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

Woman's Place (and others, but especially Woman's Place) meetings have always been characterised by a willingness to engage in respectful debate.

Maybe that's changing. I don't mean it in a bad way, but maybe they do now have a set agenda that doesn't include all feminists. Maybe they know their focus and don't want a debate.

They don't have the power to decide who calls themselves GC feminist, though. They certainly don't get to veto GC feminism 'membership'.

Could you be any more misogynistic?

That is one slimy Twitter account.

WeWantJustice I’m talking about hate speech, which is about cruel and derogatory language based on the characteristics of a protected group.

We might have diverse opinions here on whether hate speech is a useful term at all - I know indivudals and some organisations like Index on Censorship, for example, would prefer a more US style protection of freedom of speech - but at the moment that’s the law here and that’s where I’m saying that I would draw my own line - you may disagree if you wish. I certainly wasn’t saying that women can’t make jokes about men because men are scared by that.

I agree that gender critical feminists should distance themselves from people who are making derogatory comments about all trans people just because they're trans. There's a difference between being prejudiced and believing that transwomen are transwomen.

As always I agree with Baracker .

There's a difference between being prejudiced and believing that transwomen are transwomen.

That's not the distinction being drawn. The article, and SD's subsequent comments are setting women who do not accept men who believe themselves to be women are any kind of woman as extremists. Not because we are inciting violence against transpeople, because we're not. Not because we want to remove any of their human rights, because we don't. But simply because we do not accept that there are some special specific men whose claims to women's single sex spaces must be agreed to.

That is the position which casts us into the outer darkness. Put there by 'nicer' feminists. Give me fucking strength.

"I’m talking about hate speech, which is about cruel and derogatory language based on the characteristics of a protected group."

You need to be more specific and give examples.

Transactivists would say that saying "xxx has a penis" is cruel and derogatory language. It may also be a statement of fact. Under your definition does it qualify as hatespeak?

I feel as though i will have good company, in the land of exile... I make a decent chocolate cake, shall I get the kettle on and we can browse for an island going cheap ?

Could you be any more misogynistic?

Yes. I remember him from when he was ranting away about a young woman who was writing a book on Dr James Barry. Barry was a woman who disguised herself as a man in order to practice medicine. She was born at a time when women could not become doctors. Chu was incensed that this young woman (Levy I think her name was) referred to Barry as a woman.

Chu doesn't agree that women sometimes had to disguise themselves as men in order to study medicine. The fact Barry rejected the very limited options available to women and went to live as a man so she could study medicine is evidence that Barry was really a man. Real women know their place and stay in it apparently.

twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1097274354151219201

Ha! Well, exactly, that’s why hate speech is so difficult because, as you say, it’s subjective, and we have our own distinctions. I think what you’ve just said is a factual statement; as we all know, MN think “misgendering” is a problem whereas I think that’s not.

So yes, subjectivity is a problem. But I’m not going to stand up for people making cruel attacks on others based simply on them being trans. One of the reasons I like hanging out on mumsnet is that we have a civilised debate on here and it makes me proud to be part of GC feminism.

I think Xenia had an island, SirVix, although she may have sold it.

Ah, for the days when the most heated debate on here was whether Xenia’s work ethic meant structural inequality did not exist.

Wow. "Terfs are fair game"

Was it someone on here that said that the tra moved from 'die cis scum' to 'punch a terf' to encourage misogynistic (cis) men to join the abuse and threats of violence towards women?

Seems they were right.

It feels like the ultimate in decadence to me, to deny nature and biology, at a time when it is so crucial that we embrace our place within it.
I have been on the receiving end of male violence, intimidation and sexual harassment. I find being alone with men I do not know well, in a confined space, very frightening. Frightening to the point that I would remove myself from the space. Because I am a female human, (and I have evolved to be able to clearly distinguish men from women) however a male person presents themselves, my brain and gut register their sex, and I feel afraid. This is biology, not prejudice. It is innate.

To say that I am somehow a failure as a feminist, for seeing that single sex spaces are essential for the safety and dignity of women, is a pretty astonishing thing to read from women I have respected.

I started reading Spare Rib at 14. The girl who gave me my first copy was being raped by her father, and killed herself at 31, leaving two tiny children.
My oldest daughter is now 14. This is not the future I wanted for her . I feel very bleak now.

Sarah if you are reading the thread I think you should respond to some of the comments, having come in and made that statement earlier.

Why does Sarah have to respond? Why have a massive scrap over everything. I agree with Helen and I agree with her, and it doesn't really matter if people don't agree with me on absolutely everything.

I think that's how life works.

I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

No one has the right to exile any woman from feminism. It's not like there's a leader who decides whether each individual woman meets the criteria. We're all equals here and we may all freely set our own boundaries. And say NO to men of course. Frankly, if women were all 'nice', we wouldn't even have the vote. Well-behaved women get nowhere.

Most of the really dangerous situations I have been in, have been due to me being “nice” .

Saying nothing; saving thread 😊

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.

This thread has been interesting, I agree with Barracker.

Why's it 'ungracious' to not want our daughters to be forced against their will to share with male bodies?. Why is it not 'ungracious' and cruel of Debbie to force vulnerable young girls to share space with them? In the knowledge that not only will some of them feel uncomfortable but also that they're really sending the message to young girls that they can't set their own boundaries against ANY man.

