Janice Turner interview with Debbie Hayton in the Times

I also certainly agree it is not right to impose one's fetishes on schoolchildren: we can all agree on that - and the end goal is to roll back from this madness; but I think we also have to accept it is going to be a long haul; it is going to take at least a coupe of decades to fully unravel.

But we don't all agree that men should not impose their fetishes on children.

Janice turner tweeted, speaking of hayton: Even so she is beseiged too by extreme gender critical feminists, some who say she shouldn't be allowed to teach.

I don't believe she's working towards an end position of no AGP men in the classroom, any more than she is subtlety working to expose AGP.

I think shes is attempt to sell AGP as being of no harm if the AGP man knows that he's AGP.

Who is deriding or expressing contempt? I'm confused?

This is about twitter. I hadn't been on there this weekend, so I've no idea of the timeline, but it's a mess right now. Various columnists bit back at people who expressed disquiet with Janice Turner's article.

I'm interested in why robust commentary from some quarters is always styled as vitriol. Is this another word that has been undergoing a process of semantic degradation for some time?

NB: I've frequently praised JT's writing skills. I've long acknowledged that we all have our boundary lines for some matters. My experience of the consequences of some choices is plausibly different to that of others who make different choices.

Who is deriding or expressing contempt? I'm confused?

You know that sometimes your enemy's enemy is your friend. If you focus on goals rather than methods or approaches it can sometimes be easier to advance.

For me though, it's not so much that they've used preferred pronouns, I can understand why (although for me that's a big no), if you want to do that - fine, but bloody well own it.

My biggest issue is that they have decided to deride other women to justify it. Women, that in my experience, put a lot of effort, heart and money into protecting women's rights. And it is because of those grass roots women and their support that the academics and the writers can openly talk about this - because they know that if need be those anon women will put their hand in their pocket to support.

I'm confused as to who is reporting posts for deletion, and why? They are being deleted incredibly quickly......as if someone is actively monitoring responses.

What was wrong with Arabella's post above? All she said is it that it takes all sorts of approaches to reach the goal, and to reach different audiences. I'm also struggling to think why an earlier post of mine was deleted?

I'm really surprised by the vitriol towards Turner and Freeman on here. I think they have been really instrumental in getting gender critical voices to a wider audience.

I also thought the article was well written and interesting. And it says what it needs to without spelling it out. DH wobbling on about tights says more that the pronouns JT used.

This has become very apparent over the past months since the Brighton Let Women Speak event in particular.

this is such a bad faith take on the whole thing. It's practically reaching TRA levels of hyperbole. Can we just stop with the snide digs

Just so I know, is your take an official preferred style? I'm eager to be schooled in the art of managing my expression and thought at all times but I wouldn't be comfortable adopting it.

I'm startled to learn that I've never made a point about plurality, policy, and law.

I'm disappointed that they style me (and others) as coarse of thought and tongue

I'd be fucking disappointed to be styled any other way tbh 😂

I'm disappointed that they style me (and others) as coarse of thought and tongue, barely sentient as to the way of the world and lacking due deference and gratitude to them and those, like Hayton, whom they have elevated and marked for esteem.

Bloody hell, this is such a bad faith take on the whole thing. It's practically reaching TRA levels of hyperbole. Can we just stop with the snide digs about people who largely agree on the substance of the argument, but differ as regards tactics or vocabulary? This is such a big issue with so many facets that are going to require work in order to make the changes in law and policy that we need, that it needs people with a wide range of different skills and experience to make the case to different groups. It's not just a case of raising awareness in people who are already inclined to agree with us, but persuading people who disagree but aren't completely entrenched in their position. Jumping on people for not using sex based pronouns is as much of a turn off as when the TRAs do it regarding gender based ones

Does Freeman’s accusation give an insight into the thoughts of opinion columnists (and maybe academics-cum-opinion columnists) that all public writing and speech is brand building for them

Yes, it does.

As above, I shall weather their contempt and disdain despite the close resemblance to the class-based reasons and misogyny that have underpinned similar attitudes to me (and other women) in the past and in the present.

Ingratitude is monstrous, and for the multitude to be ingrateful, were to make a monster of the multitude.

I didn't expect the people I've supported and funded to be grateful to me and others like me.

I'm disappointed that they style me (and others) as coarse of thought and tongue, barely sentient as to the way of the world and lacking due deference and gratitude to them and those, like Hayton, whom they have elevated and marked for esteem.

What a monstrous regiment of Boxers and Clovers women we are. Resistant to the thought reform that would alleviate us of the burden of our need to think and evaluate.

I thought hierarchies, nepotism and egos weren't ideally supposed to exist in feminist activism, but what would someone like me know?

😁

https://karadansky.substack.com/p/to-pronoun-or-not-to-pronoun

Oh @UtopiaPlanitia you articulated your thoughts extremely well and I agree with everything you wrote. I don't usual comment on the spats because it does the movement no good, but I am really pissed off.

