Peak GC Moment?

[CantUnderstandNoThing]

I've namechanged for this because I'm a bit nervous of the vitriol I have seen directed at others with a differing opinion.

I know there's been a few threads with people sharing the moments they hit "peak trans", often citing individuals (Karen, Lily etc) or moments that led them to their GC beliefs.

I've realised I've hit peak GC, or perhaps peak t--f would be more appropriate, and I was wondering if anyone else has? For me, the peaking moment was the interview with India and Posie. I felt very uncomfortable with how offensive and discriminatory Posie's argument was. And really, it just came across as hateful. I realised I didn't want to be aligned with that.

The issues of violence towards women, safe spaces and the issues in women's sport are obviously very important and absolutely need discussion but the current angle of "women don't have penises" isn't helping that at all (imo obviously).

Anyone else feel the same? Or starting to feel the same?

CantUnderstandNoThing and hackmum why mention the paedophile information exchange? It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion or transgender rights.

Because I have questioned my beliefs based on who is aligned with them. Hackmum's point was absolutely relevant.

This seems to happen a lot, I have done it myself.

You research, read, check your arguments and come to your own conclusions.

During the process you come across individuals and organisations which you find have unpalatable views but are GC. It makes you question your views.

Do you think there are the same moments for those that support self ID. Do they see themselves holding the same views as Danielle Muscado or Jo Swinson and it causes them to pause and doubt their reasoning? Or is it just female socialization that makes us shy from loud women and language that is considered unsavoury, when used in public.

Ah, so this is the new tactic is it? “I was one of you and now you’ve been so mean I just can’t support you anymore”
Hmm

That This Morning interview with Posie and IW was awful. The three of them, Homes, the other woman who’s name I forget and IW all doing that concerned voice, piling on Posie like she was a school child who needed educating made me cringe. Posie was having none of it, and said so. I agree it can seem quite jarring when a woman refuses to be nice and play along, we’re just not used to seeing it. That’s not Posie’s fault btw, that’s the fault of Gendered expectations. Women aren’t supposed to say no, we’re supposed to be the peace makers, to mollify and placate men at all times. I guess it’s never bothered me because I’ve been the woman/girl who sticks up for myself all my life, but I’ve noticed just how uncomfortable it makes other people feel, even when they do agree with me. I get told I’m aggressive and argumentative all the time, but if I’m right, and they’re wrong, why shouldn’t I be? Now I try to flip things in my mind, and switch the places of the man and the woman. Would that behaviour be in any way remarked upon if it came from a man? There in lies the test, and the answer to your discomfort OP.

I still think that the whole issue has become so poisonous for a reason which has nothing to do with anyone's genitalia.
And I have friends on both side of the debate - and have also seen stupid and horrible behaviour from people on both sides of the debate.
There have always been some feminists who are happy to join forces with the religious right because of a fixation on policing and restricting other people's sexualities. There have always been some progressives (including some who are absolutely right about classism, racism, state-sponsored violence etc) who are not only useless WRT women's rights, but thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to unleash a bit of misogyny they can justify on the grounds that their targets are 'bad' women/feminists.

And these days there are plenty of opportunities for shit-stirrers to keep the pot boiling via social media - it's a piece of piss to set up a few Twitter accounts and alternate between posting anti-trans malevolence and hype, and supposedly pro-trans malevolence and hype.

Ah, so this is the new tactic is it? “I was one of you and now you’ve been so mean I just can’t support you anymore” *

Look I'm going to step back now, but I just want to say that the idea that if someone questions something, or starts a discussion like this, must mean they are a troll, or "working for the other side" seems really, really wrong.

OP, this was a previous thread re: trump

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3401146-Shit-Now-I-agree-with-Trump?msgid=82100304

No feminist would think a woman was a bully for singing over the top of a male who is trying to erode consent.

"And these days there are plenty of opportunities for shit-stirrers to keep the pot boiling via social media - it's a piece of piss to set up a few Twitter accounts and alternate between posting anti-trans malevolence and hype, and supposedly pro-trans malevolence and hype."

