Holding the Fauxminist Library Accountable

When a Feminist Library Tells Feminists They Aren’t Welcome

As you may have heard, an organisation called the Feminist Library released a statement this week on “accountability and transphobia,” committing to tackle transphobia in their ranks and essentially stated on Twitter that gender critical and radical feminists would not be welcome in their space. So let’s hold them accountable.

Now their statement itself is long-winded and wordy drivel for the most part, but it has moments in it that are frankly incredibly alarming and indicative of the failings of modern feminism and its detached nature from feminism’s roots and history. 

So here is their statement, sliced and diced, with my responses. (I suppose it’s fitting that the inaugural post on The Blistering Rebuttal is a rebuttal.)  

As an organisation founded 46-years ago, the Feminist Library has evolved…. No individual member of the collective represents the group’s views as a whole and we come from different political histories as well as cultural and class backgrounds. However... a by-product of this has been that we  have failed to present a united and unequivocal stance on certain issues.

Translation: though we welcome disagreement and freedom of thought on many issues, you cannot stray from the party line when it comes to trans issues. 

Over the past year, we have conducted a number internal [sic] “Organisational Culture” meetings amongst members of the core collective intended to address a wide range of issues included but not limited to: changing the external perception of the library, creating clear internal and external accountability procedures in order to hold each other to account… and determining a long term vision for the Library that embraces contemporary feminism’s radical and inclusive thinking. 

Emphasis mine. This is such a perfect example of doublethink it is almost unbelievable. There is nothing radical about being inclusive. Nothing. Especially when it comes to feminism. Women are constantly told to make space for others in every aspect of their lives, all the way down to their thought processes. We don’t even put ourselves first in our minds. 

Furthermore, the use of the term radical here gives me pause, and makes me wonder whether they have any grasp of true feminist history(/herstory). As a feminist library collective one would think they would have some awareness of the meaning of the word “radical” in feminist spaces. And radical feminism is anything but inclusive. Radical feminism is exclusively for women, exclusively about prioritising women, exclusively about liberating women. Radical, as well, means “to the root”—how does the Feminist Library intend to get to the root of patriarchy while denying biological realities? But I’ll come to that. 

“Contemporary feminism’s radical and inclusive thinking” is not only a completely meaningless statement but a misleading interpretation of modern feminism—or as I like to call it, fauxminism. There is nothing radical about telling women that empowerment is leaning in to the male gaze, embracing women’s objectification through porn and prostitution, feeling okay with women being purchased whether for sex or for their wombs. That is simply doing patriarchy’s work for it. 

We understand that in an increasingly hostile conversation regarding trans inclusion from in the mainstream press and certain sects of feminism, it is important for us to reiterate that we are a trans-inclusive organisation and that we stand in solidarity with all trans people in the face of mockery, denigration, humiliation and discrimination with regards to accessing healthcare and other legal rights. 

The majority of women in this debate that I’ve seen be called TERFs have no issue with trans people accessing “healthcare and other legal rights.” They just disagree on what those rights are. That isn’t “increasingly hostile” of women who are concerned, that is women trying to assert their rights and express their concerns. The vilification of women who are angry that they aren’t being listened to is antithetical to true feminism, which would seek to listen to them and find a solution. However, when women have said “we are happy for transwomen to have a third space but would not welcome a Self ID policy in bathrooms, rape shelters, prisons, and homeless shelters,” the response has not been to compromise, but to vilify these women for “weaponising their trauma” and “creating an apartheid.” This is, again, antithetical to feminism, which would seek to create a discussion and find a solution amenable to all women. 

We wish to reiterate as members of the collective that we believe that feminism is a political project that works in service of all of us.

No, feminism is a political project that works in service of women. Females. It’s in the name. Feminism. It is ghoulish that in 2021 we have regressed so far that we need to explain to women that feminism is for women. If you are not prioritising women in your feminism, it isn’t feminism. It’s just some strange kind of egalitarianism. You don’t get to appropriate feminism and make it about everyone, ie, men too. 

As part of our ongoing conversations, we are developing bespoke accountability procedures that include training for all members of the collective. 

Translation: “Re-education.”

We aim to be inclusive of all feminisms, and particularly welcome those who have historically been marginalised within society as a whole, and within the feminist movement. Our organisation is anti-sectarian, meaning we believe in coalition-building among people with different backgrounds and experiences. Respectful debate, discussion and learning are encouraged, provided all users abide by our community policy. 

Except women who have disagreements with trans activism, who you’ve said you will not welcome into your library. So this statement isn’t true at all, apparently. You cannot encourage “respectful debate” while simultaneously saying women who hold a particular position are not allowed in the space. 

If you truly believed in “coalition-building,” you would discuss the concerns of women you disagree with.

(The irony of calling themselves anti-sectarian while alienating a whole group of radical feminists is apparently lost on them.)

At the Feminist Library, we believe that feminism is a political framework that we can use to end all gendered violence and transform the world for everyone. There are a number of different kinds of feminism, we hope our archive shows how feminist thinking is beneficial for all. 