I really appreciate that Helen has stuck her neck out, but I think for the record it's worth saying that we don't actually know whether posters on here are openly GC or not. They could well be prominent in their field and openly GC and still want to post anonymously on here. The anonymity is part of what allows such an honest debate to be had I think.

And as for the idea that some women (who?) should have the power to 'exile' other women from anything for being 'hostile' (what does that mean? Not doing as we're told?) is frankly a bit worrying. I'm pretty sure the suffragettes were considered 'hostile' to the status quo in their day.

When I was reading that article the thought that came into my head was "This is Helen Lewis negotiating with her editor. How far can she go in criticising trans before she wouldn't have a job at the New Statesman."

The New Statesman wants to publish articles on the trans debate because it's clickbait, they get lots of readers. So it's a business decision for them, not anything else. To stay on the right side of acceptability though they do have to disavow "transphobia" so we get the specter of the good trans Debbie Hayton who deserves support and protection, whilst chucking all the horrible women who know that penises are male under the bus.

Then Sarah Ditum comes along and says this as confirmation:

"It's nasty enough dealing with lost work"

Nice feminism, kind feminism, gracious feminism is money-making feminism, the sort that keeps you in the social loop and gives you networking opportunities. It gets you published and a platform. Nasty feminism, the kind that Germaine Greer espouses gets you cast out into the wilderness, having to resign on principle from Newnham College because a MTF Trans was given a fellowship at a women's college. I've always thought that it must have been heartbreaking for Greer to leave Cambridge but she did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.

If your aim is to get published you're going to tread that fine line of cognitive dissonance - stating that males aren't females but somehow men can become something called a woman, which has nothing to do with what anybody understood a woman to be before. If your aim is to protect women and girls, the task is much simpler, you can simply and rightly declare that men can't become women. Then be exiled.

I was with Helen Lewis, until she wrote:
"The extreme radical feminists believe that no amount of surgery, hormones or pronoun changes means a man should be treated by the law or society as a woman, or vice versa. "

Well no - if he is a man, then he is a man. He is not a woman, no matter what cosmetic changes or hormones or surgery. A man is a man. I do not think that this is an extreme position at all. in any way. It strikes me as a realistic position, reflecting fact and science and biology.

I feel pissed off because I should now be in exile because I refuse to accept that men can be women.

No.

"This is Helen Lewis negotiating with her editor. How far can she go in criticising trans before she wouldn't have a job at the New Statesman."

She is leaving the New Statesman anyway, and has published several pieces on this issue, as have Sarah Ditum and Glosswitch.

She has been receiving abuse on this subject for years and long ago passed the point of acceptability for people who are offended by the concept of sex based rights.

Absolutely fine to disagree with her opinion, but I think it’s just wrong to assume that she is trying to create clickbait or isn’t expressing her real, considered thoughts.

I’m with Helen Lewis because she is receiving knee jerk abuse on twitter from woke male journalists who are allowed to claim that their misogynistic abuse is ‘kind’ because so few people are prepared to discuss this issue openly.

I’m with her because she is one of very, very few people with a public profile who doesn’t keep quiet for fear of being called a ‘terf’.

I think the mistake Sarah Ditum makes here is in this phrase:

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

Using the term "transpeople" disguises the fact that we are talking about the behaviour of autogynephilic males.

Personally, I am quite happy to exile myself since I will never consider the behaviour of autogynephilic males to be in any way acceptable because of the damage it does to women and children.

The problem is that gender critical feminism does not make much sense as a partial argument.

The concept being criticised is gender or in fact gender identity as a signifier of male/female. Gender identity is the idea that one has an innate sense of being male and female and it follows that one can identify into being male or female, whether by living as male or female (adopting the gendered social norms of male or female, which themselves can be criticised) or by saying one is male or female (regardless of whether one is or not).

One either accepts the premise that gender identity and gender is the basis of social organisation of men and women or one opposes this on the basis that biological sex should be the basis of social organisation.

That is the basic argument. If one accepts that gender identity is the basis of social organisation, it is simply not possible to take a view on who are the genuine trans people (presumably those with gender dysmorphia?) and who are the chancers with ulterior motives, until such a time as the chancers make themselves known by violating boundaries in some way.

But why is it extreme to say that wanting into the other sex space is itself violating a boundary? Why is it extreme to say that this invalidates the experiences of that sex, it takes away their voice to describe and campaign and act for their rights or even describe their experiences? The basis of consent is the ability to say no. That is not an extreme statement, surely. Women should be able to say no. Even one woman saying no should be enough.

When Maya Forstater takes her case to court I’m assuming she will be fighting to have GC ideology recognised as a protected belief system. We have got case law saying that eg belief in the BBC is protected. This will hopefully mean we are allowed to make statements around articles of faith in gender criticism; we’d be able to make statements that at the moment are dangerous in the workplace and on social media, even if they are converse to others’ beliefs and “lived experience”.

Transwomen are men therefore I don’t have to share my space with you.
Women can never have a penis.
You can’t be a lesbian because you are male.

At the moment this is what’s not “nice”: this will be experienced by many as offensive, and indeed Helen is saying that this is extreme, but as statements they proceed from GC views which hopefully means they’ll be protected and then society will no longer think they sound hostile or extreme.

We should be avoiding only language that isn’t connected with this value system - moving from the particular to the general, like
“Transwomen are all perverted”, or very personal attacks on individuals that clearly proceed from hostility rather than belief systems.

I hope Maya wins so we can be the new normal.