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.

Nonny, sounds perfectly normal to me, tbh.

Cheers, FloralBunting! One of the things I like about this forum is the variety in opinions, viewpoints and experiences of the women here. Lots of different perspectives and political leanings. It's very intellectually stimulating. I think it's easy for online spaces to become a bit stale with posters adhering to certain standpoints without much debate as they don't want to create a fuss. I like that people here speak their mind and share their disagreements openly.

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 brilliant. Have come across that plenty of times.

I hate the phrase "anti-immigration". I have never been against immigration. What I was and still am against is high net immigration - the quintupling of the UK's immigration rate, compared to the 1990s, when nobody batted an eyelid at the net annual immigration figure of about 50,000.

That is the opinion of many but it was twisted to the unfair and incorrect phrase "anti-immigration", deliberately misconstruing the opinions of thousands, painting us as xenophobes who don't want a new soul through the doors.

It has been, and sadly remains, a wilful misunderstanding and misrepresentation which reminds me of nothing so much as the way TRAs scream "transphobe" and refuse to listen. It's been offensive, isolating, upsetting and infuriating to be so un-listened to and slandered but it did set me up well for shrugging off other verbal abuse and trusting in my own analysis of a situation.

I intensely dislike the framing of anything as 'anti-'. The only thing I think it fits is anti-abortion, and I wish pro-lifers would be more honest about that position, because I think to be anti-abortion is perfectly legitimate if you sincerely believe abortion is a negative thing. But even then, I'm willing to accept that the 'anti' framing is a rhetorical device, meant to put an opponent on the defensive, and I think it's largely unhelpful.

painting us as xenophobes who don't want a new soul through the doors
We are long since past the point where we can have an open discussion on immigration in this country. It's too emotionally charged.
We benefit from high skilled immigration in specific areas of industry, but in the long term obviously it is preferable to recruit and train UK born workers of whatever background. So even the selective approach is short-termism.
We don't really examine the moral implications of hoovering up doctors, nurses and engineers from poor countries that have paid to train them, either. Except when the shoe is on the other foot and junior docs in the NHS swan off to Australia for the big bucks.
We don't benefit from low skilled immigration, it only allows companies to hire people cheaper and therefore makes it cost prohibitive to innovate. And we don't discuss the moral implications of feeding and housing the families of unskilled workers from abroad whilst UK born people are deemed less in need because they have (for example) put off having kids until they have somewhere secure to live. The people most comfortable with giving away the benefits UK born people are entitled to are invariably well off and will never need to rely on those systems, which has moral implications, and finally the "lottery win" factor. We see individual cases of poor unskilled immigrants without realising they are a tiny speck in the statistics for their country, and in some cases have gamed the system to even get here, but we have no issue with rewarding that.
We get presented with these specific cases, sad faces and crying children, and outraged types ask us to examine our souls as they hand over money that isn't theirs.
I'm the child of an immigrant and if you ask first or second generation immigrants of whatever background they tend to be really pragmatic about immigration. Sure, we'd like family members to be able to live in the UK too (because it is genuinely great here) but there is a recognition that there are exponentially more poor people abroad than there is space here to plant, root, water and uplift them.
And that's all without getting into questions of Britishness and integration and racism and opportunity etc etc for those who manage to make a life here. (And I use the phrase "UK born people" because some of the most affected people by each wave of immigration are the previous wave of immigrants).
We have to be wary of anyone who paints this complicated issue as a black and white good Vs evil thing, because it isn't how it works.

I've thought in relation to immigration specifically, but I think it's more general, a real divide seems to be between people who think society can accept any amount of change or diversity of ideas and ways of life, and people who think society is not so elastic and there are limits. Often both materially for example how many homes can we build or how many doctors do we have for all these people. But also in immaterial ways, for example the issue of what to teach about controversial things in schools becomes a problem when more people have more divergent views.

