Feeling really conflicted

[Tittie]

I've been lurking on the GC threads for quite some time, but don't feel articulate enough to contribute, compared to some of the brilliant posters here!

I peaked about 2 years ago. I remember confidently describing Mumsnet as transphobic to my friend not long before that I can't even remember what it was that changed my mind.

Anyway, there seems to be more and more coverage of trans/sex/gender issues in the media at the moment. It's making me incredibly uncomfortable that I find myself agreeing with newspapers, celebrities and politicians that I would ordinarily distance myself from (eg the Daily Mail). I am 100% gender critical, but I have this nagging doubt about who I am both agreeing and disagreeing with. Is anyone else feeling conflicted in this way?

Zoe Williams, Guardian journalist, is currently having a row with Janice Turner on twitter. In the course of arguing for removing the word woman from health literature promoting cervical screening, she has said that any woman who speaks English as an additional language and who doesn't know the word cervix, and sees it on health literature, should just google it.

Zoe Williams has gone from being an incisive writer to TRA useful idiot. She hasn't, as far as I can see, provided any thoughts on how women who don't speak English will know they should Google this term.

I remember, when pg with DC1, reading a column of hers ranting about the ridiculous food guidelines given to pregnant women, not based on risk but instead the sexist assumption that we were too stupid to work it out ourselves.

Perhaps she should re-write it for today, explaining that we can identify our way out of sexism because men can have babies too?

What did it for me was following the 50:50 parliament thread. Honestly, it was like everything became clear and the power imbalance shone out as vividly as the contempt a certain poster had for anyone who didn't agree with them. Just be aware if you read it that there are hundreds of deleted posts. This again shows the power in play - the vast majority of posts did not break rules (I alone had 2 removed but no strikes) it's just clear that someone does not want them to be read by others. Once you realise it's all about power, everything falls into place.

this is a good point to make - when I first started on here I assumed that deleted posts must have been saying something actually bad or unkind but having seen what gets deleted I realise that it is generally nothing of the sort.

I think this a general point where you assume that if you see a particular reaction to something it will be proportionate. You may be totally unaware of the details of the issue that has caused this reaction but you assume that a strong reaction means that something really bad has happened.

It is not until you find out the details of what caused such an extreme reaction and realise that it was something perfectly reasonable like stating a basic fact-based view that is reflected in law (for now).

An awful example atm - an amazing lady called Hibo Wardere is campaigning against FGM - she is getting all sorts of terrible accusations and pile-on's against her from certain groups.

If you had no information about her campaign, you would think, that she must be doing and saying terrible things against trans people but she doesn't even mention them - she is purely focused on raising awareness against FGM and the suffering of the girls.

I think part of being the oppressed sex, is that you automatically feel kinship with other oppressed- so initially anyone transitioning, because you get what it's like to be treated badly. The trouble is, people are then so keen to support rights of others, that they forget that their own rights were hard won and pretty tenuous still.

Totally agree with everything that has been said about tribalism being a real problem. I was properly tribalistic before this issue, on the left of left, I'd like to think it's helped me grow up and accept others' viewpoints. I still find it hard, as I am rather hot headed.

On a different note, the Hitler was a vegetarian thing is a myth. Hitler ate goose liver and various other unusually vile meat products. He was a big fan of offal. The vegetarian myth was started by him as propaganda. It had a small grain of truth because he liked to have plant based meals for his health.

I realise that is extremely off topic but it really annoys me when that fact is used against people who don't eat animals for moral reasons. As previous poster said tofu is not a gateway drug to Nazism.

And neither is women's rights.

On a different note, the Hitler was a vegetarian thing is a myth. Hitler ate goose liver and various other unusually vile meat products. He was a big fan of offal. The vegetarian myth was started by him as propaganda. It had a small grain of truth because he liked to have plant based meals for his health.
I realise that is extremely off topic but it really annoys me when that fact is used against people who don't eat animals for moral reasons. As previous poster said tofu is not a gateway drug to Nazism.

I did not know this. Thank you. I'm going to find out more. :)

I think the tendancy to tribal thinking runs deep in us all - perhaps because its a neat simplification, its good guys v bad guys and the good guys -like us - triumph is such a satisfying narrative.

Once you realise it's all about power, everything falls into place.

Current thread about how power is important in this debate.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4169150-Pseudo-realities-Power-and-Language-Games

Apologies for double post

Zoe Williams has gone from being an incisive writer to TRA useful idiot.

Zoe Williams has been banging the TRA drum for a long time. This is an article from 2013.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/are-you-too-white-rich-straight-to-be-feminist

But then I heard Helen Belcher of Trans Media Watch speak at a public meeting this week. She said the media had three ways of portraying trans people: "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 number of times you get costs – usually inflated – set against the money you could have spent on kiddies. The third is trans as comedy."

