Navigating differences of opinion between GC women

Feminism is not a social club, it is not therapy, other women are not your mommy and we don't all have to be friends. Nobody is obliged to like you. Learn to work as team for common purpose. It is OK to state points of disagreement but set out your case rather than name-calling and pointing out an individual's flaws (we all have flaws). There is plenty of activism to be done. Do what fits for you, let other people get on with their thing. Take responsibilty for your own actions .

I regularly get one word responses of "DARVO" when I disagree with people on here, and all it really means is that I have the opposite perspective and think they're wrong whereas they think they're right. Telling someone they're wrong isn't abusive. So it's great to discuss how to maturely disagree amongst yourselves and avoid demonisation, but do you think you might be able to extend the same maturity to people who disagree with you more fundamentally?

Very good point, Freespeecher - and Anne upthread.

Sunlight really is the best disinfectant sometimes.

I think that is the one disagreement I find difficult to handle when interacting with GC women. I can accept pretty much any opinion, except the opinion that there are opinions that people shouldn’t have or voice. It is an alien way of thinking to me.

I am also perplexed why there seems to be so little interest in the libertarian (not Christian/heritage-focused) Right - who are genuinely GC and have no problem with gender non conformity.

First leader of UK Pegida was Tim Scott. If you've never heard of him it's because he had to stand down after one of his first interviews was a disastrous car crash.

Going down the no-platforming/ #nodebate route would have helped this guy as he could have all the advantages of portraying himself as someone THEY didn't want to speak whilst avoiding the questions that ended his nascent political career before it had even begun.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-pegida-leader-tim-scott-resigns-following-car-crash-interview-a6761611.html

Funky, I meant nobody here, no GC women. The alt left want to deny free speech, the alt right want no limits. We should strive to work with both, in order to come to a reasonable and logical place in the middle. Refusing to engage at all with either, is a recipe for disaster.

You can’t ‘debate’ with Holocaust deniers.

You can tear their arguments to shreds in public for the benefit of an audience who might not be certain, but you can’t persuade anyone who would ignore the Nazis own testimonies as well as those of the survivors and the physical evidence.

Holocaust deniers aren’t ignorant; they are liars.

I don't have a problem in debating with racists or holocaust-deniers. These views gain ground because they aren't publicly debated and are no platformed so the people with these views can see themselves as victims. Debate the issues and shed some light on them.
I don't think free speech means the right to threaten people with violence and to harrass them but I don't think any ideas should be thought of as too dangerous for rational debate.

Many of us have been here before and maybe we have learned to hear criticism without taking offence or being defensive. These issues raise strong emotions and there are many different ways of fighting for our rights. HOwever it must me recognised that divide and rule is and has always been a tactic which takes our focus away from the matter in question and men and men's right and trans rights activists will do this deliberately. Especially when we are pointing out the truth.

I think public disagreement with each other is a feature, not a bug, as long as we argue about the issues and don't slate each other. One of the things that distinguishes us from TRAs is that we reject the whole #nodebate nonsense. It's fine for us to disagree, argue, and either continue to disagree or indeed to change our minds. It's how we collectively develop our thinking on this

Yes I totally agree - as long as it is real debate with recognition of real issues and not just jingoisms being thrown and different personalities 'getting the numbers' to win.

Nobody is advocating free speech without any limits.

Are you sure? Because that is exactly what the alt-right want. Or certainly the right to be misogynistic and racist where it suits them.

Nobody is advocating free speech without any limits.

AnneHutchinson whether you want to call it 'the right' or 'the left' or whatever is not of major importance to me. I don't care if the left are even worse than the right. I know what my own principles are and it doesn't matter if they don't fit onto a political spectrum. I do not believe in unrestricted free speech, no, because it can harm women and minority groups. My concern about gender does not lie in the fact that I can't verbally insult people, so I am not fighting this on the basis of free speech. If you win the free speech battle, you also end up with racists and holocaust-deniers being given platforms. No thanks.

