Within the skeptic and atheist community not long ago, many of the ongoing arguments about conference harassment policies centered on what exactly it means (or should mean) to create a safe space for women at our meetups, informal gatherings, and conferences. Is it merely a space wherein women don’t generally feel threatened by the possibility of sexual harassment or unwanted sexual attention (this seems to be the consensus view) or is it something much more comprehensive and significantly more difficult to create and sustain?
Here is the definition of “safe space” from the Geek Feminism Wiki:
Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face standard mainstream stereotypes and marginalisation, or in which a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate in the space. For example, a feminist safe space would not allow free expression of anti-feminist viewpoints, and would typically also prevent concern trolling and continual Feminism 101 discussions in favour of feminist discussion among feminists. Safe spaces may require trigger warnings and restrict content that might hurt people who have strong reactions to depictions of abuse or harm or mental illness triggers.
Physical safe spaces exist in some geek communities; for instance, WisCon had a safe space for people of colour in 2009, and women-centric events such as the LinuxChix miniconf effectively act as safe spaces, although not overtly advertised as such. Women-only classes and workshops are also safe spaces. Physical safe spaces are often reserved only for members of the oppressed group.
Now perhaps I’ve misunderstood the recent hulabaloo (certainly I’ve read some conflicting accounts) but it seems fairly clear that what the radical feminists were trying to do at the London Irish Centre was create a safe space for feminism as they understand and practice it, one wherein “a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate in the space” and which “would not allow free expression of anti-feminist viewpoints” which run counter to their particularly radical conception of what feminism entails. This follows fairly straightforwardly from their participation policy, which reads as follows:
Radfem 2013: Resurgence of Women’s Liberation conference is for women who are involved and/or interested in the women’s liberation movement. We are committed to affirming global sisterhood and resisting male violence and domination in all of its forms. We are aligned in our analysis using a radical feminist framework.
By registering for this conference, you are agreeing to attend in good faith, as a radical feminist and to commit to promoting the values of women’s liberation, feminist ethics, and the creation of a safe space for women. Anti-female, racist, classist, disabilist, and lesbophobic language will not be tolerated at the conference. Anyone found to be attending in order to be disruptive or to promote an alternative agenda will be asked to leave the conference. The organisers reserve the right to ask participants to leave at any time if they are not acting appropriately, in line with this agreement.
So far, so good. Sounds like they only want radical feminist women to attend their radical feminist conference. It gets controversial, however, when we find that the organisers intend to reserve their “[p]hysical safe spaces” to “members of the oppressed group” of their own choosing, namely, radical feminist ciswomen. For most of the feminists that I’ve known and spoken with, this is a step too far. In their view, it is obviously acceptable to discriminate on gender (limiting a safespace to women) but not on sex (limiting a safespace to ciswomen).
Which brings me to my point, and just a few queries. For the purposes of voluntary association and the creation of a carefully circumscribed safespace grounded in shared ideology, why should gender-based discrimination be considered morally acceptable while sex-based discrimination is not? Assuming that we wish to further the goals of secular humanism, is there an argument to be had that gender discrimination may be helpful in certain circumstances whereas sex discrimination would inevitably be harmful? What exactly is the moral argument that allows us to draw the line so finely as that, right between sex and gender?