Why do modern fauxminists feel the need to market feminism to “everyone”? When you say that, what you’re really saying is, “feminist thinking is beneficial for men, too.” If you’re trying to get men to care about feminism, you’ve already lost the battle to patriarchy, because instead of putting women first you’re trying to make something fundamentally unpalatable to patriarchy palatable to the people who benefit from patriarchy. This is a compromise with the existing power structure. As Audre Lorde said, you can’t use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. 

We understand gender and sex as constructed categories with meanings that have changed over time and are dependent on time periods, geographical location, culture, amongst a range of other factors. 

No no no. Sex is not a construct. Gender certainly is, and the way we talk about sex is certainly worth unpicking, but sex itself is not a construct. It is binary and immutable in humans.  

We wholeheartedly reject any feminist framework that seeks to define womanhood solely using biological essentialism or any feminism that seeks to re-inscribe rigid ideas of sex.

“Women have vulvas” is not biological essentialism. “Women are naturally more nurturing than men” is biological essentialism. Radical and gender critical feminists believe the former, and not the latter. 

Furthermore, “A woman is an adult human female” does not re-inscribe rigid ideas of sex. Radical feminists seek to liberate women from stereotypes by saying that is the only qualification for being a woman, and as such, a woman can do anything else and still be a woman. Want to be gender-nonconforming? Congratulations, you can do anything you want and still be a woman. In this way, acknowledging the reality of binary sex liberates women from stereotypes—it doesn’t reinforce it. 

We also recognise that experiences of gender, in general, are diverse – feminism necessarily includes non-binary and gender non-conforming people and always has. 

No, it hasn’t always done that, and it does not behoove a place that calls itself a feminist library to purport such a thing. Feminism necessarily includes non-binary and gender-nonconforming female humans, because that is who feminism seeks to liberate from patriarchy. 

Okay, this next bit is the part that is especially dangerous. 

Following a long tradition of writings and activism from black feminism, trans feminists and working-class women – we believe that there is not a singular, universal origin point for all women’s oppression across the globe nor should we attempt to find one. Our time is better spent remaining attentive to the dire social, political and economic conditions we experience as women and using feminism as a tool to end these conditions.

Emphasis my own. 

This is remarkable. The audacity. 

How does the Feminist Library expect to fight the “dire conditions we experience as women” without fighting the origin of those dire conditions? Where does the Feminist Library believe those conditions come from, exactly, that places women globally in danger? Is it just by pure coincidence that women worldwide are more likely to be victims of rape than men? Is it just by pure coincidence that 2 in 3 women worldwide experience sexual harassment or assault? Is it just by pure coincidence that women worldwide experience period stigma, sex-selective abortion, child marriage? Do those things just happen to women by chance? It is pure coincidence that we have a word to describe the hatred of women—“misogyny”—almost as if this observed phenomenon is a trend across the world, that perhaps has a single source? 

This is insulting. This is an insult to women, worldwide. 

Why does patriarchy exist to you, Fauxminist Library? What is the origin of patriarchy? Why do the majority of societies in the world function in a patriarchal way? It is anti-intellectual, and frankly, anti-woman to ignore this reality, and to state that it isn’t worth finding a source for patriarchy. I’d go so far as to say that saying there is not a single origin for women’s oppression globally is to deny the existence of patriarchy as an organising structure. 

Furthermore it is comical to say that your time is “better spent remaining attentive to the conditions we experience as women” when those conditions are a consequence of something systemic. Something we call patriarchy. This is essentially treating the symptoms without fighting the disease, and this is why modern feminism is an abject failure and travesty. 

Look, the reason the Fauxminist Library is saying this is because to acknowledge the pervasiveness of patriarchy means you must acknowledge the origins of patriarchy. And the origins of patriarchy, according to radical feminism, is in biological reality. The average woman is indeed shorter and less strong than the average man. This is just fact. That is not to say the average woman is inferior or lesser than—she is not. But the average man can indeed overpower the average woman. The woman’s role in reproduction, ie pregnancy and giving birth, plays into this. Patriarchy attempts to institutionalise women’s subjugation in order to gain control of the means of reproduction. To acknowledge this, the Fauxminist Library would have to acknowledge the reality of biological sex, and to acknowledge that would lead to uproar from trans activism.

But how on earth does the Fauxminist Library attempt to fight women’s oppression without actually understanding how and why it arises?

This is the level of denial feminist spaces are going into to make trans people feel comfortable. They are literally erasing patriarchy in service of it. 

Look, I have no issue with helping create spaces in which trans people feel safe and can dialogue. But do not erase and rewrite decades of feminism to do it. This statement is throwing out the palimpsest and pretending there never was one.

Do not deny the whole second wave in a desire to virtue signal. Do not sacrifice the activism of the women you disagree with by vilifying them. Above all, do not do this in the name of feminism. 

Though there is more to say, this is already quite long. I will instead just end with this:

Thank you for taking the time to read this, we are always open to comments and feedback on our efforts.

Ha.