DiscussionWhy do LGB Alliance and LGN keep giving a platform to Julie Bindel, when she repeatedly makes homophobic and biphobic claims?

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well most radfems don't think that and plenty of them have husbands, boyfriends and sons who they love.

You are discussing an extremist and making the wrong assumption that everyone who is radfem is the same.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a fair point, she is the most extreme of the bunch. I guess the way I think about it is similar to how I think about religious organizations, e.g. the Catholic church: obviously, the people at the top tend to have the most egregiously harmful claims and actions. However, Catholics still are implicitly supporting those people at the top by being official members of the church, and while they might reasonable people in general, it seems unreasonable to support a pope who turned a blind eye to sexual abuse within the clergy, etc...

Perhaps there is a way for radfems and LGB people to coexist peacefully, without radfems trampling on the definition of sexual orientation. The "political lesbian" concept seems pretty popular in radfem circles, though. Maybe if there were some group of people who hold other radfem beliefs but not that one, then I would think much differently. It sounds like that's kinda more where you're coming from?

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think most radfems find political lesbianism stupid.

You have to understand, radical feminism is a philosophical point of view. It's to discuss the root cause of women's oppression and political lesbianism is an interesting hypothetical debate to be had. But most people who call themselves radfem know it's not rooted in realism and it's nonsense. It's like discussing time travel.

The issue is some fruitloops have taken radical feminism not as the philosophical movement that it is , but turned it into an identity (like the genderfolk do with gender identity) .

But so far, from what i have seen, i think most radfems are NOT of the fruitloops kind.

I would never call myself a radfem because i don't see it as an identity and some of the discussions are a bit too extremist for me. I am actually very much a more centrist person. I don't do extremes and I don't fit any molds.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think most radfems find political lesbianism stupid.

Interesting. I wonder if there are any survey stats among radfems out there about this. Like, "most popular beliefs among radfems" or something.

The issue is some fruitloops have taken radical feminism not as the philosophical movement that it is , but turned it into an identity (like the genderfolk do with gender identity) .

I suppose what I really ought to do then is go lurk radfem forums and see what the consensus is. I don't have a ton of desire to do that but I am also curious now, lol. I just know that among a) radfems I've interacted with on saidit, and b) radfems who claim to speak for LGB people, "political lesbianism" is a popular concept. Perhaps both these groups are not representative of radfems in general. Not sure if you have seen it yourself but there are some users on this sub, including this one, who seem to believe it... which baffles me.

I would never call myself a radfem because i don't see it as an identity and some of the discussions are a bit too extremist for me. I am actually very much a more centrist person. I don't do extremes and I don't fit any molds.

Ah, okay, makes sense.

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

One of the replies on the post you linked is someone admitting they are radfem and thinking political lesbianism is stupid.

I think its just the extremists that are more vocal and visable like in any group. Like I sad I am not radfem so i'm not 100% sure about all of it.

I found one thread sort of discussing this on Ovarit. Not all women there are radfems but it was a specific question. I think if you read it it might show a better big picture that it's all very theoretical and about questioning society and women's role in it.

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/37288/radical-feminism-is-critical-of-heterosexual-relationships-what-does-this-mean

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is a very relevant thread, thank you for sharing. A lot of those replies are echoing the same sentiments echoed by TQ supporters' belief in "compulsory heterosexuality," or comphet-- which is, in fact, a radfem belief. So I am not exactly heartened by that.

Do you see that top comment and its top reply, and the one after that (which is much higher rated like the first comment)? That is the spread of opinion among radfems, at play. The first and third comments acknowledge/accept the reality of sexual orientation being based in biology, the second comment minimizes and ignores it-- which is Julie Bindel's approach. The ratio's about 30:15 or 2:1, so if I were judging based on just this thread (questionable but I'm simplifying), I would say you are right, more radfems would disagree with Bindel than agree with her; I'm glad to see that. At the same time it seems like there's a pretty sizeable minority who are at least sympathetic to the anti-scientific part of her claims, so I'll continue to be concerned... but with the knowledge in mind that a lot (maybe the majority?) of individual radfems might completely disagree with Bindel on the homophobic parts of her claims.

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion, I appreciate it.

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're very welcome. It's nice to have good discussions online, it's becoming rare :)