Cassie'S thread about the JCJ blog - part 2

@Whatever1964
As a man do you ever stop and think for just a second about whether or not a group of women debating the protection of women's single sex rights while preserving women's other rights for healthcare really needs your input especially if it's to minimise Cassie's genuine concerns about the amplified anti abortion voices as her being scared of being left out of the group?

Yeah I do worry about it. I don't think any discussion needs my input. I try and stick to the sex/gender aspect of the board rather than the feminism. I think these topics are relevant to people of both sexes. And I'm aware my posts probably have less value than most, but hopefully more than zero.

agreed. I don't believe feminism is even 50% completed personally, yes some aspects have shown improvement but there are many lacking in our local society (UK).

Yes exactly that's a great point! And yet I'm sure posters can see it when TRAs do it. It's the lack of critical thinking or willingness to engage in discussion about contradictions that concerns me about radicalisation.

posters repeating what is essentially a far-right talking point which is that feminism in countries like the UK is a completed project and that women have their rights and liberties and that the only risk we have is from imported misogynists from foreign patriarchal nations.

Also TRA-adjacent, given TRAs tendency to argue that for 'cis' women (particularly if white) feminism has achieved its aims and it's transwomen who are the real oppressed now.

This is also the right

(my this is a fun, yet pointless game)

This is the right

What's also interesting is that the far-right are intentionally targeting and recruiting women and we know there are lots of GC accounts on twitter tweeting and interacting with far right content. I was quite surprised by a comment on the previous post that no one on this board could be susceptible to radicalisation - any one could be! Especially if you are following and engaging with GC accounts who increasingly post far-right propaganda and no one else in the GC space is ruthlessly calling it out. The previous thread got completely bogged down with posters repeating what is essentially a far-right talking point which is that feminism in countries like the UK is a completed project and that women have their rights and liberties and that the only risk we have is from imported misogynists from foreign patriarchal nations. It wouldn't be as mindboggling if the same posters weren't otherwise posting about women's inequalities in the UK so they obviously aren't oblivious that the work of feminism isn't done yet. The contradiction between the two thoughts is wild and it does make you wonder where they're getting their information from as the online space peddling those contradictory ideas the most are the far-right GC accounts.

especially considering the first one is an example of "the left" not believing a single claim by an unreputable source and highlighting how people create a narrative to push for particular outcomes.

I wonder if it will be silence if it ends up being proven lies that are being repeated?

Well you didn't wanna engage on the other thread as discussing the threat from far right white men was too surreal for you so why on earth are you on here? As the OP says, if you don't like it you don't have to join in on this one.

You wanted Mumsnet to take down the other thread. Why on earth have you started a new one?

i don't really understand what the point of this is? are either of those screenshots meant to be a 'ha gotcha' moment?

Also the left

This is the left.

I have read the article twice and I genuinely don't see what language people are describing as overly complex or as per the last thread "wanky". It would help if people gave an example maybe but it all just feels a bit "she thinks she's clever with her big words" which is a strange complaint to make about someone with a PhD particularly the jokes as though she is putting her articles through a thesaurus to use bigger words than necessary as though she doesn't actually understand the words she is using. I don't like the implication that women should play down their intellect to make other people comfortable when we don't ask any men to do that.

There is a happy medium though - she could write clearly and plainly without using either complex language or hyperbolic language. Other people manage to do this.

I'm a fan of JCJ. I love her writing, and I agree with her about most stuff. Like her, I worry about the rise of the far right and I'm not thrilled to see people who call themselves gender-critical allying themselves with the vile Tommy Robinson.

On the other hand, I do think the left has to take some responsibility for what has happened. The "left" (in which I'd include the major political parties such as Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens, even the SWP) are all peddling gender ideology to an alarming degree. None of them has stood up for women, or expressed concern at the threats to free speech or the violent attacks on women's meetings. Some have expelled feminists from their parties, while others have stopped feminists even having a stall at party conference. So it's not at all surprising that some gender-critical women have looked to the right, however disturbing some of us find that.

I mean if you wanted some kind of thought experiment how about "Who would you rather your son turned out to be? A university educated lefty man or a man whose response to the murder of children is to throw bricks at a mosque?"

It's a really bizarre two options to pick, especially considering it's not exactly worded properly.

Really it should be:

A man proven to be susceptible to far right propaganda led by a man with extremely problematic views of women?

or a left wing man who went to university?

What potential faux-pas would the 'lefty' man be trying to avoid making @BlessedKali ?

‘The left’s policy on trans rights is what made us need to run around calling all trans identified people groomers and perverts and pedophiles. We just have legitimate concerns.'

I've never heard anyone say this. Even glinner, who is quite free with epithets such as "groomer", doesn't accuse all trans-identified men of being groomers or perverts.

I think most of us with concerns about gender ideology feel particular compassion for young girls who are identifying as trans, because we believe that most of these girls are vulnerable, often lesbian, often autistic, often from troubled backgrounds. None of us, as JCJ knows, would describe these girls as perverts or groomers, so she is being careless with language here.

When we look at trans-identified men, it's become very clear that the large-scale adoption of gender self-ID into policy has led to trans identity becoming a magnet for men who are sexual predators. That includes voyeurs, exhibitionists, rapists and child abusers. JCJ knows this perfectly well. Does that mean that all, or even most, of trans-identified men are sexual predators? Well, no, but if you don't have a clear definition of trans, and instead accord trans status to anyone who wants it, then it's obvious that it's going to be particularly appealing to men with harmful intentions. Indeed, JCJ has herself pointed this out many times.