On this whole ‘comparing Bindel with Nick Griffin’ thing, what are you basing it on? None of our leaflets or chants on the night mentioned Griffin or the BNP, yet this has been repeated by both Bindel and Jonathan Fryer in true ‘lies circle the globe while truth laces up it’s shoes’ style.
She may have done good work but she has issues and not in a good The Saturdays way.
She is a vile, disgusting piece of trash. An odious, hateful, wretched woman. I wouldn’t deny that she’s done good for the select group of people that she doesn’t regard as abhuman, but it comes at the cost of other vulnerable groups. As such, I’d totally disagree that she’s any sort of force for overall good.
If anyone was campaigning on my behalf, but simultaneously deriding other vulnerable people, I’d gladly tell them to **** off. Therefore, I’d regard it as being immensely selfish for any ciswoman to support this venomous witch. Why should other people be treated like dirt just so that you get some support?
Poor li’l white ciswoman wouldn’t know disadvantage if it bit her on the ass.
the nick griffin comparison is extremly apt. whether it was on leaflets or not.
I picked up the Nick Griffin thing off discussions offline and the various threads that have been running over the last couple of weeks.
It has been said and personally, as debating point, i find it apt. Her complaint is that as a lesbian jewish feminist woman she is otraged at the likening to fascists. Oddly, the thought process there is similar to that which she alleges gay men are guilty of.
To wit: she suggests that gay men continue to enjoy male privilege and therefore to ignoe the plight of those worse off, forgetting their own roots and ignoring the impact they have on others. Her argument is at least, in part, a rebuke to those who think that if they have been abused, they can never be abusers…
…and then she puts out a similar argument on her behalf.
I will add one thought. In person, she comes over as thoughtful and fairly caring: it is her writings that cause so much heartache.
I think she really should think twice before adding to the pain felt by some of the groups she takes on. Equally, inflicting pain on her, whilst understandable, is maybe not the right response.
no she shouldn’t be banned. I believe in Free Speech but defending Bindel? Well it is like defending Nick Griffith and then saying he’s done good for s-o-m-e people.
Who has Bindel helped? She defines Female experience as one of suffering and therefore disempowers women, she equates Male Homosexuality with Pedophilia, she claims Lesbianism is a Life Style you choose and therefore denigrates Lesbians and then there’s the stuff about Trannies…
Let her speak and mock her when she does, mock her as a reactionary old dinosaur.
She’s an odious little cow who clearly ignores scientific/medical evidence on Trans folk and sides with the religious right in claiming that Lesbianism is a lifestyle choice thus giving them ammunition with which to use against us. How in hell she is allowed to come anywhere near LGBT folk is beyond me.
Wait a minute Jane, please explain exactly HOW, “ONE suitably male gay dissenter at QQT who first heckled Ms Bindel – then proved her point ["that gay men have JUST AS MUCH male privilege as straight men"] by turning and physically intimidating another female member of the audience.”
Please explain how ONE gay man’s ALLEGED physical intimidation of ONE woman PROVED Bindel’s LUDICROUS assertion that gay men have JUST AS MUCH male privilege as straight men.
For the record, I don’t think I’ve ever been to a lesbian bar (and I’ve been to lesbian bars many times) where an intimidating lesbian on lesbian fist fight didn’t break out. Who’s male privilege would you and Bindel blame for that?
Zeke: over the years i’ve taken on bindel and taken on many of the issues she espouses directly. i think she is just plain WRONG on a lot of things.
But just because someone is wrong is not – by itself – a cause for barring them from speaking. That particular retribution is reserved for particular people and some very particular position.
Even then, you’ll find me slow to bar.
Of all the positions she has taken, i regard the comments on trans as being the most dangerous, since they go so far as to deny the right to exist of one section of the LGBT spectrum.
However hard you disagree with her comments on lesbianism and gay men, i don’t think they amount to quite so radical a position: but if you believe that, then by all means argue so.
On the use of male privilege by gay men? Um. I don’t believe in the “hierarchy of oppression”. I don’t believe that some groups are inevitably at the bottom of the pile, some at the top – and therefore i don’t believe that oppressed groups are incapable of oppressing others.
Just pick up the Israel-Palestine debate for a historical perspective on how that one is argued.
I don’t think that ALL gay men are everywhere endowed with some all-encompassing male privilege. But many have continuing privilege that they continue to use in some circumstances – just as I, in some circs am now minority/victim…yet in others continue to retain much of the privlege that clings to a white middle-class upbringing.
