How do we scourge out racism and classism in feminism?

"They may support your goal, but they are not gender-critical."

So even though he talked about being gender critical at the meeting and 200 women heard him, you know its untrue?

Nice that you know what "our" goal is. I'm not surprised that gender critical feminism isn't your goal though. You seem to be doing your best to stir up dissent and hatred Peakpants and posse.
It also seems rather ironic to be now opposing religious fundamentalism when a few minutes ago you were extolling the virtues of Islam.

The examples you picked included the Conservative Woman

????
You are making that up?

"The examples you picked included the Conservative Woman. That is the most misogynistic pile of claptrap site you could ever read. It tells women to get a grip, find a husband and stay at home. It honestly does. It is manifestly anti-feminist. "

No doubt.

However such sites are willing to host gender-critical content. The sites themselves are not feminist. But that doesn't mean they don't share opinions on whether, for example, a man can become a woman.

I am sorry actually- that was the wrong David Davies.

Apologies.

My comments re right-wingers and religious fundamentalists stand. They may support your goal, but they are not gender-critical.

PeakPants

Which meetings have you been to PeakPants. What first hand knowledge do you have of these meetings women are having? Please share as you seem incredibly knowledgeable about what we are doing?

"The right-wingers, David Davis, and the Christians are not gender-critical in the slightest. They would laugh in your face if you said gender was socially constructed in order to oppress women. "

Davies.

"I just cannot see how anyone could want to join forces with them when much of what they say is so extremely anti-feminist. Aren't you hugely undermining your own argument there? Yes, the end result might be that self-ID is not enacted. Yes, the end result might be that self-ID is not enacted. However, once that is over, you will realise that life with right-wingers is not a bed of roses and the issues that have been overlooked in the quest for opposing self-ID suddenly become much more apparent again."

I didn't follow this argument. It's a campaign, you agree on that issue, you move on. Not sure your point here really.

There is plenty of bipartisan legislation. It's nonsense to suggest that because you are teaming up with, say, Davies on one issue, that you are also want to reduce the abortion limit to 12 weeks (as he does).

Makes no sense.

Why do people spam like this? Serves me right for asking for links I suppose.

It's probably worth repeating, anti-trans is not the same as gender critical feminism.

PeakPants
They would laugh in your face if you said gender was socially constructed in order to oppress women

David Davis did not laugh in anyone's face. He agreed with this. He sat on the platform and told us. Were you there? And yet you are telling everyone what he thinks despite the fact there are people here that were there and heard him speak.
He has since started asking about the prison situation, doing something about it, I've watched the recording of the debate.

Where you there?

"Is it? What proportion? Can you give examples? Anti-trans is not the same as gender critical."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-silencing-of-the-lesbians/
www.dangerous.com/41476/truth-autogynephilia-really-wears-pants-transgender-coup/
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4743036/800-children-young-10-puberty-blockers.html
www.conservativewoman.co.uk/vogues-transgender-suffragette-licence-bully-women/
www.dailysignal.com/2015/12/21/why-these-high-school-girls-dont-want-transgender-student-a-in-their-locker-room/
thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/
www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/17033/
womanmeanssomething.com/arguments-vs-gender-based-rights/

"Some decent proportion of gender-critical content is hosted on fairly right-wing websites"

Is it? What proportion? Can you give examples? Anti-trans is not the same as gender critical.

But Caitlyns that is what I do not understand. The right-wingers, David Davis, and the Christians are not gender-critical in the slightest. They would laugh in your face if you said gender was socially constructed in order to oppress women. They believe gender roles are innate- women were born to bear children and nurture while men are natural leaders. To call them GC is absurd. Donald Trump is very critical of trans people for instance. He is also a misogynistic, abusive dick.

The point in common is that they are very suspicious of trans ideology. But for entirely different reasons and for similar reasons to their (in the case of Christians) objections to same sex marriage and other things that go against their norms.

I just cannot see how anyone could want to join forces with them when much of what they say is so extremely anti-feminist. Aren't you hugely undermining your own argument there? Yes, the end result might be that self-ID is not enacted. However, once that is over, you will realise that life with right-wingers is not a bed of roses and the issues that have been overlooked in the quest for opposing self-ID suddenly become much more apparent again.

