Feeling really conflicted

BUT. There is a world of difference between a 'no' that comes from a place of, "I don't give a shit about your struggles" and a no that comes from a place of careful thought and compassion for all, even if the immediate conclusion is the same.

But that's not the usual response to questions about how trans people should be able to exist in the world safely and with some dignity. Not women's problem is the usual reply. (not specificlly replying to you with the following but the thread more generally)

The left has a long history of splintering off and going in dubious directons - it's one of the reasons anti-semitism became such a problem. And sadly I've lost more than one friend to conspiracy theories in the last few years.

There were certainly many in the left once who considered themselves perfectly decent progressive people who were opposed to lesbian and gay rights, often because it was something they couldn't empathise with, it made them a bit uncomfortable, they felt it was somehow anti-science and that it represented a theat to children. Had the internet existed in the 80s, and every time a gay person committed an awful crime or said something stupid on social media it was shared by tens of thousands of people, I can well imagine a more militant homophobic movement from across the political spectrum would have emerged.

I think comments I see about how people have 'peaked' or 'woken up' and now things can never be the same again are very revealing. That is the language of conspiracy theorists and suggests a coignitive shift away from the very complex and necessary analysis of the range of factors involved in social change to a much more simplistic one which involves secret plotters behind the scenes. So if an organisation is pro-trans rights it's never because of shifting social attitudes towards LGBT people, combined with the fact they might have a few trans employees they want to support, or they might even lean in a different direction on some of the arguments, or might just want a bit of trendy PR. No, they've been 'captured' by Stonewall. It's always presented as devious plotters behind the scenes whether that's the morid claims of trans Jewish billionaires planning a trans-human take over to more mundane insistance that the local library has been 'captured' by TRAs who are using Drag Queen Story Time to further some insidious agenda.

None of this is how social change works, there are no secretive TRAs running round switching the word sex to gender on forms, there is no organised plot to invade women's spaces, there are just trans people trying to find a way through this muddle and living their lives, and activists, some good, some shouty arseholes like in all political movements and a few charities who carry out the kind of lobbying for their interests that every other charity does. And slowly, with bumps in the road, trans rights have progressed. To claim shadowy malign (usually lefty) actors with untold power behind the scenes is a right wing, conspiratorial analysis - for an example go on a landlord forum after the government has done something perceived as positive for tenants and you'll find landlords ranting about how the homelessness charity Shelter has captured the government and that they now hate landlords and want to destroy them.

And I think the problem is once someone peaks, or red pills, or sees the light, then it becomes an obsession, it becomes all someone can think about and they have an urgent need to spread this secret knowledge they now possess, to evangelicize. At this point anything which strengthens the conspiratorial analysis will be embraced and anything which questions it fiercely rejected.

At this point objectivity has gone out the window, and it's why someone previously of the left can say well on this matter the Daily Mail are really rather sensible. The Daily Mail write about trans people in exactly the same way they attack all other marginalised groups - it's not like some magic ethical mist descends on the news room every time someone writes about trans people. Every single word they write is designed to make you frightened of trans people and angry about trans rights - if you've lost the ability to analyse that, even if you might agree with some of it, then you've lost objectivity.

Of course the constant evangelicizing won't work because most people haven't undergone this coignitive shift and so 99% of people will be like yeah what ev's because they've got more important things to worry about and are sick of someone going on about trans people all the time. But some people will get drawn in, sometimes vulnerable people but often highly intelligent educated people, especially at a time of widespread social unease when we're all a bit wobbly anyway and so it spreads, becoming stronger with every new recruit. I remember when David Icke could barely get a book published, now he can sell out Wembley Arena and his audience is full of educated intelligent and often formely quite lefty people who've gone sideways after their own experience of 'peaking'.

Those who are setting the agenda seem to be a toxic mix of people socialised as men, who are doing a very male thing of wanting everything on their terms,supported by a large number of teens/ early 20s who feel injustice is being done. I suspect I would have been one of them if I were young. Teenagers are v passionate, but can be c swayed v easily by causes. That's why schools have prevent training.

Book burners, death threat makers and opponents of free speech are never going to be on the side I want to join.

Exactly. And the more abusive they get, the more I’ll oppose them. Early on, I had some sympathy for people I thought were genuinely suffering from dysphoria. But seeing what fun they’re having attacking women and dismantling our rights, I’ve realised that when we give them an inch they take a mile.

The thing I have soul searched about within my own politics (as a formally far more fervent and vocal leftie), is how many times in the past have I dismissed something a Tory has said as hatred, without looking deeper into the issue? How many times in the past have I jumped wholeheartedly behind causes and slogans without fully understanding what it is I’m supporting?

