UPDATE to Radfem Sheila Jeffreys, transphobe, barred from speaking at RadFem 2012 by venue

[Catherina]

Last edited Fri Jun 1, 2012, 05:32 PM - Edit history (3)

See Update in post 18. They threw them out!

* ~ * ~

(Crossposed from the Feminist Group. Some background here. They are explicitly barring trans women from attending.)

Sheila Jeffreys, RadFem2012 and the imaginary trans conspiracy
May 29, 2012

...

Kickass feminist and activist, the thoroughly inspirational Roz Kaveney recently wrote a takedown of this particular branch of radical feminism, rightly likening it to a cult (although arguably there are also fascistic overtones to the radfem party line on this issue). If you haven’t read it yet, please do. It’s utterly brilliant.

Sheila Jeffreys has responded to Roz’s excellent piece with an argument with so many holes it would be better suited to function as a colander. Again, this piece is worth reading, though for the exact opposite reasons to the one above. Jeffreys’s entire argument hinges upon the idea that it is only trans people who could possibly ever object to this particular murky brand of transphobia.

This is, of course, patently untrue. I’ve written myself that transphobia has no place in feminism, and I’m hardly the only one. One does not have to be trans to care about the rights of trans people. One simply has to be free from bigotry.

Jeffreys claims persecution from the trans community in the form of utter horrors such as glitter bombing and captioned photographs. Perhaps the most stark example of the hideous persecution faced by poor Jeffreys and her transphobic ilk is that Jeffreys claims the RadFem2012 conference venue to have banned her from speaking, citing evidence of her hate speech that she believes to be entirely reasonable. Throughout, notably, Jeffreys can only blame a shadowy cabal of trans people: the idea that cis allies may have in any way been involved simply fails to occur to her.

...

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/sheila-jeffreys-radfem2012-and-the-imaginary-trans-conspiracy/

The above article merits reading in its entirety.



Here's the opening of her ridiculous complaint in the Guardian:

Criticism of the practice of transgenderism is being censored as a result of a campaign of vilification by transgender activists of anyone who does not accept the new orthodoxy on this issue. A recent Comment is free piece by the transgender activist Roz Kaveney, headlined "Radical feminists are acting like a cult", criticises a forthcoming radical feminist conference, at which I was to be a speaker, on the grounds that I and "my supporters" may be guilty of "hate speech" for our political criticism of this practice.

Though Kaveney's comments about me are comparatively mild in tone, the campaign by transgender activists in general is anything but. This particular campaign persuaded Conway Hall, the conference venue, to ban me from speaking on the grounds that I "foster hatred" and "actively discriminate". On being asked to account for this, Conway Hall appeared to compare me to "David Irving the holocaust denier". The proffered evidence consists of quotes from me arguing that transgender surgery should be considered a human rights violation – hardly evidence of hate speech.

...

What is clear is that transgender activists do not want any criticism of the practice to be made. They do not just target me, but the few other feminists who have ever been critical. Germaine Greer was glitterbombed, a practice that can be seen as assault and can endanger eyesight,

...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/29/transgenderism-hate-speech?fb=optOut

"hardly evidence of hate speech"? Really Sheila?

[TheWraith]

1. Good.

Maybe somebody can dump a glass of wine over her head just to make sure she gets the message.

[Catherina]

4. She'd probably file charges for assault with a deadly weapon!

One of the comments in Stavver's article is

"Better not squirt a water pistol at her. She might accuse you of trying to drown her."

[William769]

2. Recommended.

[Vanje]

3. Sheila Jeffreys gets animated

[Catherina]

5. That was a beautiful rebuttal to "1970's transphobic ideology"

Last edited Thu May 31, 2012, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

"I will not evacuate Feminism to let you and your group of haters take it over to promote your antiTrans ideology. Like bell hooks always said "feminism is for everybody". The sooner you embrace that reality, the sooner we can end the in-fighting and join together to usher in a real gender revolution. Goodbye Sheila!"

