regressive and (actually transphobic) supporters of the "woman's place" position

Another ace post, PencilsinSpace. Andrea Dworkin. Love her.

Thing is all women - radfems, conservatives, religious - are well aware what risks can men pose. We've encountered creeps and predators, or (for the rare ones without personal experience) we know women and girls who have. You don't have to convince women that male violence and sexual entitlement are real phenomena, whatever party they vote for.

Thanks! Bit of a rant: am with Dworkin on cross-political feminism. Andrea rarely lets me down in her analysis.

it's only women that get vilified for daring to talk to women outside their political side. Why? Because left wing men want to remain the arbiters of who left wing women talk to, and what we talk about. If we start working as WOMEN rather than just in the pockets we have in the left wing, they lose that control and they hate it.

Excellent point, MoltenLasagne.

The attempt to redefine the category "woman" to mean "women and any male who fancies the idea or even pretends to fancy it" is an existential threat to women's rights and sex segregated spaces. It affects all women across the whole political spectrum so naturally radfems are going to find ourselves speaking up - and campaigning - with women with whom we may not normally see eye to eye.

I consider some faiths misogynistic but I'm well aware that if males are using female only spaces most observant women of those faiths - and others - will be excluded from public life. And that matters a great deal to me because I'm a feminist.

Many of the gender-crit women I know have a long, long history of leftish activism, solid activism of all sorts, in the labour movement, the anti-racist movements, in unions, in ye olde campaigns against Section 28, in women's liberation, in all sorts of things, so I used to be baffled when trans activists like garum try to paint us as in bed with the far right.

But then I remembered that they are also saying it's possible to change sex, and that someone with a penis can be a lesbian, so I finally grasped that reality and facts had nothing to do with the conversation.

Bumbungo Thank you for your kind words.

I'm not surprised so many people are having a fit about Hands Across The Aisle, the idea of women all across the political spectrum realizing we have some common interests and potentially working together to achieve them scares the shit out of misogynists of all stripes.

Yes, this!

Okay take pornography - the feminist and the conservative have the same sort of worries about it so it is natural for them to work together, ditto (probably) sex work

I disagree. I believe conservatives disaprove of pornography because it encourages impure thoughts and wanking. I believe they disagree with prostitution because they see it as a form of fornication or adultery. They see both of these aspects of the sex industry as full of 'impure' 'fallen' women who are sinners. These are a million miles from feminist objections. Nevertheless it has been possible at times to form a political alliance (as opposed to 'allyship') in order to fight against these things, where we can identify common aims, despite very obvious differences.

but I have no more in common with a socially conservative thinker that worries if a man wears a dress, than I do with a woke bro who thinks transwomen are women

As illustrated on this venn diagram, feminists and religious conservatives both view sex as physical and non-changeable. I believe there is also common ground around safeguarding and children's health and wellbeing.

As illustrated here, religious conservatives and adherents to trans ideology both see gender as edifying and innate.

I'm with Natasha Chart on this:

On the subject of whether a woman is an adult human female, feminists have been made thoroughly unwelcome on the left. So if liberals think it’s very strange for feminists to work with conservatives, they should probably stop telling us to “drink bleach” or looking the other way as online mobs demand that we be fired.

I'm happy to work with people across the political spectrum. Yes caution is needed, but I see it as no different from the caution that is needed when working with gender critical trans people (#TSRaincrew was ... enlightening )

I'm also with :

Part of having a feminist resistance to male power includes expanding the base of that resistance to other women, to women you have less in common with, to women you have nothing in common with. It means active, proselytizing dialogue with women of many different political viewpoints because their lives are worth what your life is worth.

That's why.

We have to go past the conventional political barriers, the lines that the men have drawn for us. "Our girls are over there; we'll call them Democrats, we'll call them socialists, we'll call them whatever we want to call them. Those girls are over there; that's their girls. The girls on our side aren't allowed to talk to the girls on their side." Well, if the girls on either side talked to the girls on the other side, they just might find out that they're being screwed the same way by the same kinds of men.

