Helen Pluckrose...why?

[RoyalCorgi]

I've just bought Helen Pluckrose's new book, Cynical Theories, attacking identity politics. We've had some discussions on here about it.

Yet apparently she doesn't like gender-critical feminists. I can't get my head around why, given that we are on the same side. Anyone know?

Isn’t Helen a human who like other humans sometimes says things that are less considered and/or less kind? And she is here commenting on the humanity of the GC side?

That's surprising. James Lindsay, her collaborator with the parody papers about urban dog parks in Portland, seems to have zero tolerance for the entire woke cabaret. Dunno.

GC feminists are simply intolerant baddies who have arrived at their position through bigotry and hate whereas she is simply applying logic so nothing like them.

She’s quite clearly using humour to show the GC people can disagree politely. And not cancel her.
twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1304711215764168704?s=20
Is her next tweet..

She says she has different positions from Kathleen Stock but still respects her. That’s a normal human thing.
Helen thinks of herself as a part of the “liberal” position not the “radical“ one.

I can't understand what point she is trying ot make - that if you go to a mixed nudist resort you shouldn't complain about naked males? Okay. Seems logical. Otherwise, who knows?

I’m not like those other women. You know, the loud, strident ones who just complain (un-coolly), about boring things like child abuse and violence against women.

I have just taken a quick look at her Twitter. Her take seems to be that as a liberal, she supports the right of people to believe things which are not rooted in external reality. She regards the GC feminist position as not being supportive of freedom of belief. If I understand her correctly.

Just like Helen I think people can believe in whatever they want no matter how unrooted in reality it is

I just don’t think we should make laws based on it....

She had a discussion with Maya on twitter last night. I congratulated them for having a civilised discussion despite their differences of opinion. Then see today she's blocked Maya .. Not impressed.

I like HP. I think she frequently finds herself in disagreement with GC feminists because she doesn't agree with analysis re patriarchy/oppression. Also because she thinks there are compromises that both sides could make to allow trans women to be able to live their lives as women but at the same time not completely trampling over women's sex-based rights. This obviously annoys many GC feminists but of course she still finds herself in "terf" territory because she is not in the TWAW camp either. She's spoken before about finding twitter difficult territory and having to have time out to get perspective. She's a good person I think.

I don't agree entirely with her but my understanding of her position is that she thinks most of the feminist battles have been won by the previous generation, and GC feminists are basically like identitarians whose feminism is based on the same kind of politics of privilege/oppression as the other woke movements such as critical race theory or trans identity politics. So their critique of trans is rooted in this idea of an axis of oppression and privilege which she feels is not how things work.

She is a really interesting and knowledgeable person but whenever I hear her talk in depth, there are always some things that don't quite sit right with me. I think she does have a bit of blind spot when it comes to feminism as she thinks the battles have been won and she likes men and feels they are unfairly demonised.

I may be misrepresenting her position, though, as this is just what I've pieced together from various interviews. I don't know if there's anywhere where she states explicitly what her deal is. I know she had a debate with Kathleen Stock at some point not so long ago, so that might be illuminating.

HP and Kathleen Stock's letters - letter.wiki/conversation/648

I’m not like those other women. You know, the loud, strident ones who just complain (un-coolly), about boring things like child abuse and violence against women.

YY. I muted her on Twitter for this reason as it's how I perceive her. I'm not keen on her personally. I appreciate some of the things she has done on an intellectual level though and I'd like to read the book.

Helen says:

When gender critical feminists accuse trans activists of being essentially men’s rights activists motivated by misogyny and enabling patriarchal appropriation of women’s spaces and their very identity, they must know that this is not at all what trans activists see as their driving force.

Oh must we? What a patronising twit

I think that Americans in general really don't get the British gender ID fight. People like Helen Pluckrose and Jesse Singal think of themselves as reasonable people who can transcend the fight between two groups of extremists, basically Trumpians and TRAs. And they apply that same analysis to the UK. But the UK is a totally different situation - we don't have Trumpians, we have the 2010 Equality Act, the proposed legal changes are totally different.

