To think you can’t call yourself a liberal anymore if you don’t agree with gender ideology?

[Spookygoose]

I’ve always considered myself a liberal and I agree with all aspects of liberal political viewpoints, apart from gender ideology and the idea that there are more than two sexes. I hate the idea of being viewed as conservative or a Tory, but it seems these days people who reject the gender ideology movement are labelled conservative. Can you be a liberal and not agree with this?? I understand everyone is an individual and specific viewpoints differ from person to person, no matter what political identity they call themselves, however it seems anyone with anti trans views are labelled conservative. I think it’s more of a thing in America but maybe it’s becoming a bigger thing here too?..As a gay woman, one of my biggest issues with it is I feel it’s erasing gay rights and making society more homophobic

Gender ideology is not just refusing to identify where someone’s nose starts, it says certain people have the right to swing their fist and send you flying and you mustn’t object.

Not only do I have the right to pretend I am the opposite sex, I can also demand you pretend I am too and demand you change everything to enable me not to ever have to face reality.

I agree. After I'd posted I realised I'd mis-stated it. I think permissiveness is the problem with many failings of (US) liberalism, but gender ideology is authoritarian not permissive.

Me too ✊🏼

I dislike the language around this to the point where I disagree with the people I agree with! 'Liberal' is copying American parlance and replacing our 'lefty' or 'socialist' or the more politically value-laden 'progressive'. It doesn't mean Liberal as in Liberal Democrat Party but aligns more with Labour Party and perhaps others such as Green Party,

'Gender critical' is an obscure term in the context in which it is used and I am not it. And it's not 'gender ideology' or 'genderism' but 'gender identity ideology.' 'Gender' has been redefined by various Humpty Dumptys from meaning 'sex' to some social theory thing, to gender identity which is a personal notion or choice. (Terms are bandied about such as 'Gender Theory'.)

The whole thing is fraught with contradictions and impossibilities and it It is won or lost on the use of language: How can you state 'A transwoman is a man'? A man is a man. If he's a man why the word 'woman' (as part of a compound) to denote him, while stating he's a man?

Again, I don't agree with the often heard statement that the speaker doesn't care if a man wears women's clothes. Well, that's what a certain Eddie, for example, has done. The problem is that it doesn't stop there. Another is that when men do it, our media and eager men and women all over the place rush to call him a woman. Why the rush to deference?

And the practical effect of all that is that we end up not knowing who is who or who is a man and who is a woman and therefore who is in our women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, lesbian groups, rape crisis services, hospital beds or indeed whether the doctor treating us is a man or a woman, or how or to whom to apply various laws, etc, etc. We think we can tell and in many cases we can but even though I may be convinced in my own mind that I can always tell, it isn't possible.

What's the American meaning?

The whole ‘left, right’ is increasingly being used to divide people and, even worse, the terms far-left and far-right are just bandied about willy nilly. I hold views found in both camps but if I express them I will be labelled one or the other. It is so unhelpful, and confusing! I saw Posie Parker was side by side with Tommy Robinson at the weekend and felt really conflicted.

I really need to come off Twatter, it’s a cesspit of hatred.

Except there's a scientific test to determine sex.

@EuclidianGeometryFan

I thought that it was the "progressive" left that was at pains to equate GC with the far right - a deliberate tactic to tar GC as right wing - because how dare those uppity women fail to see how mean and nasty they are being to a vulnerable minority, and of course all the Good People of the left are without question in favour of supporting all vulnerable minorities. That is the raison d'être of the left (who have given up on the hard stuff like fighting poverty and wealth re-distribution).
In other words, if you are not in favour of protecting this vulnerable minority, you must be far right.

I think that was true for a period and I think the progressive left was very stupid in failing to respond to genuine concerns women had about GC. But I think elements of the right have been able to hijack this to convert some feminists to other parts of a right wing agenda.

I know one person (a former close friend) who has pivoted to being progressive left in most areas of her life to being hard right, Reform voting, toying with the rhetoric of Tommy Robinson, because of her concerns about GC. I think its a ridiculous piece of histrionics but she's not alone.

A lot of feminists understandably feel they have been let down by the progressive left but the idea that you solve this by pivoting to a Muskite "lets wipe out woke" position is a dangerous over-reaction.

If her politics were largely driven by her concerns for women's rights (and that's not unreasonable) then it would explain why she abandoned the side that told her it didn't even know what women are but it knew men were women, and wants to deny her the most basic sex based rights.

