Is it okay to work with groups whose principles you dont share as a feminist, but there is a common cause?

Examples include the US and USSR, despite their profound political and ideological differences, joining to fight the Nazis in WWII. All of the countries currently at the overrun COP27 trying to agree on how to combat global climate change, regardless of their differences on many other economic and geopolitical issues?

Yes, I'd be interested to know what you mean by 'trans inclusive views' ~@aseriesofstillimages . Also what are the really difficult questions you don't have answers to? (Possibly off the topic of the thread, but since you raised these points, I'm interested.)

Reason being, that I don’t actually recognise ‘trans’ as a legitimate description of anything real. I see it more as a term belonging to a belief-system I don’t share.

So phrases like ‘trans-inclusive’ don’t make sense to me. It would be like, uh - I dunno- someone saying they are hell-aware’ - I don’t believe in hell as a literal place, so I would have no clue what they were referring to.

I’d be interest in knowing what you mean here.

Just stepping in here to pick up the baton. My trans-inclusive views pre-dated the last few years of high profile controversy and debate, but I have now engaged with GC views at great length on this board and elsewhere. I would say that engagement has helped to develop my views, and highlighted to me the really difficult questions to which I do not have answers. It has not altered my fundamental position or beliefs though.

it has also made me aware how many people on the GC side (though clearly not all) are taking exactly the kind of black and white, simplistic, tribal approach to these issues that they accuse ‘TRAs’ of taking.

I know my comment is rather pointed, but, in a world of competing interests, narratives, lies, conflicting opinions and perspectives - how it it possible to authentically examine reality with an open mind, without stepping on some hot topic issues?

It is only possible if you narrow down what you expose yourself to and are obedient to the consensus of those who are similarly confined.

It is impossible to be a free thinker in that situation.

It's not descending into childishness, Dream. I think that you are reaching the point where you realise you can't logically defend your stance and it's very uncomfortable. But it's a good place to be - the next step is to open your mind and think new thoughts.

Also, a question. Have you arrived at your view from careful consideration, and lengthy engagement with those views, or have you arrived at your view prior to careful consideration and lengthy engagement?

There is a big difference.

As in Spinal Tap “there is a fine line between being clever and stupid”.

it seems people have struggled to understand my POV on the OP all this time so I'm pointing out that this is basically what i've been saying all along.

This is descending into childishness so I'll step away.

So?

Oh yes that must be it!!

Well the thing is, you can't just state that your concerns are "valid" and expect that to be it. You've been asked to explain what your concerns are in some detail and having carefully read your answers, I am not convinced. I believe that you are genuinely concerned and care about women, but when you set out what you think and why you think it, it looks to me very much like you cannot accept any viewpoint other than your own. You think other people's views are "skewed" and you are anti-free-speech. So while you may say you don't care about purity politics, you are in fact practising purity politics. You're calling it "valid concerns" and thinking that the label should be enough to convince others. But it's what's in the tin that counts.

Right, and there you have my view on conservative groups in a nutshell. I don't trust their underlying motivations and how these motivations inform their actions.

Perhaps that means you are not a free thinker?

On right leaning forums all over the internet, yes the very valid and true fact of free speech is perverted and trotted out to defend some pretty reprehensible stuff.

My point is not about Free Speech, it's about the types of people who bring it out in online debates.

I've genuinely never felt the need to go on about free speech in the context of my own views.

I am being facetious.

I don’t give a shit if groupthink enforcers think I am stepping out of line. I am long beyond caring and I have outlined my rationale above. It has been a position I gradually arrived at, through careful consideration and sincere engagement. The outcome is - that I no longer trust their motives or their judgement, therefore, I no longer give a shit what they perceive mine to be.

Dream, believe, think and feel whatever you want, of course, but please will you give some consideration to what you're saying when you say that free speech is associated with 'shitty views'. That's actually chilling, on various levels.

So when people are telling you, "I don't care about purity politics, I have valid concerns", you're just going to go ahead and ignore that and double down on the purity politics line, because acknowledging otherwise doesn't fit in with your view on left leaning people?

I am serious when I say we are in dangerous waters when people see free speech, free thought, free expression as somehow connected with having 'shitty views'.

They don’t give a shit what I think. I am sullied by association aren’t I?

Honestly, as per usual, free speech discussions only tend to come up when people are aware on some level their views are shitty.

You genuinely think this?!

Why should anyone give a shit what you think then?

Honestly, as per usual, free speech discussions only tend to come up when people are aware on some level their views are shitty.

Interesting how suddenly the entire premise of "we should hear a diverse range of views" suddenly goes out the window now 😂

Thank you OP.

I, too, have concerns about the tribalism and polarisation I have seen in some groups.

I find some people’s perception of what is ‘working with’ and what is joining a discussion and contributing a point of view to be polarised.

As far as I can work out, this event is one with panels for discussion. Why on earth would a panel not have opposing views represented to allow people to be better informed and to make their own decisions?

Why is it assumed that appearing in a panel, and providing a sponsorship to do so, is ‘working with’?

To me, I look at it from a point of view that a panel should be balanced. That a balance of sessions people can attend is a good thing too.

I would attend a panel event to learn as much as I can about the views of others. I certainly would not assume I knew everything those who oppose my views believe because over time those things change. And if my role or passion depended on being able to defend a particular position, of course I want to know what those opposing my position are thinking.

The degree of tribalism, maybe absolutism and siloed thought I have read on this thread is concerning. And the insults being flung too. Proportionality seems to also be missing.

I think that will only happen when we get beyond this very emotional, black and white way of dividing people into 'goodies' and 'baddies'. We need nuance, calm, patience, critical thinking. Then we need the left to listen. They won't listen so long as they keep dismissing all disagreement as monstrously evil.

Yes. As someone said on another thread, #nodebate has done the trans cause no favour at all. They haven't had to hone their arguments, find their weak spots, test their ideas against reality or against opposition. We have. So when #nodebate was over, we were primed and ready to go and the other side could only insult, threaten, and use violence to try and shut us up.

This seems to be what's happening with the socialist feminists/Real Feminists/Actual Gender Critical Feminists. They've decided they're right, there's no room for debate and viewpoints other than theirs are "skewed" and bad. So they aren't testing out their ideas with debate. You can see it on threads like these, when people turn up and say "oh you want to work with fascists then?" It can only lead to a weakening of the integrity of the left as they can no longer articulate their ideas or persuade others.

I appreciate Dreamwhisper you have actually worked really hard to clarify, explain and defend your views. And I think it shows in the fact that the thread has become more collaborative, with you and others being more prepared to understand each other's side.

We need nuance, calm, patience, critical thinking.

I wish I was as patient as some of the women here. I get pissed off and want to get to the point. But sometimes that means I miss the point...

it really is as simple as them believing that anyone not in their clique is a bad person. Anyone who votes tory, anyone who has a religious belief, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the tenets of socialism feminism - they are bad. And their opinions are therefore also bad

Sadly, I think this is often accurate. I do think that social media/the internet has reinforced this soundbitey, meme-based suggestion that we are all reducible to flags or walking labels. Out in the real world we are all encountering people of varying stripes, religions, beliefs, etc all the time, mostly without all that much friction. We rub along, don't we? For the most part, in the UK. More in common, and all that.