Haters like Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond need to be tossed in the dustbin of history. They're dishonest, transphobic bigots who use feminist rhetoric to justify their transphobia. How could anyone take such sick, deranged paranoia seriously?

All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artefact, and appropriating this body for themselves. [...] Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive.

The transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist feeds off woman’s true energy source, i.e. her woman-identified self. It is he who recognises that if female spirit, mind, creativity and sexuality exist anywhere in a powerful way it is here, among lesbian-feminists.

I contend that the problem with transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence.

- Janice Raymond, The Transsexual Empire: the making of the she-male

[Vanje]

11. That quote

makes me very sad.

[Catherina]

12. I almost didn't post it

because I knew it would have that effect but it's intolerable that such haters still have a platform. It's not even one of the worst quotes.

"Janice G. Raymond is professor emerita of women's studies and medical ethics at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst". Medical ethics?

What's even more upsetting is that the National Center for Healthcare Technology commissioned her as an expert on transexual matters.

A former Catholic nun isn't the first person anyone should be listening to on matters of sex, prostitution and transsexualism. I'm happy haters like this are being discredited but what about all the damage they've caused?

In the early eighties, there was a report, written for the US Government, called Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery. This report argued that transition-related treatments were medically unnecessary. As a result, consideration of federal and state aid for trans people was dropped, and private insurance companies quickly followed suit, disingenuously expanding the definition of “transition-related” to include absolutely anything that could even conjecturally be related to hormone treatments, including various types of cancer. Trans people have died as a result.

I wonder how many people know who was responsible for that report, who it was that convinced the US government (and, indirectly, insurance companies) that helping trans people wasn’t important. You’d probably think it was some fundiegelical Republican, right?

Nope. It was Janice Raymond.

If you feel like being enraged, you can read a copy of her report (trigger warning for transphobia, obviously). If you don’t feel like reading, you’re not missing much, as it’s basically the same “morally mandate it out of existence” horseshit that was in her book. (And yeah, like most transphobic feminists, she almost makes a couple of really good points, but is so focused on eliminationism that she doesn’t actually arrive at helpful conclusions. Or so it appears — frankly, I can only read a few sentences of it at a time without wanting to scream and kick things.)

So yeah — if you’ve ever wondered why I can’t be “understanding” and “patient” with feminist transphobia, now you know why: tens of thousands of trans people have died because of it.

http://kiriamaya.tumblr.com/post/2531500528/in-the-early-eighties-there-was-a-report-written

National Center for Healthcare Technology (NCHCT) was a short-lived, quasi-governmental body funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Medical Ethics, Janice Raymond, and the Modern Transsexual Woman

April 1, 2012

...

You may find it curious that the person commissioned by NCHCT to produce an expert opinion on the necessity and efficacy of transition-related healthcare would come from a background of involvement with the Roman Catholic church, an organisation with a long-standing and publicly acknowledged antipathy to sexual and gender minorities, and that furthermore, this same person would not possess a single medical, let alone psychiatric qualification that would allow that person to serve as an expert on matters of medical concern.

...

the paper produced by Raymond contained highly controversial language concerning transsexuality, language that is not only long deprecated, but was certainly not settled opinion even in its day, with the possible exception of within the small, but vocal, circles of academic radical lesbian feminism. In this paper Raymond:

