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

Unfortunately I think WPUK genuinely believe the left owns the women’s movement, even while the left treats them with contempt.

The urge to lecture women has been intense these past few days. I really do want to appeal to those with that urge to just stop. Stop it. We're all sick of it.

I think we've all seen an ugly side to the left wing branch of politics that believe they own the narrative. But the more they lecture & condescend, the more they alienate women.

I think it was in Allison Bailey's case there was Judith Green of WPUK who gave evidence on the prevalence of those who hold GC views. Her evidence (and LGBA's too) was compromised because they're not a membership based org, they don't survey anyone for their views & they don't seek to build a consensus from any collective efforts. So WPUK evidence of who or how many people hold the views AB held (which she argued were the basis of the discrimination she experienced from her chambers) was easily pulled apart.

WPUK are not solely about women - they're about Labour Party politics & trying to keep control of the narrative. Even when that's to the detriment of some women. If I didn't know better I'd think posie had been out in the US actively campaigning to get roe v wade repealed.

The left & right are both culpable in the shit show we are currently in & neither gets a pass from me on what's gone on & how we got here.

So please, quit the lectures & maybe come back with a better more concise message of you have it - preferably one that doesn't condescend/belittle/smear.

*Some of them sound like TRAs.

There are people in lots of social movements like this. And they need to be hauled in when they behave that way. Because when it's allowed to pass it legitimizes it when your enemies do it.

The fight against the erasure of single-sex spaces has been broad-based in the UK. But it's one thing to work with Tories like Emma Nicholson and Miriam Cates and quite another to work with the US right who are absolutely intent on destroying abortion rights and have no truck with same-sex marriage and so on. You really are playing with fire if you get involved with those people.

I agree with you Molly and Grumpy, and especially, Grumpy with your description of WPUK. They’re never going to break ranks with Labour - at the next election they will probably cook up some ambiguous, wafer thin compromise over self ID and present it like some kind of triumph.

And I still think there’s a place for that given the likelihood of Labour being at least part of the next government. But like I’ve said, I don’t think WPUK have any business attacking other women for their alliances while they themselves are allied with people who would legislate women out of existence. The hypocrisy is really starting to stink.

Playing with fire is anyone insisting that we have to pretend that males become women.

That’s what’s driving good sensible, intelligent, atheist, fair minded people to look for other groups - because the people we were with have suddenly become batshit!

If the far right religious Fox News crowd sound more sensible than the bbc liberal Islington crowd surely at some point people have to start asking what the fuck has happened.

But more in line with this thread, yes the in fighting is grating.

The tweet on another thread from a prominent feminist telling people not to listen to KJK just sounds petty, unprofessional and controlling.

The Staniland question is so good because it’s sharply reframes the issue and challenges the responder. Reams of prose makes it sound like there is something to debate when there really isn’t. The beauty of M Berns was the directness and accessibility - real practical terms of how this well affect people and that’s what people respond to.

It’s an all hands on deck situation and controllling who gets to be heard has helped get us into this mess.

The US is a total bin fire on women's lives. The attack on them right now is from both the right and the left. While roe v wade is overturned by the right, the left is pushing to overturn title IX.

Getting involved in any US politics is playing with fire & it's utterly pointless pretending that there's any virtue left in choosing the democrats over the republicans when it comes to women's rights.

The current shit show is a failure across the board. Even while the dems & the likes of the ACLU are soliciting donations off the back of roe v wade being overturned, they're still refusing to even name those whose rights they've decided don't matter.

This is from a thread by a US law professor on the reasons roe v wade was overturned:

"I think the effort to replace biological sex with gender made the advocates for Roe/Casey incompetent to argue for women’s rights. Men are not women and the difference matters on a lot of levels. The left & Biden marched forward with a brief that ignored women and their history."

Link to tweet

There currently is no 'side' with women's interests core to their aims in the US. That's the sobering reality.

WPUK was formed by women who had been involved in feminism in the TU and other movements for years. They make no secret of the fact that they're firmly of the left and will not compromise that.

