They never accused
In case we haven’t had enough no-platforming today, in case we haven’t had enough damnfoolery from UK university feminist societies today, in case we haven’t had enough of mouthy feminist women being stabbed in the back by other feminists today – we can contemplate the fact that the Bristol Feminist Society decided to no-platform Sarah Ditum because somebody somewhere said she said something transphobic maybe perhaps but don’t quote them.
Sarah Ditum @sarahditum 6 hours ago
Too perfect. No-platformed by @TWSSMagazine (Bristol uni femsoc mag) because they won’t have anyone “accused of transphobia” on a panel.Obvs they claimed “unforeseen circs”. Too cowardly to keep their invitation, too cowardly to say why. But I have the emails @TWSSMagazine
Well don’t worry, Bristol FemSoc and their magazine That’s What She Said issued a statement clearing everything up.
That’s What She Said @TWSSMagazine 5 hours ago
TWSS’s Statement regarding rescinding Sarah Ditum from one of our events:
Dazzling, isn’t it? “The decision was based on previous allegations that claimed Sarah Ditum made transphobic comments.” No actual agents here, just floating allegations making floating claims of something entirely vague – and on the basis of that they
- no-platform Sarah and
- libel her.
Ta daaa! We’ve reached peak no-platforming. Bristol Feminist Society has disinvited feminist writer Sarah Ditum from a panel on Women in Journalism, not on account of anything concrete, but on account of someone somewhere (but we’re not sure who or where or why, so please don’t ask!) accusing her of transphobia. The organization claimed “unforeseen circumstances,” but emails were leaked to Ditum providing evidence that the decision had been made due to this (unfounded) accusation. Behold, the new witch trials.
It reminds me of last summer – remember the immortal “when somebody tells you, you know”? Yes, friends, if somebody says something, it is invariably true and you should always believe it without question, and act accordingly. That’s democracy.
I think we should have a conference of no-platformed feminist women. It would be large and by god it would be lively. Mark Zuckerberg could fund it.
Fuck me! I think I just had a stroke. That is beyond parody.
Isn’t it though? A real masterpiece of guilt by extremely vague accusation.
At least in the case of *actual* witch trials, there were trials. There was a chance to say, “It’s not true.” You wouldn’t be listened to, sure, and the evidence was all bogus, but there was at least a sense that justice was important. This isn’t even that. The accusation is made and sentence is passed in silence and secrecy.
Well, you see, when it comes to issues that affect trans people – excuse me, trans folk – it’s imperative to treat all accusations as absolutely unquestionably true, because otherwise people with Incorrect opinions about gender and brainsex might be able to continue to say what they think freely, and that would cause UNIMAGINABLE HORRORS.
Or something. I really don’t know why people are being so ridiculous about this one subject, but they sure as fuck are. I’m lucky the people at FTB didn’t seek me out and set me on fire.
This sounds vaguely familiar but I can’t put my finger on it. Something to do with smoke? ;-)
Clearly the next logical step in that particular farce is for someone with a twitter account (i.e. not me) to accuse all staff members at Bristol FemSoc os the crime of transphobia, making them all ‘accused transphobes’ to exactly the same degree* as Sarah Ditum, and therefore unable to participate in their own magazine. Assuming they adhere the same standards to themselves.
Hmm, what would carry the point better… a single tweet for the whole staff, or one per member?
*Except at least this way the accusation will be public, allowing people to actually see that the accusation exists.
No, just tweet that you heard from a FOAF that they were transphobes…
Yet another feather in the cap of those who have far superior values. Fuck women and feminism; trans sensibilities trump all others. How could you ever think otherwise?
Oh, and holy crap. I said “feather in the cap.” Now the vegans are going to no-platform me.
By the way, I would totally attend the Platform for the No-Platformed Feminist conference. Please make it happen.
Some examples of Ditum’s bigotry:
(Trigger warning for shocking transphobia!!!)
(source)
(source)
I know! Stomach-churning isn’t it? I apologise for despoiling the blog with this hatefulness.
(/sarcasm)
“those who have far superior values” (Tony #8) Narcissism?
Evolution of shaming and narcissism up to social media, “Shame on You(Tube)”, Thursday December 03, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas
Seconded. Only, with my current hectic schedule, I hope it would be a cyberconference, because I may not be able to leave town for many eons (probably sometime after the second coming of Jesus…which means never…maybe not quite that long).
No-Platform conference: I’m already there. Just tell me when and where.
There’s a whole history of repressing women in this. A whisper against a woman’s name would be sufficient to bring dishonour on her husband in honour societies, even if he knew it was untrue. That she once let her veil slip slightly. That other men once spoke her name. It’s a prickly suspicion about a certain kind of purity that over-rides any notions of justice or truth or fairness.
Or the Victorian matron of strict proprietary not being “at home” for Mrs Couldbe-Tarnished as she had heard a little gossip about her at a tea-party. The pulling aside of the skirts. The lifting of the virtuous chin. It’s mean-mindedness thinking itself high-minded and upholding standards.
As others have said, at a witch trial at least the charges would actually be in the open and recorded.
I think we need to make the case that trans vs. cis is an artificial and forced binary, when the reality is actually a spectrum, and they are being violent to others by denying us the right to define our gender identity.
This isn’t actually sarcasm.
