Zoe Williams opinion piece in The Guardian

[Justhadathought]

Feminist solidarity empowers everyone. The movement must be trans-inclusive: www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/10/feminist-solidarity-empowers-everyone-the-movement-must-be-trans-inclusive

Needless to say, she misses every single point.......And no, feminism has always been about centring the needs of women and girls.......

[DonkeySkin]

But I guess that's my point - firstly, a lot of people don't even register that they are operating a faith based argument. Reasoning helps uncover that.

True, Floral, but when making an argument it's important to tackle the real beliefs that underlie your opponent's position, not their professed beliefs, and this is where reasoning trips us up WRT to gender ideology, because its proponents claim to believe all sorts of things that they don't really believe (sex isn't real, men are women if they say so), while refusing to be upfront about what they actually believe (men who want to be seen as 'women' are suffering, so it's women's job to make them feel better).

So we get into these tedious arguments about DSDs and gametes and so forth in an effort to prove that yes, sex is real, when in fact our opponents know that already. That isn't their real argument, so it's a waste of time to try to dismantle it.

IMO one of the big beliefs driving women's support of trans ideology is that men who are marked as feminine are just like us, and therefore we are united in the fight 'against patriarchy'. There's no downside to letting males onto 'team woman', because we basically want and need the same things. They suffer like women, they are treated like women, and most importantly, they are ON THE SIDE OF WOMEN, so we owe them solidarity in return. All of these assumptions are mistaken, the last one especially so.

So a better argument to have with women who believe this would be to ask them to examine the behaviour and political demands of men who identify as women, and to consider whether they are truly reflective of people who are in solidarity with women.

For instance, how does it benefit women and girls if we lose the right to single-sex services and spaces? How does it benefit women and girls if we lose female-only sport? How does it help the fight against male violence if the government eliminates accurate crime statistics by allowing men who beat, rape and murder women to have their crimes attributed to women on their say-so? These are all core political demands of the trans movement. Are these the goals of people who are in solidarity with women? Perhaps it is time to reassess whether 'we all want the same thing', and realise that the demands for solidarity and compassion only go one way.

Oh, and we should take the time to explain autogynephilia. Most women have never heard of it, and it illuminates so many things.

[R0wantrees]

10/3/2020 Zoe Williams,
"Feminism, in my life’s experience of it, takes the side of the oppressed. That is our raison d’etre.

So, anyway, I had seen this wonderful talk by Helen Belcher, who described the three ways in which trans people are portrayed and undermined, in the media and beyond. “The first is that they’re fraudulent. They’re not really who they say they are. We’d better humour them in their delusion. The second is trans as undeserving deviant. The third is trans as comedy.” Since then, this has intensified, with other, even more hostile, elements added: trans people as predators, the trans movement as deliberately poisoning the young. The savage mischief has seeped out of it. There is not much of the “We’d better humour them” any more.

Even in 2013, though, it was clear that trans people were in the eye of a familiar set of prejudices, which any of us – gay, female, disabled, BAME – might recognise."

Williams goes on to say,
"So much of the live combat happens on Twitter. This is not to call it irrelevant (I love Twitter) "

6/3/2020 Helen Belcher tweeted a "rant"

"You know, there hasn't been a day in the last two weeks where there hasn't been anti-trans rhetoric somewhere on my timeline. And they're all trying to take what trans people currently have away - with no evidence.

Today also kindly includes anti-trans adverts in two regional newspapers (apologies to Scotland for incorrectly calling it a "region") as well as some more issues around another broadcast on
@ BBCr4today
. So national, regional and social media full of this stuff.
LGB Alliance advertising the Scottish Govt consultation on sex self-id proposals

For those of you who aren't trans, imagine dreading connecting with any media because you might encounter yet another piece stating baldly that you are either a risk or an enabler of risk for society as a whole. - because there's no let up, none at all.

A few months ago it was horrible, and we thought (wrongly) that it couldn't get any worse. Well, it has. I've been a news junkie since my teens. Now I only connect with the news around one day in two.

When I helped set up TransMediaWatch just over 10 years ago, whenever there was a trans news story it meant effectively taking the day off to deal with it. It happened probably one day a month. If I used that strategy now, I'd never do anything else.

And the worst thing is, most folk around me simply don't notice this stuff - family excepted. So it's not as if it's engaging with a huge audience. In the last General Election I was the openly trans candidate most likely to win a seat.

In the event, I came second and our vote increased by almost 9% - the highest percentage scored by any openly trans candidate this time round. My team and I knocked on over 7,000 doors. The trans thing came up once, and that was to a team member.
This was more likely a swing to the anti Brexit candidate

Once out of 7,000 doors. That's how concerned folk are. And yet this abusive media coverage has been relentless. For what end?