I find this pretty annoying. But I don't think that either Singal or Pluckrose are assholes. They just don't get it.

Helen Pluckrose is a Brit though.

She goes on to say

However, it also seems clear to me that trans people most of whom are not authoritarian, ideological zealots face more considerably more hostility, prejudice and discrimination as a group than women do.

No they don’t. How did she even come to this ridiculous conclusion? It’s easier to get gender reassignment than a referral for endometriosis. But sure, they have it soooo bad Helen. Jfc

Oh must we?

I don't find her particularly well informed on this issue.

Sounds about right queenofknives that's also what I've taken her position to be.

I do see some feminist behaviour/analysis that definitely falls into the identity politics side of things so I can kind of understand where she is coming from. I've also seen feminists misrepresent what she is trying to say which must be quite frustrating.

Helen Pluckrose is a brit

Fuck is she!? I just assumed she was american cos of the way she was talking. Okay, now I blame her more.

@queenofknives

I don't agree entirely with her but my understanding of her position is that she thinks most of the feminist battles have been won by the previous generation, and GC feminists are basically like identitarians whose feminism is based on the same kind of politics of privilege/oppression as the other woke movements such as critical race theory or trans identity politics. So their critique of trans is rooted in this idea of an axis of oppression and privilege which she feels is not how things work.

She is a really interesting and knowledgeable person but whenever I hear her talk in depth, there are always some things that don't quite sit right with me. I think she does have a bit of blind spot when it comes to feminism as she thinks the battles have been won and she likes men and feels they are unfairly demonised.

I may be misrepresenting her position, though, as this is just what I've pieced together from various interviews. I don't know if there's anywhere where she states explicitly what her deal is. I know she had a debate with Kathleen Stock at some point not so long ago, so that might be illuminating.

She's not totally wrong about this. If she really has an issue with axis of oppression/ID politics GC feminism is full of that. I would say there is a real split in FWR that accept that approach (for feminism, not for trans rights, but in the latter case they usually say women are really oppressed and transwomen are actually privileged,) and those who reject it across the board.

queen

That letter exchange is interesting. Kathleen Stock's analysis is persuasive. Helen Pluckrose discusses the illiberal attack on language and the concerted attempt to silence critical opinion, but her weakest area is the impact on policy and the colonisation of state and private sector by lobbyists. One does not have to be a feminist nor a Marxist to understand why that is a serious problem. The 'liberal' position is difficult to maintain in the light of the latter. I imagine that is why Helen doesn't want to engage much with discussing regulatory and institutional capture.

her weakest area is the impact on policy and the colonisation of state and private sector by lobbyists.

Yes, agreed. I have some sympathy with her views and I do think we really need people who stand apart a little bit and kind of reflect back to both sides (although I think this is a very difficult position for an individual to put theselves in, and HP seems to take flak from everyone, which must be tough). My take was that she doesn't really understand the extent of the ideological/policy capture. It seems like she sees the trans movement as made up of vulnerable, dysphoric, isolated young people and so her position largely sets out a support of them. Which I think on the one hand is fair enough: there is such a group and they are vulnerable (and if this is who you think the trans activist movement largely are, then some GC feminists probably do seem quite monstrous in some respects). But I think she is wrong that this group are the main core of trans activists or who the trans rights movement is all about. And she also over-corrects in assuming that women are less vulnerable because of the gains of feminism and because most people accept that there are men and women and so our existence-category is not contested. That latter point is arguable. Also we are always going to be vulnerable to violence from men simply on the grounds that they are bigger and stronger and can really hurt us, and so any erosion of our protections is going to have an impact.

From her twitter, she thinks the gov't should be able to segregate public toilets but that they shouldn't be allowed to force sex segregated services on private entities. An example being a women's spa allowing TW to use female changing rooms. It's a private company so it should be their choice.

It's a very nitpicky way of disassociating herself from GC feminists and using it to claim we are 'rigid' in our beliefs and 'fanatical ideologues'.