Andrea's talk is over 30 years old. That's how long we've been dealing with this divisive crap. I'm not playing any more.

I'm not surprised so many people are having a fit about Hands Across The Aisle, the idea of women all across the political spectrum realizing we have some common interests and potentially working together to achieve them scares the shit out of misogynists of all stripes.

@JackyHolyoake

Just wanted to say I loved you on twitter.

I cam off it some months back because it was so toxic and twitter was shadowbanning me right left and centre.

It's a bloody scandal if you were banned but I'm glad to see you here

Molten - that was spot on.
It would be lovely for many people if we were divided. I refuse to be. Long time Green Party member, however I will work with whoever I need to on this issue.

Also, as a wiser woman than me told me the other day - men are allowed to and even lauded for engaging in cross party workings to achieve goals, it's only women that get vilified for daring to talk to women outside their political side. Why? Because left wing men want to remain the arbiters of who left wing women talk to, and what we talk about. If we start working as WOMEN rather than just in the pockets we have in the left wing, they lose that control and they hate it.

On the main point you will find yourself supported by people who disagree on other fronts, but that's just how it is. We vote for one of two political parties, but we don't imagine there are only two kinds of voter. It is worth bearing in mind though and watching for.

On the toilets thing I get why turning it to that every time may be a way of avoiding ever getting around to the other issues, but that is hardly trivial.

It's from a discussion in this thread. The question (paraphrased) was posed, if two people with penises who identify as women are performing fellatio on each other is it lesbian sex?

Of course

HashtagLurky Brava! Applause!

drwitch Perhaps you should examine closely the content of the web site: fairplayforwomen.com/

plus listen to all the speeches recorded by Woman's Place UK from their meetings: www.youtube.com/channel/UCzFqsUqDzyXEQMJVy42NwUw/videos

plus also read carefully the content of the web site: www.transgendertrend.com/

Personally, I don't care if a woman's reason for not wanting to be in a mixed space is due to feminist reasons, personal trauma, or a deeply held religious belief that the sexes are meant to be separate. Losing those spaces may impact all of us for different reasons - but we'll all still lose rights and freedoms if they go so we need to work together to defend them.

Smearing radfems as right wing shills is as pathetic a slur as the acronym we are "not allowed to say" was: feminism ain't about being likeable to men.

YY to both of these.

Purity politics on the Left is why we are in the ridiculous position of 2D+69=L being a real question. Woke Dudebro "communists" run the show / control the discourse / insist on the linguistical contortionism and have kicked out radfems; of course we are going to centre women in our politics, even women whose politics we don't like.

I am careful in my partial support of right wing women like JHB: I detest her politics. However, these are exceptional times. It has become impossible to be a gender critical feminist and be given a voice in any political sphere in the UK - you either parrot the mantra TWAW or get deplatformed. Sadly, only right wing papers and magazines have the guts to publish pro-women opinions and columns.

The threat women face is not existential, it is real and happening now. If we cannot even name ourselves and thereby identify biology as the source of our oppression, making temporary alliances with those who are not 100% simpatico is the lesser of two evils. My background is hard Marxist, trade union, street campaigning woman. Smearing radfems as right wing shills is as pathetic a slur as the acronym we are "not allowed to say" was: feminism ain't about being likeable to men. Feminism is about all women.

You asked me a question, I answered. let's move on.

Remind me what that question you haven't answered yet is.....

And yes, let's not turn this into fights of who is the purest - I'm not about to be linking to a pro-life campaign, but if someone points out that orthodox Christians are not going to be able to go swimming if they lose their women only sessions then I will amplify their voice.

Conservative, even (gasp) religious women are going to be some of the women most impacted by the removal of sex segregated spaces and provisions if changes goes through.

Personally, I don't care if a woman's reason for not wanting to be in a mixed space is due to feminist reasons, personal trauma, or a deeply held religious belief that the sexes are meant to be separate. Losing those spaces may impact all of us for different reasons - but we'll all still lose rights and freedoms if they go so we need to work together to defend them.

bumbungo not even if I self identify as one?