I've called it abusive, because that's what it is. I started this thread with the claim that folk are campaigning to take rights away from trans people, rights that have been used without issue for decades. Given the amount of media coverage, if there really were issues ...

... the media would be full of them. Yet despite the daily coverage, it isn't - because they don't happen. Instead we get manufactured issues around "no-platforming" and "freedom of speech", always referencing trans people.

It's a campaign designed to hurt and force trans people back into the shadows, removing us from public life. And the media have enabled it relentlessly for the last three years - because they only ever want to report on bad news.

Except they don't report fairly on what trans people consider bad news, like massive delays to get seen by a specialist. Even when this was reported, for "balance" we then had a noble Lord explaining why we shouldn't treat trans people until we know what causes it.
Duty of Care?

It's like the whole idea of palliative medicine shouldn't exist for trans people, nor free speech, nor access to healthcare, nor respect. We should just suck it up because "science" - except it's not science. Science deals with the world as it is, not as you'd like it to be.

I've used Twitter for around 8 years now, and this is my first full-on rant, because the situation is serious, and those who are listening to us (and there are some) don't seem to be able to get cut-through, nor know how to amplify our voices."

twitter.com/HelenCBelcher/status/1235911585526358022

Has Zoe Williams/The Guardian responded to the demand to 'cut through' & amplify Helen Belcher's voice?

Stephen Doughty MP did the same at the 2018 Home Affairs Committee on 'Hate Crime'

Helen Belcher's 'evidence' (includes complaints against Mumsnet FWR)
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/hate-crime-and-its-violent-consequences/written/82105.pdf

May 2018 James Kirkup report of Stephen Doughty's questioning & demands made of newpaper editors:
www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate-

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

Tork, thank you, that is excellent. I wish Zoe Williams would read it and really consider it.

Floral, eek, hope you feel better very soon. Take care. And lots of liquids.

[TorkTorkBam]

Oh dear Helen won't like how her thread has gone. I'm not sure what will be worse for her: the high proportion of women pushing back or the fact that her thread has been mainly ignored.

[FloralBunting]

DonkeySkin, you're more eloquent than I am, and yes, that is the kind of reasoning I meant - if we spent all our time doing a weird back back and forth of 'men can women!' 'NO, they can't!' then we'd be on a spiral to nowhere.

Getting down to the nuts and bolts, showing the faulty underlying premises, talking about consequences and properly examining motivations.

Trouble is, so much of this is bloody hard work - both for those of us trying to make the case, and those we are trying to convince. I tend to think that's the basic reason we find it so difficult to make progress; this is a huge endeavour, requiring commitment and hard work, and nearly all of us have jobs, families and wider lives to contend with too.

[FloralBunting]

Gah! Missing out words. I need to stop typing when feverish.

[RoyalCorgi]

Excellent post from DonkeySkin: absolutely right in every respect. And this is a good summary of the argument made by people like Williams:

IMO one of the big beliefs driving women's support of trans ideology is that men who are marked as feminine are just like us, and therefore we are united in the fight 'against patriarchy'. There's no downside to letting males onto 'team woman', because we basically want and need the same things. They suffer like women, they are treated like women, and most importantly, they are ON THE SIDE OF WOMEN, so we owe them solidarity in return. All of these assumptions are mistaken, the last one especially so.

I'm sure I've mentioned it on here before, but there is a blog post somewhere that says the split among feminists is between those who see trans women as refugees from masculinity and those who see them as colonisers of femininity. Because people like Williams see trans women as essentially vulnerable people trying to escape the restrictions and trappings of masculinity, then those of us who cast doubt on that by oh-so-inconveniently pointing out that men are still men, and women, especially vulnerable women with a history of sexual abuse, don't want them in our spaces, look like a bunch of old meanies. How dare we be so horrid by implying that trans women might be sexual predators? I think this mindset is so strongly engrained that arguing people out of it through logic and evidence is almost impossible.

[R0wantrees]

Oh dear Helen won't like how her thread has gone. I'm not sure what will be worse for her: the high proportion of women pushing back or the fact that her thread has been mainly ignored.

No doubt Helen Belcher is cheered by the impact of the speech made on Zoe Williams seven years ago & perhaps also the recent twitter 'rant'.

[TorkTorkBam]

Royal I can see where they are coming from, however, I think it is only an issue because the law has created the lie that men can be women. If the GRA did not exist and legal sex could be checked by a DNA text then it would be an entirely different conversation.