- Uses inflammatory positioning of sexual reassignment surgery as “mutilation”.
- Dismisses established medical and psychological practice in favor of her own, personally developed but uncritically challenged, version of ethics.
- Compares the desire of transsexual women to access transition-related healthcare to hypothetical desire of people of color who may have imagined changing the color of their skin to avoid the stigma assigned to people of color that is common to the oppressively racist cultures.
- Asserts, despite any medical or psychiatric certification whatsoever, that the challenges posed by transsexual lives are not medical or psychiatric concerns, but more properly concerns of sociology.
- Positions medical and psychiatric assistance to transsexual people as actually detrimental to the health of transsexual people.
- Portrayed falsely inflated fears of gender clinics being used as mechanisms of societal enforcement of behavioral norms.
- Invokes fears of predatory medical practice for the purposes of obtaining profit at the expense of transsexual people.
- Conflates sex with chromosomal type, reproductive capacity, and falsely claims that recognition of the need for transition-related healthcare amounts to reification of the argument that gross biology is the sole important determiner of gender.
- Falsely claims pre-eminence of an experiential basis for gender based on an individual’s position within society, rather than on that individual’s own psychological and physical makeup.
- Equates transition-related therapies with heroin abuse and addiction.
- Derides surgical therapies for an inability to necessarily affect psychiatric conditions, as if this were ever a concern in the first place. This flies in the face of all previous research, particularly that developed by Harry Benjamin, who advocated only the employment of such therapies as were sufficient to alleviate the symptoms of dysphoria in each individual case.
- UNETHICALLY misrepresents previous research relating to sexual reassignment surgery and its possible effects on post-transition happiness.
- Claims that transition-related therapies are experimental and dangerous, and have led to causation of disease, without any significant evidence to back up the claim aside from two cases reported by a single source in which it was speculated by the treating practitioner that cross-sex transition-related hormone replacement therapy was responsible for causing breast cancer in the two patients
- Calls for the “elimination of transsexualism” via attritive legislation.
- Insists that feminists who do not experience transsexualism be given authority to help restrict and regulate the right of transsexual people to access appropriate healthcare.

In the wake of this paper, the federal government removed all support for funding access to appropriate cross-sex transition-related healthcare, and in short order, private insurance firms followed suit. It has been an uphill battle ever since for us to regain that access, an uphill battle that has now stretched into a fourth decade.

That such a paper was ever allowed to be commissioned from a person who had absolutely no medical or psychiatric credentials, let alone clinical experience treating transsexual patients is utterly appalling, and a travesty of justice on scale which I cannot even begin to assess. It is not hyperbole to suggest that untold thousands of deaths have been caused by the removal of healthcare options and the subsequently reinforced societal stigma that this paper succeeded in pursing.

http://telegantmess.tumblr.com/post/20279482296/medical-ethics-janice-raymond-and-the-modern

[DURHAM D]

7. Vanje- great clip. Thanks for posting.

Can I give you a list of people that need to see this so they can understand the basics?

And Catherina - thanks for bringing this to LGBT. It is so important for everyone to pay attention to this battle.

[Catherina]

9. You're welcome.

I hope we won't be having this same conversation a few years from now.

Bigotry sucks. And kills.

[WillParkinson]

15. It's not helpful to call us bigots...

Because, you know, the truth hurts.

[Zorra]

6. thanks for the good news!

[Catherina]

8. I'm doing happy backflips! But now we need to focus on the US Michigan Womyn's Music Festival

Urge The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival To Abolish Their Policy Against Transwomyn

HUMAN RIGHTS, PETITIONS — BY MELISSA LYNN ON FEBRUARY 2, 2012 2:06 PM
Target: Organizers of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival

Goal: To outline the importance of welcoming transwomyn into the Womyn’s Music Festival community.
The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival (MWMF) is a massive feminist event that takes place in August each year. However, this gathering for womyn to socialize and share their talents unfortunately has a policy which excludes some womyn from taking part in this strong, feminist community.

The festival began in 1976 on a small scale, and grew year by year. Womyn across the country travel to be a part of this feminist gathering, including transwomyn. But the festival has a policy of “womyn born womyn”, meaning only people who were born female, raised as a girl and continue identifying as a womyn are allowed inside festival grounds. This policy was implemented due to the notion that transwomyn were socialized as boys and therefore hang on to aspects of male privilege which would be a disruption to a community for womyn.

It is understandable that the festival would begin as a womyn’s only space, and it cannot be denied that these spaces are needed. Nevertheless, excluding transwomyn from these spaces is unfair and a form of privilege from those whose sex and gender align. The purpose of womyn’s only spaces is so that all womyn (regardless of background, race, class or religion) can come together. By not including transwomyn the MWMF heads are outlining that biological sex is more relevant than a person’s gender identity.

