Actual gender critical left

Just to be fair, if for instance you aren't based in the UK, you wouldn't necessarily think that someone in the UK would comment about a political issue in the US, not to discuss the US, but to attack gender critical women in the UK!

Amazingly prescient comment.

It says something about their arrogance, that's for sure.

I was always staggered they were prepared to say the stuff they do, in a public group.

Sure. If you don't know AGCL then this isn't the thread for you.

Agree with both your posts. Same 😂 I will miss taking a look on the open FB batshit page.

I am also quietly applauding Bindel - banned from the group a couple of weeks ago, panel at the fringe.

My comment was directed at the OP, who is very clearly referencing current events in the US.

The first two responses to my update post are US centric. Very weird?!

Um, not advocating for anything... Just sharing what has happened with notorious British Facebook group for TERFs. You can't translate the US to the UK, sorry.

The only downside is not being able to visit the facebook page every now and again to see what purity spiral nonsense they are indulging in.

Thanks for this link.

Its a bit what we sow is what we reap.

And it gives me no satisfaction to say I did post that those going to FiLia should really wake up and look at how AGCL had infiltrated. (Not forgetting the thread on here about the elephant workshop.)

As an admin on their facebook page she would just delete anyone who questioned comments she made.

And had the dubious honour of having the last post every made on WPUK which got so many negative comments, ie left politics before women, the joke became that WPUK no longer wanted to continue as its supporters weren't left enough.

But sadly given the source of the story she will just add this to her list of sucesses in her pure beyong pure politics.

I think you've got to take every win you can get. Even if you don't like the bearer of that win. How else are the people you do like going to realise that they made a bad mistake if it doesn't cost them?
Trump's attack ad - "Kamala's for they/them, President Trump is for you!" had a big impact in the weeks before polling. Kamala sitting down with a man in a dress to explain all prisoners would have access to sex changes. Her positioned next to the serial women's luggage stealer fetishist in the very next scene. This was high impact messaging, and it hurt Kamala's run.

Can you imagine where women's rights in the face of gender would be now without the painful losses to the gender supporters? Starmer wouldn't have flip flopped ( ok well one less flip flop anyway ). Lammy wouldn't have learnt to keep his mouth a little shutter, at least until he's thought things through.

It reminds me of Yes Minister where the Jim Hacker has a 'brilliant' idea he wants to turn into policy, and Sir Humphrey calls it 'brave'. Hacker is instantly afraid. The politicians need to understand how unpopular this gender woowoo is, and be a little less brave in their virtue signalling.
Some women's rights have been significantly damaged under Trump, but he's good on the gender woowoo and I'll take that as both good and bad.

Say a democrat gets back in and undoes the damages Trump has done, but they're just a little afraid to ressurrect the gender woowoo after seeing how much Trump beat them with the issue. I'll take that as a win.

Not really sure what you’re advocating for…I’m also currently living in the US and I think both political parties are terrible.

Well, that's a shocker.

Latest on happenings over in the AGCL Facebook group:

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/bbc-producer-claimed-charlie-kirks-widow-was-zionist-handler/

Latest on happenings over in the AGCL Facebook group:

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/bbc-producer-claimed-charlie-kirks-widow-was-zionist-handler/

This is all true. Gay marriage is the lgb issue where Trump has been ambiguous overall, though apparently supportive now.

Tbf to him, he does seem to have always supported civil partnerships.

In certain left wing environments the jargon phrase (IIRC it's a quote from Lenin) was "patiently explaining".

Which often became a kind of bitterly satirical meme because being "patiently explained" to probably meant an apparatchik getting in your face and screaming at you for not following the party line.

That's the testosterone version. AGCL, being women, prefer the female passive-aggressive style of ostentatiously not naming the people they're obviously snarking about.

But still the assumption is that they get to do the explaining and the rest of us are here to be explained to.

was that the most recent Filia? Curious to see if it all falls apart due to standard leftist infighting…

It was in Glasgow.

FiLia isn't left wing, it isn't really feminist in the political sense. Its more like feminist entertainment inc, or as someone once said the poor women's WoW where commercialism has made feminism just another event to go to because its in the papers.

I suspect AGCL / WPUK see all these uncritical consumers of party bites of feminism as being exactly the sort of organisation they can hide behind whilst pursuing their political agenda. Confidently knowing that FiLia will be so star struck as having them as part of the team they will not oppose anything.

As suggested on others threads I think WPUK gave up being public because those darn GC feminists kept on interacting and challenging the left perspective. ie they prefer to be pure than popular.

But being the unseen puppeteer means they wont get labelled in public but may just capture some innocent women into signing up to their pure left agenda.

WoW = Women of the World which started on the South Bank in London and now organises in other UK - ie feminism as an art event.

She's critiquing Penny, not just referencing her.

She's a totally irrelevant creation of a male media that loves to have some air head say the stuff they think.

And, yes, somebody who just writes and pontificates is not a women's liberationist.

I am not interested in feminism, which is little more than aspiring to be like a man.

Women's Liberation is about destroying the patriarchal systems and values.

It is really worth thinking why an article printed / published by a news outlet has been published. It is rarely because it is giving a voice to the women who are working on the frontline.

It is all about creating froth and sparkle to keep the little ladies from worrying about what is really going on.

Why do you think KJK started let women speak. It wasn't just about men silencing women. It was / is also about giving a voice to the women that the self appointed voices of feminism constantly talk over.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. But on reflection, I don't think that was quite what the original poster meant - perhaps more suggesting that VS only critiques or supports ideas from other writers. They don't regard her as someone with new ideas, just a discusser of the ideas of others. She is certainly very much an academic in her take on the issue. But I love her nonetheless.

I don't think Penny would read that article and think she comes out of it well.

When those she criticises claim that Trump and others exploited the bad politics of her side, they don’t mean the “too righteous and feminist and anti-racist and noble” politics of her side. They just mean bad politics.

She's critiquing Penny, not just referencing her.

Nobody should ever quote Laurie Penny except to point and laugh. Laurie can't simultaneously insist that she's not a woman and also that she's some kind of authority on feminism.

I almost agree on the Marxist feminists - having to admit that some of them were a big influence on me once upon a time, and a few are still dear friends - there's a certain type of socfem way of doing politics that's unhelpful. Which is partly because lots of them are superficial white middle class dilettantes.

I was thinking of the Independent Workers Union in Ireland. When it got started back in the early 2000s its aim was to organise the unorganised, and lots of those unorganised workers were women - care home workers, hairdressers etc. What they wanted was support for gaining better pay and conditions. What they too often got was socfems turning up to treat them to discussions about the patriarchy.

Which they may have been open to in a different context, but in the context of the union what they wanted was class struggle, and the supposed Marxists couldn't see that.

The IWU these days is one of those institutions that still exists but everyone has forgotten about, like MySpace or the Conservative Party.

The thing about AGCL seems similar to me - a kind of micro-milieu who are absolutely convinced their way of doing politics is the only correct way, and who we could safely ignore if they didn't keep infiltrating groups that have some utility.