From now on, I was in an LGBTQ+ family’: my husband came out as trans while I was on maternity leave

Listen how carefully Heminsley is having to pick and choose her words to avoid inadvertently saying something heretical. This is excrutiating.

*Swinson. Bloody autocorrect

The roasting Emma gave Jo Swindon during the last election campaign makes it hard to imagine she isn't going to be at least a tad critical. But the way it was introduced gave me the chills - "you discover your husband IS a woman", not believes he is, or tells you he thinks he is, or all the other more neutral ways it could have been presented. I'm gnashing my teeth in anticipation.

Alexandra Heminsley is going to be on today's Woman's Hour. This will be an indicator of how much of a Stunning and Brave fan Emma Barnett is.

I’m a fan of her previous books.

A Times 2 article on this by Helen Rumbelow is good IMO. Alexandra seems to acknowledge, in her ‘darkest moments’, having felt ‘duped’ by her then H into having a DC, but then argues that he was ‘consistently not a deceptive person’. When the evidence v much suggests a long, long period of deceit.

It seems that she’s chosen to say mainly positive things to and about her ex, that they are a woman etc, and to seek to maintain a good personal and co parenting relationship with them. (The article said they shared residency of the DC). And to reject the idea of herself as a victim. Which is, of course, her prerogative - it’s her life!

The alternatives could lead to negative consequences from her ex, some of her friends, acquaintances, community (Brighton) and professional detriment too.

As PPs say, wondering if these choices have psychological costs.

I had a good look round the internet for signs of the authors ex. Looks like they’ve used the ‘right to be forgotten’ thingummy as I only found one tiny picture with no face showing.

Hmm. Looked this author up and glanced at a few of their articles. It seems that they were unable to swim and run for a while while pregnant. So did they not consider themselves a woman when they weren't as able bodied as before then? Yeah, we're all definitely buying that a woman doesn't really consider other women as such if they are in a wheelchair or exhibit a higher melanin content.

I have to laugh at the oh so progressive relationship line. They wrote that their child's sire progenitor was also spending time in the same residence during the first lockdown. The author stated that it was so novel for her (as the mother) not to be the sole caregiver. They were waxing lyrical about having someone to share some childcare in their flat for the first time in around two years. They had the novel luxury of making a cup of coffee without having their child around their ankles. They could get a decent night's sleep as they didn't have to stay on high alert for their child's cries as the only caregiver. And, a definitive sign of a resident deity was that the other adult cleaned up the dishes after the author cooked. Well, can we all just stand in awe of such progressive magnificence? A sire progenitor is dabbling in a wee bit of 'babysitting' for their own offspring around the three year mark. After the mother is spent and knackered from the strain of being the main caregiver for two years with a young infant. Is there an award for that level of progressiveness? Giving mammy the privilege of making a cup of coffee while the sire progenitor did her the favour of engaging with their own progeny.

People often create a narrative they are better able to accept rather than admit the unvarnished truth. Equivocate and gloss. If they acknowledged the truth straight on, it would be devastating.

However, I wouldn't like to be their baby. I'd prefer my mother to have comforted me if I was a baby in distress rather than seize the opportunity to play to an audience and take the piss out of my misery to look for kudos about how right on with the guys she was.

A line from Josey Wales comes to mind. "Don't p*ss down my back and tell me it's raining".

graziadaily.co.uk/life/real-life/co-parenting-divorce-childcare-lockdown/

TheAdventures, yes, you're correct, the intent of the public confession is to enforce compliance on those who are already part of the group, demonstrate that she is a true and loyal adherent, and evangelize other women who may be similarly susceptible to the conditioning.

I've written loads on FWR about the dynamics involved from my own experiences of extreme patriarchal religion, but if I use the four letter C word that describes this psychology, I get deleted because women telling the truth about relevant life experiences is often deemed not in the spirit, so I'm afraid I have to rely on the intelligence of the reader to join the dots now.

The idea that GC feminists want to enforce stereotypes also may explain why I came across an article somewhere explaining how 'trans-families' adhere less to stereotypes than others.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that for a second. A quick glimpse at Bristow's Twitter feed and listening to Susie Green's TED talk shows straight away how important dolls and sparkly nail polish are to the 'gender identity' concept. I also think the coyness to define 'gender identity' is because it would be immediately evident that gender identity is to do with stereotypes.

I agree with you, Arabella that 'gender critical feminism' ought to be tautology. Unfortunately, I don't think it is.