Same here. If anything I'm embarrassed about my former self, not my current self

If the Daily Mail agrees with me, so what? The people at the Daily Mail also agree with me that the Earth orbits the Sun. I'm not going to start claiming the Sun orbits the Earth just to be on the opposite side to the Daily Mail.

wrt the young girls and their response to the TikTokker about her miscarriage…

I'm so gut-wrenchingly sad. I genuinely wonder if any of these young women will look back at what they did in even a handful of years and be overcome by remorse and regret but with no ready way to apologise.

I think of girls with whom I was at school (Catholic) and how they'd be taken to attend abortion clinic protests. As children, they'd be taught to approach the women going in (couldn't be counted as harassment because of their age) and deliver a set speech (laden with emotional blackmail). As teenagers, they'd join in the shouting, the noise, wave the placards with their ghastly photographs and generally try and intimidate from whatever allowable distance (and if their emotions drove them to accost the women visiting the clinic, their age had some shielding protection again).

I sometimes wonder how many have changed their minds and massively regret both the manipulation from their parents/church/youth groups and their own actions. They can't make amends to individuals but have they found their way in other areas?

And surely every man and woman who doesn't fit the stereotype is gender fluid. Dh cooks and irons. I have short hair and don't wear dresses. I am more competitive and sporty. I only know I'm a woman cos my body keeps reminding me of that fact, through a fun game of:"are we peri menopausal yet?"

I think ultimately the current 'genderfluidity' stuff of kids like my DD's generation will ultimately be a good thing and result in greater freedom of expression

I actually thought that was where we were headed in the 80s, but look where we are now.

The current fad for putting everyone into boxes according to their 'gender' is really anti-genderfluidity, unlike the 80s where it was just self-expression (but everyone still knew what sex they were).

I think 'gender fluid ' makes my eyes roll in the same way my inventing philosophy or sex at that age would have made my parents roll their eyes. People have been gender fluid for a long time- look at the glam rock movement in the 70s. I'd also take it more seriously if it didn't just mean swapping one stereotype for another. In that respect, it's a bit like the 'tribe' I was in as a teen, where we all wanted to dress differently, but just looked like crows with brightly coloured hair to to uninitiated.

I feel conflicted at times, but more that I wish I could just go along with all that bullshit for a happy life. I wish I believed them and this should have been my commnity, I dont agree with everything the RF or GC community believe either

Yes, it's so racist and classist. It's really sad that this is what Guardian writers have become.

I think many of them were always like that. I think the scales have just fallen from my eyes.

I can't get over Zoe Williams saying that a poorly educated (because of sexism in her home country) immigrant woman, who speaks English as a second or third language (and may speak it rather than read or write it), should 'just google' a word she doesn't know, to see whether it may have relevance to her life.

Yes, it's so racist and classist. It's really sad that this is what Guardian writers have become.

I do feel conflicted as I do have trans friends and family and DD has a number of mates who are non binary etc.

I have a different sort of perspective to some in that I am personally not bothered by sharing spaces with trans women, or my daughter doing so, but I also understand why other women, especially those who have experience abuse, do not feel comfortable doing so and should be able to express that without being called TERFS, transphobes or told they want transwomen to die etc.

I think ultimately the current 'genderfluidity' stuff of kids like my DD's generation will ultimately be a good thing and result in greater freedom of expression, I don't think permanent harm will be done to/by the vast majority of people involved (though even a handful is too many) as almost all kids will desist before any medical intervention. But I do think services need to move away from 'always affirm', especially for girls - and particularly in cases when it's come out of the blue, if they're on autism spectrum, have mental health issues/trauma, or when they just have a lot of peers who identify as trans etc. A lot of ordinary teenage angst, discomfort about body and who they are becoming etc seems to being misidentified as gender issues. Does that make me 'transphobic'? Probably according to some people.

And would add.... she seems to believe that women as a sex class are intrinsically stronger and more able, and should be expected to sort themselves out.

Which is more than a bit sexist too. Being natally male doesn't make anyone less competent.

If you are agreeing with people you think are bad people usually, then maybe it’s your perspective on trans people that needs to change

So I should check all my beliefs and morals and if any are the same as people I generally disagree with, change them?

Zoe Williams is wholly failing to see her own unequal and sexist thinking.

What makes her have these unequal expectations based entirely on binary sex based classes? Vulnerable women - ha, get on google, sort it out, do the thinking, stop expecting others to help you and be independent. Vulnerable transwomen? It's absolutely unreasonable not to adapt language entirely to avoid stress and distress for this group.

Protective instincts towards vulnerable women and a desire to understand and address their inequalities? No. None. Don't be silly. Intense protective instincts towards vulnerable transwomen. Not to mention she has fallen into the trap of in order to sufficiently prove her care to transwomen she must actively demonstrate her disinterest and lack of caring for women.