In other words, all the prejudice that has been disallowed by modern standards is now concentrated on this one, pretty small group. It is very extreme, these days, to refer to gay people as deviant, but still allowable to make this insinuation about transsexuals. It is apparently permissible, in our mean-spirited age, to talk about how much disabled people cost the state, but I can't imagine it would be OK to laugh at them. Transsexuals are dealing with a prejudice way out of proportion to their number, facing not only the people who hate the idea of transsexuality but all the people who wish they were still allowed openly to hate gays, openly to laugh at the disabled – hell, probably a few who wish they could still openly despise women.

And now that supporting TRAs means openly despising women, Williams still supports them.

@PotholeParadies

What puzzles me is why other people don't worry about what they're agreeing with.

Zoe Williams, Guardian journalist, is currently having a row with Janice Turner on twitter. In the course of arguing for removing the word woman from health literature promoting cervical screening, she has said that any woman who speaks English as an additional language and who doesn't know the word cervix, and sees it on health literature, should just google it.

That is an incredibly right-wing, pull-themselves-up-by-their-bootstraps, learn-the-language attitude to take to immigration!

I can't get over Zoe Williams saying that a poorly educated (because of sexism in her home country) immigrant woman, who speaks English as a second or third language (and may speak it rather than read or write it), should 'just google' a word she doesn't know, to see whether it may have relevance to her life.

And this is for the benefit of who, exactly? Privileged people who have the luxury of having enough time and money to navel-gaze about their 'gender', who would not be in the least bit confused if medical services which apply to only one sex were still labelled 'male' and 'female' or for men only or women only.

Pandering to privileged navel-gazers at the expense of excluding disadvantaged groups. So inclusive.

I remember that Zoe Williams' articles on pregnancy were pick and mix. I got very irritated with an article on vitamin recommendations for women to prevent birth defects that she said were sexist. I can't remember the details now though but it was something to do with folic acid consumption. Possibly whether or not you were pregnant?

You know what I think is sexist? That the bulk of parenting falls on women. That the impact of raising and parenting a disabled child especially almost always seems to fall on women, to the detriment of their own physical and psychological health and to the detriment of their careers, which then has a knock-on effect on pensions. So women who have been carers ended up impoverished in old age. That's sexism.

Recommending that women should think about folic acid intake if there's a possibility that they could get pregnant and they would choose to continue the pregnancy is just information reflecting biological reality. Yeah, biology sucks, but pretending men and women are the same and treating them "equally" isn't actually feminism. It doesn't liberate anyone in the long-term, it just blinds you to class inequalities.

A couple of years after that, Zoe Williams got pregnant and didn't realised until after 20 weeks, which I feel just proves my point.

Fortunately for many of us, it is mandatory that various foodstuffs in the UK are fortified with folic acid, for the sake of pregnant women who don't yet know they're pregnant, and that is something I wholly approve of as a feminist. It's not infantilising.

I agree with the 'water is wet' posters.

I also think it's worth saying that I think one of the things people (especially on the left) are uncomfortable with in relation to GC feminism in particular is that it involves saying 'no' to some things a group of people who genuinely are vulnerable and struggling (i.e. people genuinely suffering from dysphoria) really want.

It's a difficult, and very adult, thing to have to say to a minority, "I hear you, but I am going to have to say no to this particular thing you want because the evidence shows it affects other groups too negatively. We can talk and try to find another solution to address your concerns and struggles, but it can't be the solution you have fixed on because I have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of all people, and not only you."

It's similarly difficult to say, "society will not pay for this thing you believe will help you because even though you passionately believe it will, the evidence shows it won't and may actually harm you overall." (e.g. puberty blockers based on the Tavistock's latest findings).

I think taking such a stance makes many progressive, left-leaning people feel mean, authoritarian or patronising and it's more important to them not to feel like that than to do the right thing on the basis of the evidence in front of them. I can understand why that feeling is compounded by finding themselves in the same side as 'the right' or people they regard as in fact being mean, authoritation and patronising generally.

BUT. There is a world of difference between a 'no' that comes from a place of, "I don't give a shit about your struggles" and a no that comes from a place of careful thought and compassion for all, even if the immediate conclusion is the same.

Oh the irony of the woke left stifling free speech and claiming those they are shutting up are the bigots!

Removing freedom of expression and freedom of thought is about as right wing as you can get.

Echo chambers are being created where the far left believe that anyone with an alternative or offending view is someone to be banned and someone they need 'safeguarding against'.

This shift is mindset is truly astonishing.

Jackie very good post.
I think also women have been socialised not to say no or to push their own interests forward. Be kind felt a bit like a one way street.

Zoe Williams is wholly failing to see her own unequal and sexist thinking.

What makes her have these unequal expectations based entirely on binary sex based classes? Vulnerable women - ha, get on google, sort it out, do the thinking, stop expecting others to help you and be independent. Vulnerable transwomen? It's absolutely unreasonable not to adapt language entirely to avoid stress and distress for this group.