Feminine men escaping toxic masculinity? There are many ways people, including women, including feminists, would look to help those men have a better place in the world. Same for the masculine women. No doubt well tailored to their specific needs.

It was a huge mistake when the government (and Stonewall) decided the best way to help those men was by rebadging them as women in the eyes of the law. Keep in mind this was done primarily to avoid having to legalise gay marriage at the time.

Of course a tragic unintended consequence has been the psychological and physical destruction of thousands of girls who heard that lie created to soothe feminine men and were led to believe they could opt out of growing up to become women, which is of course impossible. Those poor detransitioners. I even feel sorry for daft Freddie with the pregnant man and lies on birth certificates palava. Sold a lie.

[RoyalCorgi]

Agree with every word, TorkTorkBam. I find it very depressing that people like Williams can't see this.

[R0wantrees]

It was a huge mistake when the government (and Stonewall) decided the best way to help those men was by rebadging them as women in the eyes of the law. Keep in mind this was done primarily to avoid having to legalise gay marriage at the time.

They were lobbied by transactivists from Press For Change, GIRES Beaumont Society etc not Stonewall.

The same transactivists lobbied Stonewall for many years to be included. This was resisted for a long time.

The same transactivists have continued to lobby the media, charities, public services.

Important thread with collated history of UK policy aking by trans activism:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

[R0wantrees]

I find it very depressing that people like Williams can't see this.

The majority of people are susceptable to manipulation.
Confirmation bias is very powerful.

[RoyalCorgi]

Confirmation bias is very powerful.

True - and yet she must be aware, surely, not only of the Karen White case, but of the dozens of violent male criminals who now identify as trans women? Of the case of sexual predator Jessica Yaniv targeting vulnerable immigrant women? Of the trans women admitted into women's shelters who then take pics of themselves with their dicks hanging out, relishing the transgression? How can you be aware of that stuff and not have some pause for thought?

She has a daughter too. Does she really want her sharing the PE changing room with a teenage boy who identifies as a girl?

[FloralBunting]

Tribalism, basically.

I mean, someone should write a bloody sociology thesis on these mechanisms, really, because who knows, human being might one day evolve to be able to really learn from our collective weaknesses...

[R0wantrees]

True - and yet she must be aware, surely, not only of the Karen White case, but of the dozens of violent male criminals who now identify as trans women? Of the case of sexual predator Jessica Yaniv targeting vulnerable immigrant women? Of the trans women admitted into women's shelters who then take pics of themselves with their dicks hanging out, relishing the transgression? How can you be aware of that stuff and not have some pause for thought?

It would be really ineresting to know which 'information' Williams (& many others) have received which has meant they are able to discount all of this.

There are narratives which are accepted by many people, that White was placed in female estate because of a failure in the risk assessment process. That this failure was acknowledged by the prison authorities & that 'anti-trans' activists have relentlessly used this single event to 'label all trans women as rapists' etc etc

Those who rely on Twitter are more susceptible to manipulation.

March 2019 Speech by Helen Belcher given to London-based human rights lawyers Leigh Day may give some insight into how any pause for thought might be limited:

challengingjourneys.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/leigh-day-27-feb-2019.pdf

[Dances]

Thanks chilling. I'm not sure why that piece got to me. That and Billy Bragg, it's depressing to find that women are so obviously unimportant to supposedly 'caring' people. Or it's 'enforced caring' - women must care about everyone else and not their own interests or safety.

Have shaken myself off. Not going down without a fight.

Puuuuuuuulllllll.

[chilling19]

Dances me neither. ❤️

[Thinkingabout1t]

Zoe Williams once wrote what a shame it was that Labour lost the 1992 general election, which a lot of people had got their hopes up about. And then she casually said that she hadn't actually voted, because she couldn't be arsed.

The continued Tory government was a disaster the botched privatisation of the railways was just one result that we're still suffering from. I can understand voting for someone else, even voting Tory if that's your belief. But just not bothering, and then agreeing what a shame it was -

I didn't read her stuff for years after that. Then I thought she must be worth reading as the Guardian still publishes her. Then I read some of her stuff and realised it still wasn't worth it. She should get it all translated by Torktorkbam before it goes into print.

[DonkeySkin]

Feminine men escaping toxic masculinity? There are many ways people, including women, including feminists, would look to help those men have a better place in the world.

These men aren't fleeing toxic masculinity. Many are the embodiment of it. Taking on superficial markers of femininity doesn't equate to taking on feminine behaviours. It's perfectly possible for a man to demonstrate male-dominant behaviour while wearing lipstick and a skirt. I have no interest in helping sexist men, regardless of what they wear. Sorry for being terse, but I'm sick of the lie that clothes and hairstyles = 'gender'. Gender (sex roles) is about male entitlement to women's bodies, labour and lives. Feminine-presenting men often display that entitlement in spades.