She has no sense that it is possible to care for both groups at the same time - and she hasn't questioned that either - and has not noticed that the underlying thinking in all of this, is that Zoe Williams believes, unconsciously and wholly, that natal male people are far more important, valuable and her responsibility than natal women.

If she'd unpack that a bit she might get further.

Jackie very good post.
I think also women have been socialised not to say no or to push their own interests forward. Be kind felt a bit like a one way street.

Oh the irony of the woke left stifling free speech and claiming those they are shutting up are the bigots!

Removing freedom of expression and freedom of thought is about as right wing as you can get.

Echo chambers are being created where the far left believe that anyone with an alternative or offending view is someone to be banned and someone they need 'safeguarding against'.

This shift is mindset is truly astonishing.

I agree with the 'water is wet' posters.

I also think it's worth saying that I think one of the things people (especially on the left) are uncomfortable with in relation to GC feminism in particular is that it involves saying 'no' to some things a group of people who genuinely are vulnerable and struggling (i.e. people genuinely suffering from dysphoria) really want.

It's a difficult, and very adult, thing to have to say to a minority, "I hear you, but I am going to have to say no to this particular thing you want because the evidence shows it affects other groups too negatively. We can talk and try to find another solution to address your concerns and struggles, but it can't be the solution you have fixed on because I have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of all people, and not only you."

It's similarly difficult to say, "society will not pay for this thing you believe will help you because even though you passionately believe it will, the evidence shows it won't and may actually harm you overall." (e.g. puberty blockers based on the Tavistock's latest findings).

I think taking such a stance makes many progressive, left-leaning people feel mean, authoritarian or patronising and it's more important to them not to feel like that than to do the right thing on the basis of the evidence in front of them. I can understand why that feeling is compounded by finding themselves in the same side as 'the right' or people they regard as in fact being mean, authoritation and patronising generally.

BUT. There is a world of difference between a 'no' that comes from a place of, "I don't give a shit about your struggles" and a no that comes from a place of careful thought and compassion for all, even if the immediate conclusion is the same.

I remember that Zoe Williams' articles on pregnancy were pick and mix. I got very irritated with an article on vitamin recommendations for women to prevent birth defects that she said were sexist. I can't remember the details now though but it was something to do with folic acid consumption. Possibly whether or not you were pregnant?

You know what I think is sexist? That the bulk of parenting falls on women. That the impact of raising and parenting a disabled child especially almost always seems to fall on women, to the detriment of their own physical and psychological health and to the detriment of their careers, which then has a knock-on effect on pensions. So women who have been carers ended up impoverished in old age. That's sexism.

Recommending that women should think about folic acid intake if there's a possibility that they could get pregnant and they would choose to continue the pregnancy is just information reflecting biological reality. Yeah, biology sucks, but pretending men and women are the same and treating them "equally" isn't actually feminism. It doesn't liberate anyone in the long-term, it just blinds you to class inequalities.

A couple of years after that, Zoe Williams got pregnant and didn't realised until after 20 weeks, which I feel just proves my point.

Fortunately for many of us, it is mandatory that various foodstuffs in the UK are fortified with folic acid, for the sake of pregnant women who don't yet know they're pregnant, and that is something I wholly approve of as a feminist. It's not infantilising.

And this is for the benefit of who, exactly? Privileged people who have the luxury of having enough time and money to navel-gaze about their 'gender', who would not be in the least bit confused if medical services which apply to only one sex were still labelled 'male' and 'female' or for men only or women only.

Pandering to privileged navel-gazers at the expense of excluding disadvantaged groups. So inclusive.

Zoe Williams has gone from being an incisive writer to TRA useful idiot.

Zoe Williams has been banging the TRA drum for a long time. This is an article from 2013.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/are-you-too-white-rich-straight-to-be-feminist

But then I heard Helen Belcher of Trans Media Watch speak at a public meeting this week. She said the media had three ways of portraying trans people: "The first is that they're fraudulent. They're not really who they say they are. We'd better humour them in their delusion. The second is trans as undeserving deviant. The number of times you get costs – usually inflated – set against the money you could have spent on kiddies. The third is trans as comedy."

In other words, all the prejudice that has been disallowed by modern standards is now concentrated on this one, pretty small group. It is very extreme, these days, to refer to gay people as deviant, but still allowable to make this insinuation about transsexuals. It is apparently permissible, in our mean-spirited age, to talk about how much disabled people cost the state, but I can't imagine it would be OK to laugh at them. Transsexuals are dealing with a prejudice way out of proportion to their number, facing not only the people who hate the idea of transsexuality but all the people who wish they were still allowed openly to hate gays, openly to laugh at the disabled – hell, probably a few who wish they could still openly despise women.

And now that supporting TRAs means openly despising women, Williams still supports them.