Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

GC and the extreme right etc etc

504 replies

lionheart · 19/03/2021 00:36

In case you were wondering ...

transsafety.network/posts/gcs-and-the-right/

'In an unfortunate development, in the last few months we have seen a rapid increase in the rate at which practical crossovers are happening between so-called "Gender Critical" feminist groups (which seek to abolish transition healthcare and trans civil rights) and the traditional far right.'

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
NiceGerbil · 19/03/2021 20:52

Oh yes I read the that.

So is it considered as the first known trans person in the UK?

Gotta say I am really uncomfy with applying modern labels to long dead people.

Justhadathought · 19/03/2021 20:51

Can you give me an example of a far left MRA website

I'd say that 'Sisters Uncut' - who turned the recent vigil for a young British woman who had be murdered, into a violent demonstration against the police, are one example of an extremist leftist organisation that prioritises the rights of males over the rights of women.

They purport to be a leftist organisation, against austerity and cuts, but actually, in practice, they campaign, for example, for the rights of imprisoned males who have committed acts of sexual violence and abuse against women and children. Members have also been responsible, and prosecuted, for the physical assault of a sixty year old woman.

There is whole thread on this forum which is devoted to the discussion of their modus operandi, as a result of their take-over of a largely female vigil.

RedDogsBeg · 19/03/2021 20:51

Letting flares/smoke bombs off outside Greenfell: jj says they weren't smoke bombs, just flares and everyone should expect them at a demonstration, bit insensitive to do by Grenfell, but hey ho What was being demonstrated against, oh yes women meeting to discuss proposed changes to legislation which would affect their rights.

I did say this, I think it's an important distinction because smoke bombs are basically a weapon intended to temporarily stop someone being able to see whereas a protest flare is just a bright light that gives off some coloured smoke. That people insist on calaming they were smokebombs despite knowing that's not what they were really reveals that GC accounts of some of these incdents cannot be fully trusted to be impartial.

Funnily enough Grenfell residents described them as smoke bombs and smoke grenades not flares with pretty coloured smoke, they were the witnesses on the ground and when they complained to the protesters they were told by the protestors that we don't give a fuck. Split hairs on smoke bombs, grenades, flares all you like jj, I'll take the word of someone who was there and affected by it.

Antifa members and TRA's threaten, abuse, throw eggs, assault women, including women survivors of trafficking, highlighting the plight of women trafficked into prostitution and pornography: jj says: I can't see an antifa flag there, or any men completely at odds with the women who were actually there said and filmed for posterity.

This was not an antifa or trans rights protest but a protest by feminists opposed to criminalisation of sex work. So yes I did criticise people claiming they were antifa and also said I'd like to hear both sides of the story - I don't think that's unreasonable.

Carrying Antifa and Trans Rights flags definitely not Antifa or Trans Rights Activists, spraying Save 1 Trans Person, Kill 1 TERF on the monument the trafficking survivors were standing on is of course nothing to do with TRAs.

Both sides of the story in jj speak means find some way to blame the women on the receiving end of the abuse and violence and absolve those dishing it out.

I've seen you comment on both the Maria Machlaclan incident and the meetings held by FPFW and other organisations for women, you are always dismissive, paint the groups and attendees as alt-right or some other such nonsense and as such deserving of the treatment they receive from TRAs and their ilk.

NiceGerbil · 19/03/2021 20:50

Are we supposed to be shamed by been told we're far right etc?

If women posting about this actually were far right / funded by right wing religious orgs / homophobes etc then why would we be shamed into shutting up by the accusation?

The fact that calling us those things is seen as a tactic to make us rethink etc surely indicates that those saying it know full well that we're not any of those things.

I say we here. I speak from my own POV but from what I've read I'd say most especially longer term posters are solid lefties of the the old school.

LangClegsInSpace · 19/03/2021 20:48

[quote AtTheDickensDesk]@NiceGerbil I'm not certain it's what Bigotryisbad is referring to, but this looks vaguely relevant (and an interesting story): theidlewoman.net/2017/02/28/the-swashbuckling-life-of-the-chevalier-deon/[/quote]
The Beaumont Society is named after Chevalier d'Eon.