I am also deeply committed to ensuring female liberation from the patriarchy. Therefore, no matter what the left does, there is no way I can square in my head any sort of alliance with a group that wants the exact opposite. Oh and it is clear from Jean's post that the WOLF group paid for accommodation for a number of groups, so of course money is changing hands. The Heritage Foundation is minted.

For me, it's not about left or right, it is about principle. I am relieved that many of the feminists I admire agree with this.

But they also believe that racist and misogynistic speech should be heard

Yes, that is what free speech is. It isn’t “free speech for me but not for thee.”

women's concerns about male violence are overblown and might restrict men's rights.

ALL men, of whatever politics, believe women’s concerns regarding male violence are overblown. Because they do not navigate the world as women.

From what I’ve read, and not speaking of the alt-right here, but of the suburban Republicans who are the voters the Heritage Foundation came into existence to create, they do not want men in boys or men in women’s toilets or changing rooms, and they definitely do not want boys and men in girls and women’s sports teams. The men are coming at it from an urge to protect that is patriarchal in nature and, wrt to sport, with an understanding about fairness.

Be cautious about how very broad the paintbrush is you’re using.

At base, most people are going to resist, for very valid reasons, an ideology that insists they deny material reality.

It’s possible that the women seeking legislative assistance from Republicans in this issue may be saving the Democrats from themselves.

Remember that the US does not have a parliamentary system. It generally requires votes from different members of both parties to pass or stop legislation.

Bernie Sanders, right now, is the most admired politician in America. Why? Because he's been touring Republican states, listening to people there, and giving speeches drawing crowds if thousands. The right-left split is not as clear-cut in America and national media portrays. My very right-wing cousins, for instance, support Medicare for All, as do over 60% of Republican voters.

As a side issue I think that whenever you fight for free speech and human rights you will inevitably end up being criticised for supporting the rights and freedoms of some unsavoury people.

However that is how rights and freedoms work - they aren’t just for people on the approved list.

*Acknowledge difference without criticism
*Stick to the shared issue as a focus
*avoid personal criticism
*dont engage with external critics on issues that are peripheral.

^^ agree this is great.

There's a film called "The Chicago 8", about a group of counterculture activists who were charged in the late 60's with conspiracy, inciting a riot, etc, in reference to Vietnam protests. One of my favourite quotes from the film is from a defendant saying "Conspiracy? We couldn't agree on lunch!"

I think public disagreement with each other is a feature, not a bug, as long as we argue about the issues and don't slate each other. One of the things that distinguishes us from TRAs is that we reject the whole #nodebate nonsense. It's fine for us to disagree, argue, and either continue to disagree or indeed to change our minds. It's how we collectively develop our thinking on this.

Acknowledge difference without criticism
Stick to the shared issue as a focus
avoid personal criticism
dont engage with external critics on issues that are peripheral.

This is great ^

Or is it about confronting abuse of power in any context?

I wouldn't say that this is the aim of either right-wing Christian groups or right-wing free speech movements, so I don't think it is the thread that hangs it together.
Right-wing Christians oppose self-ID because it goes against their belief in inherent gender-roles. Men who claim to be women are not conforming to what men are supposed to be. But nor are lesbians for instance.
Right-wing pro-free speech believes that we should be allowed to criticise and expose every aspect of the trans movement. But they also believe that racist and misogynistic speech should be heard and that women's concerns about male violence are overblown and might restrict men's rights.

So, the link there between GC and those groups is either discomfort with self-ID or the right to be able to say that you are uncomfortable with self-ID. But neither of those groups can be seen as gender-critical.

We don’t all need to have the same opinion to agree on some things. I know that’s blindingly obvious but it seems to need repeating.

How do we navigate?

*Acknowledge difference without criticism
*Stick to the shared issue as a focus
*avoid personal criticism
*dont engage with external critics on issues that are peripheral.

We do not all think the same, believe the same things or have the same opinions. And that’s OK.

Countries banded together to fight WW2. Against a common aggressor. They didn’t need to make all their laws and customs identical to do that.

We need to see diversity of thought as a plus - we need to pitch it that if women with such differing backgrounds and opinions are all saying the same thing, then maybe there’s something in it.