Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan: “Politicians are using trans rights as a bartering ram for something else”.

[RandomGel]

More light. In this podcast Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray discuss many issues but there is a great discussion on identity politics.

Quite rightly Douglas Murray describes politicians as using trans rights as a battering ram for something else.

Joe Rogan refers to the TRA mantra “there is no such thing as biological sex” as ridiculous.

It’s heartening to see Abigail Shearer and Debra Soh referenced and praised for taking a stand, living their truth and refusing to go along with the crowd.

It is longer than 2 hours long but it is really is worth a listen. I certainly don’t agree with everything but much sense is spoken particularly around identity politics and the medicalisation of children as being something we will look back on with abject horror. I am so glad that these debates are happening and on such a large platform.

1.7 million views,18,000 comments from a posting of 2 days ago.

I would never go to Murray or Rogan for interesting feminist thought. But I think Murray speaks some truth when he said that current feminism ignores this issues of motherhood that the second wavers tried to tackle.

As pp said, the gaping hole in their analysis was that they thought it was perfectly fine for women to choose between children and a career, when men can have both. And despite them seemingly in awe of motherhood, the reality is that that admiration doesn't feed poor women pensioners.

With regards to trans issues, I think rogan is keen to protect sports, rather than women rights . He sees the safety and fairness in sports as important to protect, rather than the rights of women to organise independently without men.

I'm always intrigued when access to termination of pregnancy is seen as the right that trumps all other womens rights issue. It's almost as if, if politicians want to compromise some right, they can threaten abortion rights too, so all attention is focused into that, and the other issues goes unnoticed. Maybe because unwanted pregnancy cause a long term problem for men, too?

No one is 100% right about everything all the time. I feel like Murray is a pretty fair and open-minded person and I wouldn't characterise him as a misogynist, unless we are expanding the definition of misogynist to mean anyone who criticises a woman. Having said that, I have often complained about his lack of insight into some of the women's rights issues he discusses. I agree with PP that he makes a good point about feminism not addressing motherhood - as some have pointed out, it's often been a topic of contention on mumsnet. However, Murray's on the side of freedom and truth and he has a loud voice which he uses to push back against illiberalism. I think it's great he has such a huge platform - he has made it more possible to discuss and debate some of these things, including women's rights. He may not be anyone's idea of a feminist, but he defends our right to our voice and opinions and spaces. I think that's useful and I don't see the benefit in writing him off because of specific disagreements.

Well if they lose, the Democrats have only themselves to blame.

Exactly this. After Trump was elected they went around calling everyone who voted for him a racist, fascist, sexist etc. Instead of trying to work out what it was that Trump represented or offered that people wanted, they assumed they were all backwards racists and rednecks. Rather like the Labour Party here, and much like the Remainers since the referendum, it has been a constant reaction against an imagined enemy, while refusing to build any kind of viable opposition. They set up this strawman and rail at it. Meanwhile, everyone outside the left - ordinary people - are looking on in various shades of bemusement and fear. They want the police to have more funding, not less, they want politicians who defend their cities from rioters, they don't want to have to go through indoctrination programmes at work or talk about their pronouns. And the more the Democrats push these ideas, the more they are pushing voters towards Trump. People don't want to admit they're voting Trump because of the unhinged response and insults that come their way. They'll just do it quietly and it'll be done.

Consider the possibility, would you, that the real Douglas Murray was on display and not the curated version in his edited book. You can listen to him laughing at Christine Lagarde for yourself.

I have listened to the full Podcast. I have also heard him quote Christine Legarde in several other interviews when talking about his book. He does so in reference to the fact that many of the legitimate civil rights fights of the last century have moved from a demand for ‘equality’ to claims of equality and ‘magically a bit better’. He cites many examples in the book including the aforementioned along with article claiming that gay married couples make better parents than straight couples. Then we have the numerous ‘woman of the year’ and ‘working mother of the year’ titles bestowed on trans women.

He makes the point that some of this may be a necessary over correction to account for the discrimination and oppression of the past, but asks if we, as a society, has any idea of how to decided when we have over corrected for long enough.

It seems quite clear to me that many of the challenges facing women (and couples in general) when planning to have children go completely over his head. That was pretty clear in The Strange Death of Europe. However, I think you’ve filed him under the category of ‘Milo’ in his attitude towards women.

@quixote9

As somebody way out on the pointyheaded left side of the spectrum, it just makes me want to cry that the only voices of reason on self-ID include people like Rogan. On every other quote I've seen from him he's a fracking Trumpist.