"Why are gender critical feminist automatically going to attract people who aren't inclusive/privilege questioning etc? What evidence do you have that supports this claim? "

Some decent proportion of gender-critical content is hosted on fairly right-wing websites. David Davies is definitely somewhere in the top few % of most right-wing MPs, and he has been responsible for giving the movement an audience.

"Not including male bodied people in the definition of women doesn't make you automatically a bigot, much as some people would like to think. "

No, it doesn't. I'm just pointing out that being trans-critical is obviously attractive to the hard right.

"Why would right wing Christians be feminists? That seems unlikely."

This is the 'hands across the aisle' thing. I'm not sure if they identify as 'feminists', but they may be working for the same goal, regardless of their chosen label.

I sense that the right is generally happy to accept the left (or some part of it)'s aid for pragmatic reasons, but I'm not sure that always works in reverse.

It's culture wars in a way really isn't it.

"On the other hand if are gender-critical then you are automatically going to attract people who don't necessarily employ the same general standards of inclusion, privilege-questioning, and so on.

So really you're NOT going to eliminate racism and classism and so on (overt or perceived), because some subset of the people who agree with you, on say, gender-critical feminism are going to be say, right-wing Christians."

Why are gender critical feminist automatically going to attract people who aren't inclusive/privilege questioning etc? What evidence do you have that supports this claim?

Not including male bodied people in the definition of women doesn't make you automatically a bigot, much as some people would like to think.

Why would right wing Christians be feminists? That seems unlikely.

Interesting sudden appearance of mutually supporting new feminists telling the rest of us where we're going wrong.

I think intersectional feminism is intended to be less racist, classist, etc.

If you start with that then you have a no '-ism' policy, and everything's a safe space so to speak.

But obviously you include transwomen.

On the other hand if are gender-critical then you are automatically going to attract people who don't necessarily employ the same general standards of inclusion, privilege-questioning, and so on.

So really you're NOT going to eliminate racism and classism and so on (overt or perceived), because some subset of the people who agree with you, on say, gender-critical feminism are going to be say, right-wing Christians.

So either you include these 'unsound' people within a specific context where their problematic attitudes are not relevant (if you have a campaign for, say, sanitary products, you don't need to consider people's views on other topics). Or you go for a purity test and deplatform people.

I don't think the latter approach is a winner, personally. Both political parties include individuals who might be a bit dubious. But it's a grand coalition to fulfill the overriding goals of the party.

👏 yes whatthewatershowedme agree!

I saw it mama it makes me dizzy to think of the mental flips some women go through to justify shutting up other women to let a white woman (who clearly states she finds a religious symbolism 'disgusting') speak freely.

I'm white and middle class. You can support women from ethnic minority and working class backgrounds by reading their books, tweets and blogs, watch their YouTube videos, donating to causes that benefit women of colour or women in poverty and not make assumptions that Muslim women, for example, are one homogeneous group with one set of viewpoints and opinions on the issues that matter to them- including the patriarchal nature of some of their religious beliefs and practices. The key is to listen, and offer help if help is needed (financial, or a wider platform). What doesn't help is getting offended if you get told you are only looking at an issue from a white, middle-class POV, and that there are things you may have not considered. And don't automatically dismiss the concerns of WOC (which is what I've seen on the Truro thread in response to @mamaoya's thoughtful post).

@Tacolover: thank you for your posts. Ironic isn’t it for people arguing their only purpose is to let women speak, but only some women apparently since women who speak about racism or Islamophobia or lesbophobia are being “tedious”, “irrelevant” “boring” etc. So let women speak but only some women’s voices are valuable, other women are just so annoying when they want to speak about oppression in their lives that doesn’t affect white women!

Thank you

I've had a feminist rollercoaster past 24hrs, not welcome here, ok yes welcomed here, not, yes, not, yes, not... argh!

When all women get together it is the best thing in the world. I don't get why some just don't want that to happen or don't see why it currently doesn't happen much.

Taco I saw your post on the other thread it read really well much better than anything I could do

I agree. She just said it so plainly and clearly. I don't know how anyone could read that and still think that it makes no difference what views a speaker has outside self-ID.

That was my thoughts on mama's post Taco

I hope she keeps posting.

PeakPants thank you! Her posts were everything that was jumbled in my head sorted out into coherent sentences