In-fighting within the GC feminist movement

But they choose to have it out in public instead via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or blogs.

And?
They are doing their own thing, not reresenting a company or political party. If they want to argue about it let them.

And you care about this, why?

Because it's such a waste of energy, and it provides ammunition for the TRAs, and give a bad impression to people we need to peak trans.

It's a massive diversion from our collective aims.

I can see how it may be 'upsetting' for people who aren't used to coalitions or campaigning

Patronising, much?

Personally, I've been involved in campaigning my whole life, pretty much. My parents and their friends were political and dragged me along to all sorts of stuff. I can't remember a time when I wasn't involved in campaigning about something. And yes, other movements have infighting too, of course. (Left wing factions fighting brings back childhood memories. Green issues infighting sometimes makes my eyes roll so hard I think they're going to roll out of my head).

But, it doesn't mean I can't be fucked off (not "upset", note) with grown ass, intelligent women airing this kind of drama in public, unnecessarily. It's the feminist version of willy waving. (What should it be called?) I don't care if all the other movements do it too. It's still bullshit.

And the only people who care about it - or should care about it - are the people trying to throw us off course
Yy and we're going to be inundated with them again atm because they're annoyed that MN didn't cave to Flora and that we didn't all cry about Flora's ill-researched statement.

But they choose to have it out in public instead via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or blogs.

And you care about this, why?

Can women only have an argument in private?

Having been involved with various GC groups for years, I wouldn't assume all the individuals know how to contact each other privately. Plus, they might want to make a public point that they don't agree with x about y even though they agree with them about GC. That's ok. It's perfectly fine for them to disagree on other issues and on methods and on alliances. None of it changes where they do agree which is on being GC.

The problem is there are no 'scenes' to go behind

The people fighting publicly either know each other already or are well aware of ways to contact each other privately. They know how to pick up a phone, or send an email, PM or a DM.

But they choose to have it out in public instead via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or blogs.

Everyone is trying to achieve the same goal. Women disagree about how best to get there.

All of these debates have happened for millennia. It's just a bit more public when social media is thrown into the mix.

And the only people who care about it - or should care about it - are the people trying to throw us off course.

I don't quite understand how people can't grasp it isn't a movement, it's not organised in anyway, it's many people doing separate things, there's no leader, there's no behind the scenes talking or anything.

It's many different people doing their own thing.

What exactly are people fighting about? I haven’t seen any disagreements about anything actually.

Of course there is in-fighting. But I think, so what?

It's usually about working with right wing groups. I don't care myself; I will join forces with any other GC person because the issue is. so. fecken. important.

There is also disagreement about some feminists being happy to work with TRA's. Awful ones IMHO. But I just let them get on with it. I don't have to join in.

This issue is of monumental importance.

'dealt with behind the scenes'
The problem is there are no 'scenes' to go behind. It isn't a movement. It's a lot of disparate people and groups who have reached similar (but not identical) conclusions about being GC.
Of course there are differences and discussions. People may agree on x but not necessarily on y,z,a,b. And as time goes on, new issues and questions arise which different people address in different ways.
I can see how it may be 'upsetting' for people who aren't used to coalitions or campaigning but it's a strength that lots of different groups are GC, not a weakness. I've worked on lots of massive campaign coalitions over the years. I can't think of one where there wasn't discussions and disagreements. If you didn't notice them, it's either because you weren't paying close enough attention or because they all signed up to one memorandum and used one pr spokesperson. But that level of cohesion only comes with funding and dedicated staff.

GlitterToast anyone who says there's no infighting is either being disingenuous or hasn't been paying attention.

I'm not going to name names either, but yes, I know what you mean. I can think of several (unnecessarily public IMO) spats of fighting, between several different GC figures.

It's largely a massive waste of energy and could be better dealt with behind the scenes IMO.

It's not constant at all, but when big things are happening there are inevitable disagreements that play out in public. At the moment it's the American funeral parlour case - Cathy Brennan and some US radfems are very angry with some UK radfems for joining forces with some US right wing orgs to protest something she thinks they have got very wrong, and it's creating a lot of friction. This always happens when something significant is happening.
It's not 'in fighting' or whatever you described it as, it's people passionately defending their views and sometimes disagreeing. It's life.

What Janes and Yoba said.
I have never known any political group without infighting- the strong feelings of wanting to do something about whatever it is, that drew you together in the first place, are likely to lead to equally strong convictions of how that should best be done. But that’s just people being people really. Most healthy gatherings of humans will eventually disagree on something or other. It’s OK and better that, than the authoritarian alternative.

OP I've been following GC discussions for s similar period and don't recognize conflict as 'constant and prevalent' as you describe. If anything it is pretty harmonious and respectful compared to issues like abortion and surrogacy which understandably become far more heated in all forums. There seem to be key areas of consensus and concern... Maybe I haven't seen what you have. Am I missing something?

@Qcng is right, there does seem to be a fair bit of falling out at the moment.

OP - what I try to do is stick to the message, encourage each other & not engage with the unpleasant comments. It's a shame people want to have a go at one another, but I don't want it to detract from the real issues.

Focus on what you can do, not what you think everyone else is doing wrong.

A-fucking-men to that.

I really should give up Twitter but the courage of the women I follow I find inspirational.

Anyway, I guess you are referring to Jean H and Joani. Don't know why they fell out but it's turning rather unpleasant.

The only other falling out I hav seen involves a certain Dr tweeting something about women running off with women as their husbands are crap. Taken by some as lesbophobic. Robust discussion ensued.

I don't feel equipped to have an opinion on either as I know have all the facts/am not a lesbian. However, the second example gave me cause for thought.

I haven't seen any infighting but I wouldn't particularly describe us as a "movement". Naturally the ability to recognise that the existence of a physical sex being present in all (bar a very few genetic mutations) mammals is going to be found across all points of the political spectrum. Therefore obviously there are going to be GC people who strongly disagree with each other on a huge number of topics. No one should expect otherwise. This includes the obvious fact that not everyone who recognises biological fact is a feminist - some are so sexist that the average GC feminist would normally have nothing at all in common with them and might have trouble keeping civil. I don't think we should be pretending to agree on everything. We are not a united front on anything beyond the simple fact that simple facts exist.

people disagree- people with the same aims disagree. the suffragettes disagreed, the civil rights movement splintered, parties break up again and again and again.

its normal...

It's just politics and personalities. You'd see the same in a political party branch meeting, in Extinction Rebellion, probably even in the local darts team. (Have for sure seen worse in schools!)

If politics or personalities in general put you off, don't worry about it. Do your own thing on your ownsome. Plenty of people do.

But don't think this is some sort of GC specific deficiency. In any case, the feminist GC message doesn't rest of any one person - it's an argument that can be assessed on it's merits. You agree or you don't. What goes on or doesn't go on on Twitter has nothing to do with it.

I could loathe every GC feminist in existence (not true) and still find their arguments sound.

We are going to disagree on things, that's inevitable and it's ok.
The discussions are how we learn from each other.
The vast majority of the time I have seen women, particularly on this board, discussing things in a civilised, polite, if sometimes robust way.
These are the discussions where I think I have benefitted most from having my ideas challenged.

There have been a few disagreements that have got personal and that's a real shame, but we are human. Sometimes there might be someone you are better off blocking or ignoring, other times engaging in discussion is the best way forward. I think you have to go with what works for you at the time.

Haven’t done twitter for years. Utter pish.