Alice Purnell:

Anyway, I searched and searched through bookshops, and of course I read Krafft-Ebing and Magnus Hirschfeld and Freud, and everybody you could think of. And always they associated anything to do with gender variance as a type of deviance, and I got more and more horrified by this and I thought, what the hell am I going to do, and I came across ... would you believe it, in a dirty book shop in Soho, a magazine called Transvestia and I thought, what? And this was a magazine produced by a Dr Virginia Prince, who was an American pharmacist, and she had organised a thing called Phi Pi Epsilon, very American, which stands for Full Personality Expression. And the essence of her thesis was that you could be a woman, though male. So the goal of her organisation was to try to maintain marriages or relationships between men and women when one or the other, usually the one that was officially male, gender migrated by cross-dressing or by being what eventually we came to know as transsexual. The whole vocabulary of gender was a dreadful, dreadful nuisance.

However, what I learnt was that in the States there were about 500 people like that. And they would seem vaguely ... you know, it rang bells. Anyway, Virginia Prince's organisation, she called Phi Pi Epsilon, standing for Full Personality Expression, she ran it like a secret society, a sort of sorority. In those initial days the majority of members were US but they had an overseas chapter, a European chapter if you like, and I discovered that there were two or three people in France, and I speak French which is helpful, and there were other people, one in Ireland and two in England. And so we wrote to each other through the contact system. And the leading light then was a person called Olga Campbell, who was from the Republic of Ireland, and there was a Belgian called Lucy and another Brit called Sylvia. And we corresponded and corresponded and there was an initial first meeting in 1966, just before I got married, where they first of all had a meeting in London and then we had our first real full meeting in a hotel in Southampton. And Olga, being Irish, came up with this brilliant idea, we'll call our organisation, which will be afilliated to Phi Pi Epsilon, The Beaumont Society after the Chevalier d'Eon de Beaumont, who was a French spy who had spied in Russia, in Imperial Russia, disguised as a woman. Quite possibly was intersex and there are lots of very interesting books about the Chevalier. Chevalier actually earned a living by sword fencing and the betting as to which gender the Chevalier was, was phenomenal, equivalent to millions of pounds when she died. That's another story.

Anyway, The Beaumont Society sounded like a respectable thing because Beaumont is an old French aristocratic surname ... [continues]

There's quite a lot to unpick in this interview

soundcloud.com/justplainsense/jps90-alice

NiceGerbil · 19/03/2021 20:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

LangClegsInSpace · 19/03/2021 20:29

@RedDogsBeg

This just isn't true. I have repeatedly condemned violent and misogynist language used against gender critical women. I also think some of the things that happened at the initial protests were wrong and I have said so. I don't however think that the movement for trans rights is in anyway comparable in terms of violence to the far right. As far as I'm aware only one trans activist has been convicted of an assault in the name of trans rights since Stonewall. That's not a defence of what happened, or an attempt to minimise it, but it is clearly very different to the far right who have murdered hundreds - or millions when they have managed to get into power.

Oh come on jj1968 I can't be bothered to go back and read your actual words so I'll paraphrase:

Maria Machlaclan - jj says she shouldn't have been trying to take photographs of the demonstrators, contrary to indisputable evidence jj says the person who punched her wasn't a TRA, or a member of a group that put out literature stating people should turn up to punch a TERF

Letting flares/smoke bombs off outside Greenfell: jj says they weren't smoke bombs, just flares and everyone should expect them at a demonstration, bit insensitive to do by Grenfell, but hey ho What was being demonstrated against, oh yes women meeting to discuss proposed changes to legislation which would affect their rights.

Other Meetings of Women regarding the proposed changes to legislation which have been subject to threats, people banging on doors, threatening women trying to access the premises, blocking women on stairs, assaulting women: jj says: they are just demonstrating.

Antifa members and TRA's threaten, abuse, throw eggs, assault women, including women survivors of trafficking, highlighting the plight of women trafficked into prostitution and pornography: jj says: I can't see an antifa flag there, or any men completely at odds with the women who were actually there said and filmed for posterity.

Don't say you condemn violence and threats against any women whether GC or not jj because you don't there is always a but with you, a justification for the violence and threats, an excuse.

I agree.
LangClegsInSpace · 19/03/2021 20:28

Julie Burchill voted for Trump?

jj1968 · 19/03/2021 20:24

@RedDogsBeg

Maria Machlaclan - jj says she shouldn't have been trying to take photographs of the demonstrators, contrary to indisputable evidence jj says the person who punched her wasn't a TRA, or a member of a group that put out literature stating people should turn up to punch a TERF

This is not true, I don't think I've ever commented on that incident on here.

Letting flares/smoke bombs off outside Greenfell: jj says they weren't smoke bombs, just flares and everyone should expect them at a demonstration, bit insensitive to do by Grenfell, but hey ho What was being demonstrated against, oh yes women meeting to discuss proposed changes to legislation which would affect their rights.