The left continue to let them down badly. It seems to be that they've created pretty much the only space on the left where gender ideology can be criticised, so hardly allying with the leftist reality deniers.

Re: Allison Bailey's trial. Yes, it was easy for the defence to poke holes in Judith's evidence, the reasons for which sort of proved Allison's point.

Of course they don't take and distribute photos of the demographic of attendees of their events. Of course they don't ask people who attend meetings to complete EO monitoring forms. Of course they don't have a database of members.

They can't do these things because it would deter women from attending meetings or getting involved in other ways. It would also put individual women at risk of being doxxed, harassed, sent death threats, rape threats etc etc.

Their statement about PP this week was probably a tactical error. Although the responses to their post which contained PP's tweets were alarming in their denial that PP's comments were racist.

This. I'm a lesbian feminist but I don't think JCJ's contribution is helpful. I understand, though, that she's got a book out and needs to keep her profile up. I sort of wish the OP hadn't introduced it to this platform and I hope the women of MN can avoid the purity spiralling. I'll read JCJ's book as I've read the others. I think I've had enough books now, though. It's beginning to get repetitive. As for Ruth Serwotka's 'zombie housewives' remark, it reveals the 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others' attitude of some women's groups.

"Of course they don't take and distribute photos of the demographic of attendees of their events. Of course they don't ask people who attend meetings to complete EO monitoring forms. Of course they don't have a database of members. "

That's an interesting take - considering WPUK members regularly berate women who are anonymous online when they're being criticised. They can't have it both ways - criticism of women who are anonymous online & claiming they're respecting women who don't want their identity revealed.

Women aren't put off by those things - they're signing petitions, donating to crowd funders, writing to & visiting their MPs/MSPs, challenging councils. They're even making regular donations to WPUK giving them information that they have at hand - but don't then think of using that to find out what those supporters think. All of these things mean they're not anonymous. So claiming WPUK can't do anything to understand their own audience or ensure they're even on the same page as the women they're claiming to represent (without any form of mandate, given they don't hold any data on those supporting them & don't seek their views or opinions) is not plausible.

WPUK cannot maintain their arguments of having any mandate to negotiate women's rights if they aren't even listening to women. If women are good enough to solicit money from to fund their aims, then they should be good enough to be asked for their views & opinions to make any claims of representation based on consensus. As things stand, WPUK aren't doing that. And appear to have zero intention of doing that.

But it's not just WPUK - none of the orgs we currently have are doing any work to ensure they're actually reflecting women's needs & views that I'm aware of, to ensure they're not formulating actions or policy that has blind spots. We should all be at a point by now where our collective organising is not just reactionary & knee jerked by the actions of others but but being pro-active in find out what women need & want.

So sorry, I'm not buying the 'of course' arguments here. WPUK are choosing to cut women out of any discussions while claiming to be representative of women. That's not a position they can realistically hold long term.

If I hadn't been part of feminist / lesbian groups for nearly 40 years I'd be despairing at this. But (and this applies to most political groups) splits and divides on ideological / political grounds usually happen. I'm keeping my eye on the fact that we are making a profound impact.

FINA and other sports finally stepping away from the lobby groups stranglehold and acknowledging that facts and science are real
The interim report from the Cass review setting out the abysmal standards of health care for children and the dangers posed to children by the captured NHS
Journalism - finally reporting what's happening and learning to use factual sex based language
The threats of violence against women being openly reported
So many people talking openly, knowing about JKR, Stock, Forstater all the rest.

At this stage it demands great self discipline not to be distracted from this and to keep pushing on - exhausting as it is. As WalrusSubmarine said upthread:

It’s an all hands on deck situation and controlling who gets to be heard has helped get us into this mess .

WPUK was formed by women who had been involved in feminism in the TU and other movements for years. They make no secret of the fact that they're firmly of the left and will not compromise that.

