The "left wing/ right wing" problem for GC Feminists

[GeordieTerf]

One of the most common accusations thrown at GC feminists is that they are "right-wing". Pink News often associates GC feminists with the Christian right in America, for example. It seems clear to me that these accusations (which are easily disproven with 30 seconds of research) upset quite a lot of British feminists. From my observations, a lot of GC people go out of their way to demonstrate that they're left-wing.

I'm a feminist. I care about the rights, welfare, and empowerment of ALL women. Feminism doesn't belong to the left wing anymore than it belongs to the right wing. It is for the benefit of all women. The loss of single-sex spaces will affect all of us.

I used to be left wing, until I "peak-transed" 5 years ago. This issue opened me up to the undercurrent of misogyny in the left wing. My local Lib Dem candidate told me not to vote for her. She told me that she didn't want my vote, so I didn't give it to her. This experience is mild compared to what the left wing has done to other GC feminists. Basically, the left wing has thrown women under the bus over this issue. I will no longer stand alongside them. I am now a politically-homeless centrist.

I'm not saying that the right are any better. In the long run, they are probably worse for women. However, I do think that right wing women matter just as much as left wing women, and they have just as much right to speak out about this issue.

This is something I've been thinking about for a while now and wondered if anyone fancies having a chat about it? Hence the thread.

That said, there are rare exceptions, such as Brexit.

Sorry, posted before I'd finished. I meant to say that even Brexit, despite garnering support across the political spectrum (as well as garnering opposition across the same range), still couldn't shed itself of the image of proponents being far right.

They don't actually believe we're right wing, they're lying to slander us.

I'm pretty sure they do believe it. They see the world through the lens of their single issue and by that criterion, everyone who stands against them is a reactionary US-definition right-winger. The vast differences we see between ourselves and - for example - an American fundamentalist Christian are simply not relevant, the only relevance is where we stand in relation to the One Issue.

If, for example the GRA was repealed and women's sex specific rights were further protected by cast iron case law and rewording of policy documents in government departments and in large organisations then we might be at the stage where the fundamentals of furthering the women's rights movement might be better served by various different groups breaking off and formulating their own thoughts but at the moment we are nowhere near that, we have a specific threat to focus on and a broad coalition serves that fight best.

Yep. We're not at the hiving off over the details yet stage, we're still at the "house is on fire right now" stage. We can talk about whether we share all the political beliefs of everyone who has a fire extinguisher and is willing to use it later. When a group of people come together to tackle a specific problem that alliance is by nature temporary, though you never know, you may find that you have enough common ground to keep working with some of the people you encountered via whatever crisis you were focused on later. I have an old friend who I met when we were both volunteering for a domestic violence shelter who's a conservative Catholic. I'm a left wing, feminist atheist. We share a deep concern for the safety and wellbeing of women and children, and it turns out that means agreeing about more things than some in either of our respective political tribes might be comfortable with.

Feminism.jpg

Feminism.jpg

I find this almost painfully naive, reductionist and polarising.

O course you do. It's Dworkin.

I believe this is something of an issue of party politics. While it is not devoid of benefits, it's quite hard to push single issues separately from the associated policies of a particular political stance.
Nah.
It's not an issue of party politics at all, and single issues can of course be separated from policies of "a particular political stance". You give the example of Brexit. Regardless of whether the Remain movement decides to paint Leave voters as UKIP supporters only, the Leave vote wouldn't have won if only "older, right wing white people who are against immigration" had voted Leave.
So however it is painted, fundamentally both Leave and Remain camps are good examples of broad coalitions.

FlyingOink sorry for the confusion, I didn't say Brexit was divided across those lines, I said it gained that image (or, depending on your perspective, was maliciously attributed with that image). I think the same applies to feminism (though along different lines).

I don't know, honestly. I'm a centrist. I mean don't we all want everyone to lead the best life they can, with equal opportunities to advance? As some pp said, it's about the how, which is where both hard right and hard left converge on idiotic solutions and exclusion of one group to benefit another. They're just different groups. I still totally fail to understand how 90% of the population, who do not support selfID , are blackmailed into silence.

I still totally fail to understand how 90% of the population, who do not support selfID , are blackmailed into silence.

I think it's a situation where a lot of people have been convinced that most people believe in the (complete and utter tosh) and so they don't want to be the first one to say they don't, and then the ones who do know that there's an active debate going on know that saying you don't agree will result in the social media flying monkeys being unleashed and possibly more serious harassment, so they're too scared to say anything. Once more people speak out, then even more will, if you know what I mean. Emperor's new gender, basically.

A while back it was explained to me when I was puzzling over the same thing. It has a name.
"It’s called “pluralistic ignorance”. In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it."

That's a useful new term, for me anyway.

Here's an Atlantic article I just found:

www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/01/sex-and-drugs-and-high-school-but-also-social-psychology/384339/

You give the example of Brexit. Regardless of whether the Remain movement decides to paint Leave voters as UKIP supporters only, the Leave vote wouldn't have won if only "older, right wing white people who are against immigration" had voted Leave
So however it is painted, fundamentally both Leave and Remain camps are good examples of broad coalitions

I voted remain and would do so again but over the last 2-3 years I've become thoroughly disillusioned the left wing and liberals. The sneering response by many to Brexit was awful.

I honestly think that left/right wing are pretty obsolete as useful terms. Most people I speak to in my day today life have no strong affiliation to either 'wing' and are basically centrists.
Activists, of which I also know a few, tend to be more pronounced left or right of centre, and because they are the loudest voices by the very nature of being activists, the general tenor of most debates still looks very polarized. But the supermarket workers I work with, the foodbank users, the people who attend the local church run drop in coffee and chat sessions? Overwhelmingly centrists.

