1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Julie Bindel

Discussion in 'Gender Identity and Expression' started by Just Jess, Jan 8, 2017.

  1. Just Jess

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denver
    Hi everyone, it's been forever,

    A good friend of mine wrote this, and has been getting no end of hate for it.

    https://thequeerness.com/2017/01/08/julie-bindel-transphobia-source-trauma/

    Briefly, Julie isn't just a TERF, she also doesn't like that the letter B is in our acronym either. I first wanted to make the rest of us aware of her, for the sake of the safety of all of you. Secondly I wanted a safe place to discuss her, and generally ways we can fight back against transphobia and biphobia with love instead of hate. This is hard because she's being given a platform and is being presented to the public in a way that would lead them to believe she represents us.
     
  2. BrookeVL

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,157
    Likes Received:
    293
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    As someone who is both letters she seems to hate so much, screw her.
     
  3. Just Jess

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denver
  4. Jellal

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    TBH this was kind of painful to read. You don't have to agree with or like what Bindel says. None of us do. But ... it's "painful" to give this woman a space to speak? Look, there are going to be plenty of LGBT people that are on your side. It shouldn't be traumatic for there to be some lady who doesn't agree with you saying her opinion. Besides, if this community thinks that she's full of shit, no better way to beat her than in an argument. Inviting her to speak on the home terf (pun intended) is the best way to do that.
     
  5. BrookeVL

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,157
    Likes Received:
    293
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    She's lying to herself. Based on the amount of us who have tried to be straight, it's not possible to chose your sexuality. Sounds like a bisexual woman who simply chooses to date women exclusively. That's the closest thing to "choosing to be a lesbian" I can think of.
     
  6. Eveline

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    home
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    A few people
    It's painful to have her speak in a forum that is supposed to be safe from hate speech and I can see how it can be traumatic. As I understand it, trauma is typically connected with fragmentation and loss of identity. A person's Identity heavily depends on their relations with those around them and we often depend on others to protect us from loss of identity. That's why it can be so devestating when family members reject our gender or sexual identities. Many people in the LGBT community don't have the support of their families and in consequence they need to turn elsewhere to find the needed support and acceptance, they often turn to the LGBT community for such support which means that they depend on the community heavily as a source of stability and a safe place in which they can be themselves without fear of rejection and the resultimg trauma.

    When someone who is transphobic is given a platform as part of the community, those trans people who depend on the community in such a way can be very seriously hurt as a result as they perceive that the community that they depend on as a safe place / home turns their back on them. In other words, support communities are not regular debate venues because of how people use these communities to cope which makes hate speech aa part of the community discourse so much more dangerous. :icon_sad:
     
  7. SiKiHe

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Midwest
    I've never heard of Julie Bindel before this. It's sad that some people feel the need to invalidate and scrutinize another persons lives.
     
  8. Jellal

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Being threatened by someone else's opinion is something I continually fail to empathize with.
    It's very easy for people like Bindel to write off LGBT organizations as being bent on thought control when those communities exclude certain voices from the conversation. And she's not wrong about that. "Hate speech" is a term based in manipulative rhetoric, used to value certain people's feelings over other people's thoughts to the point that speaking those "bad thoughts" is not allowed. I'm sure that from Bindel's perspective what she has to say is very important to the queer movement and that movement is being exclusionary by preventing her from speaking at certain venues. Honestly if everything she spits is as stupid as I'm led to believe, then the smartest thing to do is to invite her in and put her under direct scrutiny.
    Banning her shows fear, in my eyes, that what she has to say might have some validity to it.

    Again, I don't buy the excuse that somebody's opinion is enough to cause a complete break-down of my identity and sense of self-worth. Being a part of the same community does not mean everyone in it has to think the same or agree with me. People like this author are way too concerned with policing speech. That's creepier and nastier to me than mere hate speech.
    At the end of the day I guess whether or not you agree with me on this issue depends on where your values differ with mine. I have a tendency to be very laissez-faire with other people's thoughts and actions—I place high on value on individual freedom of expression, and a lower value on altruistic deeds/doing good for others' sakes.
     
