Cartoon in the Morning Star

Delurking to say that, whatever your views on the rights and wrongs of the cartoon, it's a bit bloody hypocritical of Harrison and Hayton to condemn it given that it's totally in line with the type of stuff they've been banging on about themselves for a long time now.

Wiley people don't allow themselves to be used as allies and then dropped when they have served their purpose. They expect something in return.

No doubt some heterosexual males will continue to seek to advance their own priorities.

Its likely that their focus will be/has been to secure allyship with those they think will have more power/influence eg LGB Alliance, socialist/ TU networks (men?)
WPUK no doubt have been a useful stepping stone for some
.

WPUK has to tread a delicate path. KH and DH are both gender-critical: good! But they are both still left-wing activists, pushing the Labour button of "inclusivity" for Trans (including obviously the mysogynist TRAs): bad. The task is still ahead of us: to separate T from LGB and regain acceptance for truth that no man can become a woman or vice versa, and in doing this undercut the platforms of KH and DH. Conclusion: use them as allies for a while. But the long-term goal is to sideline them. We should now point to MALE detransitioners like Walt Heyer and someone called Richard Hoskins - reported last month in Daily Mail, interviewed on Victoria Derbyshire show: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7911163/Richard-Hoskins-detransitioned-four-years-living-woman-did-escape-past.html

To be blunt, I couldn't care an iota less!

That's a transwoman saying that a cartoon makes her feel how many women feel. You'll get the same response those women have been getting, love : "tough shit"

I won't be nice about it, I won't apologise for hurted feelings, I won't act/think according to my socialisation. I'll respond as an individual and this individual has noted the hipocrasy and won't let it lie!

I think allies in general is a stupid thing.
Can't everyone just do their own thing and work together when it suits them?

Disappointing about WP UK. I think their platforming of KH and DH was well intentioned and strategic but is backfiring on them now. I do not believe KH or DH are allies of women and their ultimate cause is themselves.

If any of my friends had acted like Harrison did they'd no longer be my friend. People need to have higher standards.

WanderinWomb There will also likely be friendships.

I think WPUK's condemnation of the cartoon was one of the first examples of that.

I agree. It's frustrating that women aren't allowed to have robust cartoons about politics which is important to them. It would have been more interesting if WPUK could have discussed what it meant, as people were doing here, rather than just dismiss it.

But as you say, they are trying to work with the approval of men who describe themselves as women, that puts them in a more difficult position.

I think some favours were definitely called in re the cartoon. There was a lot of simpering 'are you ok' 'you shouldn't have to deal with this' etc

Just looked at KH timeline of complaints interesting there was plenty of polite disagreement from followers more, disagreements than agreement on fact. No drama or nastiness.

Seems the leaders and intellectuals feel they have to protect certain people as a prize and have got themselves in a position where they can't disagree or they will lose their prize. It's all rather distasteful.

I think certain amongst them have been deliberately building up a bank of favours.

These allies are all Adam.
With or without apples.

It amazes me that the collective of socialist newts has managed to miss the point so spectacularly.
I really, really dislike the idea that there are 'allies' who should get preferential treatment and access to women's spaces. Women who don't follow this debate wouldn't know any of these allies from Adam.

There must be so many feminists who feel like they owe certain transexuals a favour. These favours are going to be being called in for a long time.

Agree.
This is where there is such a blind spot for some.

When Posie and Julia talked to the right wing, found common ground on one single issue whilst disagreeing on many others, no deal was struck, no obligation conferred, no debt incurred.
Both parties able to agree on one issue, and walk away from each other on all others. There was no "we owe you concessions now".

Would WoLF et al somehow broker a compromise on other women's issues in repayment for the 'favour' of the agreement on trans issues? Never.

And yet their loudest critics seem to be more culpable in brokering and bargaining away women's rights by pacts with certain men. If you say this for us, we'll compromise on the rights of other women to say no to you. The moderate approach.

Which approach confers an outstanding debt to men, claimable from women's rights, then?

As I see it, there is no man alive that will persuade me to owe him a favour paid for from the bank of women's rights to say no to him or any of his sex.

Any man is welcome to speak up against the assault on women's right to distinguish themselves from his own sex. I may feel I owe him some gratitude.
I'll never feel I owe him any speck of women's rights.
I'll never feel I owe it to him to ameliorate my criticism of gender, and identity in all its many insidious forms, even if that criticism comes in the form of a satirical cartoon mocking the concept of impossibly 'identifying' into a class.

All 'transitioning' and 'identifying' is deserving of criticism. Especially where it pertains to my sex, which is neither an identity, nor a state one can transition to.