Properly speaking I think this may fall along the conservative/liberal spectrum, but it doesn't relate to markets or small government in the way many people think of conservatism. But it seems to have become on of the hallmarks of progressive politics to just assume any reservations about change of this type is related to hatred of or distain for change and difference.

Goosefoot
That's "progressive" vs "reactionary"

And I mentioned it in terms of immigration because the progressives in this country tend to be the better educated and better paid middle classes. The sneering about leave voters is similar to the sneering about nationalism and the sneering about building houses and the sneering about British traditions (which are all obviously awful and should be replaced immediately because blah blah gap year).
From what I read of the progressive movement of the sixties, that was youth-led and had far less money and clashed with a reactionary Establishment. Now those youths are the Establishment so the tables have turned.
Not all that is traditional is shit, and not all that is progressive is good, and again we are asked to look at it from an entirely binary perspective (ironically).

And what's important to remember (trying to get back on topic!) is that "progressive" men are just as much of a problem as reactionary" men in terms of violence and discrimination etc.

And what's important to remember (trying to get back on topic!) is that "progressive" men are just as much of a problem as reactionary" men in terms of violence and discrimination etc

For me, this kind of diametric, oppositional politics has had its day. It's too blunt an instrument.

For me, this kind of diametric, oppositional politics has had its day. It's too blunt an instrument.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.

For me I think it was realizing the class element in the progressive v regressive (don't love that word but can't think of a better one) divide that was a bit of a lightbulb moment. Once you see the highly educated and generally wealthier people making decisions that have a lot less impact on them than on the people they're framing as inherently whatever-ist aspect of things it's hard to unsee. I may still come down as for example generally in favor of immigration in the end, but the way I see the public discussion about it and the cost/benefit analysis has shifted. I also think there needs to be some understanding of the fact that different countries have different situations and different levels of ability to absorb change (the fact that my best friend is from Japan has definitely played a role in changing how I see some things related to that - an island is not the same as a continent).

Sorry, not read entire thread. However, there are a couple of issues surrounding this that I've thought about recently.
Firstly, the left wing seems to be held up to higher standards with regard to unity. If GC feminists disagree with TRAs or when moderate socialists disagree with self declared communists, you'll find comments such as "the left is beginning to eat itself" or that it's falling apart at the seams or that the poster in question despairs at the future of the left. This isn't the same with the right. A Conservative, a UKIP voter and an outright neo nazi might all describe themselves as right wing, even if most of their stances are entirely incompatible, and everyone accepts this to be the case. It's recognised that there are different factions on the right but this isn't seen as a weakness.
In contrast, the left are expected to uphold a standard of unity which is frankly impossible with such a large group of people.

What this results in is TRAs dismissing feminists as right wing or vice versa. People are either forced out of the left or forced to accept that there is just ONE right (left) way to think.

There is also a complete disregard for the differences between the fiscal and social right/left spectrum. That somebody can be an advocate for gay marriage but believe in a small state or that someone can believe that the nuclear family is the only acceptable family unit but that we should have a more effective safety net by way of social welfare. In modern UK politics, I would say that the main differences between political parties lies in fiscal beliefs. The country is currently a financial mess, at some point we will have to deal with the fact that the taxpayer will likely be paying for lockdown for generations. And Brexit, whatever happens there. Then, it will become pretty apparent that the transgender community is not a high priority of the political left or right. I suppose, by that point, we'll all be called right wing.

(sorry, that likely reads as a complete mess, am very tired)

In contrast, the left are expected to uphold a standard of unity which is frankly impossible with such a large group of people.
Yes, you could describe it as unity, I think of it as purity because the left claims the moral high ground on many topics hence diverging from the party line is immoral, cruel, mean, wrong etc.
Whereas in fact most people aren't Nazi bastards; when I was young I certainly thought of all Conservative voters as practically Nazis but the reality is that most people are quite reasonable and most of the UK is centrist.