  9. AnAtypicalGuy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Gallifrey
    Gender:
    Other
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Not out at all
    Bindel's words don't affect me personally because I know they're wrong. Having said that, I do think that she's problematic as she is threatening to undo a lot of progress that we as a community have had to fight hard for. Just like with Trump, Bindel speaking publicly and relatively unopposed may encourage other like-minded people to speak up, and this could really endanger our community.
     
  10. Eveline

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    home
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Technically, shared views and values is a major part of any community. People heavily depend on this sense of stability to function. It gives people the ability to predict how others will react and respond accordingly. Freedom of expression is never truly absolute just because people behave in a scripted manner and their words and actions are never truly free. I say one thing and you will respond in a patterned way. I mean everything you said is pretty much a script dictated by the values you have acquired over your life time. I do understand where you are coming from but I believe its useful to be aware of the patterns upon which we act. What I wrote earlier is just one such script that a certain percent of the community respond according to depending on the support they need from the community. Ultimately, Julie's words are exclusionary and as such they have the power to break the connection of certain individuals from the community and in consequence truly hurt them. How much value do you put on freedom of expression? What if one person's freedom of expression takes away another person's freedom, what if the freedom leads to one person's suicide, is it still worth it, taking away another person's life for the sake of being able to transgress against socially dictated laws and norms?
     
  11. Jellal

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    So one person disagreeing has the power to undo an entire network of support? That makes it sound like when one person say something "exclusionary," it turns everyone "exclusionary." Communities may involve some degree of conformity—but to that extent? I don't believe it.

    I put value for freedom of expression as one of the highest virtues since I don't like limits on thoughtful discussion and creative art, the things that makes living worthwhile for myself as a human being. If somebody commits suicide because one person disagreed with their beliefs, that's sad for many reasons. Frankly if somebody is willing to kill themselves over something so trivial, it makes it even harder for me to point the finger and blame the speaker for being the one "at fault." At that point it's like, what *WOULDN'T* that person kill themselves over?
     
  12. Eveline

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    home
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    A few people
    People are easily swayed to take on narratives of exclusion, we aren't talking only about Julie but what her narrative represents. She speaks not only for herself but for all the many people who hold similar views and that's probably around 30% of the community or even more. You are giving her a huge amount of power and influence by letting her speak in a public event. The power to reinforce her narrative and legitimize it in the minds and eyes of others.

    ---------- Post added 9th Jan 2017 at 06:02 PM ----------

    Lets put it this way, can any of us go right now and under the pretext of freedonof speech speak instead of Julie or eve after her? The answer is no, because we haven't been invited to speak in the event. We could be arrested if we tried to do so. In an ideal world everyone would be able to express their opinions but this isn't an ideal one meaning that there is a huge amount of importance in the choices that we make concerning who we invite to speak and who we don't. What makes Julie a better speaker than anyone else under these circumstances? She was invited because she has achieved enough fame and influence to be above others through books and being given te stage in other events or interviews. That influence is part of what makes her so dangerous, it means that she knows how to convince others that her words are important, that she delivers her natrative in a way that leaves an impression on the people who are listening.
     
  13. Jellal

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    It doesn't make sense to me to ban a speaker because her ideas are "too persuasive," either.
    I'm not interested in a market of ideas where the "dangerous" ones are restricted because their arguments are too strong. If you don't like what she says, spread the word out for your side that constructs a powerful counterargument. Be a participant in the debate. It's not as though she's signing her speech into coded social law the second it leaves her lips.
     
  14. Just Jess

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denver
    Jellal I am definitely against censorship and I can definitely agree with some of what you've said. I grew up around art and artists, I am completely against censorship and thought policing. People that just plain don't like trans people and view being a lesbian as a political position - not Julie herself, I'll get to her in a minute - we are doing ourselves a disservice when we make them feel dismissed, or like the whole world is against them, or silenced. Cornering people like that is very stupid.