The anecdote i mentioned is underlined as irony: it is based on a factual account by a reliable eye-witness that i spoke with. If you wish to be literal, it doesn’t prove anything about ALL gay men…and i s’pose you could read that into what i said.
So: sorry if i misled…but otherwise, i think we all have privileges that we use in different situations…and we should all be conscious of what we have, rather than pretend we are 100% disempowered.
‘I don’t think I’ve ever been to a lesbian bar (and I’ve been to lesbian bars many times) where an intimidating lesbian on lesbian fist fight didn’t break out.’
—and I’ve been to lots of bars where no fight breaks out.
jane: to pick up on your point I am a ‘Translesbian’ and, therefore, one would assume at the bottom of the pile but I am not.
I am well dressed, Middle Class, well spoken, White, fairly well off and so on and so on…we are never, as you state, 100% disadvantaged and I’m afraid that I find myself (to some extent) agreeing with Bindel on this one – Gay Men have privilege in the community, have privilege in the wider community and they can, and regrettably sometimes do, use this for means other than positive ones.
Jane, I’ll give you credit where credit is due. You’re a master of begging the question.
Theotherone, how is it stereotyping? My point wasn’t that lesbians are more intimidating and/or violent than anyone else. My point, since you clearly missed it, was that intimidation and violence can be common where “straight male privilege” could not possibly be the cause. The most obvious place where I’ve seen this demonstrated was in an environment where there were no straight men, and the people being intimidating and violent were women and gay.
OK, Zeke. I’ll bow to your superior wisdom in respect of lesbian bars… but whilst i can see my words are capable of misleading over gay men, i don’t believe i, julie bindel or anyone else are linking physical violence exclusively to male privilege.
Other genders do it too. i don’t even think that male privilege, when it occurs is mainly about violence.
She’s one of many people who appear to have mistaken disagreement for censorship. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you please without running the risk of having anyone react to what you say. And maybe what they say in response won’t be nice or fair, but if you have freedom of speech, so do they.
Zeke: not ‘straight male privilege’ but male privilege. Your point, wither you accept it or not, is that Gay Men are an oppressed minority and Lesbians are more aggressive. Yea and we all drive motorbikes, shoot pool all day long, smoke and drink too much.
Your knowledge of Lesbian culture is greater than either mine as a Lesbian or my Partners as a Lesbian or our friends as Lesbians…if you want a stereotype from me how about this: Men in Women’s Bars, in my experience, cause a huge amount of problems by waving their dicks around.
@ Jane Fae
Why people where offended:
(1) The Royal Vauxhall Tavern is one of only two safe spaces for trans men in the whole of London. Would you get offended if a sexist speaker was invited to a debate in one of your safe spaces and you where denied a voice at that debate
(2) QQT refused to have a trans representative on the panel (maybe Julie refused to share a platform with a trans person). That’s where your Nick Griffin comparison comes from (please correct your article on this point). People just said its a comparable situation with Nick Griffin being on BBC question time and the counter views to such a contentious person as Julie Bindel should of also been represented on the panel.
The background to why Julie Bindel is considered a biggot:
Many people have tried to engage Julie in debate but as somebody wrote in the Guardian:
“It’s a discussion that’s been had – several times over, in the Hecklers debate, the podcast with Christine Burns MBE and in the Manchester discussion with US academic, Susan Stryker.
In all cases, assembled experts in the field and/or knowledgeable and articulate trans people have, often with infinite patience, shown Bindel the many flaws in her viewpoint. They have quoted the substantial body of research evidence supporting the likelihood of biological factors within a nuanced multifactorial aetiology of transsexualism (unlike Bindel’s simplistic constructivism); they have clarified that the proportion of regretters is vanishingly small (particularly in the NHS, where there is no profit motive – Bindel has always cited the same two individuals who paid privately for gender treatment); they have pointed out that, far from rushing individuals through irreversible interventions, NHS gender specialists come under fire for being too slow, thorough and methodical in their assessment process.
Bindel’s reaction when confronted with research evidence, expert advice and the wealth of personal testimonies giving the lie to her unsupported cardboard cutout viewpoint? Dismissive in the extreme. She admits she has no interest in gender research which might run counter to what she already believes; she acknowledges she has no expertise in the field; she shrugs, waves her hand. And then she goes out and writes another article in which the same fallacious misconceptions are reiterated, more strongly.”
Julie sticks to the dogma written by Janice Raymond in her book – Transsexual Empire. this seems to be the only evidence she needs to deny me my gender identity.
