There are some problems with this interpretation of events. The high point of 'muncipal lesbianism' was the creation of the London Lesbian and Gay Centre and one of the major confrontations of that period - the mid 80s - was the attempt by the "radical feminists" embedded in the management of the Centre to bar not only SM and Bi groups, but SM outfits (as defined by them) and bisexual behaviour (ditto). After a series of long debates, they lost and had to back down - part of the work on this was done by a group called Sexual Fringe of which I was part.
Over the following few years, they did some stupid over-reaching like the physical assault on SM women at the Chain Reaction disco which discredited them in a lot of women's eyes - I don't think that gay men noticed it - and there were some interesting defections from the central group - Linda Bellos started concentrating even more than previously on AfroCarribean/BlackBritish political issues and gradually changed her views. Sheila Jeffreys, who had been the guru of the group for years, moved her poison-spreading to Australia. They put a lot of energy into the Campaign Against Pornography and failed in the legislative issues attached to that group - Feminists Against Censorship defeated them.
The women most associated with Stonewall were never part of that axis - Angela Mason is the partner of Elizabeth Wilson, who was part of FAC and the more general socialist feminist axis. I am not an especial fan of Angela's conduct at Stonewall - we had words several times and I stopped being friends with her and Elizabeth - but I think the issue was more that trans issues were messy and got in the way than that she was in any way phobic. I think I would have noticed on the occasions -prior to our rows about Stonewall - when I had dinner at her house.
As someone who was on the Parliamentary Forum over the GRA, I have to say that it could have been a lot worse and, had we not fought hard, there would have been provisions in it that would have been a real betrayal of the trans community. Some Ministers wanted sterilization to be a condition of certificates, for example, and we saw off that proposal. At the same time, I got quite vexed with some of the PfC people simply because as individuals theywere only ultimately interested in the rights of straight-identified trans people and hardly at all in anyone queer, lesbian or gender queer. Critical as I am of Christine Burns and Stephen Whittle over some issues, I really do not mean them, let us be clear.
The transphobic views of some feminists are something we need to oppose and we need to carve out a space in which the rights of LGB transfolk are respected - the only reason why Stonewall and Pride are resisting this is that they are idiotic...
I really don't think that the irritating obstinacy of Paul Birrell of Pride has anything to do with pandering to Bindelesque transphobia, or even to old style Gay Liberationist distaste for trans, so much as with his general dislike of any minority that gets uppity with him. He has been equally hostile to BME critics of the last Pride.
I think that the Stonewall officers are similarly resentful of our lack of deference, and imaginative pursuit of them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Helen says
Date: 2008-11-07 11:48 pm (UTC)Over the following few years, they did some stupid over-reaching like the physical assault on SM women at the Chain Reaction disco which discredited them in a lot of women's eyes - I don't think that gay men noticed it - and there were some interesting defections from the central group - Linda Bellos started concentrating even more than previously on AfroCarribean/BlackBritish political issues and gradually changed her views. Sheila Jeffreys, who had been the guru of the group for years, moved her poison-spreading to Australia. They put a lot of energy into the Campaign Against Pornography and failed in the legislative issues attached to that group - Feminists Against Censorship defeated them.
The women most associated with Stonewall were never part of that axis - Angela Mason is the partner of Elizabeth Wilson, who was part of FAC and the more general socialist feminist axis. I am not an especial fan of Angela's conduct at Stonewall - we had words several times and I stopped being friends with her and Elizabeth - but I think the issue was more that trans issues were messy and got in the way than that she was in any way phobic. I think I would have noticed on the occasions -prior to our rows about Stonewall - when I had dinner at her house.
As someone who was on the Parliamentary Forum over the GRA, I have to say that it could have been a lot worse and, had we not fought hard, there would have been provisions in it that would have been a real betrayal of the trans community. Some Ministers wanted sterilization to be a condition of certificates, for example, and we saw off that proposal. At the same time, I got quite vexed with some of the PfC people simply because as individuals theywere only ultimately interested in the rights of straight-identified trans people and hardly at all in anyone queer, lesbian or gender queer. Critical as I am of Christine Burns and Stephen Whittle over some issues, I really do not mean them, let us be clear.
The transphobic views of some feminists are something we need to oppose and we need to carve out a space in which the rights of LGB transfolk are respected - the only reason why Stonewall and Pride are resisting this is that they are idiotic...
I really don't think that the irritating obstinacy of Paul Birrell of Pride has anything to do with pandering to Bindelesque transphobia, or even to old style Gay Liberationist distaste for trans, so much as with his general dislike of any minority that gets uppity with him. He has been equally hostile to BME critics of the last Pride.
I think that the Stonewall officers are similarly resentful of our lack of deference, and imaginative pursuit of them.