"The answer Is Mumsnet, I believe"

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

This is a good thread with contributions from Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman in response to 3 men who are perplexed by the level of "TERF representation in the UK elite".

It's a strong argument for the importance of MN's campaign about the Online Harms Bill. I hope Justine and MNHQ are proud.

Sarah Pedersen identified MN as a subaltern counterpublic in a recent paper (riffing off Nancy Fraser)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4478528-theyve-got-an-absolute-army-behind-them-womens-cooperative-constellation-in-Scotland

The term subaltern counterpublic was conceptualized by Nancy Fraser (1997) as

“parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (p. 81).

counterpublic.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/an-introduction-to-counterpublics/

@doublemonkey

I'm still waiting for my extreme right funding by the way. Has anyone else received theirs yet?

If you pay by direct debit, it’ll automatically appear in your bank account, otherwise you have to fill out a special form. HTH 😁

I think mumsnet has been a coordination point, for sure. And while anonymity has downsides in the kinds of beahviour it seems to create at times, on this issue it allowed people to talk much more openly than they felt they could in places where they were named. At one time, really contentious social issues were talked about more openly in certain real, public places. Even when I was in high school I remember really serious discussions on abortion, that were much more sophisticated than what I see in the press today. And also in universities. And the same for other issues - universities have stopped being places where people can really dig their teeth into such questions, work out the problems. Which happens here, within the discussion where there is disagreement difficult problems get raked over, worked out, elucidated. But I think only because we can't really threaten to call people out with all the modern consequences.

That being said, I do think there are other issues. The fact that in the US political partisanship is so reflexive is a problem. Here in Canada it's also that many of us reflexively define ourselves against Americans. We are also ill served in terms of our press, mainly because of our small numbers - there just isn't the multiplicity of editorial views.

And then I would also say, there is a lot that I suspect comes down to the different political traditions. The US, Canada, places like Australia - our politics was born in the Enlightenment, at a time when people began to believe it was possible to construct a whole new political order. Liberalism was born there. While the UK has a liberal tradition it was built on top of a well established conservative tradition that has a kind of continuity or development that goes back 1000 years. Even the left in the UK is rooted in that tradition which I think has very different foundations than the politics of the Enlightenment. It's based on a much more organic sense of the person and family and maybe place - less abstract.

The British system seems more inclined to take a Chesterton't fence approach. And also it may be significant that in places like Canada and the US, documents like the Constitution can over-ride the will of the House, as can the courts, in a way that is not the case in the UK.

I also think colonialism plays a role in places like Canada but I am not really sure what the link is.

@doublemonkey

I started reading mumsnet because of fat balls.

There, I said it, I won't be shamed anymore!

Me too! That was the first thread I read here!

@AuntyFungal

I stay for the sporn ^^

There is a very disturbing and noticeable overlap between FWR posters and Sporner Corner posters I've noticed. That's a curious and worrisome Venn diagram right there.

Correlation or causation? As an evolutionary psychologist I'd say an urge to groom (sporn) may correlate with an urge to care (feminism). Also, being impervious to pain when healing is necessary.

I remember the days of MN being a radicalisation portal .

@HemanOrSheRa

I remember the days of MN being a radicalisation portal .

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3357096-Razor-blades-and-stickers-again?pg=1

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

The problem is, many British young people don't either. They seem to be importing their politics and ideology wholesale from the USA and have very little idea about anything that happened here, the law, political (and religious) landscape and culture before the US-based social media and streaming services colonised their minds.

I've commented on this in a very different area to do with the differences in ingredients and the understanding of different ovens in the US and what it means when people are baking those recipes in the UK. People with no understanding of the differences argue with me all the time because it's just never occurred to them that the basics of egg sizes, the protein of flour content, the fat content of butter and various creams etc. is different.

Stuff as basic as that flies past them. With all the differences in the constituent states of the US (state v. federal) for various rights, I have no optimism that they can understand the cultural and other differences you outline for the UK.

