Writing an account of a WPUK meeting now makes you a hateful T**F

[InionEile]

Helen Lewis wrote an article in the New Statesman that summarises the WPUK meeting that took place in London recently. I read it. It's fine. Summarises key points, notes the main speakers, ends with this phenomenal rallying cry for the kind of feminism I can get behind:

'The packed hall felt like the birth, or rebirth, of something. A feminism unafraid to talk about the female body. A rejection of the extremes of identity politics. And – just as radically – a movement that happens in the real world rather than purely online.'
New Statesman link

But no: apparently it's a 'bad faith, hateful' article by a T**F that is very upsetting and should never have been published, according to the woke beards on Twitter They're all frantically virtue signaling to show how awful it is to allow gender critical views the light of day. It seems it's now it's !!literal violence!! to write an account of a meeting of people who think differently to others
Twitter outrage

It’s not just toilets

Debbie expects pupils at Debbie’s school to call Debbie ‘Miss’, presumably on pain of punishment for being rude (or ungracious)

Whilst I think Debbie is brave in many ways, I would be incredibly unhappy at my children being gaslighted in such a way, to the point where I’d consider moving schools

If Debbie dressed and behaved as Debbie does while not expecting pupils to speak about Debbie as if Debbie were female I would have no problem at all

It’s all part of life’s rich pattern innit? No one is ever completely consistent

Presumably now I need to join Germaine in exile

It's difficult to be a girl and women too, merrymouse. Why do male transpeople get priority over girls and women?

They don't - that is why there is a conflict. Two things can be true at the same time - both that women's lives are restricted when they don't have access to single sex facilities and that single sex facilities can sometimes exclude people who don't conform to poeple's expectations of that sex.

Similarly I can acknowledge that bus journeys can be difficult for people with restricted mobility and parents with push chairs. I don't have to completely write of one groups concern's to support better facilities for the other.

Jaysus. I can't quite believe in the space of about 5 years I've managed to switch from the kind of female socialization that would consider asking my husband how I should vote to so not-giving-a-fuck about what specific men want that I'm actually an extremist radical feminist who even Sarah Ditum thinks should be exiled from feminism.

What a crazy fucking world.

One of the strongest messages I have learnt from FWR is that is ok to set my own boundaries. I can have different boundaries to other women, but they can't set mine and I can't set theirs.

No women should be critical of other women and girls for having different boundaries. We should be supportive of each other and not prioritize men's needs.

I'm actually an extremist radical feminist who even Sarah Ditum thinks should be exiled from feminism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh fucking hell. Sorry to laugh, lovey.

And if you can't see the problems with this quote by Julie Bindel
“Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals,” she wrote. “It would look like the set of Grease.” you might need to have a think.

As ever, context is important.
It's lifted from this paragraph:
"Twenty years ago, when I worked on an advice line for lesbians, I would take call after call from self-hating, suicidal women who had experienced horrific homophobia. Thanks to feminism and gay liberation, that situation has altered radically. What a disgrace, therefore, that our legacy amounts to this: if you are unhappy with the constraints of your gender, don't challenge them. If you are tired of being stared at for snogging your same-sex partner in the street, have a sex change. Where are those who go berserk about the ethics of genetic engineering yet seem not to worry about major, irreversible surgery on healthy bodies? Also, those who "transition" seem to become stereotypical in their appearance - fuck-me shoes and birds'-nest hair for the boys; beards, muscles and tattoos for the girls. Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease."

www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7

They don't - that is why there is a conflict. Two things can be true at the same time - both that women's lives are restricted when they don't have access to single sex facilities and that single sex facilities can sometimes exclude people who don't conform to poeple's expectations of that sex.

I'd be sympathetic if any tra working on a solution that doesn't mean the removal of sex segregation facilities. But even 'GC' male transpeople like hayton aren't doing that.

I thought it was a good article and I'll support anyone who puts their head over the parapet, especially when they do so in their own name - they're all braver than I am. And I understand people sticking up for their mates. But fuck me we are allowed to chew things over and disagree sometimes and I do not appreciate a woman coming onto a feminist forum and telling us not to be ungracious.