And that's why this makes me cry. The right is against self-ID because it runs against their Gilead vision of the future. Feminists are against it because we want to end all the soul-destroying gender BS. Not cement it in place forever.

So when it comes to males in changing rooms and women's prisons, we're weirdly on the same side. But for opposite reasons. They (meaning "They") think so because women should stay in the separate box where they've been put. We think males should be kept out because women get to make the decisions on their own spaces.

It's diametrically opposed. These people are not our friends.

And yet they're the only allies we have on any part of this whole awful attack on women's rights. It's horrible.

I see this idea that "the right" wants to have some kind of Gilead, or to have all women in the kitchen pregnant and barefoot, or that they really believe that all or most gender norms are innate and must be maintained.

In my experience that's largely untrue - I know a lot of people across the political spectrum, from communists to libertarians to deeply religious social conservatives, and I don't know anyone who believes those things in that way, and only a few of the most extreme who would say anything remotely similar.

I see this same assumption at times though from people on the right who seem to think that everyone on the left believes in some sort of Leninist state socialism or are anarchists or authoritarians. It's too bad because it really prevents a lot of really useful and effective communication and cross-fertilisation of ideas that enriches the political and social discourse.

He may not be anyone's idea of a feminist, but he defends our right to our voice and opinions and spaces. I think that's useful and I don't see the benefit in writing him off because of specific disagreements.

Totally agree. We need to be better than theTRAs and Lefty Purists.

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman

MaMaLa321 I remember, way back when I had my children, the way that people like Harriet Harman made me feel valueless because I chose (and was able) to look after my own children instead of being a cog in the money-making machine I remember that vividly. I bitterly resented the vibe (which also came my way from a supposedly feminist SIL) that I wasn't doing anything useful, and hated the pressure to go back to 'work' - as if I wasn't working my arse off (I worked part time from home as well).

It did occur to me at the time that one reason that 'housewives' were held in such low esteem was because we weren't the journalists and politicians: we were largely voiceless.

It made it very clear to me that our biology and our urge to care for our kids are the root of our oppression, which is one of the things that makes me so suspicious of the trans issue: a transwoman is never going to be oppressed in the same way as a natal woman. Whether trans rights are being used as a battering ram, I dunno. Need to to listen to the interview.

The business bout pregnancy and the urge to care for children being what disadvantages women is at the heart of a lot of the divide on this. A lot of feminist thought has tended to minimise the pregnancy aspect, assuming people will have small families for example so as to minimise the effect pregnancy has on a career. And then saying that the woman's desire to care for children is simply socialised or learned, so we could easily transfer half of caring to men, or paid carers, if we wanted to.

I think part of what people are seeing as Murray being anti-feminist is that he (and I think Rogan as well) doesn't believe that particularly, he thinks that pregnancy maybe isn't a minimal disruption in itself and women are at least somewhat biologically inclined to caring for young children, as a group, and that the knock-on effects of that are significant.

You could attribute that viewpoint to him being a man, or gay, or going to Eton, but the fact is that lots and lots of women also believe that. And a lot have felt let down by the effects of policies that assume they should just get over the desire to work as mothers and send their kids to daycare and go out to work. A lot of those women would much prefer policies that accommodated the idea that mothering is real work and I think it's a major draw towards conservatism for many women.

There's no question as to why states have tended to prefer the women as workers idea, and it's not because they want to help women.

I think part of what people are seeing as Murray being anti-feminist is that he [...] thinks that pregnancy maybe isn't a minimal disruption in itself and women are at least somewhat biologically inclined to caring for young children, as a group, and that the knock-on effects of that are significant.

I think this is very true. Feminism has long stood for the idea that the only differences between men and women are learned and socialised - but this makes no sense when you consider our long gestations and especially the long time of infancy when our babies cannot survive without us. The maternal instinct is a real thing.

And - to throw something of a spanner in the works, sorry! - a lot of women are also very anti-abortion, which feminists just won't accept as a legit viewpoint or as anything other than sheer stupidity and internalised misogyny. I think in the UK we have a reasonable legal situation but in the US I think a lot of women have avoided the left, and feminism in general, because they don't believe that laws on abortion should be more liberal than they are. I think we have to acknowledge that very many women don't support abortion and/or believe it to be morally wrong, and this is another reason why they might vote for Trump. I once heard a self-proclaimed feminist teacher telling a roomful of 30 young women that they were wrong and stupid for being morally opposed to abortion. Afterwards, she said that she was sure they all agreed with her really because why wouldn't they? I'm pretty sure that is 30 young women who were turned off from feminism for life.

queenofknives

Yes, that's just it. In fact last time I looked at the numbers, American women were more likely to be pro-life than men. You see a similar thing in Canada where we have no laws against abortion at any stage, and even a woman who supports something like the laws the UK or the Netherlands have is supposedly anti-woman and anti-freedom.