You can add their palate to that as well. When we first moved to the States, not knowing about any of this, first food shop we bought bread, butter, cheese and ham to make quick sandwiches for the kids.

Made a sandwich. Couldn't eat it. The salt content in each of these was so high, the kids were spitting it back out. Same with cake recipes. Sugar content way too high.

Of course, once you know about this difference, it's easy to navigate it - buy unsalted, adjust the recipes etc.

But the first step is knowing that there is a difference and I found that very many Americans do not know. And where they do become aware of a difference, whatever area of life it is in, many assume that the American way is the superior way. Often not even considering for a second that it might not be.

So, yes, on this debate we are encountering the same basic ignorance on the differences in equality law. American commenters like those three not even stopping for a second to consider that UK law may in fact offer superior protection to American law. Or that we have here two laws interacting in complicated ways that need to be navigated if we change one of these laws. And that interaction needs to be considered and debated.

On Mumsnet and everywhere else. Because these laws affect us all.

@AuntyFungal

I stay for the sporn ^^

Nominative determinism, right there.

@MangyInseam

I think mumsnet has been a coordination point, for sure. And while anonymity has downsides in the kinds of beahviour it seems to create at times, on this issue it allowed people to talk much more openly than they felt they could in places where they were named. At one time, really contentious social issues were talked about more openly in certain real, public places. Even when I was in high school I remember really serious discussions on abortion, that were much more sophisticated than what I see in the press today. And also in universities. And the same for other issues - universities have stopped being places where people can really dig their teeth into such questions, work out the problems. Which happens here, within the discussion where there is disagreement difficult problems get raked over, worked out, elucidated. But I think only because we can't really threaten to call people out with all the modern consequences.

That being said, I do think there are other issues. The fact that in the US political partisanship is so reflexive is a problem. Here in Canada it's also that many of us reflexively define ourselves against Americans. We are also ill served in terms of our press, mainly because of our small numbers - there just isn't the multiplicity of editorial views.

And then I would also say, there is a lot that I suspect comes down to the different political traditions. The US, Canada, places like Australia - our politics was born in the Enlightenment, at a time when people began to believe it was possible to construct a whole new political order. Liberalism was born there. While the UK has a liberal tradition it was built on top of a well established conservative tradition that has a kind of continuity or development that goes back 1000 years. Even the left in the UK is rooted in that tradition which I think has very different foundations than the politics of the Enlightenment. It's based on a much more organic sense of the person and family and maybe place - less abstract.

The British system seems more inclined to take a Chesterton't fence approach. And also it may be significant that in places like Canada and the US, documents like the Constitution can over-ride the will of the House, as can the courts, in a way that is not the case in the UK.

I also think colonialism plays a role in places like Canada but I am not really sure what the link is.

Very interesting take, thank you.

What do you mean? Which rights do trans people have in the UK that they don't have in the US?

I don't know every single difference, not least because of the variation in US state laws but in the UK transpeople are protected against discrimination in the workplace under the EA2010, they have the same rights to access healthcare as anyone else...these are not givens in every US state.

I believe that those who call us TERFS are bigots.

of course bigots by nature, if you ever point it out to them you can almost smell the burning brain matter thru the screen as they try and process it, fact is I have yet to speak to a single one of them that even understand what the word bigot means lets alone has any self reflection.

And amercia is a horribly backwards country with womens rights, we are not great but they are bloody awful, 2 weeks maternity leave, sentencing women for murder who miscarry, their attitude to abortion is shameful, they are at least 50 years behind us on womens rights and about 80+ years behind places like Scandinavia.

Witches, Ross Douthat has been paying attention! Check this article out...he's found our arguments and is taking our side.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220413173054/www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/opinion/transgender-culture-war.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20220413173054/www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/opinion/transgender-culture-war.html

I don't know who that writer is but to have that in the NYT is a big deal

What a well put together article. Really thoughtful analysis.