Julie chose to use her privileged position in the media and at the heart of government to attack trans people. She can hardly complain when we defend ourselves from her attacks.
The NUS chose to apply the same standards for transphobia as it does to any form of discrimination. So they applied the same principles that sees them not giving a platform to racists and homophobes also.
“Even so, we should be treading carefully. Julie Bindel has done much that is positive, ground-breaking and inspiring on behalf of the lesbian and gay movement. She is a staunch defender of women’s causes.”
So all those Christians that do so much good work in other areas should be forgiven of their rabid homophobia then or does that standard only apply to transphobia?
You know because we are not real humans and we don’t matter as much!
One more attack by Bindel I missed
how could you forget the most infamous of the attacks abi!
Maybe I should of posted the one where she calls all Gay men pedos!
So many to chose from that’s the problem.
‘Holocause survivors’ – SLEEPING SUB-ED ALERT!!!
ah yes the ‘gay men are pedophiles’ article, how that help the Queer community.
oops I ment ‘helped…’
Do you not see the irony of talking about censoring Julie Bindel, while Julies last CIF article in the Guardian (Saturday 30 January 2010) was about censoring ads for prostitution.
Where’s is the moral outrage at Julie, for her proposed censorship of prostitutes?
I await an equally strong reproach aimed at Julie Bindel from Beatrix Campbell and all those second wave feminists that bothered jumping on the outrage bus with her.
To me that is like saying; “The Salvation Army and the Catholic Church do some good around the world, however they are still vilely homophobic – so let’s forgive them.”
Julie’s views on the ‘T’ community in all it’s variety of forms is odious and her views on gay men is also to be looked in to.
She is only for one group of people – feminist women – anyone else is not worthy.
Bindel is time-locked in the late 70s, when feminism and radical lesbianism formed common cause against men “all of whom were potential rapists – even gays” (yes I got that off one lesbian!)
She hasn’t moved on or re-evaluated the dynamics of sexuality and gender identity to accommodate new dicoveries and theories.
In many ways her opinions are as useful as those of papa Bennie
WOW!!!A woman,at a “Woman’s Conference/Woman’s Campaign”steps out
of comfort zone to put voice to issues, some/many do not agree with.
Banned,branded odious cow, reactionary old dinosaur,stuck in the
70′s and other vile comments that amount to hurling back and forth
until, right or wrong, good or bad the whole issue might beg for another
She is a”Staunch defender of Women’s Causes”some may not be aware of just how
how much respect this statement stirs in some who know the days of struggle.
I am of the 70,s,was active then(have the scars to prove)am active today,
very aware of heavy toll dealt to Women, Lesbians and Gays.
If the “Women’s Conference” decides no more to share a platform with Julie
Bindel,perhaps they should decide to no more bill themselves as a “Women’s
mary: some of us are still fighting and have open wounds rather than scars.
A nice voice of reason: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/01/julie-bindel-transphobia
So whilst some people in the LGBTQQA whatever community are busy slandering each other – I guess the rest of the LGBTQQA community will just cooperate as happily as they ever have with each other on campaigning issues.
Yes, Mary, and for some the battle goes on and is not helped by the like of Bindel. You might think she is unjustly accused but I suspect you would be in a minority. We’ve all got our scars, love, some go back a little further than the 70′s and as theotherone stated, some are open wounds. If Bindel has any sort of a case against the Trans community, then she should debate it with the relevant experts. She won’t because she can’t, she knows that and resorts to snide innuendo and tatty cartoons in the Guardian, knowing full well that Trans folk don’t get the circulation that she does in a national paper and knowing full well the damage she does, both to the Trans cause in general and to those Trans folk dealing with the turmoil that being Trans brings. I often wonder if she has ever seen the death toll of murdered Trans folk, let alone the suicide rate. For all your “days of struggle”, how many died for it?
I think angie has just about hit the final nail in the coffin for anyone that would even think of defending this woman, especially considering all the evidence cited by abi earlier in this article. The amount of blind loyalty expressed in this thread is disgusting. If this woman wasn’t a lesbian we’d be calling her a fascist right now. Since when did julie bindel have papal infallibility?
I stated, I am of the 70′s, but my fight for women’s, Lesbian’s and Gay
rights started in the 50′s, in dear ol Texas,the popular thought/belief
was “The only good queer is a dead queer.
Believe me the scars I bear are still open, raw,and painful.
The horror was unforgetable/unforgiveable.