A community of supporters to include transwomyn set up Camp Trans across from the festival each year to continually rally to drop the policy and to raise awareness. It’s important that this effort continues until truly all womyn are welcomed to take part in this powerful womyn’s festival.

http://forcechange.com/13079/urge-the-michigan-womyns-music-festival-to-abolish-their-policy-against-transwomyn/

Hi my dear!

[Zorra]

10. Done.

[Catherina]

13. TY. I hope anyone who knows of more we can do, will keep us informed.

[unapatriciated]

19. Thank you again for the links.

Petition signed. I don't post much but I do read many forums on DU and appreciate the articles you have posted regarding this. I turned sixty last month and have experienced a lot of discrimination because of my gender though-out my life. What I have gone through pales in comparison to what the GLBT community has had to endure. One of the most painful times of my life was after my daughter was attacked and having her rapist not charged because she was openly gay. That was eighteen years ago and not much has changed regarding hate crimes.

[Catherina]

20. I'm so happy to see you

I'm so sorry about what your daughter suffered. My mind can't wrap itself around that injustice, that he wasn't charged for that reason.

Thanks for signing the petition. Most of all, thanks for all your support. Everytime we run into each other, it perks me up!

:hugs:

[stevenleser]

14. This is awesome. I want to attend something at the venue now just to contribute something to them nt

[Catherina]

16. It's a step in the right direction but I want Conway Hall to do more

and tell those RadFems they either open up the conference to ALL women or move it somewhere else.

Conway Hall bills itself as an Ethical Humanist

"educational charity whose aims are the study and dissemination of ethical principles based on Humanism and freethought, the cultivation of a rational and humane way of life, and the advancement of research and education in all relevant fields.

The Society is a member of the Humanist Liaison Group, along with the British Humanist Association, Camp Quest UK, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association, the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies, and the Rationalist Association.

The Society is also a member of the European Humanist Federation and the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

http://www.conwayhall.org.uk/the-society-today

Conway Hall, against discrimination (Unless it’s Transphobia)

Conway Hall , who have close links with the National Secular Society and British Humanists Association , have landed themselves in a spot of bother over their hosting of the upcoming “RadFem2012? conference in London. For those not in the know, many (Not all!) radical feminists are openly and unapologetic transphobic, using inappropriate pronouns for trans folk and excluding them from gendered spaces when ever possible. Recently, people associated with RadFem2012 have taken to publicly outing Trans people, including writing to potential employers to let them know they’re hiring a Trans person.

A number of people have been talking about running a protest outside the event in July and a few people contacted the hosts, Conway Hall, to enquire about their support of the event. Their reply has many people rightly annoyed, stating that it’s all about protecting “vulnerable groups” and thus fine by them. Inconveniently for Conway Hall, they have acted against misogyny at events they host in the past, such as in 2009 . They also seem happy to advertise that, which would suggest that whilst they’re keen to publicly announce their strong anti-discrimination policy, that policy does not extend to Trans folk.

(This may also be unlawful under the Equalities Act 2010, by the way)

If you’d like to complain, Conway Hall have a contact form or you con contact them on Twitter . Their CEO is also on Twitter , if you’d like to contact him direct.

Updates: There is also a list of Trustees you can contact on the Charity Commission web site, although I do not know any of them myself, along with an email address: [e-mail].

Emma Brownbill points out that Andrew Copson on the Trustee list is chair of the British Humanist Association. He is on Twitter at @andrewcopson

http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2012/05/conway-hall-transphobia/

I was too lazy to embed all the links but there are more in the two excerpts above. I hope the other member organizations of the Humanist Liaison Group will stop the whole thing altogether. I linked the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association in case anyone here has contacts there or a leg to contact them on.

The fight's still on.

Conway Hall respond on Transphobia

Following the fuss on Friday, and a message I sent Conway Hall, I’ve had a response via EMail – they’ve also said much the same on Twitter.

My initial message was:

I was somewhat surprised to see your response to inquiries about hosting the upcoming RadFem2012 conference, suggesting that (In likely contravention of the Equality Act 2010) your non-discrimination policy does not extend to Transgendered folk.