The fact is that lack of willingness to talk deeply about issues and avoid labelling has affected feminism longer than trans activists have been using the technique. Lots of women who share many feminist goals have basically been demonised as handmaidens for disagreements around mothering/careers, paid childcare, and abortion.

queenofknives and Goosefoot I agree 100%.

What is also rarely discussed (I think I’ve heard Jordan Peterson talks about it but that’s about it) is the fact that a woman’s ‘window’ of fertility is so much narrower than men’s and occurs at precisely the time when major career jumps/promotions should be happening.

We have entered a time in society where half of kids are expected or expecting to attend University. Even that’s no longer enough - you need a gap year somewhere and a masters/post grad qualifications on top. It means men and women are often not entering the ‘world of work’ until their mid to late twenties which then leaves limited time for women to build up careers and start a family.

Whilst we all know women who’ve had babies well into their forties and beyond, we all know it’s a hell of a lot easier for men to put off having kids without having to worry about sacrificing fertility.

Hence the push to various technological solutions to try and even the playing field, and it's not just futuristic stuff. Paid surrogacy is one we see now being pushed, or eg freezing which really doesn't solve much. But also, birth control and abortion have both been seen not just as about autonomy but as ways to shape women's biological responses to be more like men's fit them in with a capitalist model of work. As has the ability of artificial formula, breast pumps, even the rise of cesarean sections has been used to try and remove some of the biological organic unpredictability of the body processes to serve the world of work.

To me it seems profoundly anti-woman in the most basic sense. To which the reply I received in my younger years from feminists was "you are defining women by their biology". Well, now we know where not defining women by their biology gets us. And that's not some kind of statement that means I think women should only wear skirts and all have 16 children.

I thought Joe Rogan seemed like he'd really got this when he was saying that women are expected to produce and sustain life from their bodies, and compete in a capitalist environment at the same level.

Well then of course the outcomes are not equal.

Could they be?
And should that be the goal?
and how would we address that?

This has never really been grappled with, and feminist approach of putting the unequal outcomes all down to discrimination and misogyny hasn't solved the problem for women, and it won't.

What we really need is the processes and activities of the child rearing years to be valued, and women financially protected to do this role if they want (marriage is the best protection as long as you're not married to a twat, which unfortunately many women seem to be.)

Then we need a re-entry process/ fast tracking system for women who want back into focusing on their careers later. But how do we not allow the lack of experience/time missed to impact this?

I'm very lucky in that I took an 10 year career break to be mostly at home, and then went back into work, and with the support of my non twatty DH, have been able to enjoy a fast acceleration in my career while he takes more of a back seat to keep the home running (he still works full time but he picks up the slack so I can concentrate on work).

I'm 'lucky' though, but maybe this is a model we should have been advocating all along? A move to: take in turns in your 30's/40s/50s between men and women, rather than the have to do it all at once model which is so hard for many women.

I think it’s ironic that capitalism - which relies on new entrants - places no worth on child rearing.

@DryHeave

I think it’s ironic that capitalism - which relies on new entrants - places no worth on child rearing.

My thought is that it is not so detrimental to capitalists - the people who own the means of production - to have poorly educated, institutionally raised workers. They can still consume, and they can still work, even at very technical jobs that require years of university training. It's just higher order thinking that is a challenge for them.

I'm 'lucky' though, but maybe this is a model we should have been advocating all along? A move to: take in turns in your 30's/40s/50s between men and women, rather than the have to do it all at once model which is so hard for many women.

A good approach I've seen for those who find a partner in time is to have children while the woman is fairly young, and then she can pursue higher education and career. Perhaps starting when still doing part time care. I any case that is still a good long stretch of time for a career for those who want it.

I don't know that we could ever expect that as a group, you would see identical outcomes in terms of experience and such if many women chose to take some time, or a lot of time, to raise kids. But TBH I am not convinced this matters so long as they still have access to material security.

As far as marriage being the best security so long as husbands aren't twats - yes. And vice versa too, marriage failure is bad for women and kids whatever the reason. Recognising that, it would be interesting to consider whether our society really encourages the kind of thinking and values and habits that make people good husbands, or make for good marriages generally. I tend to think they don't, on a lot of levels.

It isn’t really odd that the right and feminists are in agreement on some issues.

There are some issues - the reality of biological sex, that paedophilia is immoral, that almost everyone agrees with, apart from a mostly male political group on the left.