Angie R S, Many of my Lesbian sisters and Gay Brothers gave their lives,
were maimed, declared insane, locked up, raped. What more could they
have given? 2010!!!,(I feel) the fight of today has so many curves, unclear
cluttered byways, and many mixed signals, no wonder,those who would
speak out on behalf of our community are growing confused, some lagging
back to await clarity.
I’m confused mary: only Gay and Lesbian? What no Trannies at Stonewall? No riots at Comptons in San Francisco which led to the first National Gay Rights organisation in the USA being set up a full year before Stonewall?
You quote a phrase from Texas but does Bindel not say the same of Trans people? She argued that we deserve a beating, deserve to be brutalised and raped; Bindel argued that even if we where raped it wouldn’t matter because it wouldn’t be rape anyway because we’re not women. You are defending a woman who would use rape as a weapon of terror against the Trans community.
I’m confused here.
A lot of people have spoken of “free speech” and “censorship”, both here, elsewhere online and in real life. All well and good. The former is a human right (although not a legal right) and the latter is a very dirty word indeed. What confuses me is where either of these things actually come into it.
Free speech, where such a right is granted, does not include the right to be invited onto a four-person panel in a private venue to which the public were charged admission. Free speech is no more or less than the right to say whatever is in your heart without fear of prosecution.
Censorship is not described by the NUS “no-platform” position. What such a position entails is that officers of the NUS women’s campaign (who are the only NUS members affected by the ban) shall not offer Ms Bindel a seat on any platform they operate, nor shall they accept a seat on any platform she happens to be on. That’s it. That’s the sum of it. I fail to see how that could possibly qualify as censorship. All the more so when Ms Bindel seems to enjoy carte blanche at the Guardian.
I think people need to look deeper into this issue before they cry foul.
Obviously there is another way to make a lesbian wet other than show her a repeat of the Wimbledon Ladies’ Tennis Final!
Ms Bindel highlights what many have known for a long time, that many lesbians are simply man haters, and that doesn’t matter that they are straight, gay or used-to-be-men. In their eyes they are all men, and all to be hated. Shame realy.
She only stands for feminist women? She hell as doesn’t stand for me. It’s disgusting that people are still listening to her and legitimising her awful views.
As for the NUS ‘banning’ her – she’s just never going to be invited to one of their events. It’s not like she’s a student or was invited and was then banned, or was thrown out of the building.
She would stop a woman’s conference being a safe space. I wouldn’t feel comfortable with someone so virulently anti-queer there (her articles would lead me to think she’d hate me just for liking men and women), let alone a trans woman who would know that Bindel thought she was ‘sick’ and a ‘person who used to be a man.’
Bindel is a hypocrite, and doesn’t even realise that she’s dangerous. I hope – if she does realise then she knows she’s got blood on her hands.
she doesn’t care.
She was paid by glasgow City Council to come and do a study into how evil Lap Dancing clubs where so that they could shut them down. Glasgow used to have a Prostitution Tolerance Zone until the Council shut it down and then they went after Lap Dancing clubs and along came Julie to legitimise a move that would put women’s lifes at risk.
She sure as hell doesn’t stand up for Sex Workers either.
theotherone, you are right, and I honor all my sisters and brothers,
am in gratitude to all.
My hope is that we do not lose the war,as we battle among ourselves.
Thank you for responding to my comment in the gentle/kind reminding
way you did, no mindless name calling,slinging muddy slurs my way.
“Undoubtedly there are spaces, audiences, where Julie’s positions offend: where they go beyond offence, and shade into hurtfulness. Even so: does that merit the NUS Women’s Conference deciding no more to share a platform with her?”
In a word: yes. JB is a woman who hates other women and would see violence done to them, no matter how she dresses it up.
‘My hope is that we do not lose the war,as we battle among ourselves.’
—that’s why people like Bindel are dangerous; they split the community. Bindel is basically an old fashioned Lesbian Separatist and as we see the Government in the UK turning against Queer people in a pathetic attempt to gain votes the last thing we need is someone spliting the comunity like this.
she sounds like a right cow I think she hates the competition and wants a dick
she sounds like a right cow she probally hates the competition and wants a dick
I think Julie is a fantastic and courageous feminist. Lots of lesbians love her and she has done lots of great stuff for our (lesbian) community. I respect peoples right to disagree with her politically, but I think the no platforming of Julie, by NUS silences the voices of many lesbian feminists and excludes us from that very important campaign. They have not just silenced Julie by doing this, they have silenced almost all lesbian feminists.
By the way, theo, lesbian separatism is back in fashion, there are more and more young dykes deciding to be separatist.