Jane Clare Jones on navigating non-agreement/infighting

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

Jane Clare Jones on navigating non-agreement/infighting

I haven't said much over the last few days, because, like many of you, I find it all incredibly distressing.

I understand the desire for us all to stand together, and share the awareness that division and infighting is a gift to those that we are standing against.

I feel however, that this kind of conflict arises not because we don't all agree about certain things, but as a result of how we navigate the fact that we don't all agree about certain things. It has always been extremely important to me that as a movement, we are okay with

the fact that we don't all agree with each other, that we are free to question, discuss and respectfully differ, that we respect other people's boundaries, and what they say about what matters to them.

So a few thoughts:

1. This is a diverse movement comprised of people from all kinds of backgrounds, with all kinds of different skills, expertise, and talents. The work that is has taken to built this movement has needed all of those different skills and talents.

Women have put themselves to the task of using their own skills and talents to make a contribution to this fight in a spectacular range of ways, and with huge amounts of enthusiasm and imagination.

All of it matters.

We have tied ribbons, made speeches, dressed up, handed out

leaflets, organised meetings, written to MPs, given parliamentary evidence, made videos, composed songs, sent in FOIs, written reports, argued on Twitter, lobbied behind the scenes, done policy analysis, put up billboards, taken court cases, spoken to our friends in the pub,

embroidered banners, dressed up as suffragettes and dinosaurs, spent hours filling in consultations...

It all matters, it's all needed.

We are trying to shift a massive edifice of ideology, and discourse, and policy capture, which is backed up with significant amounts of power.

It has to be attacked on all levels, in multiple ways, by people using many different skills.

Getting the message out to the general public is a massively important part of that battle.

I believe that as a movement, we have accomplished that. This issue is now fully breaking

through to the mainstream. I believe there are many reasons why we have been successful in doing that. Part of the reason is because we have very successfully taken apart the nonsense that is gender identity ideology, and have used clear arguments and data and analysis to

demonstrate that there are numerous problems with this ideology and with its implications. We have also consistently shown all the ways in which this ideology, while masquerading as progressive, is actually based on very conservative ideas about gender, is homophobic,

is against the principles of materialist and class based politics, is individualist and consumerist, and has wrapped itself up in the discourse of anti-racism, while actually using extremely racist arguments and imposing itself all over the world in an imperialist way.

I think these arguments are true, and I think they matter.

I also think all the detailed legal and policy work matters.

I also think getting the message out to the public, in as many ways as possible, matters.

If we are to all PUUUULLLL together, we need it all.

I am concerned, and troubled, by a narrative which is gaining increasing traction, that suggests that there is really no need for arguments, or any thinking really, that everything is very simple, that all that is necessary to win this fight is to communicate a very simple

message to the public, that anything else is a distraction, or is just pointless, or is elitism.

I believe that that is a misrepresentation of how this movement has been built, and why it has been more successful in this country than in other places.

I believe we have been successful because we have done all the many things we have needed to do, and all of them are valuable.

2. As I suggested above, I also believe that one of the reasons this country was able to mount early and effective resistance to transgender ideology,

is because we built this movement on the basis of a critique of this ideology informed by progressive political values, by commitment to the rights of women, and gay people, and the effects of this ideology on the most marginalised and vulnerable groups of women, including

survivors of male violence, sexual exploitation, and women in prison.

The development of grassroots resistance in America has been terribly hamstrung by their culture war and political polarisation, and by how hard it has been for

American women to get the message out that trans ideology is not a progressive political project, and that it profoundly damages the interests of many groups 'progressive' people are supposed to care about.

I believe our ability to do that has been a key part of our strength,

and why we have been more successful here in getting our public institutions to start listening to our concerns.

While, as we know, there is a lot of not-really-understanding-that-women-are-people at work in the capture of our institutions and political parties, this is a basic

feature of a patriarchal society, and spans the political spectrum. I do however think that many of the people accepting trans ideology inside institutions do so because they unthinkingly think it is progressive and 'kind.'

If we remember the results from the 'More in Common'

survey a couple of weeks ago, what we saw was that the British public's basic attitude towards this issue was one of generalised tolerance and a wish to be accepting, but which, when you drill down into it, understands the need to draw certain boundaries where 'sex matters.'