This seems pertinent here:

I thought it was a good article and I'll support anyone who puts their head over the parapet, especially when they do so in their own name - they're all braver than I am. And I understand people sticking up for their mates. But fuck me we are allowed to chew things over and disagree sometimes and I do not appreciate a woman coming onto a feminist forum and telling us not to be ungracious.

Exactly.

I like Helen, I enjoy her articles. I love listening to her on the Radio 4 when she's on too, on lots of topics. I enjoyed this article too.

I disagree with where she thinks The Line should be. But I appreciate her sharing her views nonetheless.

She disagrees with where my line is, I disagree with where her line is. She said women with my views are wrong in her article, women with my views are saying we think she's wrong.

We're allowed to disagree with her. I can still respect her enormously, agree with her 99% of the time, and still disagree occasionally.

What others have said - I have spent a lot of time on twitter retweeting Helens piece and minding her back and really enjoyed listening to Sarah on individualism on R4 yesterday.

But I do like a good bit of discussion too.

I, along with most of the other women who post here amongst doing other things that we do actually put our name to, have been and will continue to be hugely supportive of other women who have spoken up over women's rights.

None of us are in lock step conformity, and that's as it should be, because we are individual human beings who have different approaches and opinions.

But do you know what I haven't done? I've not told women who disagree with me that they should be excluded from feminism. Not even women who think TWAW. I might have said that they are doing other women a gross injury by supporting men over women, but I acknowledge that their views are different and there we go.

The objections raised about the article and then compounded by Sarah Ditum's visit, are not about where we all respectively draw our red lines - they are about some specific women calling women ' ungracious ' if they refuse to call specific men 'women', and suggesting, it seems in earnest, that those women should be exiled.

That's not a disagreement over differing boundaries, that's one set of women wanting to cast out the witches so they can ingratiate themselves with the PTB.

I agree with Barracker and others.

I also think it needs to be covered more in the mainstream media that believing in the biological reality that people cannot change sex, is not feminist let alone ‘extreme’, it is just having a basic knowledge of material reality. This is why many women and men, who are not feminists, can agree with feminists on that point. People from a multitude of different backgrounds can see the harm this ideology does to women and girls, as well as children in general, and oppose it for a myriad of reasons.

Lewis by framing feminists who object to transgender ideology as ‘extreme’ is setting us up so that our objections to this ideology can be more easily dismissed as bigoted. She could have said: Many people believe that biological sex is immutable and refuse to pretend sex can be changed, as they believe pretending sex can be changed is harmful to women and children: this includes feminists, scientists, religious groups and many others. That would be more fair and accurate IMO. She then could have said: Others believe that pretending some men can become women is the kind and nice thing to do, and do not believe it harms anyone, and included herself in this group if she wanted. People could then make up their own minds, which position they agree with, as they have the actual arguments.

Instead she misrepresented why many people (particularly feminists) refuse to pretend men can be women, and paints those of us that refuse to pretend as unreasonable and ‘extreme’, I think it is a low thing to do to be honest. She may have written some good things previously, but I don’t think this article is anything to celebrate, I think it does more harm than good tbh.

What Floral said.

I think you owe us an apology, Sarah.

I agree Floral.

I think some people want this debate to focus on which males should be let into women/girls spaces, groups, sports etc, and view those us that don’t think any male should be included as an obstacle that must be got rid of. They seem to be trying to do this by painting us as ‘extreme’ and unreasonable.

Radicalised by Mumsnet and now to be exiled, what's next being burnt at the stake?

An apology and retraction of that comment is the least you owe us, Sarah.

How do you tell the TW that we’re supposed to accept as women from the TW we’re okay to not think of as women?

Now that the door has been shoved wide open by the latter, how do we close it back to only partially open and keep it only partially open? Are we to believe the latter, having shoved it open once, won’t continue up to kick at it?

There’s a reason why doors have latches and locks.

