Jeremy Stangroom

I see a lot of crossover in UK politics in particular - New Statesman, Little Atoms, etc, to the point of even supporting the substansive positions of shutting down sexual expression. Kind of undermines their free speech stance in other areas. >

In a North American context, I don't think I've seen anybody who's recently been lining up behind Meghan Murphy question her substanive positions, which have been extremely censorious in the not-so-recent past. >

Including the exact same labeling of criticism as "harassment" that she's now on the receiving end of.

That may be true, but given the balance of forces with respect to the gender critical position, not sure it makes an awful lot of political sense to qualify one's support for radfems by saying, Oh yeah, and you're just as bad too (even if it's true).

I’d qualify it in that I think Meghan Murphy and Julie Bindel’s support for actual free speech is skin deep. I support both of them against deplatforming, but in the same sense that I don’t support deplatforming of alt right figures either. >

But I wouldn’t want to make a deeper alliance with the alt-right, which is where I’m critical of Dave Rubin, etc. I feel the same about radfems.

Okay, but my support for the gender critical position isn't only about their right to speak, and opposition to the monstering that has occurred, I also think they've go the better arguments. I'm probably more sympathetic than you to the radfem view.

But how do you square that with your above criticism of Leeds Reviolutionary Feminists? These are literally the same people - Sheila Jeffreys, who's one of the main architects of the "gender critical position" was leader of that group. Julie Bindel came out of it too. >