Protective instincts towards vulnerable women and a desire to understand and address their inequalities? No. None. Don't be silly. Intense protective instincts towards vulnerable transwomen. Not to mention she has fallen into the trap of in order to sufficiently prove her care to transwomen she must actively demonstrate her disinterest and lack of caring for women.

She has no sense that it is possible to care for both groups at the same time - and she hasn't questioned that either - and has not noticed that the underlying thinking in all of this, is that Zoe Williams believes, unconsciously and wholly, that natal male people are far more important, valuable and her responsibility than natal women.

If she'd unpack that a bit she might get further.

If you are agreeing with people you think are bad people usually, then maybe it’s your perspective on trans people that needs to change

So I should check all my beliefs and morals and if any are the same as people I generally disagree with, change them?

And would add.... she seems to believe that women as a sex class are intrinsically stronger and more able, and should be expected to sort themselves out.

Which is more than a bit sexist too. Being natally male doesn't make anyone less competent.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Jackie very good post. I think also women have been socialised not to say no or to push their own interests forward. Be kind felt a bit like a one way street.

Exactly this. Women have been socially conditioned (because it suits) to always place themselves last, to be subservient, to feel ashamed or embarrassed about their no and to view it as cruelty. Strangely the very people who would claim to applaud ‘gender non-conformity’ really don’t like it when we are ‘gender non-conforming’ by being assertive on this particular issue.

I do feel conflicted as I do have trans friends and family and DD has a number of mates who are non binary etc.

I have a different sort of perspective to some in that I am personally not bothered by sharing spaces with trans women, or my daughter doing so, but I also understand why other women, especially those who have experience abuse, do not feel comfortable doing so and should be able to express that without being called TERFS, transphobes or told they want transwomen to die etc.

I think ultimately the current 'genderfluidity' stuff of kids like my DD's generation will ultimately be a good thing and result in greater freedom of expression, I don't think permanent harm will be done to/by the vast majority of people involved (though even a handful is too many) as almost all kids will desist before any medical intervention. But I do think services need to move away from 'always affirm', especially for girls - and particularly in cases when it's come out of the blue, if they're on autism spectrum, have mental health issues/trauma, or when they just have a lot of peers who identify as trans etc. A lot of ordinary teenage angst, discomfort about body and who they are becoming etc seems to being misidentified as gender issues. Does that make me 'transphobic'? Probably according to some people.

I can't get over Zoe Williams saying that a poorly educated (because of sexism in her home country) immigrant woman, who speaks English as a second or third language (and may speak it rather than read or write it), should 'just google' a word she doesn't know, to see whether it may have relevance to her life.

Yes, it's so racist and classist. It's really sad that this is what Guardian writers have become.

@Edenember

I really wouldn’t worry about it. Tribalism is one of the core thinking errors underpinning many of our troubles in the modern world at the moment, and to begin to accept and consider nuance, not blanket dismiss or deride, not be reflexively or reactionarily defined by things, is a sure sign of actual maturity (not the false sense of maturity you get from setting everything neatly into boxes and thinking you’ve got the world sussed). This polarisation we see happening is so damaging. Agreeing on one thing doesn’t mean you have to agree with a person on everything. Disagreement does not equal hatred. I listen to people when they talk sense on a subject, it really is as simple as that. The thing I have soul searched about within my own politics (as a formally far more fervent and vocal leftie), is how many times in the past have I dismissed something a Tory has said as hatred, without looking deeper into the issue? How many times in the past have I jumped wholeheartedly behind causes and slogans without fully understanding what it is I’m supporting?

So much agree with this.

Yes, it's so racist and classist. It's really sad that this is what Guardian writers have become.

I think many of them were always like that. I think the scales have just fallen from my eyes.

I feel conflicted at times, but more that I wish I could just go along with all that bullshit for a happy life. I wish I believed them and this should have been my commnity, I dont agree with everything the RF or GC community believe either

I think 'gender fluid ' makes my eyes roll in the same way my inventing philosophy or sex at that age would have made my parents roll their eyes. People have been gender fluid for a long time- look at the glam rock movement in the 70s. I'd also take it more seriously if it didn't just mean swapping one stereotype for another. In that respect, it's a bit like the 'tribe' I was in as a teen, where we all wanted to dress differently, but just looked like crows with brightly coloured hair to to uninitiated.

I think ultimately the current 'genderfluidity' stuff of kids like my DD's generation will ultimately be a good thing and result in greater freedom of expression

I actually thought that was where we were headed in the 80s, but look where we are now.

The current fad for putting everyone into boxes according to their 'gender' is really anti-genderfluidity, unlike the 80s where it was just self-expression (but everyone still knew what sex they were).

And surely every man and woman who doesn't fit the stereotype is gender fluid. Dh cooks and irons. I have short hair and don't wear dresses. I am more competitive and sporty. I only know I'm a woman cos my body keeps reminding me of that fact, through a fun game of:"are we peri menopausal yet?"