The pro-trans malevolence is typically sourced to very loud and public trans-right activists. Zinnia Jones, Stefonknee, Danielle Muscato, Riley Dennis, Rachel McKinnon et al, are not alter egos of shit-stirrers, there are very many people very publicly espousing this.

To be sure, Twitter is a shitty echo chamber divorced from reality, but suggesting this is a back and forward between alter egos is ridiculous.

CantUnderstandNoThing thank you for starting this thread, it's actually a really interesting and important discussion.

As PPs have said, no one has to agree on everything to have the same goal. There are numerous examples throughout history of people having a common ideology/goal and having different ways of going about achieving it.

Also Hackmum very obviously wasn't equating transgenderism with paedophilia in their most and was making a very obvious different point about aligning with unsavoury people.

I am absolutely a feminist.

Ah, so this is the new tactic is it? “I was one of you and now you’ve been so mean I just can’t support you anymore”

I have spent quite a lot of time telling people that differing views are allowed on FWR but posts like this do sometimes make me think otherwise....

I think you are struggling with someone telling an outright and blunt truth on TV. It's not comfortable. It would be like someone walking up to the Archbishop of Canterbury and saying "You believe in a sky fairy". It's not really the done thing.

And it's not really the done thing for women to say any of this.

But we have to say it. It's not hateful to say women don't have penises. Or woman = adult human female. It might be hurtful to people who believe that women do have penises and I'm sure it's uncomfortable for India Willoughby et al. But they are not too special to hear the truth. And particularly not since they've been so deeply misogynistic and damaging to people who should be natural allies with women and particularly with feminists who have been trying to break away from gender for years.

So I take your point and I can hear your distress. But I agree with a PP - you don't have to be a fan of Posie Parker. Find your own way of expressing your disquiet. I definitely want you on side.

Avegemitesandwich - thank you, and yes I 100% agree re hackmum.

You mentioned “strange bedfellows”, Op, but I don’t think that’s at all unusual. As someone upthread said, this isn’t a cult.

I am a Christian, as is at least one other poster I’ve seen. There are Agnostics and Atheists here. There are Pagans and other religious backgrounds. It doesn’t stop respectful debate.

Being a Christian does not mean that we agree with the vile Westboro Baptist Church. Being GC doesn’t mean (definitely not!) that we agree with Donald Trump on anything other than that Transwomen are Transwomen and Transmen are Transmen. I don’t even like his methods on that one point of agreement. Some do.

Can we not agree that we can share ideology without sharing methodology?

I'm sorry I've spent most of this thread replying to posters who I felt were twisting my words around. It's difficult to ignore it.

Thank you to everyone who responded. There's a lot to take in and it's obvious I have a lot of thinking to do. It's no where near as straightforward as I implied in my OP, it was naive of me to imply that.

But you think Peachy wasn't nice enough to the male who thinks lesbians should get over their aversion to penis?

Hi OP I also keep questioning my beliefs because of other people who share them (Rob Liddle, KH, Piers Morgan, articles in DM etc) who I cannot bear.
Also when I see GC articles in rags like the DM, which I generally hate.
And also when people like my SiL get upset with me for my views.
So yes I often find it uncomfortable being GC, because I'm often called a transphobic bigot and people categorise me alongside people who are genuinely hateful, mean, abusive and disparaging towards trans people, as well as often racist, homophobic and so on.
But even after all that, it does still affirm my GC views which are somewhat middle of the road I would think (I've never thought of myself as radical, anyway). I.e sex is binary, gender is a spectrum, people should have rights to express themselves how they choose but I will stand up for sex based identification, rights and protections for as long as I can, and if it came down to a choice between excluding biological women or transwomen, I would stand with women every time.
I now choose to identify as agender as well as of the female sex, which I've been told is not real, genuine or fair, which smacks of double standards to me.
So yes, being GC is sometimes uncomfortable for me, and I often don't like the way other GC people behave, but I still believe it and speak up for it. I guess I'm just getting used to being a nasty, angry woman sometimes. And discovering that I'm mostly OK with that.

the idea that if someone questions something, or starts a discussion like this, must mean they are a troll, or "working for the other side" seems really, really wrong.

I agree, OP. It also puts people off from posting on or reading the board, which in my view is extremely counter-productive.

