You do need to rethink your priorities.

“I would like a right to reply to be offered to the feminist that you have named here. Naming in this way is entirely unacceptable, especially when there are very different sides to this story”

Look, can we just knock it off with this shit already? There is NO “different side” to this story. None whatsoever.

Gail and her cohorts LIED about their beliefs and intentions to get into this conference. They KNEW full well that this was a safe space for trans women, and they didn’t give a fuck. They were asked to leave and they refused. They were rude, obnoxious and disgusting. Just like the entire TERF movement. If this was you’re attempt to show the world that the TERF movement isn’t dominated by a bunch of paranoid, delusional assholes, congratulations. You failed big time.

Gail made her reply when she disrupted a trans inclusive event in order to be a jerk.

Seriously, you jokers need to grow the fuck up.

Bluntly: no, I don’t think “accountability” in this sense requires giving someone the space to take up some of our organisational space, when (a) they disagree with our fundamental organising principles (b) one of the central problems was that they’ve already taken up far too much of our space.

You’re not really engaging with what I said at all. As I said, if you really think that the main aim now is “give Gail more space” rather than “work to repair the wounds and hurt that Gail caused to multiple event attendees”, then your priorities are bad.

Also, on a technical note:

(1) Calling this a “witch hunt” is pretty hilarious though – we didn’t seek this out, remember, Gail seems to have intentionally come to the event to be disruptive.

(2) this isn’t “doxxing”. We didn’t scour the internet for juicy personal tidbits about her. Literally all we did was put Gail’s full name in a piece, just like lots of other things that Gail has done before online – the only difference being that we were critical of Gail’s actions. So sorry, but no.

Well, to be honest, I’m afraid of *exactly* people like you doing *exactly* things like this, which is why I myself rarely go to feminist events. To hold someone accountable for their actions also requires that they be allowed to defend themselves from those accusations — not to do so looks an awful lot like a witchhunt, which is what your reply does seem to suggest, even more than the original post. Of course it makes sense not to organise anything further with people with whom you’ve had difficulty in the past, even for the organising collective to remove or deny someone entry to your events (though I do strongly feel such decisions should be unanimous). But that’s very different from trying to ostracise someone from the entirety of feminist activism.

As for bigotry, I prioritise constructive dialogue above all — yes, even with those with whom I vehemently disagree. Otherwise we’re just going to keep going around in circles and the divisions that tore feminism apart in the 1980s are going to tear us apart again. We’ve got to figure out more constructive ways of dealing with our differences than pointing fingers and saying ‘don’t talk to so-and-so, she’s this-or-that’. And I have to wonder why this had to be done via a global forum so it will come up whenever someone searches for either the person or those organisations, forever. Women attacking other women via the internet — particularly by using their personal identifying information — is indeed something I find horrifying and if you don’t, I would wonder about your priorities…it’s called doxxing, and it’s one of the main tools men use to silence women for saying things they don’t like (google Gamergate if you’re not sure what I’m talking about).

Three reasons we named Gail:
(1) we named the person that was widely considered to be the central bigot of the day. We didn’t name the others involved bcs the following point doesn’t really apply to them
(2) we named Gail largely bcs she is so central in other anarchist/feminist organising. we named her because many supporters/attendees at AFem want to specifically avoid her in the future, which is also why we listed her affiliations.
(3) we named Gail bcs this isn’t just for the people that came to AFem2014. lots of trans women specifically didn’t come because they were scared of *exactly* people like Gail making the event a hostile space for trans women. this is to let them know what happened and what we’ve done about it, bcs even though they didn’t come, they’re still super important to AFem as a project

Three other things:
(4) our aim isn’t to “shame” Gail. it’s accountability. don’t want people being tools at our events and letting them go off and be tools at other events.
(5) I’ll name myself if you want. I’m Sam. hi.
(6) if you really think that *this* is what’s horrifying – naming a bigot – rather than the actual bigotry, then you’ve gotta re-evaluate your priorities.