That is, is was basically a moderate GC position, which is what we pointed out to the media commentators who tried to frame this as a conflict between two extreme groups.

That is, I believe that the message that will most effectively carry public support for our concerns is

one that adopts a basic 'live and let live' position, but which draws the very clear boundaries where we need to in the places necessary to protect the interests of women, gay people, and to prevent the damage being done to gender non conforming children.

I know we are all very angry, and tired, and distressed by this conflict. But I do believe it would be a grave strategic, and political error, at the point where we are making so much progress, to adopt a political position that I don't think is actually in tune with the public's

attitudes on this issue.

I also think it would be a grave strategic error with respect to making progress uncapturing our institutions, who have a public sector duty to recognise the interests of various different constituencies.

I have seen a fair number of comments over recent days to the effect that this is a single issue campaign, and that we have no particular politics.

In some significant ways this is true. At this point there are a very large number of different groups involved in the fight

against trans ideology, and many people are coming from many different places. In that sense, what is called the 'gender critical movement' is in many ways, no longer, the gender critical movement.

As we gained more traction, this was always going to happen. Much of the

discord we are seeing is perhaps a result of what happens as we expand far beyond the original constellations of women who have been involved in this fight for so many years, and of some political tensions in those constellations that we have never been able

to make our peace with.

3. For me, personally, and with respect to whatever role I have played and will play in the work we are all doing... the question of what we stand for, and why we are opposing this ideology, and from what political ground, is important.

I respect the right of other people to understand this as a single issue, to think that this is not political in a larger sense, or to assert that there is no political belief they hold that they will not compromise or abandon in order to win this fight.

I understand that some people think that we must take any help that we can get because of the severity of the situation, that we can deal with the consequences of any political principles we may have compromised later, and that not doing so is 'purity politics.'

I am not arguing that within the political landscape of this country, I have a problem with us working in broad political alliances.

However, I think it is important that within the context of this country, we maintain some portion of the movement that stands on the ground of

the political values on which many of us have built this movement.

I believe this not only as a matter of political principle, but because I believe it is key to our strength, why we have been successful, and how we can appeal the British public.

In addition to how much I hate seeing discord in a movement which is so often mutually supportive, sharp, charitable, and hilarious, I have found the last few days distressing because it has felt to me that a demand is being made that we all agree to an interpretation of this

movement that understands it as a single issue, and as without any further political commitments.

As I have said, I believe that losing that part of the movement that critiques trans ideology on the basis of all the ways it is regressive would be a grave strategic error.

That is also the basis of all the arguments I have made, it is the core of whatever work I have contributed to this fight, and all the ways I have tried to explain why the lies activists tell about us are lies.

So, if this fight is not, or is no longer, to be at least in part

grounded in certain political values, I have questions about where my work fits into it all.

I have been very tired for a good long while now, and was planning on taking most of the summer off to try and recharge.

I think now is a good time for me to take a little step back for the time being, to let the dust settle, to let this play out, and to see where we find ourselves.

The women's movement is my life. Thinking about why we live in such an unjust, exploitative, dominating, destructive

culture is my life. Trying to work out how we could organise the world to support women, to support the life they make and nurture, to protect them and the planet from exploitation, is what matters to me.

I will never stop trying to carve out spaces, whatever the opposition, to do that work, and to share it, with so rage and so much joy, with the women who want to hear it.

All my love, Jane xxx

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1540274208881741826.html

If you could edit your post down to a main point people may be more likely to get involved. Did you cut and paste an essay? I agree in principle, we can't lose sight of the ultimate goal.

Can you provide some context please? Those of us who don't Twitter don't necessarily know if there's been a new disagreement. Thanks

I agree with her completely, and think she articulates it well. I've been troubled by the divisions of the past few days, and saddened to see a number of feminists I really respect aligning themselves so firmly to the 'PP side'. I am here for feminism, not for 'resisting gender ideology at any cost'.

It's a WPUK / KJK split. Ruth Serwotka seems to be getting a lot of flack for creating division (and certainly I can see why she's upset people a number of times - "domesticated zombies" and so on), which has confused me a bit because it looks to me like the first blow came from Julia Long.