I note that previously, you have acted against discrimination at events you host and seem happy to publicise this such as whan a radical Islamic group ran an event in 2009. Is your official policy that discrimination against Trans people is somehow a lesser problem than discrimination against women?

And the reply:

Thank you for all of your comments regarding the proposed RadFem 2012 event which has been booked at Conway Hall in July.
We are aware that there are strong feelings on the issue and recognise the conflict of opinion amongst the feminist and LGBT community as a result. We are in dialogue with both the organisers of RadFem 2012 and Camden LGBT forum in order to help resolve the issue.

As an organisation we do not have any actively exclusionary HR or lettings policies. This similarly applies to our status as a venue for hire.

As such we are currently seeking legal advice as to the status of the proposed event as it pertains to the Equalities Act (2010) and will provide an update on the matter in due course.

This doesn’t sound too helpful: Their position currently seems to be that if it’s legal, they’ll let it go ahead. I’ve mailed them back to check if that’s really the case.

http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2012/05/conway-hall-respond-on-transphobia/

[obamanut2012]

17. Excellent!

[Catherina]

18. Venue Slams Hateful Transphobic RADFEM2012 Conference. Thrown out!

VENUE SLAMS HATEFUL RADFEM 2012 CONFERENCE

Well, what a victory this is! For those who are unaware about ‘RedFem 2012?, it was a conference organised by radical feminists more akin to venomous snakes than actual feminists that you can read about in Roz Kaveney’s wonderful artile here. And to make a long story short, it was a kettle of narrow, detestable thinking namely bearing fangs at the transgender community. Christ only knows why. Something about trans folk doing –… some vague evil deed or another? I know (am friends with, have had personal relations with) a bloody lot of wonderful trans people and in my experience its community is little other than virtuous, but I suppose there’s no arguing with bigots holding outdated values. Anyway, the conference’s venue eventually decided to speak up and slam the thing, which, y’know, is frickin’ amazing, and you can read about said slamming here.

I really do detest radical feminists such as the ones who were organising RadFem 2012; I identify as a sex-positive feminist, and just the thought that these people brand themselves as feminists makes me wince. When will people learn that bigotry has no place within feminism? Hatred breeds hatred, and as for the likes of Sheila Jeffreys and her ‘cult’, well, watch out. Everyone, regardless of gender, regardless of identity, is quickly realising that your odious views have no place within our future.

http://lettersfrombluehaven.com/2012/06/01/conway-hall-slams-hateful-radfem-2012-conference/

Here's the slamming from the Venue. It's a thing of beauty!

Statement Regarding RadFem 2012

In consultation with the organisers of RadFem 2012 and our legal advisors, Conway Hall has decided not to allow the booking in July 2012 to proceed. This is because it does not conform to our Terms and Conditions for hiring rooms at Conway Hall. In addition, we are not satisfied it conforms with the Equality Act (2010), or reflects our ethos regarding issues of discrimination.

We had sought assurances that the organisers would allow access to all, in order to enable the event to proceed at the venue. We also expressed concern that particular speakers would need to be made aware that whilst welcoming progressive thinking and debate, Conway Hall seeks to uphold inclusivity in respect of both legal obligations and as a principle.

In the absence of the assurances we sought, the event in its proposed form could not proceed at Conway Hall.

That said, we recognise the breadth of debate to be had amongst the feminist and transgender communities and it is our sincere hope that there will be constructive and positive dialogue on these matters going forward.

In response to Sheila Jeffreys’ online Guardian article in their ‘Comment is free’ section, dated 29th May 2012, we would like it to be known that Conway Hall has in the past made clear that speakers / attendees at events for other hirers will not be permitted where we have felt that these individuals have expressed and may express (on our premises) views which conflict with our ethos, principles, and culture; the reference to David Irving was simply one of the examples given.


http://conwayhall.org.uk/statement-regarding-radfem-2012

We. Will. Not. Stand. For. It.

[Jamastiene]

21. K&R

Glad to see this cross posted here.