Dido same I'm ardent remain but Disgusted by the sneering and self righteousness of many on the left who supported remain

And me also, looking at the sneering tone taken towards Leave voters was eye opening in terms of the open contempt parts of the establishment have towards ordinary people.

I suppose I would say I'm broadly left-wing in that I feel drawn towards more collective approaches to social issues, I don't view 'the government' as a bad thing necessarily - it is an incredibly useful mechanism for pooling and allocating our collective resources.

We, as citizens, give governments the power to enact collective action on our behalf, which is why it is important people understand what citizenship means - we don't just have 'rights'. With rights, come responsibilities. As citizens, we are responsible for being engaged with the political processes and domestic and international issues that affect our country. We are responsible for ensuring that we elect suitable representatives and that governmental structures and processes are held to account for their actions or inactions.

I'm not a tribal person though. I like to analyse issues and potential solutions on their merit and I don't really care which 'side' it falls on, as long as it maximises the common good, while also respecting and protecting the freedom of the individual. It's definitely a balancing act - equality of all vs individual liberty. Too much of either leads to terrible outcomes.

I can be centrist on some issues, right-wing on others, extreme left-wing on some other types of issues, or some combination. The labels don't really matter IMO - are the solutions proposed for an issue rational and achievable? Do they take into account the nuances of human behaviour? Do we have good evidence that it works? If we implement something and evidence later suggests this isn't working well, then we should modify it or switch to another method.

It can be easy to have a grand and simplistic idea, for example, we should ban all cars and cycle everywhere, but it's important to be realistic and take into account human nature. Not everyone is able to cycle or would enjoy cycling, car ownership provides a level of comfort and ease that can be hard to beat, and humans are very inclined to show off status - cars are a way to flaunt this status. A second hand £1000 car gets you from A to B as well as a £50,000 car, but car ownership is ultimately for a number of people a way to flaunt their status over others. So you will never get a majority to vote for the complete ban of cars.
It's better to go for multi faceted approaches - make public transport integrated, reliable and cheap or even free, ensure lots of cycles around via various local schemes, maybe monetary incentives for use of 'greener' alternatives, promote cars that are electric or hybrid and invest in cleaner alternatives to oil as a fuel, driverless cars that can be easily and quickly ordered via an app, and a luxury tax on very expensive cars - it won't stop the rich from buying them, but it provides a strong signal that it is a luxury that is being indulged in, not a necessity.
Methods like the above can help reduce overall car ownership and usage if many people feel it is more affordable and easier to use public transportation. It's not perfect, but it's less Draconian than demanding everyone gets by without a car and more likely to get a wider range of public cooperation.

I can be centrist on some issues, right-wing on others, extreme left-wing on some other types of issues, or some combination.

But that's what centrist is. It's not a triangle of extremes, with left in one corner, right in another and centre in the third corner. It's a spectrum (ha ha) for all issues, where you might swing slightly to the right on some things, and back to the left on the other. That's what I mean that most people, apart from convinced activists who tend to be ideologues, are hovering around the middle ground. Pragmatism is underrated, imo.

And me also, looking at the sneering tone taken towards Leave voters was eye opening in terms of the open contempt parts of the establishment have towards ordinary people.

I'm finding that the views expressed by the parody twitter account Titania Mcgrath are indistinguishable from the real deal. After the Tory victory in 2019 and the collapse of the red wall a couple of my Corbyn worshipping acquaintences declared that one should have to sit an IQ test before voting, or that a degree should be required in order to vote.

But that's what centrist is.

Most people move slightly to the left or right on any issue, it's true.
My shifts on issues can sometimes be quite substantial though. My musings on whether equality and hate crime laws should be done away with, might seem like I'm far-right to some people. And, although I'm in favour of mixed markets, a number of my views on economics and finance would sound like I'm a fan of far-left policies. I don't come across many people who shift around like that, or maybe I've not had enough discussions to know if this is commonplace.

After the Tory victory in 2019 and the collapse of the red wall a couple of my Corbyn worshipping acquaintences declared that one should have to sit an IQ test before voting, or that a degree should be required in order to vote.

Yay champagne socialism! Honestly, sometimes I feel like smacking people who "identify" as socialists upside the head with a copy of Das Kapital. It would be the closest they'd ever gotten to reading the damn thing.

Nonny, sounds perfectly normal to me, tbh.

I think that a big part of what we're seeing is that authoritarian vs anti authoritarian is as fundamental a political split as right/left, and therefore if one side of the right/left axis makes a massive lurch toward authoritarianism that will inevitably result in a "WTF, no, not having this" reaction from people who lean left but not authoritarian.

Kittens, yes, I think that's spot on. Does anyone seriously think the ire between people is because they are disagreeing about the balance between state ownership and private enterprise?

People who disagree on that balance but are not eager potential totalitarians can have conversations about it without calling the police on their opponents. People who are authoritarians appear to find that very difficult.

Agreeing to disagree is a good thing, and a world away from #NoDebate no platforming.

Which is why, say, Bovary and I can have a perfectly civil discussion despite being at very different points on the right/left axis, and there are people who'd happily call the police on both of us for doing so. Importantly, we are both now aware of that, which inevitably leads to more willingness to work together as people from both the traditional right and the traditional left recognize that they have a shared interest in pushing back against threats to free speech and other forms of creeping authoritarianism.