    Julie herself, though, does not have her back to the wall. Rather than being about a lack of censorship, she's actually seeking endorsements. She's asking the LGBT community to endorse her attacks against the BT community - and the LG community really with her "homosexuality is a choice" rhetoric - and she has made enough friends among parts of the trans-exclusionary radical feminist community that have some power and sway with newspapers like the Guardian, that she can pull this off successfully.

    Giving her a platform because her ideas are stupid only works if every human being is completely rational. We simply do not live on planet Vulcan. Mr Spock is not her target audience. She is talking to people that have already made up their minds about the world, that are unwilling to look at evidence, that are instead looking to champion someone that makes them feel better for validating their own worldviews.

    In reality, it's asking a lot to expect everyone to educate themselves on us to no benefit to themselves. Think about all the disciplines that surround us. I'm not just talking about things like gender studies. Let's start with endocrinology, psychology, genetics, I could go on and on about the life science disciplines for paragraphs and I'd miss out on all the legal obstacles we come in contact with that other people don't - I learned a whole awful lot about our world when I changed my first and last name - and of course beyond the angry billboard politics there are human resources professionals and lawmakers that have to deal with the reality we present face-to-face. And all of that ignores the reality of queer kids that'll never be well off enough for any of that to matter to them, that find places in the drag community and learn disciplines every bit as demanding and a hell of a lot more soul crushing.

    My point is, it's a lot we're asking people when we're asking them to understand us. Yes, the available evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't know what the hell they're on about when they talk about XY chromosomes. I went to school for computer engineering. People around me treat computers and phones like they're filled with magic and say all sorts of stupid things about them. It's wrong of me to expect them not to though. I'm the one that got to go to school for this.

    So other people aren't going to be willing to just change, and shouldn't be. But they also aren't going to listen to us setting them straight for hours and hours because why the hell should they? If someone like Julie comes along, and the LGBT community says "yeah, listen to her!" and she tells them that all trans people are serial killer rapist demons from hell who chill under children's beds and in public bathrooms and wait until all the grown ups are gone to unveil their knive-hands and get to work, you know what? It's a hell of a lot less mental effort to listen to her than it is to us.

    So whether or not you agree with my friend Sam - and again, you have made some valid points; censorship is one of the political strategies of some of my would-be allies I detest the most, "lynch mobs", doxxing and the like being the other - I at least hope you can understand a little bit better the sense of dread some people have. Julie's position at The Guardian gives her power. This power is not contingent on her being right, or smart. She is using this power to hurt us, directly. And we don't have many powerful people that are willing to oppose her right now.

    She isn't being censored. Her voice is being heard loud and clear. In fact, it's the only voice that's being heard.

    ---------- Post added 9th Jan 2017 at 06:06 PM ----------

    When I say I'm against censorship - and I am - I am against covering up statues. I'm not against people not paying people to build statues to begin with. Shutting her up and not giving her a platform are very different things.
     
    #14 Just Jess, Jan 9, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2017
  15. oh my god I

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    US
    Ehhh.... IMO don't feed the trolls...

    When you respond to hate you make it stronger... that's just how the world works.
     
  16. Jellal

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Which do you suppose will cause more damage in the long run? Denying her this chance to speak or letting her speak? I think it's worse to keep her off the platform, where she'll just continue to develop the narrative of her being a controversial "martyr for truth in the LGBT kingdom of lies" who is too sharp and insightful for the our community to tolerate. If there are already people who are willing to believe anything Julie says just to confirm their biases, then it's not as though they will change their biases and lose their prejudice if their heroine doesn't give her speech. I think if anything their biases will grow stronger if they have reason to believe Julie's words are too "harsh and true" for the LGBT community to handle.
    I understand better now that it's not the same as censorship to choose not to let her speak, but I still don't think it's a good idea. Where some people see it as "defending the community from hate speech" it's hard for me not to read it as "defending the community from dissenting opinions." And I'm not even on her side.

    One thing I still don't understand though, is when you say Julie is the "only voice being heard." What do you mean by this? Surely the very reason that people have a problem with her speaking on this platform is rooted in the fact that her opinions are not reflective of the general consensus of the community—in other words, her stance is a comparatively fringe position to "accepted" queer discourse.