Yes I get that. But I question your claim that they're hardly allying with the leftist reality deniers. Do we think that if let's say, Lisa Nandy, who supports locking up rapists with women, were to become party leader, that WPUK would want to talk to her? Of course they would. Given that Nandy signed a pledge describing WPUK as a hate group it would be compelling to watch, but my point is that WPUK would would want to talk, seek some compromise and, if push came to shove, they would urge women to vote for her. I don't understand how that isn't an alliance, and some would ague, a pretty dangerous one too.

I don't even criticise WPUK for doing that. What I do criticise them for is the hypocrisy.

From memory it was a verrrry shitty dig at women with famalies who were not feminist enough in the right way for a clique.
A woman, housewife, mother, carer, not reading the right books, etc etc
A woman just stepping up and saying "wtf? this ideology / policy has a negative impact on my life" is bad because they did not agree with the paramaters imposed.

TBF, it sometimes its the letting off steam stuff, that people are normally clever enough to use a closed message app for. Not PSAing it out on Twitter. But the woman who its attributed to is doing the "named person, whatever her name is" routine.

'Domesticated zombies' was a tweet from Ruth Serwotka. I remember it very well because Ruth took a dive in my estimation that day from which she has never recovered. The same applies to Sarah Ditum who, as I remember, replied with a 'lol'.

This is just another dig at KJK, isn’t it.

Go and enjoy some time off Jane.

"Although the responses to their post which contained PP's tweets were alarming in their denial that PP's comments were racist."

Can anyone see why many people may not agree that PP's comments were racist?

I think that conversation needs to be had. You can't declare it racist, without accepting the concerns of the person making the statement and demonstrating how to reframe it in a way that isn't racist. That is a conversation for a different thread, but it needs to be had. Just because you've worked it out doesn't mean everyone else can, especially if their context doesn't deal with such things. If you've not been on unconscious bias training, received good quality diversity and inclusion training, or grown up on a Uni campus, it simply isn't evident to you.

Agree with MrsOverton These divisions have always happened on the left, within feminism and we carry on, and it is interesting that this particular one has arisen at the point where thousands of women are doing a range of actions that have started to impact the crazy ideology that impacts women in so many ways. We are winning the argument and things are changing. Many of us who would put ourselves in the broadly left camp, cannot ally ourselves with political parties that seek to ignore us. If the parties on the left cannot see this more fool them. We all have huge amounts of commitment to keeping the rights that we have and all of it should be valued and acknowledged. We can and should, have private conversations about why and how we can best achieve our aims without public mud slinging.

It's public denouncing, isn't it? Not just mudslinging, or disagreement.

I understand JCJ/WPUK position here. If they want to reclaim the left and persuade Gender Ideologists on their own side over to being GC then I appreciate they have to demonstrate that their arguments fit in with other left values. The problem I see with that is that firstly if you’re so busy trying to demonstrate your purity to people who thing you’re bigots you’re expending energy fruitlessly and secondly you’re potentially alienating women who would support you but don't because they see you as elitist.

It was the same with Brexit. If you call people who are thinking of voting leave racists then you alienate people who might have voted to remain.

I understand where it comes from but ultimately I think it comes down to whether your aim is to reconcile GC women with the left (or the left with GC women) and rebuild that or whether your aim is to challenge gender ideology and there are many more ordinary women (people?) who care about the latter than the former.

twitter.com/ruthserwotka/status/1471136318260404228

Thanks signalbox, that really helps. Looks like an accusation of being a stepford wife, really. Charming.

The tweet it responds to has been deleted. What did that say?

Then someone says 'the sarcasm is obvious'. Which tweet is sarcasm? I find Twitter a difficult place to understand quite a lot of the time tbh. (I freely admit that I don't seem to get the 'nuance' the way other people do.)

.

So what you’re saying is that: you consider the content of KJK’s tweets to be racist, but that individuals who are insufficiently educated won’t recognise them as racist. Is that correct?

(I’m not being arsey by the way, I originally read your post to mean something different and wanted to check.)