Why was Cuomo not on the ballot?

Cuomo would be a ridiculous choice considering his state’s handling of coronavirus. Personally I thought Mayor Pete would have been a fine choice but they were likely afraid black voters would not have come out (so to speak) for him.

We will see the divide between pro-life and pro-choice women if Amy Comey-Barrett (ACB?) is nominated by Trump.

There’s a big assumption on Mumsnet that pro-lifers are men, but ime most I’ve met have been church-going women, typically middle aged. It’s almost a single-issue voting bloc.

Male voters don’t seem to really care as much about abortion, as it doesn’t affect them so intimately. Just my observation.

It isn’t really odd that the right and feminists are in agreement on some issues.

It's not odd because feminism isn't aligned to the left. The suffragettes included many religious and conservative women. If feminism is simply the fight for women's rights, then it doesn't belong to any particular political movement.

Having said that, I just watched Julie Bindel debating on that Intelligence Squared event, and it made me decide I'm not a feminist anymore. She was saying that "no feminist worth her salt" could possibly align themselves with a conservative group and she was loudly arguing for men to be banned and cancelled if she deemed them to be unacceptable in their views. I was embarrassed for her and thought, I don't support this at all. I support women's rights and equal opportunities, but Julie Bindel has made me renounce feminism!

Sorry, that sounded like I was disagreeing with you Stripes - I agree with your point, I just went off on a bit of a tangent!

You don't have to denounce feminism Queen, you can just denounce that type of feminism.

I've been bemused for years around the 'all feminists are left wing' core assumption. Even when I was what was regarded as left wing.
All feminists want equal rights and opportunities whether right or left.
But they'll disagree on solutions.

Fine - as there is no easy solutions so disagreement is inevitable!

They'll also disagree on equality of outcome as an aim.
Again fine - it's an ongoing tension in addressing the issues, not easily resolved.

But why argue only one political side want rights and equality of opportunity? How does that help women?

I'm not denouncing it - I'm renouncing it! Well I suppose a bit of denouncing can't be helped in any renouncing. To be fair I've been feeling this way for a while, but JB brought it into focus for me. It's just another tribe, another form of identity politics. You can see it clearly when you realise so much of 'feminist discourse' is simply arguing about who is or isn't a proper feminist. I've also noticed it a lot when people ask if I'm a feminist and I have to explain, well I'm this kind of feminist or that kind of feminist - and then realise there isn't a name for the kind of feminist I am and probably other feminists don't think I'm a proper feminist at all. I just believe in equal rights and opportunities for women. I would rather focus my efforts on specific issues and campaigns and just let the whole 'feminism' thing go.

But why argue only one political side want rights and equality of opportunity? How does that help women?
Exactly. It's just more of the same tribalism/purity that we see in every kind of identity politics.

Yeah I get you.
Too much time discussing what to call ourselves, what the definition is, who isn't 'proper'.
Sound like anyone you know...😁

That's why I love posie.
She's opted out of the giving a fuck what the TRAs or 'proper' feminists call her.

She speaks and lives her own truth.

To be fair I've been feeling this way for a while, but JB brought it into focus for me. It's just another tribe, another form of identity politics.

I’ve been feeling this way for a while too, but the vitriolic remarks from ‘feminists’ about Posie Parker’s ‘run in’ with the BLM/trans activists in London brought it home to me. She was referred to as ‘white supremacist Barbie’ and there was a great Twitter pile-on by the blue check brigade which was really unnecessary. These are people who have been ‘cancelled’ for holding perfectly reasonable opinions so should be slightly more mature about engaging in this sort of shite.

Anyway, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m just not ‘interesecitonal’ enough for modern feminism and some of my views on abortion and marriage would not be considered progressive enough. There are important debates to be had, particularly when it comes to parenting and economics, and they’re often occurring outside the boundaries of what the left will dare to discuss. I’d rather listen to the likes of Bret Weinstein, Heather Heyling and Glen Loury nowadays for sense making.

the vitriolic remarks from ‘feminists’ about Posie Parker’s ‘run in’ with the BLM/trans activists in London brought it home to me

I didn't see those comments but they don't surprise me. I agree with you that the discussions we most need to have are happening outwith the boundaries of the 'left'. Since we won most of the important legal battles, feminism has morphed into identity politics and it's as poisonous as any other kind of identity politics. I wish I'd been able to see this twenty years ago.

God my brain is slow today. I mean to say, yes, Posie has been villified by feminists. It's appalling. I understand completely why she doesn't call herself a feminist. And yet she is doing a lot more for women and girls than most feminists who consider themselves to be so right.