Helen Joyce & Julie Bindel: Should TERFs unite with the Right?

From the WPUK website, promoting the publication of 'Trans'

Indeed it did not.

Woman 1, speaking to Helen Joyce: Katie Hopkins? There are many beyond the pale. We do need a megaphone on the Left and I am sorry that you are describing yourself as “not left wing” HJ

Helen Joyce: JFC I’m a former finance editor of The Economist - OF COURSE I’m not left wing! I’m astounded anyone could possibly ever have thought I was!!

Of course WPUK knew that HJ and MF weren't left- wing.

HJ used to wrote for The Economist for goodness sake

They work with a broad church and draw their lines where they see fit.

Just as they support other women to do.

Has 'gender' and all the associated shenanigans brought new women to feminism? Women who weren't previously involved? Maybe, say, women with different political inclinations than most feminists are maybe used to?

From what I saw, it never occurred to WPUK and associated 'actual GC left' women that HJ or MF might not be left wing. They just assumed that they were until they were informed otherwise.

I'm also thinking it can be a bit like the blind men and the elephant story:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#:~:text=The%20parable%20of%20the%20blind,the%20side%20or%20the%20tusk.

Yes, but it doesn't make any sense to me. JB will work with people on the right. HJ says there are people on the left she won't work with. Both are happy to accept the other's boundaries.

So where is all the hate and anger for women working with the right coming from?

I fear I do know the answer, sadly.

I had the same take away Beastly.
I agree with this point too.
I think that's maybe why it's brought the interest of such a broad demographic. I think it's thanks to the feminists (like JB) for raising, analysing and explaining the issue, but it's as if this is bigger than any single movement. A different split. I don't know- identity vs reality? Not sure how to formulate it.
As an analogy , something like Lord of the Rings come to mind. The nerd in me, sees the Shire under threat, so the elves, and the humans, and the hobbits all have to work together.
I'm ill and have had some wine though so might be getting a bit grandiose/fantastical with this...

Another thing that I got from the debate is that JB is prepared to work with people on the broad right and similaly HJ has people she won't work with. The difference is that because they are fighting different ways their boundaries are in different places

Seriously, if DH wanted to see, say, the rules tightened up for social transition of kids, I would be happy to accept Hayton's vote, speak at the same event, work on a committee to draft legislation, accept funds raised, whatever. I wouldn't even care if DH filmed me making a speech and then distributed it saying it was a good thing to listen to.

Like - how do people think anything gets done without working with others?

Setting your boundaries in these discussions basically seems to mean being unable to actually reach any level of social consensus on laws or really anything.

I agree RoyalCorgi.

WPUK work with a broad church. Their statement clarifying their position earlier this year says explicitly that they stand by the political boundaries they work within, don't impose this stance on others, that people should be free to work with who they want, that they support the right of women to peacefully assemble and protest and condemn those harassing and intimidating these women.

Both JB and HJ have spoken at WPUK events. WPUK have promoted and held launch events for their books.

They've generally done a lot to amplify the voices of many different women.

Yeah, I kind of think this idea that gender ideology is a feature of "patriarchy," that word which can mean any shadowy force somehow creating something you don't like, prevents any honest need for the left to come to terms with why it is, now, a feature of so much left wing thinking. And not just GI, but id pol more generally, have to a significant degree become what the left is.

And feminism is part of the patrimony (matrimony?) of id pol. This is something women should want to dig down into, an important part of any successful social movement is looking at the results of your ideas over time and seeing what has stood up and what hasn't.

As an explanation it's just inadequate.

Okay, I've watched the whole thing now. I think JB is very passionate in arguing that the fight against ideology can only come from feminism and any other way means we won't win.

I think she doesn't really understand, as HJ points out, the reality-denying aspects of this. That it's not the same thing as every other misogynistic practice, but "an attack on the whole of civilisation". So it's a fight for everyone.

You're not looking hard enough I'm afraid

WPUKs assumption that everyone must be on the left or ignorant racist scum is literally the problem.

That's horrible, and not true.

Of course WPUK are happy to work with people on the right. They're very comfortable talking to Tory politicians like Miriam Cates or Emma Nicholson, for example. They don't vet speakers for their political affiliation - I'm fairly sure that Sharron Davies, for example, who spoke at one event, is on the right, and no doubt many others have been too.

But there's a difference between right and far right. I think that some women in the UK don't really appreciate how far to the right people like Tucker Carlson, or the US evangelical movement, are. These people are very much not friends to women - not just that, they are positively harmful. They will use the gender issue as a way of pushing a regressive anti-women, anti-gay agenda.

This thread isn't about KJK. Have you watched the debate @Andthisyoushallknow? Thoughts?

I'm sure you will all love to point out the error of my ways but wtaf has KJK done for women?Toured about selling some tshirts and merch while voicing her opinion ? Fair enough ,but don't make out she gives a fuck about women like me - poor women with disabilities. Bindel on the other hand ,has ways had our voice. HJ seems yet another book seller.

I think WPUK cancelled Posie from one of their events and called her a racist. And then more recently, I understand, there was a whole series of posts and tweets about how much they hate her.

Helen and Maya are way more successful and have made way more impact from WPUK. It's more a case of them platforming WPUK than the other way around.

Ultimately I don't think JB has a problem with Helen or Maya or any of the other women fighting this. She just hates Posie.

I think you are either making up or getting confused about WPUK's part in this debate, yes.

I'm making it all up shiny. Nothing happened. That's why this debate was organised. Because nothing happened.

We've had years of this shit shiny.

Are we talking about the same WPUK?

I've just looked back as far as I can on their Twitter feed and can't see anything there laying into either Maya or Helen.

Nothing about anyone being 'scum' either.

Given that Helen used to work for The Economist and Maya's professional background, I don't think anyone would have thought they were left wing at any point during this debate.

If you want to talk about legal success, Allison Bailey has done pretty well, but I don't know where she stand politically, other than obvs anti-racist, feminist and anti-homophobic.

And the halting of the GRA reforms were pretty important too.

I think this is rewriting history somewhat. After Helen and Maya's appearance in Brighton, WPUK women immediately laid into them on twitter for not denouncing the right wing, and they both explained then that their politics were on the right.

So don't give credit where it's not due.
WPUKs assumption that everyone must be on the left or ignorant racist scum is literally the problem.

It must be disappointing to now accept that these two women with the most legal success and mainstream credibility are conservative.

Julie has very little non left credibility, her Spectator articles are laughed at for their incomprehensible oppression and patriarchy arguments. The left can't own this issue.

They did and do.

I meant generous as in not spurning individuals whose broader politics don't align with theirs.

As opposed to the inward looking meanies MN often seems to think they are.

I think you've got the nuances correct, OP.