But if you think about it, it is rubbish that she didn't think black women and disabled women weren't women. That's an utterly monstrous thing to confess to and few people would freely admit to being that despicable a human being (other than in very rare situations like with Megan Phelps Roper who left the Wesboro Baptist Church which is genuinely actively homophobic). So her act goes beyond 'confessing sin' into also wanting to shame others into realising they were sinning. She is hoping other people scrutinise their own souls for black spots and be able to admit, 'gosh I never really thought about it but my feminism doesn't really consider the experiences of disabled women.' It helps convert others to the righteous path - getting woke cookies from saying 'I was once wretched,' is actually only one part of the goal. It's how she's openly able to say something so awful, I think. If she were a friend of mine and I didn't feel able to confront her, I'd at least say, what the heck have you just written - you were never that terrible a person and there is no need to pretend you were to indoctrinate others. Go about it another way if it matter that much to you.

I feel very much for this writer's traumas - it's shocking reading. I also think it's hard to like someone who is displaying internalised misogyny so openly. Lots of people have had really difficult experiences and find some courage in terms of moving forward.

However as a belief in gender identity is seen as the be-all-and-end-all by so many people it's seen as critical of them.

Ahhhh, yes, I suppose so. I forget that there are some people who are very keen on upholding and enforcing 'gender' stereotyping. That if one doesn't conform to stereotypes one must be not just a different gender but a different sex. It's all so blooming silly, I'm sorry, but it really is. Boys like dresses and fairies, must be girls, must have bodies altered to suit. Madness.

I think most people know it's 'critical of the concept of gender' and the associated power imbalances.
However as a belief in gender identity is seen as the be-all-and-end-all by so many people it's seen as critical of them.

All feminism is 'gender critical', isn't it?

You would think, but apparently not.

Yeah, I can get it that some people might read it as being critical of people stepping over societal norms for male/female behaviour.

Interesting that they'd interpret it this way, when it means the opposite.

'Critical' always sound like a negative, preachy word in this context.

I thought it was meant to be negative - critical of the concept of gender.

Oh, do people think that? I suppose it would be possible to make that (pretty gigantic) error if you never took ten seconds to check before deciding a movement was beyond the pale.

I do find that the term 'gender critical feminist' seems a tautology. All feminism is 'gender critical', isn't it?

Maybe 'gender questioning' feminists would be better?

I also thought the bit about her so-called progressive marriage and how equal she and her then husband were was only there to show how far away she is from those terrible T--Fs and their love for gender stereotypes (which is what genderist believers seem to think is driving those of us who don't believe that people can change sex - because they've never bothered to find out what we actually think).

Yes, I've seen this before too. Someone on Twitter explained that she wasn't a TRA because she didn't believe someone could change sex, but that she thought gender critical feminists were also bad because gender critical feminists want to keep everyone in their stereotypical roles. She thought there ought to be a 'middle ground', and proceeded to put forward the GC point of view.

I was astounded, but I don't have a Twitter account so couldn't comment.

Or it's made up as a sop to insincerely apologise for, as a deflection from the real "problematic" beliefs she is burying.

I thought the whole article seemed to be an apology to her woke 'friends' for having such problematic beliefs that she had to leave her husband. Even in her reasons for leaving her spouse she says it's because she believes TWAW and she's not a lesbian.

I also thought the bit about her so-called progressive marriage and how equal she and her then husband were was only there to show how far away she is from those terrible T**Fs and their love for gender stereotypes (which is what genderist believers seem to think is driving those of us who don't believe that people can change sex - because they've never bothered to find out what we actually think).

Two things made me really angry in those excerpts. The male magistrate ruling that a woman imagined her assault because she was pregnant.
And the self-flagellation at the end about having perpetuated that "woman" was white, straight, able-bodied, cis, etc. Either that's true, and the author was therefore fairly recently stupid, blind, racist, homophobic and had never thought to examine these ideas, in which case anything she said on the matter while labouring under these beliefs should be deemed irrelevant, and in fact her confronting these beliefs and how she came to realise that Black women are women too might have been the more obvious piece to write...

Or it's made up as a sop to insincerely apologise for, as a deflection from the real "problematic" beliefs she is burying.

It isn’t Kris Kardashian, she goes by Kris Jenner. So she’s both being unpleasant about KJ, who has experienced the same thing and incorrectly naming her. Yet you can imagine the fumes if anyone misgenders or deadnames her former husband.