I'm going to keep highlighting the preposterous insult to women made by any man who claims to have 'transitioned' to a variation of woman. And that includes ANY man who prefixes the word woman with any modifier, and then uses it for himself.

If the price of a man being included as an 'ally' to women's rights is that I give up women's right to criticise the concept of 'transitioning' to or 'identifying' as my sex?
Sorry, no sale.

Not exclude their wives from feminism!!

Yes it's entirely reasonable that the gender critical transexuals (I think I'd fight to the death over my belief that that is an oxymoron) are prioritising their own interests, I just wish they were honest enough to

A) admit it
B) not use feminism as a smokescreen for their own interests
C) exclude their wives from feminism

There must be so many feminists who feel like they owe certain transexuals a favour. These favours are going to be being called in for a long time.

I think WPUK's condemnation of the cartoon was one of the first examples of that.

It's entirely understandable if their primary focus is their own concerns about the negative impacts of trans activism on themselves - why wouldn't it be?

I agree, and its understandable when women are concerned that males with primary focus on male rights are welcomed and very vocal within a woman's movement.

Hamster makes a lot of sense.

I don't even think need to consider anyone as an ally, just acknowledge we agree on certain points.

The "you're with us or against us" attitude is toxic. It leads to Kelsey Coalition, Posie etc being called racists Nazis for being hosted once by HF.

I'm old enough to have had this crap in anti-paedophilia and anti-porn campaigns when the National Front and Mary Whitehouse agreed.

I don't think 'ally' talk is helpful most of the time.

An important thread from last year:

06-Feb-19 OP Hamster00 wrote:
'Can transsexuals truly be allies to women?'

"Last night in bed, between my brain deciding to torment me with "what are baby llama called?" and, "what time is your dentist appointment next week?", I ended up regurgitating "that thread" from yesterday. That thread in which I was called an ally a couple of times by other members.

As I stared at the ceiling, I started indulging in a bit of mental self-flagellation which raised more questions than I had answers for such as:

Transsexuals have no real "movement" insofar as creating our own spaces. Are we as "allies" just piggybacking the larger feminist movement to achieve our mutually but not exclusive goals? Surely that's just another way of exploiting women? Aren't we just really just joining another group to protect our own rights? Is our relationship parasitic rather than symbiotic?

MtF transsexuals are still biologically male, have male socialisation and thus the innate potential propensity towards violence. Surely we still a threat to women even after a surgical/medical outcome?

Can we truly empathise with women having never been one? We have no shared experience of women's lived experience/trauma.

Whilst we can be GC, can we truly call ourselves feminists? Can men be feminists? Is a man calling themself a feminist appropriation too?

I'm not trying to be contentious but inviting perspectives so I can try and organise some of this in my head a little bit better. I think many people know my feelings all to well in relation to self-ID, single sex spaces and TRA appropriation etc - but is that actually being an "ally" - or just someone who shares the same set of ideas...."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3500657-Can-transsexuals-truly-be-allies-to-women

Thank you. 😍

What's frustrating is there is a place for a reasonable and pragmatic approach. To showcase a variety of opinions.. To be polite and politically savvy etc. To be for women's rights without diminishing trans rights but WPUK have showed they are not strong nor capable enough to stick to that line if they are going to censor concerns about the abuse of women and children and smear anyone that raises them as transphobic.

Some crocodiles are crocodiles. Get over it.

(Apologies for the oxymoronic 'GC trans' description but I can't work out what else to use instead)

Why are we not permitted to say that? Are we seriously obligated to genuflect with a NATALT in every instance?

I must admit that it is beyond irritating that every statement has to be prefixed by how concerned everyone is about trans people having no rights and being the most persecuted etc without any actual evidence/quantification. They just jump into that purity spiral of vague lack of definitions that the TRAs use before they start anything.

There will be some issues where male GC trans people's concerns align with women, but others where they don't. It's entirely understandable if their primary focus is their own concerns about the negative impacts of trans activism on themselves - why wouldn't it be? Just we need to be aware of where the commonalities and differences are.

An example of GC trans males trying to do something that would be good for trans people but also good for women (inc 'Nonbinaries' as in discussion upthread) would be Yardley and Olander campaigning for 3rd space facilities. They both know it's not ok for them to use women's facilities and so they don't, but know that other TW may be fearful or reluctant.
There's a link to their petition languishing on the Petitions and activism board btw , posted by Hamster00 on Nov 25th - an occasional GC trans MN poster, afaik below the radar IRL.

Now THAT is an amazing post @WanderinWomb

I cheered