She's also likely to be responding to the sheer dishonesty of it. Everyone knows men aren't women so when a movement lies to you about something so basic, and expects you to sacrifice yourself to this lie and never let on that you know it isn't true, a lot of people won't trust anything else about it. That leaves them with a political vacuum, like a power vacuum, that's got to be filled.

I've gone for independent candidates but it's true they'll never beat Reform.

Capitalism is a disaster for the environment and everyone at the bottom of the heap (i.e. most people on the planet).

Green, verging on commie and GC 👍

@ThatCyanCat

She's also likely to be responding to the sheer dishonesty of it. Everyone knows men aren't women so when a movement lies to you about something so basic, and expects you to sacrifice yourself to this lie and never let on that you know it isn't true, a lot of people won't trust anything else about it. That leaves them with a political vacuum, like a power vacuum, that's got to be filled.

Up to a point.

But this line is being parroted that because the progressive left let women down on trans (which it di), women now have a free pass to accept every bit of right wing ideology unquestioningly. Which is where you see the somewhat sinister alliance between women like Posie Parker/Kelly J Keane and Tommy Robinson.

You can be fiercely opposed to the GC perspective on the world (as I am), but still believe that the Robinson/Reform agenda poses a greater threat to the future of our democratic society than a bunch of extremist trans activists who have now been legally neutered and socially discredited.

A lot of people seem to have accepted at face value that because the progressive left let them down on this that its A-OK to swallow some of the hardest line right wing rhetoric in other areas of life: immigration, foreign policy, health policy etc etc. I dont buy this. A hard right agitator is still my enemy: they have not magically become my friend because they are anti-trans.

It’s the idea that there’s a male brain and a female brain and it’s possible for them to be placed into the wrong bodies that strikes me as pretty incompatible with liberal views

As far as I can tell 'liberal' in the US means what we would call 'socialist' in the UK and seems to be used mostly in a perjorative sense. Whereas liberals in the UK are very much not socialists - as I mentioned before Churchill was a liberal, and continued to describe himself as such, even after he re-joined the tories.

I don't disagree (well, I mildly do on a couple of the side points, but overall) but again, this is the kind of reaction you are likely to get when a movement insists that you swallow a plain lie that everyone knows is a lie. It doesn't mean that everything their opponent movement says is correct or justifiable, but it does mean that, faced with two movements, one that's telling a clear, demonstrable, provable lie that it knows is a lie, and insisting you sacrifice yourself to it... people will start wondering what else it's lying about and why they should trust anything it says. And when this dissent is met with monstering and accusations of being part of the other movement, people will wonder what's so bad about that other movement.

It's such a perfect storm that I have at times seriously wondered whether the Left got infiltrated by excellent double agents whose MO was to make it look and even become totally fucking insane and drive people towards Reform.

Indeed, how stupid to buy into the lie that a man can become a woman, simply because he says he is. Believing that nonsense shows individuals are incapable of rational thoughts. Who would be so silly to believe that. Fortunately, people are seeing the ridiculousness for what it is, a lie. More people feel able to speak out about the lie. Previously the shout of transphobic would be used to silence people that believe in biological reality. Its still used, but more and more people know its a lie and will call it such. Mental health struggle is real.

@TreesTreesBeesBees @ThatCyanCat

Indeed, how stupid to buy into the lie that a man can become a woman, simply because he says he is. Believing that nonsense shows individuals are incapable of rational thoughts. Who would be so silly to believe that. Fortunately, people are seeing the ridiculousness for what it is, a lie. More people feel able to speak out about the lie. Previously the shout of transphobic would be used to silence people that believe in biological reality. Its still used, but more and more people know its a lie and will call it such.

I agree with both of you on the ridiculousness of the antiscientific nonsense peddled by the trans lobby.

And yet... there's something very unsettling to me around the idea that this is basically the end of the conversation about politics and that because the left sold women down the river there's some sort of almost moral obligation to pivot right.

I find these debates on Mumsnet about gender ideology difficult: I don't disagree with any of the sentiments being expressed about trans but I find it very frustrating that people seem to be incapable of looking past it. Yes it was a horrendous betrayal of women and required magical thinking about basic biology. But I'm so tired of hearing people repeat again and again the shibboleth that "we were lied to by the left about biology so we have to move right". I think its short-sighted

The argument around the trans lobby has largely been won by feminists. Partly because of brave campaigning by a few women who refused to be blindsided by this nonsense. But partly, let's be honest, because feminists were latterly coopted by the right and we now have the full heft of the right propaganda machine swinging behind this.

