Who is KFC calling fundamentalist?

[therealposieparker]

Kristina Harrison uses the pronouns she and refers to their wive as a lesbian.

When they write a badly written price for the economist they refer to fundamentalists on both sides.

Who and what are the fundamentalist ideas on the side of women do you suppose?

www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/a-system-of-gender-self-identification-would-put-women-at-risk?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/asystemofgenderselfidentificationwouldputwomenatriskopenfuture

Wife.

I have no idea. I think people say it to appear fair. Unless women wanting to define themselves against the wishes of men, or simply want space away from men is classed as fundamentalist?

I thought KFC was Kentucky Fried Chicken. Generallyfound it a fair, well-constructed and balanced piece. But dislike the word fundamentalist. Not really sure what is meant by it in this context: getting to the base/root/bottom (was trying not to use that last word) of something? Believers in biology being fundamentalists maybe - then I am one. But on the other side? Nothing fundamentalist about believing in magic.

Anyone who doesn't draw the line precisely where Kristina does, I assume.

And I agree that it's not a helpful word if you're going to try to do a "both sides!" thing. Those are inherently contradictory concepts. Atheism is not the just as dangerous flip side of fundamentalism. This just isn't a useful framework, though I can see why people default to it because it's easy and sounds "fair" if you haven't thought things through.

I’ve seen some pretty extreme twitter comments purporting to be from radfems, but I don’t believe they were made by actual British women with genuine concern for the issues arising from these proposed changes.

I believe they are fake accounts made by US based extreme TRA or MRAs worldwide and/or Russian trolls (who comment on any potentially polarising issues affecting Europe and the USA with the sole purpose of creating animosity - see their interference US 2016 presidential election where they posed as both Trump supporters and Black Lives Matter activists, for example).

I would’ve thought Harrison would’ve been savvy enough to recognise this, but perhaps it’s less distracting to explain the online nastiness by dismissing it as by the extremes of both sides and then getting on with the actual points they wanted to make.

Seems to me that KH has had a softening of opinion of their own? Are they perhaps one of the many transsexuals who have realised they are on their way being thrown under the bus?

Didn't Kristina say something disparaging about Sheila Jeffreys (after Sheila did a bit of heckling at one of the meetings)? And then there was a bit of a row?

It's a spectrum, isn't it? Kristina, obviously, is fighting for transsexual rights as well as women's rights and fears extremist transactivism threatens both. Some feminists are cool with old school transsexuals. Some take a much more pro-woman position and are completely male-exclusionary. I imagine Kristina perceives the latter as "fundamentalist".

My guess is this is about lines in the sand. Fundamentalists I assume are those who don't accept post op, transsexuals into the sex class of women.

There is a mutually self serving relationship between some TS's and some women's groups to further the fight against self ID which is in the interests of both parties to do.

It does however muddy the waters in respects to the very basic questions at the heart of a debate. Eg. what is a woman?

I'm on the fence as to whether in the long term this approach will be seen as the right one or a massive mistake. In the short term I appreciate they have done some effective activism around the GRA.

Seems to me that KH has had a softening of opinion of their own? Are they perhaps one of the many transsexuals who have realised they are on their way being thrown under the bus?

I think that's precisely what this is. If we win this round there's another battle ahead over old school transsexuals and whether or not women are now, after everything that's happened, willing to return to the old system by which their presence in women's spaces was tolerated as long as they behaved themselves. KH will at that point turn against any women who are not in favor of it being assumed that they're happy to shower and change next to KH at the pool.

Which doesn't mean we can't have a working alliance to defeat those whose position both sides agree is totally batshit, it just means be aware that this is most likely a temporary alliance.

And of course, there's always the spectre of a far right backlash to this top down imposition of pomo/neoliberal social upheaval. This would take out not just the transactivists and the old school transsexuals but also the L, the G, the B and women.

Forgive me for being dumb and I only skim-read the piece but what is badly written or objectionable about Kristina’s piece? Isn’t she basically saying she is against self-ID-both for the protection of women and trans people? Also, didn’t Kristina speak at one of the WPUK meetings? I am quite confused now...

Or is the problem that she is saying that she still wants access to women’s spaces because she has had surgery?

The clue - a fairly obvious one - is in the thread title, Peakpants. OP wants to know who Kristina is referring to when she speaks of "fundamentalists on both sides".

I went to the WPUK meeting in January, where Kristina spoke from the floor, and one of the things I actively liked about that meeting is that there was a real, very wide range of views expressed. There wasn't any one position, and I think that's helpful rather than otherwise.

There's a lot that Kristina says that I agree with and find helpful. There's a lot that Kristina says that I don't find helpful and don't agree with. We find alignments and working alliances where we can.

By saying fundamentalist on both sides, the author is trying to position themselves as the rational person in the middle.

I'm glad some transsexuals are finding their own voice to oppose self-ID and other aspects of the TRA agenda.

It would be a mistake to lump that voice in with women's voice although I understand the temptation to do so. For women it can be seen as lending extra legitimacy to our campaigns if some TS 'agree' with us. For TS, it's a numbers game I imagine - there are very very few gender critical TS because TS are a tiny population to start with, so joining forces with women can provide safety, support and amplification of their message.

TS people have their own agenda in this debate though and we should expect huge, dare I say 'fundamental', areas of disagreement. Uncritically lumping ourselves all together as 'allies' risks papering over some cracks the size of canyons.

Forming political alliances OTOH, respectfully and with full, honest acknowledgment of our differences, can work well.

I have seen what I would call quite fundamentalist positions on twitter, or at least abusive in nature. It is stupid to pretend that there aren’t extreme positions on both sides of a debate. There always are- it’s inevitable. Other than that one sentence I can’t see how there is outrage at Kristina’s piece at all. Being balanced is no bad thing. Being completely entrenched is bound to lead to disappointment for both sides. And even though she is balanced, she comes down against self-ID.

I can’t see how there is outrage at Kristina’s piece at all.

What outrage are you talking about? Could you point me in its direction?

Maybe outrage is a bit OTT but it’s actually very supportive and if e.g. Penny Mordaunt said these things, I would be jumping for joy. I was expecting full on TWAW from reading the OP and was just expressing surprise.

Kristina and ilk think saying "trans women are men" is an extreme position. It's repeated views like this that have helped us arrive at a point where we must constantly overthink how and what we say.

Here's what Oxford dictionaries have as a definition of fundamentalism

"1.1 Strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline"

I don't think it's an unreasonable descriptor.

E.g. The basic principle of TWAW vs TWAM are strictly adhered to

I think this article is misleading, by saying "as well as transsexuals, males who identify as women but wish to retain their male bodies...". They are suggesting that transsexuals do not retain their male bodies. When we know that surgery isn't a requirement of GRC.

I wonder, when the author is talking about fundamentalists, they are talking about women uncomfortable with any male body, regardless of diagnosis.

Hasn't anyone reached out to the writer and asked her to expand on her useage of fundamentalists? It says comments are open.

It seems like a really interesting series of articles. The introduction to the series is here

Baroque if you check the lead-in to the article, it sets out the useage that transsexual in the context of the article refers to post operative and hormone treated.

SuperDandy, if you read the article, the author is talking about self id, the GRA act and the trans umbrella.

By distinguishing between transexuals and "males who identify as women but wish to retain their male bodies", a reader could be led to believe that transsexual males never retain their male bodies.