The fact is, I’m not trans enough to feel comfortable calling myself that without feeling like I’m appropriating someone else’s struggle. But the thought of magically waking up in a body of the opposite sex, or even being seen as a male without becoming doesn’t bother me at all; I like the idea. Since those are the things that are supposed to appall cis people and get them to see their privilege– I don’t think anyone calling me cis would be correct. The trans activist SJW bullies try to force people into categories, and you have to choose. If you try not to, they will say you *must* be cis and trying to avoid acknowledging your privilege.
I like being able to express ambiguity. I can do that here But the people who *proclaim* their support for trans folk made me scared to talk about any of it.
Julie Burchill, Sarah Ditum, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel … yes, that would be a panel worth showing up for.
Indeed! Because burning a woman at the stake is about the same thing as deciding that you don’t want to pay her an honorarium to come speak at your function. There’s not even a smidgen of over-the-top hyperbole in that comparison! And of course receiving an honorarium to come speak at someone’s function is a fundamental right, just like the right not to be burned at the stake. I hope Sarah Ditum has a good civil rights lawyer!
@16: this is the point: —
And this is your head: —
Try criticising the comparisons people do make (process) and not the ones nobody made (consequence).
Also what’s this “pay her an honorarium” shit? Do you know they had been planning to pay her? Most such events don’t pay people to talk; they cover expenses and that’s it. You sound like a slime pitter, saying that; they used to foam at the mouth over the fiction that we were all paid hundreds of dollars just to open our big yaps. Not the case.
I didn’t say she was going to make phat cash. I was rather stressing the fact that people can decide who they want to invite to their shindigs. “Free speech doesn’t guarantee you an audience,” and all that. Stuff that normally the right howls and whines about when a radio station drops Rush Limbaugh or something. Stuff that normally we like to gleefully point out to them when that happens.
If you decide not to invite me to your birthday party because your best friend’s sister said her cousin said that her boyfriend said that I’m a real drip at parties, I promise not to whine that the *actual* witch trials had trials. I *will* decide that I don’t want to be friends anyway, with someone who acts on such flimsy hearsay, but I would at least try to temper my response a bit.
(“They had trials,” by the way, is a far cry from saying they had due process, so it’s a curious whinge. Accused witches were deprived of defense counsel, were compelled to answer incriminating questions, were tried before partial juries, died in prison awaiting trial, etc. The fifth and sixth amendments were partially a direct response to the Salem trials. Would a trial of that sort improve the situation? And do you really require a trial by jury before being disinvited to speak at someone’s shindig?)
This needs to be referred to the Comittee for Public Safety for further action. Off with her head! A la lanterne!!
I didn’t say you did say she was going to make phat cash. But you did talk about paying her an honorarium, twice. I said you don’t know that she was going to be paid an honorarium. You could just admit that you got that part wrong instead of correcting something I didn’t say.
A Masked Avenger – you’re right, I have the right not to invite you to my party, and do it on the flimsiest of reasons. But you also have the right to complain about that, loudly, to all your friends, and anyone who will listen (and even to those who won’t, because they have a right to walk off while you’re talking). This isn’t about birthday parties, or even events. This is about an attitude that is becoming increasingly pervasive, where women are not only not being invited to events, they are being smeared as transphobic or TERF, and at times being disinvited to speak, or being invited to speak by one group who is then targeted or who is not permitted to bring in the person they would like at their party. This is more like if I DO invite you to my party, and the next door neighbor comes around and says because they heard some vague hearsay, they’re not going to let you come to my party (or maybe landlord would be a better analogy, since there is a power relationship there).
In short, this is about shutting up women who want to talk about women’s issues. This is a longstanding, pervasive problem that goes back through recorded history (and probably further). This is about finding a lever where progressive, feminist women are willing to shut down conversation about women, keeping us still down in a place where we are unable to talk about the things that concern women. A woman who questions the essentialness of gender is a pariah in many of these circles.
Of course, many of these women have other fora in which they can speak, and they are published widely. It isn’t that their voices are totally silenced. It’s that there is a progressing trend to shut down the entire concept of women and women’s issues, and persuade people to view those women who promote “the wrong kind” of feminism (or who someone vaguely perceives as promoting “the wrong kind” of feminism) as being evil, racist, transphobic monsters. And yes, I use the word monster advisedly. That seems to me to be the ultimate goal, given the language and the heated rhetoric surrounding these women.
This is more about people trying to claim these women are like Rush Limbaugh than it is about any situation that has shut down Rush Limbaugh.
The trans-madness seems like a special case. Across the board, indignant, furious outrage is the only coin in which opinion gets any hearing. From Limbaugh to Chomsky, the empurpled rage at THEM is all that can be heard over the din.
For the trans issue, it seems as though the personal anger and spite is cooking in a very small cauldron. But the general ‘progressive’ culture is so attuned to grovelling on command—to absolutely ANY demand for ‘purity’—that all progress must be sacrificed.
Ah that’s so well said, iknklast.
[…] a comment by iknklast on They never […]
A Masked Avenger– are you *really* missing the point of “It is wrong to judge someone as guilty based on a rumor, without doing any investigation or letting them explain their side of things”?
Or are you hopping on every fucking side detail– but the consequences aren’t the same! Hyperbole! Historical lack of due process!– to AVOID THE FUCKING POINT deliberately?
A Masked Avenger, Sarah Ditum wasn’t invited to a party: she was invited to speak as A Woman In Journalism. That’s a recognition of her work, her contribution. It says “she is worth listening to”.
No platforming is a serious charge. It means don’t listen to this person, she has no valid contribution.
That affects Ditum’s ability to work, to be paid.
“There’s a vibe” is really not a good reason to start a no-platform of a person.