Andrew Doyle

Oh no, I'm frequently not the least bit respectful of people's decisions!

And I wasn't really talking about Andrew Doyle.

I was talking generally about the concept of an objection to she pronouns being called a purity spiral. (And more specifically you related it back to Janice Turner. )

Which I certainly don't think it is (a purity spiral) and I think you agree with me.

And in terms of doing it for a known AGP man, I can't imagine what justification there is?

You talk about a variety of reasons, or exceptions, which I'm perfectly happy to accept. But I wonder what they are?

Yes to the whole purists and pragmatists thing.

Diversity of opinion (and different life experiences) means that kind of division is inevitable to some degree. But when it becomes a high-profile public row, it discredits the cause and only helps opponents.

I'm thinking of factionalism in hard-left politics, and in faith groups, where fury over relatively minor differences becomes all-consuming.

100%

Malaga, do you truly think that objecting to using words that a man has explicitly told you arouses him can be described as some kind of purity?

But great minds think alike. It's funny what happens once a Labour victory seems plausible, when now founded on Tories foundering. There's been purity spiraling in 'ver GC movement at the VIP level for some time.

Ed: That's to Pickled and Saffron.

IMO we need to focus on what comes next. What do we do if Labour get into power and try to dismantle The Equality Act?

Yes, I hardly think you can call the transwidows the purists.

It doesn't get more pragmatic than being married with kids to an AGP and having to negotiate leaving.

Again. It's like the women at the coalface, the actual women who are going through the fallout of this are invisible.

It's utterly bizarre.

Twitter is always a shit show, and always has been, but at least you get banned less for acknowledging biological reality now. I don't blame Andrew Doyle for stepping away, tbh but I don't think he'll keep to it unless he deletes his account entirely, so few people do. Twitter draws people into petty squabbles and bunfights and encourages addictive behaviour.

I typed too slowly, clearly.

Purists and pragmatists is an interesting positioning in itself.

I only engage here, have done no feminist reading, am on Facebook but not openly gender critical there, read the news and items posted here and on FB.

I see some of the ‘vote labour’ folk as purists- the academic feminists who worry about being tainted by the far right.
I think they probably see themselves as pragmatists, making concessions to win the Labour Party and the ‘my best friend’s child is trans so we must be kind- but actually I have some worries’ women over.

I see KJK as a pragmatist, welcoming any woman who has anything to say regardless of their alliance, background, political or religious drift. Someone might see her as a purist for shouting, ‘he’s a man’ even when it’s rude and embarrassing.

Those you label ‘pragmatists’ are the ones dealing in the theoretical rather than reality.

It is the purists who are being pragmatic; they have seen how even small compromises have been used to throw the door wide open to the destruction of women’s rights.

I think there was always something of a rift going on there, to be honest.

But I genuinely think this will come out in the wash.

Unless it's now going to be a thing for some women, going forward, that they keep giving publicity to men with AGP.

I doubt it, but what with the Debbie Hayton PR Drive, and the Katy Jon Went being called esteemed, you never know.

As I believe these men are motivated by their sex drive, or their attention seeking, I doubt very much if that will last, if it does happen.

Cos that beachball sure ain't going to float itself.

It's very much a loose anti-insanity coalition

A perfect description.

I agree, but I'm sure I've seen it said before they are not necessarily TRA, just men who have found a new way to kick women. Many many times I've seen similar stuff said.
And then so damn many of the 'die in a grease fire' type posts are from blue tick, verifiable accounts.
Whereas what I've seen so far, on here only and a few screenshots, only one blue tick verifiable account.

Unless theres way more?

It's not even that I don't believe women made these comments, more that mostly lots of us are in the rainbow already. But bots, yeah I can believe bots.

I've often considered that to be an interesting aspect of all of the strands of the resistance to the agenda, including, for example, those who object on religious grounds. It's very much a loose anti-insanity coalition rather than a doctrinaire and cohesive group. We all do have our differing angles and priorities and we're not going to find easy rapprochement will all strands of thought but I think that's OK and we shouldn't be fighting for ideological coherence - people with all kinds of objections are coming out against capture of public institutions, charities and other organisations by what is an obvious lunatic fringe.

Andrew Doyle is great at the "anti woke" and freedom of speech stuff but he's never been much of a feminist. Titania McGrath is what he thinks of feminists. I actually think someone like Brendan O'Neill understands the issue for women better.

Language is vital, it is not ‘dictating’ what people say to point out theft of women’s language is a huge issue undermining women’s rights. If that is your response to someone objecting to you using ‘she’ to refer to a man then you are wilfully refusing to listen.

I interpreted that as not engaging on DH's terms rather than no engagement/debate, IYSWIM. I may be very wrong.

But the only way to avoid falling into the Hayton trap is not to engage.

No debate?

Im sorry he recieved abuse, but im baffled why he thinks women should take responsibility for something they haven't done.

It's one of the rules of misogyny I think this one.