That is an awful lot of waffle. Wonder if she could do a TL;DR.

OP has posted someone else's statement on negotiating differences within the 'same side'.

It's interesting. I found it provoking.

My observer's take on it-

Some gender critical feminists are left leaning, hold fiercely to those values They are wary of aligning with people who superficially appear gender critical but are actually homophobic and regressive about women's rights, possibly from conservative patriarchal religions and racist to boot.

Some gender critical feminists are more conservative, may share religious reservations about some issues affecting women.

Some gender critical feminists don't care who believes what and will work with anyone if it stops this ridiculousness in it's tracks, and 'we'll iron out the differences later'.

I don't believe any of the extremely intelligent women involved is racist or homophobic, just because they have a more conservative outlook.

What actually happened? Does Woman's Place not support Posie because she's not of the left?

I've been troubled by the divisions of the past few days, and saddened to see a number of feminists I really respect aligning themselves so firmly to the 'PP side'. I am here for feminism, not for 'resisting gender ideology at any cost'.

Posie Parker is not a feminist. That's not a criticism, I think she's got far more common ground with feminists than some people who are allies on this issue. She appeals to many people who are Gender Affirming as well as many Feminists.

I think the line of who is an 'acceptable' ally is broadly the normal one in a democracy: anyone who doesn't espouse violence or similar extremeism. That said individuals will make their own choices. Many people won't support Tories or feel PP does more harm than good. The approach of having lots of different voices has been very effective so far.

I think that until self-ID is dead (in law and in practice) everyone who is fighting it should mostly leave each other alone and ignore the differences. Purity spirals about who has the exact right ideology are a large part of what is killing the Genderist side.

I'm not getting involved in their purity spirals, I'll buy JCJ book, I'll attend Standing for Women events, support crowdfunders when I can.

I'll float my own boat, eyes on the prize.
I don't care if I'm not 'pure' enough. I just wish they'd all keep it private. Julia Long, JCJ, KJK, Ruth, all of them. I'm not interested.

Does Woman's Place not support Posie because she's not of the left?

Some of the things PP says are, at best, very tactless and sound awful.

I've personally challenged her on comments to me about adoption and I've been really uncomfortable with some of her comments on Islam.

WP basically think she appears transphobic (in the actual sense, not the bullshit accusation), so harms what they are trying to achieve with politicians and policy makers. To be clear: I'm not saying she's bigoted (and I think there is huge attraction in her very blunt approach) but I can see why they feel the optics aren't great.

I think there is also some sense that they feel she could start an argument in an empty room and doesn't get on with several prominent feminists (though this is also true of Julie Bindel and others; valiant feminists are rarely meek and agreeable).

It’s not hard to understand that woo woo is woo woo wheresoever it originates. People I agree with on all sorts of other issues disagree with me on gender issues. People I disagree with on nearly every other issue agree with me on gender issues.

That’s because gender ideology is a wedge issue.

I just wish they'd all keep it private.

Amen to that.

‘To be clear: I'm not saying she's bigoted (and I think there is huge attraction in her very blunt approach) but I can see why they feel the optics aren't great.’

I think she probably is transphobic. I also think (separately) that she makes some excellent points.

I don't disagree with the idea that it's important to be able to talk about differences in views without having some sort of temper tantrum, which is what these twitter spats often seem to amount to. They always look much worse than whatever it is individuals are being criticized for doing or saying.

I do bristle a little at the emphasis she puts on being progressive, because I think that politically it's meaningless, and bears a lot of responsibility for sending people down the garden path. But that's a minor point.

I like JCJ but that tweet was about 40 posts long, I gave up reading it halfway through - and I'm someone who generally agrees with her and who likes words.
And this, I think is at least partly why PP has been so effective, because she cuts all through the crap and, she doesn't care what your politics are. PP is reaching women who don't consider themselves feminist and she is making the likes of WPUK look verbose and ponderous.

I've had so much admiration for WPUK but they are first and foremost a left wing organisation, and a women's movement second. They seem to think women owe the left their allegiance no matter what. They accuse PP of cosying up to the far right while they themselves ally with politicians who would jail women with rapists.