I'm an anon account because my children are adopted. However, like many other thousands of women, I am in an activist group, I work for free using my specific skills to further feminist causes, I buy all of the books these proper feminists sell, I contribute money to their crowd funders, I attend the conferences where they are platformed, I subscribe to various rags and blogs so I can read their articles and contribute financially to their work, I attend the protests and rallies.

I am sick of being told I'm not doing it right, that I'm concerned about the wrong things, that I'm a bad feminist for not having faith in the Labour Party and that I am wrong for believing Cleverley's 'off colour' joke about a date rape drug was no where near appropriate for an M.P. and that we should be demanding better.

I know some of these writers and academics have done amazing work over the decades, but I do not think they would speak so candidly on this particular topic if they knew they didn't have a legion of grass roots, anons behind them to back them up when things get a bit raucous.

I thought hierarchies, nepotism and egos weren't ideally supposed to exist in feminist activism, but what would someone like me know?

Your description is very interesting and gives me more to consider.

The more I read, here and from non-compliant women (and some men)on Twitter, the more I’m angry at Hadley Freeman accusing Kellie Jay Keen of engaging in brand building by objecting to Janice’s article.

I mean, Freeman knows what happens to KJK and the Let Women Speak women when they’re out in public - mobs of protesters who want to kick off. The LWS women are publicly putting themselves on the line to fight for women’s rights. And Freeman knows KJK was attacked by a mob in New Zealand and was very lucky to escape without serious injury (unlike other women on the day). Does Freeman’s accusation give an insight into the thoughts of opinion columnists (and maybe academics-cum-opinion columnists) that all public writing and speech is brand building for them? Freeman’s accusation just seemed so cynical, dismissive, disappointing and classist. It reminded me of Sarah Ditum calling KJK a poundshop Marine Le Pen.

I have little interest or patience in highly intellectual women who see themselves as superior and above other women, and are happy to sacrifice these embarrassingly common and unimportant types of women in order to achieve their political goals by patting the egos and the other bits of men.

It is either fantastically naive, or its corrupt. It is seeking female subordination on their terms in ways that benefit them.

The Boxer comment is apt.

I've found tweets by Patrick@stilltish illuminating today

x.com/stilltish/status/1753767967534305423?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

x.com/stilltish/status/1753828060866982142?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

“Likewise. But I suppose that's because my work is healthcare and science whereas they are engaged in high-level thinking that is beyond my cognitive resources or capacity.”

Or, more basically, whereas they are engaged in finger-to-keyboard paid work of putting their latest hot take on whatever topic out into the public domain, on the back of which they get to be able to pay their mortgages.

As a MNer once remarked, "We're not a be-cardiganed monolith".

Rethinking I love this description; it’s so accurate 😊

I’ll continue to fund and support and avoid, like you suggest, but I can’t help resenting that I’m considered to be infra dig, beyond the pale, and non-U by certain gender critical women for my firm and unshakeable knowledge that sex cannot be changed (and socially pretending about this fact is dangerous), as well as my dislike of seeing 'well-behaved' AGPS treated as allies in the fight for reclaiming women’s rights.

I appear to be constitutionally allergic to doublethink (or I’m stubborn) 🤯😵‍💫

today it feels to me like they’re often ashamed of us for not 'behaving well' in public, they worry that we make them look bad - they’ll take our money but wish we’d let them all do the talking
…
make me feel like I’m Boxer or Clover from Animal Farm…they think I’m not sophisticated enough to see 'subtleties' are necessary in networking and politicking, and they want me agreeing with their interpretations of everything.

Likewise. But I suppose that's because my work is healthcare and science whereas they are engaged in high-level thinking that is beyond my cognitive resources or capacity.

But their contempt is misplaced and largely irrelevant unless they are permitted to represent themselves as the sole source of acceptable viewpoints.

We need a plurality of voices and perspectives to represent the diversity and plurality of women. As a MNer once remarked, "We're not a be-cardiganed monolith".

I shall continue to provide financial support where it is strategic: Sex Matters, crowdfunding for various tribunals and legal actions. I shall not attend a women's event where TW are showcased because it, by default, can exclude trans widows.

Yes, I guess when you have a public facing role or career to protect then your movements will be modified by having that in mind.

I often look at the Labour front bench and wonder how they manage to put a lid on it - when their leader is saying and doing stuff they profoundly disagree with. But you don't get to the front bench unless you are able to do that. I imagine they see it as the necessary price for achieving the power to effect anything at all.

I genuinely really hope you’re right Rebellious because these establishment women (and Lefty politicians) often make me feel like I’m Boxer or Clover from Animal Farm - they want my support, my strength to campaign for them, to use my resources, to point to me as the disadvantaged woman whose existence legitimises their work but they don’t want me making any decisions about where the movement goes politically, they think I’m not sophisticated enough to see 'subtleties' are necessary in networking and politicking, and they want me agreeing with their interpretations of everything.