That is a very well written article.

@Fenlandia

I don't know who that writer is but to have that in the NYT is a big deal

The writer is Ross Douthat and the man who was quoted in that tweet from the OP.

That's a powerful (and accurate) ending:
we have been running an experiment on trans-identifying youth without good or certain evidence, inspired by ideological motives rather than scientific rigor, in a way that future generations will regard as a grave medical-political scandal.
Which means that if you are a liberal who believes as much already, but you don’t feel comfortable saying it, your silence will eventually become your regret .

Interesting article. Thank you for link k.

Ross Douthat is a very conservative Catholic right-wing commentator. Not my favourite person. But as is the case in the UK, the right fight for the word they need to keep biological women down, while we fight for that same word to exist so that we can fight their attempts to re-subjugate us. In the short run our goals are the same, but in the longer run they are opposite.

As others have noted here, the situation is hundred times worse in the US than in the UK. The Democratic Party is completely in the trans women are women in every possible aspect camp, and any attempt to address the problems that come from clashing rights cause ostracism and canceling.

The way out of this situation is likely to be much longer than in European countries, with many more individuals who later regret getting bilateral mastectomies and testosterone shots before they are even able to vote. The private nature of the health care system makes things worse, because the financial motives are much greater there, and the initial political polarisation makes measured debates extremely unlikely to happen.

The National Public Radio (closest to the BBC in some ways, and usually thought of as producing very good, wholesome programs for children and also good documentaries), something all granola-eating and Birkenstock-wearing Liberals there support, recently published this book review:

www.npr.org/2022/03/14/1086399119/in-manhunt-a-virus-turns-anyone-with-enough-testosterone-into-a-feral-beast

It is a fevered dream (or nightmare) about a future dystopia where TERFs get their skulls cracked by trans women and JK Rowling dies in a fire with all her supporters. The author is a trans woman.

@Thelnebriati

''a co-ordination point''

Men slapping themselves on the forehead for allowing more than 3 women to meet.

Except in brothel, or in grave

I want the Jeff Tiedrich quote on a tshirt

In the short run our goals are the same, but in the longer run they are opposite.

I think he acknowledges as much in his piece? After the comedy of the initial tweet this was a wholly rational, calm and clear piece and that final para has a killer blow. Great to see in the NYT after all their bullshit and wonder what the response has been?

Thanks for the share.

Yes. The piece is very even handed and while he has clear position, he is not dismissive of other perspectives, but seeks to set them out in full including where he thinks those adopting those positions are coming from in a sympathetic way, without sacrificing nuance. It is a really good piece.

Some brilliant posts.

A further problem is the way the UK has imported the personalisation of politics. I am old enough to remember being shocked at the US approach to Presidential elections, with TV commercials laying into the personality of the rival. Whilst in the UK we changed government every so often, but elections were about policies not personalities and the papers analysed these.

I am sure the mirror exists in Surrey golf clubs, but I mainly see affluent left leaning educated London type s slam into just about any Tory politician, though women get it worse than men. Vile, evil, bigot are three common words. I am no fan of Boris but believe he got vaccine development right and is equally correct on sport and trans. Almost enough to get me labelled as a right wing fascist. Personality not politics. “I read in the Guardian” is not a substitute for individual critical thinking. The ability to read a paper with a different editorial line and both accept that you will agree with some things and be confident on why you disagree with others, is a good skill, and not least help understanding of why others hold different views.

MN for me has been access to a range of views, experiences and backgrounds. I hope my own attitudes and approaches have broadened from the opportunity to hear those of others. FWR is particularly important, with rational and intelligent posters quietly setting out the reasoning behind their views, particularly to our regular and intransigent ploppers. There is nothing more illuminating than male sounding posters coming on a thread telling women what they should think, and women coming back with good and informed arguments.

to the MN mods for all you have done to keep the debate open.