I think we need to look beyond this and consider other progressive causes which have been drowned out for too long by the obsession with trans, and consider that there may still be a place for progressive politics, despite the sins of the trans movement.

It's always struck me that gender identity ideology is a right wing, rather than left wing, idea.

The individual matters more than the collective. A person's individual rights trump the rights of the group. What I say goes and you will fall into line. That sort of thing.

And it's at odds with feminism which is fundamentally a left wing idea.

I wish we could go back to left wing being basically about socialism and right wing about individualism, and your stance on personal morality issues weren't rolled into it. I.e. there wasn't an assumption that if you're economically left wing, that means you must also be pro-abortion, pro-trans, soft on crime etc.

I'd also love the Ben Shapiro's and Charlie Kirk's of this world to have gone up against Barbara Castle or Tony Benn, proper, considered, highly intelligent and well-read old school socialists. It'd have been fucking awesome to watch.

I am a very left wing socialist and I am gender critical. Don’t let this gender ideology bullshit take away what being a true left winger means.
loads of great comments in this thread.

I've not gone to the right, but I cannot support the Greens. I'm homeless. The trans nonsense still hasn't been sorted in the Greens or in the Labour or Liberal parties. I always vote. I didn't last time due to women being shoved to the side so men in skirts could be fawned over. The Greens seem to have forgotten the environment and making the UK better for all and decided Trans and Gaza are more important .

Excellent post thank you for articulating this.

I don't think people have to move right. I haven't, myself. I'm all about the independent candidates these days. But I can absolutely see why, when one movement is telling you women can have cocks and you're a Nazi bigot if you won't undress to prove it, people will tell that movement to take a running jump, distrust it completely and be drawn instead towards the opposite where it isn't a thing.

I also don't think it's a driving force for many people. The far right rises during times of crisis, disillusionment and struggle, and I think the COL crisis and rising prices of absolutely everything are a bigger push for many.

movement insists that you swallow a plain lie that everyone knows is a lie.

What is missing in this analysis is the different reactions of men and women to the trans ideology.
Women (in general) come from a place of biology, because our lives are so affected by our biology. It is plain and simple that a male-bodied person is not a woman.
Men (in general) come from a place where biology is not nearly so important - except for the testosterone dictating their thinking. The thoughts go something like this:

'We straight men know what "real" men are. We look around the pub or the gym, we look at mass-media, and we can tell the "real" men from the wimps and the boys. We tolerate gay men as a separate category of men, but they are not like us, not "real" men. But these trans-identifying men? They are not gay (so they say), they obviously don't count as men, but they are not wimps or boys, so what are they? Of course - they are women, just like they claim to be'.

For many men, it is not an obvious lie to say that transwomen are women, because the thought-processes and attitudes behind the ways they divide the sexes are very different to the thought-processes of women.

The left did not get infiltrated by double agents. It was always dominated by men. Labour at heart is a men's movement, and always has been, from right back in the days of unionised factory workers. Women made the tea and did the washing up.
Since about the middle of the last century, there has been a parallel movement for left-wing women, both working class and middle class, existing inside or within the umbrella of the male Labour movement, but the men give it about as much thought and support as they give to the gay movement: all fine and tolerable as long as you stay in your own lane.

because the left sold women down the river there's some sort of almost moral obligation to pivot right.

It was left wing MEN who sold women down the river (aided by brain-dead handmaidens whose only thought is 'to be nice and get/keep a husband').

The moral obligation is to double-down on feminism, which to me implies a move further to the left (socially and economically). I don't believe the right-wing understand or believe in feminism at all.

feminists were latterly coopted by the right and we now have the full heft of the right propaganda machine swinging behind this

I think that if some feminists let themselves get co-opted by the right, their feminism was not at all deep. More just a virtue-signalling pose.

One thing the right are absolutely brilliant at is propaganda. They are never slow to spot an opportunity and move in at top speed to try and influence hearts and minds. I think it is because they are soaked to the bone in capitalism, and capitalism runs on advertising and marketing.

"For many men, it is not an obvious lie to say that transwomen are women, because the thought-processes and attitudes behind the ways they divide the sexes are very different to the thought-processes of women."

Hard disagree. I have never met a man who was anything but gender critical. They think it's all a massive load of bollocks, and most aren't shy to say so. The only people I have met who have earnestly told me that TWAW have all been young women and teenage girls.

I work in a male-dominated industry, and am a coach in a male-dominated sport, so I speak to a lot of men. The terminally-online TRAs are in reality a tiny minority of men.