disagreed it is over if such opinions can be considered feminist or if imposing those views on others is acceptable. In my opinion they are neither of those things.
Unfortunately those who hold such views persist in questioning the beliefs of those who consider transwomen are women. It seems they are entitled to believe they are not women (and I would fully endorse their right to that belief just not the right to inflict it on others ) but those of us who believe transwomen are women must change our views to suit them.

The OP was also about no-platforming. What do people think about that?

I remember when David Irving was no-platformed years ago - although it was called something else then, and I was strongly in favour. I even stood outside of Waterstones (or was it Dillons in those days?) and chanted about it?. When I was an undergrad the SU voted to ban the Sun and other tabloids that had 'page 3' models from the campus, and I was in favour of that, too.

Would I feel the same now? Yes, about Page 3 being a bad thing, and definitely yes about Holocaust denial being reprehensible. But banning free speech? I'm not so sure these days.

I think that people - especially young people - need to hear a range of views, and learn to disagree with them, not to reject them out of hand, or worse, to be told that they can't listen to them.

There seems to be so much 'banning' nowadays - it's a constant question on discussion shows on radio and TV. Should we ban cyclists, the unvaccinated, sugary drinks - the list goes on. People seem to want to 'ban' anything they don't personally like, and impose their views on others, which is something I don't find healthy at all.

I'm not 100% sure what JB said, although I can guess, but I don't think that years later she should lose her right to talk to people about her views (about those or other things). I know people who refuse to let their children read Harry Potter because of JKR's (fairly mild) stance on trans issues (sorry!), and Alan Carr recently said that he has come off Twitter as it is so easy to say something off the cuff and have it used against you for ever more. I think he'd tweeted something about his takeaway curry being half an hour late and he got a barrage of tweets back about first world problems and the low pay of Deliveroo drivers.

What do you think? Should we let anyone (and I suppose that could ultimately include radicalising speeches) say what they like, or should 'we' deny a voice to those we don't like - and if so, who are 'we'? Who gets to decide?