I did say this, I think it's an important distinction because smoke bombs are basically a weapon intended to temporarily stop someone being able to see whereas a protest flare is just a bright light that gives off some coloured smoke. That people insist on calaming they were smokebombs despite knowing that's not what they were really reveals that GC accounts of some of these incdents cannot be fully trusted to be impartial.

Other Meetings of Women regarding the proposed changes to legislation which have been subject to threats, people banging on doors, threatening women trying to access the premises, blocking women on stairs, assaulting women: jj says: they are just demonstrating.

I don't recall commenting on these protests either.

Antifa members and TRA's threaten, abuse, throw eggs, assault women, including women survivors of trafficking, highlighting the plight of women trafficked into prostitution and pornography: jj says: I can't see an antifa flag there, or any men completely at odds with the women who were actually there said and filmed for posterity.

This was not an antifa or trans rights protest but a protest by feminists opposed to criminalisation of sex work. So yes I did criticise people claiming they were antifa and also said I'd like to hear both sides of the story - I don't think that's unreasonable.

Scepticaltank · 19/03/2021 20:17

Why did Caster Semeya feature so prominently in this thread. It makes no sense. And Julie Birchill seems to be bad woman flavour of the month. Who cares? What a crazy thread.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/03/2021 20:14

Can you give me an example of a far left MRA website?

It depends how you define "men's rights activism", really. I suspect we wouldn't agree.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/03/2021 20:12

Superb post, AnyOldPrion

30PercentRecycled · 19/03/2021 20:09

Key phrase there likely to flow

It was all hypothetical. Now we have lots of evidence of the real world consequences.

That seems like a good reason to have another debate.

RedDogsBeg · 19/03/2021 20:08

This just isn't true. I have repeatedly condemned violent and misogynist language used against gender critical women. I also think some of the things that happened at the initial protests were wrong and I have said so. I don't however think that the movement for trans rights is in anyway comparable in terms of violence to the far right. As far as I'm aware only one trans activist has been convicted of an assault in the name of trans rights since Stonewall. That's not a defence of what happened, or an attempt to minimise it, but it is clearly very different to the far right who have murdered hundreds - or millions when they have managed to get into power.

Oh come on jj1968 I can't be bothered to go back and read your actual words so I'll paraphrase:

Maria Machlaclan - jj says she shouldn't have been trying to take photographs of the demonstrators, contrary to indisputable evidence jj says the person who punched her wasn't a TRA, or a member of a group that put out literature stating people should turn up to punch a TERF

Letting flares/smoke bombs off outside Greenfell: jj says they weren't smoke bombs, just flares and everyone should expect them at a demonstration, bit insensitive to do by Grenfell, but hey ho What was being demonstrated against, oh yes women meeting to discuss proposed changes to legislation which would affect their rights.

Other Meetings of Women regarding the proposed changes to legislation which have been subject to threats, people banging on doors, threatening women trying to access the premises, blocking women on stairs, assaulting women: jj says: they are just demonstrating.

Antifa members and TRA's threaten, abuse, throw eggs, assault women, including women survivors of trafficking, highlighting the plight of women trafficked into prostitution and pornography: jj says: I can't see an antifa flag there, or any men completely at odds with the women who were actually there said and filmed for posterity.

Don't say you condemn violence and threats against any women whether GC or not jj because you don't there is always a but with you, a justification for the violence and threats, an excuse.

AtTheDickensDesk · 19/03/2021 20:08

@NiceGerbil I'm not certain it's what Bigotryisbad is referring to, but this looks vaguely relevant (and an interesting story): theidlewoman.net/2017/02/28/the-swashbuckling-life-of-the-chevalier-deon/

NiceGerbil · 19/03/2021 19:59

To bigotryisbad

I'm genuinely really interested in what happened in 1771? It's such a long time ago!

I've been googling and I can't find anything relevant.

I'm really interested- I like to know about history etc.

'
'It's a law which, for all it's flaws, was put in place after the ECHR ruled that the U.K.'s excuses for not recognising trans people's right to exist from 1771 to 2004 were unacceptable.''

AtTheDickensDesk · 19/03/2021 19:55

Some people (including me) believe the existence of the legal fiction of sex change causes too many unintended negative consequences, despite its good intentions, and as such we should seriously consider alternatives. I believe this is not currently a mainstream view.

Interestingly while following @bigotryisbad's links I came across this reasoning in UK vs Goodwin, which was the precursor to the passing of the GRA: "No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest had been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transgender people. Society might reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the gender identity chosen by them at great personal cost. It concluded that the fair balance that was inherent in the Convention now tilted decisively in favour of the applicant." Note that it rests on the assumption of no detriment to the public interest...