In modern UK politics, I would say that the main differences between political parties lies in fiscal beliefs.
I hope so, I wouldn't want the government to go "back to basics" and homophobia again.
We don't have the "culture wars" in the same way as the US does because (for example) abortion is legal in most places and not constantly up for debate like Roe v Wade is. We don't have a large fundamentalist movement. We don't have a large anti-government movement a militia movement, an anti-science movement, etc.

I always remember that progressive laws can always be reversed and that the current PM wrote: "If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog." (Amongst many other offensive things...he is a less funny and less talented Clarkson with immense luck)

You'll find comments such as "the left is beginning to eat itself" or that it's falling apart at the seams or that the poster in question despairs at the future of the left. This isn't the same with the right. A Conservative, a UKIP voter and an outright neo nazi might all describe themselves as right wing, even if most of their stances are entirely incompatible, and everyone accepts this to be the case

In contrast, the left are expected to uphold a standard of unity which is frankly impossible with such a large group of people

I don't think that is true at all. No one expects all left wing parties to be in a state of unity. That isn't why people are saying the left is eating itself. There is a coherent, relatively sensible Tory party in the UK, which for all its faults is not extremist and is probably more to the left than US Democrats.

The problem for the left in the UK is the moderate, left of centre voice has been drowned out by the shrieking of Corbynistas, Momentum and their hangers on like Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar and the like. The mainstream UK left is full of people who not only are deeply intolerant but who give every impression they couldn't be safely left to run a church jumble sale let alone a country.

Maybe Starmer will get it back into shape but it's a big job.

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

Prodigal

I absolutely agree with you. I also think it's interesting that many posters have made the point that the demonisation of GC feminists alerted Remain voters to the demonisation of Leave voters. I think Floisme made this point previously. This tendency to demonise anyone who questions current orthodoxy on a range of subjects is a serious problem. It is accompanied by a hyperbolic political illiteracy which denounces people who believe in low taxation and tough sentences for violent crimes as literal fascists. And this garbage is peddled by some of the most privileged 0.0001 percent Ivy League elites on the planet. I also agree that it is so refreshing to be able to have civil, entertaining discussions with posters on this forum even though we may not agree on every policy. It's an unusual and valuable thing these days.

This is another example of the assumptions about left/right not really working any more. I'd probably favor much higher tax rates than you, but in terms of violent crime I'd like to see higher conviction rates and longer sentences, especially for sex crimes. I watch people trying to apply the concept of restorative justice to rapists and murderers and think they've lost their damn minds. Whereas reductions in sentencing or even avoiding jail entirely for non violent crimes I'd be OK with. I don't know how to describe that particular political split, but I wonder if it has something to do with a person's own perception of their potential risk of being a victim of violent crime, or of having their loved ones be at risk. But it seems like if your position on crime and jail is "legalize weed and other soft drugs, only send people to jail for drug related crimes if they involve violence, and for rapists, child abusers, and other violent criminals lock them up and throw away the key" then a lot of people have no idea where to slot you into in terms of their mental map of political affiliations.

I first became aware of this in relation to a convicted murderer named Robert Kosilek, who was trying to transition in jail and who wanted the state they* were imprisoned in to pay for surgery. My response was "hell no, if you murder someone then the state has to provide basic healthcare if you're imprisoned but anything beyond that and you're out of luck" and I kept seeing people who I normally agreed with argue passionately that prisoners have the right to major cosmetic surgery if they want it and that it was bigoted of me not to feel any empathy for the person in question.

(* I can't and won't call a male human who strangled their wife to the point where they nearly decapitated her with piano wire because she walked in on them wearing knickers in the kitchen "she", so "they" it is.)

but in terms of violent crime I'd like to see higher conviction rates and longer sentences, especially for sex crimes. I watch people trying to apply the concept of restorative justice to rapists and murderers and think they've lost their damn minds

I agree with you. I think having elected judicial officials has made the US much more focused on victims' rights. In the UK, there has been 20 years of cross party consensus that prison doesn't work. One of the duties of a functioning state is to protect its citizens from recidivist violent criminals. That doesn't seem to be happening in the UK.

