Helen Lewis blog of her WPUK speech

I wonder what a MN that didn't make HL sad would look like?

It's a while now since I've seen KJK say or do something and thought, 'Fucksake Posie!' but she still has the ability to do that to me, and probably always will. Nevertheless, and even though we've never interacted, I have a sense that, if I ever got into trouble with TRAs, she would have my back.

I'm afraid I don't have the same confidence in the feminists who put her down. Possible exception there for Julie Bindel but I suspect the rest, if forced to choose, would put their left wing allegiances first and to hell with a nobody like me. Maybe I'm being unfair to them but it's based on observing how they behave.

However amongst the gentry GCs there are still those who would prioritise their Left wing identities (if they have them) over the rights of women and girls or think it's okay to platform folk like Hayton at the expense of transwidows, or who believe in "tru trans", or who think all of this can be sorted without repealing the GRA, or who don't understand safeguarding and its importance, or can't see a fetish when it's staring them in the face and it bothers me that these are the people who are seen as "our" representation (or who identify as such themselves) because I don't know if I trust that they won't make "compromises" on our behalf and I can't and won't compromise on this.

Yes, this.

Helen Joyce is also willing to talk to a wider range of people/media outlets when it comes to interviews/panels and that is something that the socialist (academic) feminists don’t often do. Apart from Julie Bindel, I can’t think of WPUK members who would interact with conservative media or the IEA.

I actually can’t think of many of them who do media work to get the alternative message out there - what do they do apart from quarterly meetings? Are they lobbying Labour behind the scenes? I’m genuinely curious to know, not being snide.

Yes, thanks for that insight LaBaDee.

Really interesting, thank you - as a Brit I know I can't fully understand the massive polarisation of American politics, so it's good to be reminded and makes total sense that it would be an issue.

I was at the event and an audience member asked HL a question about this. I can't remember the exact way she phrased it, but it was something like "when you describe some activists as genuinely transphobic and being people you think aren't helping, are you talking about me, who is someone who will not use preferred pronouns/believes people can't be born in the wrong body/worries about children/rejects gender and transgender as a concept". Apologies to the questioner if I got that wrong but I think that was the gist.

HL's reply was no, she's not talking about people like that woman (I think she said she thinks that's a reasonable position, if not hers) but (again I'm remembering, so might not be perfect) three things: 1, her position is a liberal one, ie if you want to identify as a woman go for it, not going to impinge on your 'right' to do so, but you don't get to impinge on others' rights either, rather than a view that transgenderism makes no sense/is an offensive ideology, 2, there is some stuff in the discourse that she thinks is cruel and genuinely transphobic, eg 'mocking how people look', and 3, doesn't like the movement taking a 'any platform' approach, ie aligning with US evangelicals, extreme right wing, etc. I think it came across quite strongly in the panel discussion that her working for an American publication means she worries more about general political polarisation and the dangers of the extreme right in the US.

(Apologies to either woman if I've misrepresented them, that's the best of what I recall)

I disagree with her on several things but I think the issue as a whole is better for her journalism on it. Was a good event, HL, Julie Bindle, and Susan Dalgety were especially good. The chair shut down audience discussion way too much imv though

Yes, she got cold shouldered by a large contingent of the GC feminists who’d previously had a lot of time for her (including those who joined her at the infamous JKR lunch), and they’ve never allowed her back in the fold, or support her work, as far as I can see. She didn’t name any names, but for anyone who follows the big names on Twitter, I think it was pretty clear.

However amongst the gentry GCs there are still those who would prioritise their Left wing identities (if they have them) over the rights of women and girls

I'm picking out this bit rather than quoting your whole post again. Yeah my understanding is that WPUK (where Helen Lewis was speaking) is first and foremost a left wing organisation. I'm sure they're totally sincere in believing this is in women's best interests and I'm equally sure that, if push comes to shove, that's where their priorities will lie.

I think you can say the same about the Labour Women's Declaration. I have masses of time for them, in fact they're probably the main reason I've not yet completely severed ties with that party. But the clue is in the name.

This is a really excellent piece - as ever, her clarity and calm is admirable.

And I think you've nailed another point that bothers me, Terry: "...there are still those who would prioritise their Left wing identities (if they have them) over the rights of women and girls or think it's okay to platform folk like Hayton at the expense of transwidows, or who believe in "tru trans", or who think all of this can be sorted without repealing the GRA, or who don't understand safeguarding and its importance, or can't see a fetish when it's staring them in the face and it bothers me that these are the people who are seen as "our" representation (or who identify as such themselves) because I don't know if I trust that they won't make "compromises" on our behalf and I can't and won't compromise on this."