Mumsnet is unique in having huge numbers of mainly women members, AND of women who are more likely to see the point of feminism because having children has made them realise our biology is the root of out disadvantage. So, are we trying to get more women reading and posting on the board, and becoming familiar with feminist arguments, or are we trying to keep GC feminism a tiny, exclusive and off -putting little club by demonising anyone who doesn't already agree?

I get very upset with Corbyn who I practically support in 100% of things he says but then he says TWAW and allows males to gain LP positions though all women shortlists.

Does that make me disagree with everything else he fights for? No.

TWAW and GC views are cross-party and cross religious and cross-cultural.

It's hard to navigate but ultimately, people have to be able to speak the truth without being accused of "hatred" or transphobia. That causes more harm than good. GC people aren't the ones making accusations and threatening anyone with their livelihoods or lives. They sure as hell are receiving these threats. It's far easier to go through life avoiding threats and so avoid saying anything and be effectively silenced.

The belief that women have to be nice when they are defending themselves from attack is the core of female socialisation.
Its very easy to read womens reactions as 'not nice' and to judge them for that instead of the context or content.

I'm glad you started this thread OP because it is a battle and I feel exhausted thinking about it. I have professional acquaintances who have been writing against TERFS on FB etc. I know some of them have experienced pain because they see this kind of discussion as an attack on them - because that is how it has been framed by certain activists.

But then they post silly things like a rant by an Irish trans person saying they were attacked by men - then ranting against 'fucking TERFS'. It just seemed to sum it up for me - women are blamed for male violence and toxic masculinity. It's not logical. There's no critical thinking. It's all feels and first person thinking and self-congratulation on being so woke, not seeing the complexity of this issue.

I think that if self-ID is kicked into the long grass for a while it might make some of the activists question their bullying tactics and allow new voices to rise up in the movement. People who will actually talk about the issues, instead of screaming 'Transphobes!' and shutting the conversation down.

I fear though that this will be railroaded through. The Government needs a win - they need something that makes it look like they are woke as fuck, that they get us, that they care about little people rather than being the rich, right wing bastards they are. Women get shat on all the time - we're easy targets.

I have no doubts regarding the radical feminist position on transgender ideology and had no problems with Posie Parker's performance in the interview mentioned by OP.

One thing I think it is very important for us all to remember is that there are obviously a lot of people who agree with the radical feminist 'position' that humans can't change sex. I mean, until very recently this would not even have to be described as a 'position' as it was a universally accepted fact with no political dimension. It remains a very widely accepted fact, challenged by a few people whose brains have been addled by too much postmodernism and queer theory.

This does not make someone gender critical. The Daily Mail (as a general rule) is not gender critical. Donald Trump is not gender critical. The argument is also attracting a lot of support from ordinary people who are not gender critical. None of these people are wrong in their knowledge that humans cannot change sex and that certain rights/protections should be based on sex.

To be gender critical is an explicitly feminist position positing that gender roles/norms are socially constructed and can and should be eradicated from our society. A looooot of people who disagree with trans ideology would also disagree with this. They might have no concept of how gender differs from sex in feminist discourse and use the two words as synonyms. Or they might believe that gender roles/norms are as natural and unchangeable as the fact that women don't have penises. They might even believe gender to be a positive thing, that men should be masculine and women should be feminine.

It doesn't matter particularly for the purposes of the political struggle to maintain the female sex class as a legally recognised class. But we should be under no illusions that those people are gender critical and in my opinion we should stop calling them GC just because they know what sex is.

Also Hackmum very obviously wasn't equating transgenderism with paedophilia in their most and was making a very obvious different point about aligning with unsavoury people.

For anyone who hasn't seen the article to which hackmum referred:

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10653950/We-on-the-Left-lacked-the-courage-to-be-branded-homophobic-so-we-just-ignored-it.-I-wish-I-hadnt.html

And, there's a screen shot here of a letter by Peter Tatchell that demonstrates how easy it is to be seduced by academic argument on the 'right side of civil liberties and exploration' and anecdote into appearing to condone the unacceptable: mobile.twitter.com/SophiaSmith222/status/1055142438724091904