The country is currently a financial mess, at some point we will have to deal with the fact that the taxpayer will likely be paying for lockdown for generations.

On a slight diversion, if I may.... (nerd hat on 😬) in case anyone is interested - 'our' taxes do not 'fund' UK government spending. The UK government is a currency issuer i.e. only the UK can issue GBP because we have a sovereign currency and Central Bank. As the general public, we are merely currency users - we do not have the power to create money.

The UK government does not depend on us for its spending - it 'creates' money via keystrokes on a computer in the Central Bank. That's literally all there is to money creation - it's out of thin air. (Private banks have the same power to create money out of thin air - that's what mortgages are, but they are constrained in ways a sovereign government is not.)

This doesn't mean money can be created infinitely - at some far off point it will lead to inflation - but that is where taxation comes in. Taxation removes money from an economy, the way UK government spending introduces or creates money into existence in an economy. You can say UK government spending creates money and UK government taxation destroys it. Taxation is what balances the economic system and stops too much money from sloshing around in the economy. The main purpose of taxation is to control inflation. It has other uses too, but that's its main job. It's not 'our taxes' that pay for government spending. It is a mechanism used by government to control the amount of money in circulation (digitally and physically) in an economy.

Government spending always comes before taxation. If money hadn't been spent into existence, you could not tax it in the first place. Spend and tax. Not tax and spend.

Coronavirus showed this clearly. Governments from around the world with their sovereign currencies and Central Banks are able to create billions on the fly to support their citizens and their economies. Public 'debt' is a reflection of our private wealth. If the government stopped spending money, the private sector would run out of 'fuel' so to speak and the economy would grind to a halt and eventually collapse. That is why during a recession, a government must never reduce spending (aka austerity) otherwise it slows down the economy even further and damages the private sector.

What we call government 'debt' is merely all the money that has even been created and spent into an economy that hasn't been taxed back out of existence yet. If we 'paid off the debt' there would be no money left in our pockets and our bank accounts!

We can never 'run out' of money as governments can always create more. We can't run out of a fictional concept, which is what money is. However, we can run out of finite resources. We, as a country, can always find the money we need to spend, but the real constraint is not having enough physical resources - wood, steel, teachers, nurses etc. So the question should never be - can we afford it? It should be - do we have sufficient resources to accomplish this?

Anyway that was a very brief and non-technical explanation of money. It is a description of how things work in the real world. How governments choose to use such mechanisms is a matter of politics, but it is important that both right-wing and left-wing parties are clear on how money is generated and the purpose of tax in an economy. Most politicians are woefully ignorant of these things.

This site is a simple explanation of the basics.
modernmoneybasics.com/

And here I end my monologue. (Takes off nerd hat. 😬)

NonnyMouse1337 in my opinion, the net result is the same: the government may not directly spend my money but they do 'spend' my purchasing power, either through directly collecting taxes or devaluing the currency I hold.

Gronky yes and it's important that monetary and fiscal policies are scrutinised, and political parties held to account over their plans and ideas.

However, a lot of people still think a nation runs like a household budget and we can 'run out' of money if we're not 'careful' and 'public debt' is a bad thing by default and we must 'pay it back' asap. Pay it back to whom by the way? That's never answered.

These pernicious myths make genuine debate and critique of economic policies difficult because if we're not clear on the basics, then it's harder to argue with the soundbites politicians love to spew out. They aren't being asked the really tough questions.

NonnyMouse Sovereign debt is not quite that straightforward because countries borrow from each other, creating international debts between nations. But otherwise, that's a good explaination of how fiat currency works.

You're right, bd67th, there is an additional layer of complexity when you introduce import/export, foreign exchange etc into the picture. For most people even coming to terms with the basics can be a bit of a moment. I know it was for me lol.

I'm going to have to save that explanation, Nonny - it's excellent. I'm going to throw it at people whenever they give me the side-eye for my understanding of how money works. And now I'm going to go and read Making Money again.

As for left and right wing - two wings, one bird. Built by and for men.