As for Zoe Williams, I wouldn't even give her the benefit of the doubt as being blinded by misplaced compassion. Because unlike some women, she really DOES know what she's supporting. She makes that clear in the article. Of course she's aware of White, Yaniv et al. She even alludes to them when she speaks of 'operational difficulties'. That's code for 'of course women are being hurt and will continue to get hurt'. She doesn't care, because she considers men more important. At one point she implicitly sneers at the idea that 'cis women need protected status', so presumably she includes her daughter in that too. She really just is that callous when it comes to women and girls. She has all the sympathy in the world for males like Belcher, and none at all for women like Dances.

And that callousness needs to be pointed out at every opportunity. Rank misogynists like Williams should not get to pose as noble and compassionate when they are pushing the most horrendously sadistic policies on female victims of male violence. Spell out exactly what it is they are supporting under the guise of 'inclusiveness'.

[R0wantrees]

Context:
Next Tuesday Centre for Women's Justice & End Violence Against Women Coalition,

"will be in court trying to get permission for a judicial review against the CPS for their change in policy that has seen a 51% drop in charges of reported rapes in 5 years. Please come and show your support!"

//mobile.twitter.com/centreWJ/status/1237338562745548801

Centre for Women's Justice
"OUR MISSION:
To hold the state to account and challenge discrimination in the justice system around male violence against women and girls.
We do this by:
Holding the state accountable for failures in the prevention of violence against women and girls

Supporting individuals and groups who challenge institutions and laws that perpetuate such violence

Undertaking strategic litigation and facilitating legal assistance

Bringing together victims, women’s groups, lawyers, academics and other experts in the field of violence against women

Raising awareness of specific cases and issues arising from our work

Monitoring and challenging trends in policy, practice and the law which impacts on violence against women and girls"

www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/about

threads:
//www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3845203-The-Decriminalisation-of-Rape

//www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3844803-Spades-required-Judicial-review-against-CPS-Justice-for-rape-victims

[stumbledin]

Just saying I haven't read all of this thread but it is no surprise that Zoe Williams would have written this.

This is well in line with the comments she has been making about (radical) feminism ever since the Guardian put her forward as their (faux) feminist commentator.

She is part of a group of socialist women who think that being condesending and partonising to people (particularly women) who dont have correct thoughts, will somehow re-educate them.

The pro-trans position of the Guardian is just part of what has been their position on feminism for the past 3 decades. They do not accept the analysis of women being oppressed as a sex class.

As condescending middle class writers they KNOW that the only class to support is the working class.

The trans mythology didn't take hold in the Guardian by magic. It was / is just the tool to berate radical feminists with.

Also, if anyone can be bothered, 9 times out of 10 when articles are closed for comments on the web site they are open for comments on facebook. Interestingly Zoe Williams' article has not been that well received on facebook! www.facebook.com/GuardianOpinion/posts/3051580644874444?tn=-R

If you aren't signed up to facebook you will need to keep dismissing the annoying sign in box that keeps popping up.

The facebook entry of Suzanne Moore's article hardly got any response at all. www.facebook.com/GuardianOpinion/posts/3050607921638383?tn=-R

[YourVagesty]

I wonder what Hadley Freeman makes of it.

[Freespeecher]

The Graun has some thoughtful writers such as Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman. They also employ Zoe Williams.

The kindest interpretation I have is that they needed a piece to balance that of Suzanne Moore and Williams drew the short straw. More likely is that, for Zoe, being Left Wing outweighs being a feminist, what with that early mention of 'taking the side of the oppressed' and her wish to redirect that energy towards climate strikes rather than in ways that 'suit the Alt Right' (I hope you're proud of yourselves).

(Also, this was quite a revealing quote 'As a cause matures, it gets to the point where everyone recognises that their individual view no longer matters' - not for Zoe the threads here and elsewhere as people try to puzzle out the issues of the day. Nope, it's all about toeing that party line).

My takeaway was that, for Zoe, feminism is more about recruiting that monstrous regiment of women and pointing them at whatever the cause du jour is rather than about the interests of those women themselves.

(Reading back, looks like stumbledin beat me to it. Oh well).

[Goosefoot]

Hadley Freeman I might call thoughtful, Moore not so much, really. But the feminist writers at the Guardian have always been pretty poor, they used to run Laura Bates, Jessica Valenti, ugh.

[Freespeecher]

Well, I'm stretching thoughtful to include anyone who goes beyond parroting dogma but yes, standards are low right now.