I didn't say HJ had done any of that but reading back what I've written I can see that my inclusion of HJ there was probably a mistake as it's muddied the waters of what I was trying to say so I'll try and clarify.

As I said I have a lot of time for Joyce and agree with the posts by Eresh upthread so there's no need to defend her to me. I think that unlike HL she has travelled a long way down the road and is probably nearer KJK's position than previously which is all to the good - not that I agree with everything KJK has to say, for the record.

However amongst the gentry GCs there are still those who would prioritise their Left wing identities (if they have them) over the rights of women and girls or think it's okay to platform folk like Hayton at the expense of transwidows, or who believe in "tru trans", or who think all of this can be sorted without repealing the GRA, or who don't understand safeguarding and its importance, or can't see a fetish when it's staring them in the face and it bothers me that these are the people who are seen as "our" representation (or who identify as such themselves) because I don't know if I trust that they won't make "compromises" on our behalf and I can't and won't compromise on this.

Yeah, someone who writes professionally should really know how their work comes over to ordinary readers.

So if Helen Lewis wants to be supercilious, I'm allowed to say that I really dislike supercilious people, having had a bellyful of them at various times.

That's not to say that I wouldn't stick my hand in my pocket for a crowd-funder, but it might not go in quite so far...

Also, I have no issue with men wearing dresses. I just don't want them in women's bogs, changing rooms, sports and prisons, thanks all the same. The safeguarding issues really, really, bother me.

I think she's such a good writer and this is a brilliant speech.

As for all the Head Girls vs Posie nonsense, I just can't. I've been a feminist activist for 40 years and I'm worn out with this constant slide into sectarianism and ripping each other apart.

I think it is entirely legitimate, though, to raise questions about what gets said in our name. I think it is a tactical error to talk about groomers and to ally with the Conservative right and to kick off about men wearing dresses. You disagree? Great, let's discuss- with tolerance and open minds. Don't shout me down about perverts and what about the children. Sometimes FWR gets a bit too 'no debate'.

Here's Helen Joyce in her own words on the rift between KJK and the academic feminists.
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-21/

She's not part of that group. If she's aligned with anyone, it's many of us on here.

Yes, I'm more likely to make allowances for Rowan but Helen Lewis is a professional writer and so, if she writes something that sounds patronising and passive-aggressive, I'm inclined to believe it's intentionally so.

And again, I agree. Rowan is not a published voice. Helen on the other hand is.

Ah ok, Helle that makes sense and apologies in return for misunderstanding!

I'm actually quite flabbergasted by Helen Lewis's claim to be feeling 'great sadness'. It's such a patronising, passive-aggressive thing to say and I guess it's got under my skin far more than Rowan's comments.

And flo, I don’t believe I was saying that you were. I was acknowledging that you are absolutely correct. But that even though it was Rowan who said that, that we should be clear what Helen did say and still be able to comment despite what other posters believe.

So, I am completely in agreeance with your post. Apologies that it read that I was not.

She's not a Labour supporter at all. She describes herself as "economically right-wing and socially liberal".

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-30/

But telling us that we shouldn’t comment or criticise Helen’s comments in return is still a form of tone policing.
Ok but I have to say, I'd have thought it would be pretty clear, both from the rest of my post, and my other posts on this thread that I wasn't telling you that at all.

HL's sadness reminds me of a school teacher lamenting how her favourite class has turned out to be a bunch of wrong 'uns. And in case, I'm still not making myself clear, I think she's being ludicrous.

I just also think it's important to be accurate about who said what.

This is correct. However, Helen commented:

”It’s a great sadness that now it seems like the “Posie Tendency” is the dominant strand of activism there.”

I guess that is very open to interpretation as to what the “Posie Tendency” is. I assume it is that Helen believes we are now too hard line or it could mean we are now ‘domesticated zombies’ or something else or that Helen agrees that we are 'bug eyed paranoid and dim witted’.

Either way, I gather that Helen was certainly not defending Mumsnet or being complimentary. Not that she has to be. But telling us that we shouldn’t comment or criticise Helen’s comments in return is still a form of tone policing.

I think I remember Helen Joyce talking about getting a hard time from certain feminists (although I don't recall her naming any names) after the first time she went to a Standing for Women event.

And also maths and economics rather than philosophy, history, sociology.

I agree, Helen Joyce isn't about purity spirals in the same way as others. She will speak at LWS and understands how valuable it is for ordinary women to feel their voices are heard. She also isn't a Labour supporter particularly, so she doesn't have competing interests in that way.

I think Helen Joyce is very different from people like Helen Lewis. Joyce is fantastically intelligent (just go and have a look at her CV on LinkedIn) but she isn't obviously posh or elitist. It helps being Irish, of course - her accent doesn't have any of the class connotations you get with an English accent.