And that 'domesticated zombies' comment of Ruth Serwotka was despicable.

What actually happened? Does Woman's Place not support Posie because she's not of the left?

See what Woman's Place says:
womansplaceuk.org/2022/06/22/womans-place-and-posie-parker/

I think you have to tackle the words and not the speaker.

If Jordan Peterson is saying sensible things about what a woman is, great, cheer. If he's limiting women's reproduction rights, boo. Don't right him off as a rights hoarding dinosaur because, guess what? That's stealing from the other side's playbook.

While people agree with you, play nice. When they say something you don't like, make that clear. Attack their words, not who they are.

What was the domesticated zombies comment? I've seen reference to it, but not traced the source.

Not helped by my reading it as 'domesticated zebras', for some reason.

I thought she started really well by acknowledging there is not only room for diversity of opinion but there is real value in the work done by many, many intelligent and courageous women using their skills in the best way they know how. I agree that emphasising the regressive nature of the movement is important but there is also space for simple messaging too.

I'm becoming increasingly concerned by the requirement for ideological purity within the movement. I have no problem with people who still think the effort of trying to persuade left wing politicians is worth it but I do take issue with the attempts to paint any woman who has given up on that project as undermining the movement. I am more critical of the left because I expect better from them. I have never expected the right to be friends to women.

The difference between the left and right at the moment is that the left seems more committed to ideological purity than winning. The right are happy to exploit this issue for votes without really caring much about it. I see the left as beyond persuasion but I might be able to convince the right if they think there are votes in it for them. My priority is making sure self ID never becomes law. The left have also told me if I don't align myself with their beliefs then I'm not welcome in their party and they don't want my vote, that's fine by me, I will not demean myself by begging for consideration. I'm reminded of the US National Women's Party banner which said,

"no self respecting women should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex".

I am also reminded of Dworkin:

"The essence of oppression is that one is defined from the outside by those who define themselves as superior by criteria of their own choice.”

I refuse to be defined from the outside by the very movement I'm part of. I will not be bullied and shamed by gender ideology and I will not be bullied and shamed for failing to meet the feminist purity standard. If those are the requirements I'm happy to quit.

I agree with all of your post Floisme

I think a lot of it comes down to they feel they're losing control of the narrative as the movement grows. But that was always going to happen. They don't like it, I get that, but it's a sign of success.
I just wish ALL of them would stop raking it over. I've unfollowed a few people over all this on twitter. Some of them sound like TRAs.
The most sensible responses I've seen are from Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce. That's kind of where I am. Don't be distracted. Utilise people's strengths.
Nobody owns a movement.

I think there's a risk of falling for the other side's propaganda.

They are basically shouting 'Sarah's got cooties, ew!'. If we all shuffle away from Sarah, then the bullies have won.

I’ve already mentioned this on another thread so apologies if you’ve heard it before, but I was wandering around Twitter a few days ago, kind of following the trail of the WPUK/PP row, and I came across so many women - not big names, just ordinary women with small accounts - all saying that they didn’t like or trust feminism but that Posie was different, that she wasn’t elitist, didn’t look down on them for not being highly educated or not having careers, that she didn’t judge them. Several said she’d given them a voice, helped them grow more confident. I found it quite moving.

Posie is reaching women who are never going to read one of WPUK’s worthy statements, let alone a 40+ tweet from JKJ (much as I like her). Quite honestly some of them need to wake up.

I felt like that too. The irony is Posie reaches the women that WPUK think they represent. I saw some really moving posts about how they felt she'd given them a voice. Women who would never read a JCJ article or go to a WPUK meeting. It takes all sorts with different strengths. We don't all have to agree.

Jane Clare Jones is taking some time off, is the message I get from that? She suffers from the stress and fatigue of having to fight against multiple fronts.

Don't be distracted. Utilise people's strengths.
Nobody owns a movement.

This is what I now think, too. There are, of course, limits to the kinds of alliances we might wish to make to achieve certain specific goals, but on the whole I think that diversity within the gender critical movement should be policed with a fairly gentle hand.