From Selina Todd's WPUK London speech:

"Feminist movements are as varied in tactics as they are in membership. Many friends of mine are frustrated that they can’t be more involved in today’s women’s movement, often fearing that the hostility that feminists face will harm their livelihood or families. The past shows us that we need militant action and those who can speak out publicly. But feminism also relies on those who use their work to change hearts and minds; those who write trade union resolutions and articles, and those who give care – hugely undervalued in capitalism and patriarchy – to those in the firing line. And when we look back at the suffrage movement’s awe-inspiring rallies, in halls like this one, we know that every single woman there made a difference. "

womansplaceuk.org/2019/05/21/feminism-postmodernism-and-womens-oppression/

Inspiring stuff eh?

Am also a bit bothered by Sarah Ditum's intervention. I agree it's brave of Helen to speak out, and I admire her for doing so. She's had a load of abuse from the usual suspects on Twitter.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything she says. Neither does it mean that I have to pretend to agree with her. In fact, it's an overly-eager willingness by women to pretend that has got us into this mess in the first place.

I also really take objection to the comment:

"And I agree with her that gender critical feminism needs to absolutely exile the tiny minority that is hostile to trans people."

Gender-critical feminism isn't like the Labour Party or the Girl Guides. We can't just exile people we don't agree with. We're a broad church. There are feminists who are happy to have fully-transitioned trans women as allies and feminists who aren't. I can't see that one lot trying to exile the other lot is going to do any good at all. What are we supposed to do? Start banning them from meetings? Well, actually, that's precisely what we're not going to do because Woman's Place (and others, but especially Woman's Place) meetings have always been characterised by a willingness to engage in respectful debate. It's the other lot who want to close down debate by harassing venues and shouting abuse at women as they go in.

So I will go on arguing, debating, disagreeing, even with people who are nominally on my side. That's the way it goes. I've had enough of women being silenced and told to shut up for having the "wrong" opinions.

Yes, boundaries. It's taken me years to understand that I can set whatever boundaries I like for myself and nobody gets to tell me I'm wrong. No one gets to decide anyone else's boundaries. No one.

People who urge violence on trans people, mock them in a disgusting way, seek to deny them rights to medical aid etc.

Mock them in a disgusting way?

I find that interesting, could you expand?

Do you differentiate between acceptable mocking of transpeople and disgusting mocking and where do you draw the line?

I think this needs pulling apart because mocking men, is one of the things which women absolutely need to stand up for the right to do. It's absolutely taboo in our society to mock men about the things they're sensitive about: they fucking murder women for doing so and mainstream media writes sympathetic articles about how the bitch asked for it. We all know that men's greatest fear of women is that we'll laugh at them, while our's about them, is that they'll kill us. (Wasn't it that exiled pariah Germaine Greer who said it?) To me, defining mockery of males ("disgusting" mockery perhaps) as transphobia, really needs to be examined very carefully in the context of the prioritisation of men's feelings and the taboo around any mockery of those feelings by women.

Wasn't it that exiled pariah Germaine Greer who said it?

Margaret Atwood I believe. Blessed be the fruit.

Wow. "Terfs are fair game"

Could you be any more misogynistic?

Well, actually, that's precisely what we're not going to do because Woman's Place (and others, but especially Woman's Place) meetings have always been characterised by a willingness to engage in respectful debate.

I agree.

I've not been able to fully keep up with this meeting but of what I have read so far it did strike me that if we are going to protest being no platformed for certain views, we can't do the same.

These are public debates and they should remain so. I do see and empathise with the points about keeping the meetings women only. As they're public debates I can't see it as possible. We want men to be involved and see the POVs.

We aren't all going to agree. And that's ok . Indeed, hearing the different views around the same issues has been helpful to me to deepen my own understanding of where I personally stand on some things. And I'm grateful for hearing both sides of the arguments. I'm grateful to have heard Posies' take on it.

I can't say that any of the opinions are 'wrong' at all. They're different for different reasons. Their longer term impacts on individual WAGs do make me consider them in different lights however.

We all have our different lines in the sand. And I might disagree with some women but I respect their point of view. I don't appreciate being told to be more gracious if I disagree with some bits of an opinion piece by someone whose job it is to write them.

FWIW I used to be of the mindset that there were good trans and bad trans. Now it's irrelevant. Transwomen are transwomen. They're not women and they don't belong in women's spaces, I don't care if they're nice or not. If they want to carve out their own spaces, I will support them in doing that. But my boundaries are clear