I wonder whether the "certain inconvenience" might be viewed differently if it were men's rights which were affected.

Yasminelikescoffee · 19/03/2021 19:51

I still don't get how GC is linked with the extreme right:
Correct me if I am wrong, but were any of these right-wing dictatorships led by gender critical feminists? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_dictatorship
How many were even led by women?
Are the murders of trans-women in the UK being conducted by women or by men?
Why are women who protect their rights to dignity and privacy in domestic violence shelters, or their right to female prisons or female sports or who don't want to be called "menstruators" being blamed?
Why can't more effort be put into sorting out the men?!

AtTheDickensDesk · 19/03/2021 19:49

@NiceGerbil

'It's a law which, for all it's flaws, was put in place after the ECHR ruled that the U.K.'s excuses for not recognising trans people's right to exist from 1771 to 2004 were unacceptable.'

Sorry I may have missed something.

What happened in 1771?

Something to do with the Chevalier d'Eon, I suspect.

@bigotryisbad, seriously - you've made this point about abolishing the GRA effectively withdrawing universal human rights from trans people and we're all against that. So tell us which ones. Even if you don't believe other posters are in good faith it's such a simple way to convince the lurkers (and me).

30PercentRecycled · 19/03/2021 19:49

What is going on with all these attempts to frame GC views as extreme right wing?

The common core gender critical views are far from right wing. Here's what I see as the most common beliefs (obviously each individual will have their own opinion, there's no GC hive mind):

  1. Sex is real. In mammals there are two sexes: male and female. Mammals cannot change sex. DSDs exist.
  1. Where segregation or categorisation by sex is necessary it should be retained and enforced.
  1. We should be extremely careful with experimental medical procedures, especially those involving children, those involving people who are suicidal or those that have the potential to permanently damage healthy body parts.
  1. Belief in gender identity is akin to belief in god or souls. You should be free to believe in it but you should not be allowed to impose your belief on me.
  1. Attempts to redefine the words man and woman to mean something other than sex categories is causing confusion.
  1. Gender non-conforming people should not face discrimination due to their non-conformity. This applies whether or not they believe in gender identity and whether or not they identify as having a gender like trans, non-binary, cis or some other gender not prescribed in law.
  1. People should not be required to reveal their gender identity, if they feel they have one. It should be treated as a personal matter like sexuality or religious belief.

---
A) Some gender critical people (including me) think the GRA is no longer fit for purpose and a new clearer piece of legislation should be created. I would welcome the debate that would be required. I would strongly support all voices being heard, the debate being public and for evidence to be openly available.

B) Some people (including me) believe the existence of the legal fiction of sex change causes too many unintended negative consequences, despite its good intentions, and as such we should seriously consider alternatives. I believe this is not currently a mainstream view.

jj1968 · 19/03/2021 19:47

@Justhadathought

If any trans activist appeared on a far right or MRA website I would condemn them without hesitation and they would be over in trans inclusive feminist circles

And if they appeared on a far left MRA website?

Can you give me an example of a far left MRA website?
jj1968 · 19/03/2021 19:45

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

You dismiss all and any violence or threats of violence by TRAs against GC women and women as being the fault of the women, for daring to attend meetings regarding changes to legislation or for involving themselves in any way with protecting the rights of women.

“It’s your fault.”
“Look what you made me do.”
“You had it coming.”

Hmm. There’s a familiar ring to that.

You're just completely inventing things now that have no relation at all to what I said.
jj1968 · 19/03/2021 19:44

@7Days

JJ out of interest, if a trans activist appears on a far left website what's the reaction in "trans inclusive" circles? They have heard about the USSR, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, haven't they?

Totalitatlrianism, rather than a plurality of viewpoints and the right to Express never leads anywhere good.

I'm not really sure a far left website exists of any size which supports those views but I'd certainly be very critical of a trans person who collaborated with an extreme Maoist sect or overtly Stalinist publication or something like that and I'm sure many other would be. I'd probably be less critical if it was the Morning Star, because I think they are naive Marxists really rather than overt Stalinists and there isn't a resurgence of violent Stalinism or Maoism currently taking place like there is of the far right. It's a bit of a moot point though because they're on your side too.
thinkingaboutLangCleg · 19/03/2021 19:42

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

NiceGerbil · 19/03/2021 19:37

'It's a law which, for all it's flaws, was put in place after the ECHR ruled that the U.K.'s excuses for not recognising trans people's right to exist from 1771 to 2004 were unacceptable.'

Sorry I may have missed something.

What happened in 1771?

Swipe left for the next trending thread