Having a wobble

[Ravenclawsome]

I have been what I call "RadFem lite" - that is GC which huge helping of awareness of harms of porn, prostitution etc but not quite all the way on other aspects yet (may still get there - for a number of years.
Radicalised by Mumsnet 😂

But I find myself having frequent wobbles.

I have colleagues who I regard as highly intelligent who consider criticism, no matter how legitimate, to be transphobia.

And now there's the hoo-ha over the Alba women's conference, Stonewall and the ILGA documents.

I've read the relevant section and even if it's not what they meant, it's one possible interpretation and ambiguity is not a good thing in policy making IMO.

But colleague think this is calling gay people paedophiles.

It's not, but at the same time people seem to have forgotten the support for PIE in the past.

I just find the ideology to be sexist and homophobic and object to the extremists insisting I align with their beliefs over reality.

Am I really a bigot?

In terms of persuading non-GC people I consider the deployment of this argument against Stonewall to be counter-productive. There's no point trying to convince trans activists, so it's all about the undecideds and getting to the point of the claim is convoluted involving enough assumptions to make it off-putting for many.

If you're trying to persuade people of something this upsetting, you've got to make their journey to your point straightforward, otherwise they will be inclined to reject what you're trying to persuade them of. There's more at stake here than simply having an arguable claim.

Definitely worth reading the last few pages of Dr Hayton's thread.

Evidence in action.

Like pp have said, it's a good thing you think, you assess, you look at all the information and viewpoints. The number of people on twitter blasting JKR but not having read a word she'd written about the matter was mind bogling.

When nothing less than complete capitulation will do, no questions, no nuance, toe the line or we will turn on you, well that's nothing I'd want to be part of.

I agree with some things people say, maybe not all, and that's fine. It should always be fine. Focus on what brings you together, not keeps you apart.

Also important to reflect: do you believe that inclusion means exclusion of some for the benefit of others? Do you believe in solutions and progress that work for and value all? Or do you believe that some people matter and should get top quality care from society, and others don't matter and should be told they don't get that care and consideration, they don't deserve it?

Do you in fact believe in universal human and civil rights, equally for all, even the ones you don't like, don't agree with, don't have things in common with?

Toilets for example: plenty of women say they don't care. The point is that some women do . And some women will lose access to any facilities. To me, it is irrelevant whether I am personally affected or not. If any woman is going to be excluded from women's facilities so that male people can have the wellbeing of access to their preferred choice of facility?

I have a lot of problems with that.

The vocal trans movement are the very definition of bigoted. I am GC but I accept that for some people gender is very important. I would look for ways for all groups needs to be met. This could be by the addition of third, mixed sex spaces for example. Genderists accept no opinion but their own and, once demands are met, they demand more. They wanted woman now they want female. They do not want any way to distinguish between males and females. That helps nobody and renders statistics useless
There has been a growing acceptance within vocal groups of fetish and kink. I have gay friends who wouldn't touch Pride with a bargepole and believe it harms gay people.

I rather like this quotation. It indicates that this phenomenon, where many people are rushing down some collectively irrational and dangerous pathway, is not new.

“When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind.”

― C. S. Lewis

Yes, I agree with pp. it's a good thing to question your beliefs and understanding. Think whether the things you are being told or to accept have well-founded evidence and stand up to rigorous scrutiny, or if you're being expected to keep your thoughts and questions to yourself on some topics. Question everything.

I have gay friends who wouldn't touch Pride with a bargepole and believe it harms gay people

I’m a lesbian. My office is on the London pride march route. Once I’d have been thrilled by that & loved watching all the preparation & rainbow stickers everywhere & so on. Last time it was excruciating because now the rainbow feels like a threat.

I have colleagues who I regard as highly intelligent who consider criticism, no matter how legitimate, to be transphobia.

Some people are refusing to think this through because they're terrified of being labelled bigots. I'd expect a genuinely intelligent person to engage with the argument, confident that they could refute it. The fact that they won't engage implies they aren't confident.

I also like this from Galileo:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Wobbles are not a bad thing, OP. Keep asking questions, keep checking, keep looking for evidence, question the evidence, consider all angles, look at it from different points of view.

I don't know you, but your self-questioning alone suggests it's unlikely you're a bigot.

'Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance' (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)

Questioning your opinions and prejudices is the opposite of being obstinate or intolerant. The ability to consider the thoughts/feelings/considerations of the 'other side' means you are not a bigot.

Lots of arguments are made on emotional and sentimental basis. It's worth trying to work a logical, practical view, and laying aside the emotional appeals, as they are prone to manipulation and tend to obscure logic and emphasise bias.

As long as you keep questioning you're alright.

This is the problem with #NotADebate and the unquestioning faith demanded by gender ideology.

If they can't enter into debate it's unlikely that they are questioning their own assumptions.

I question myself and my views and assumptions all the time. I think it's great to do so.

Funnily enough i just get more and more radical the more I think about it.

I don't think I'm a bigot. But then I thought minidiscs would be around for ages
Ah, you’re having an ‘Are we the baddies?’ moment. You’ve had many in-depth, intelligent responses to that question so no need for me to add to them. On your second point however, I can enlighten you. I have recently sold minidiscs, blank recordable minidiscs, a minidisc Walkman and two minidisc music systems, on eBay. All for quite a decent sum with many watchers and bidders. They’re a reliable audio medium in terms of longevity and fidelity and they’re still popular and increasingly ‘fashionable’. But here’s the thing - you don’t necessarily know how popular and relevant they still are, simply because those who are in the know don’t always talk about them. Huh. So, there’s that.

Did I read that right, in the ILGA statement, they also want to decriminalise HIV non disclosure and exposure?

Yes (to Strange), in the link I shared above apparently many are misinterpreting the lowering the age of consent part, though I don't see how you can read it any other way.

Where are the kids being sent to juvenile prison for having consensual sex with their peers of a similar age?

I don't think there is a 'way' to read that or the HIV bit, it's pretty clear.

ILGA want those who knowingly spread HIV to not be criminalised.

Have ILGA responsed to clear it up, if it's just a.misundestanding?

@OhHolyJesus

Yes (to Strange), in the link I shared above apparently many are misinterpreting the lowering the age of consent part, though I don't see how you can read it any other way.

Where are the kids being sent to juvenile prison for having consensual sex with their peers of a similar age?

I don't think there is a 'way' to read that or the HIV bit, it's pretty clear.

ILGA want those who knowingly spread HIV to not be criminalised.

Even if that's not what they meant it is one way the only way IMO it can be read.
A grown up response would be "wow, we didn't think of that, let's tighten it up" not, "it doesn't say that. You're calling gay people paedophiles, bigots."

But if that ambiguity has occurred to feminists, you can bet your arse it's been noted by those who would seek to exploit it.

You really can't allow any wiggle room with policy documents relating to children.

One aspect Safeguarding is going through things with a fine tooth comb and working through how things play out in action in the future, using and learning from any recent examples.

The paragraphs and the lines from an ILGA document highlighted above list a vast range of contexts and ideals that are all very different if laid out separately (putting to side all the stuff about children and bodily autonomy, consent etc.) "Eg; "Gender affirmation."

This is a woolly term. Gender isn't a concrete or clear term. Affirmation isn't either.

Safeguarding doesn't do woolly. NICE has looked at the evidence for medical "gender affirmation" for young people and found evidence for efficacy weak or non existent, and indeed harmful.

The people shouting "bigot" are not deep diving into the details and the scenarios.

I've found that those who shout bigot have very little understanding of working in safeguarding. Those who do can see the issues through the rainbows and glitter.

Thread on times article

Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4217390-Times-article-about-Age-of-Consent-Stonewall-Alba?msgid=106429889#106429889

@Ravenclawsome did you read this thread?

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1381211390690660357.html

A grown up response would be "wow, we didn't think of that, let's tighten it up"

Yes, That's exactly how anyone with a 360 safeguarding head on would think.

Absolute clarity on what all phrases and words mean in concrete actual terms.

Not "don't criticise this you bigot."

Major red flags. 🚩

@WarriorN yes. Very worrying.

I am however still trying to play devils advocate to a degree.

Ie even if we accept that that isn't what group A means, group B pointing it out doesn't mean they are accusing group A of being paedophiles but acknowledging that group C, who ARE paedophiles, might take advantage of poorly defined terms.