Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Jane Clare Jones on navigating non-agreement/infighting

210 replies

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 24/06/2022 20:37

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

OP posts:
TheCurrywurstPrion · 25/06/2022 11:49

For all the divisions, I was pleased to see the exchange between Kathleen Stock and PP:

twitter.com/docstockk/status/1539337442649587712?s=21&t=Z_yNwYw87E-hw7AvxEeG7A

twitter.com/standingforxx/status/1539352108574687236?s=21&t=Z_yNwYw87E-hw7AvxEeG7A

I think that we will push ahead despite the divisions. The movement is way bigger than any one person’s opinion. Also Posie, as well as getting to the heart of the issue, and attracting in women who would otherwise not get involved, she’s actually quite astonishing in that she really does seem to be holding a space open for any woman who wants it.

picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2022 11:49

No, @LoobiJee . That's not what I'm saying.

EaselArt · 25/06/2022 11:50

This is the sort of tedious ,self righteous,intellectual waffle, that has allowed trans activists and grooming gangs to proliferate in the first place.

picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2022 11:54

To clarify, people who are not steeped in a certain vocabulary and context would not consider them racist.
That context maybe an academic one, I think it's probably a politically left one. I'm not widely enough read in those fields to know.

I'm highly educated. I'm experienced in my field. I'm unfamiliar with queer theory, critical race theory, in fact political and social science theory of all kinds.

picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2022 11:54

picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2022 11:54

To clarify, people who are not steeped in a certain vocabulary and context would not consider them racist.
That context maybe an academic one, I think it's probably a politically left one. I'm not widely enough read in those fields to know.

I'm highly educated. I'm experienced in my field. I'm unfamiliar with queer theory, critical race theory, in fact political and social science theory of all kinds.

Actually that needs editing-

"Many people who are not steeped in a certain vocabulary and context would not consider them racist."

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 25/06/2022 11:59

Thank you @Signalbox

JoodyBlue · 25/06/2022 12:15

I think anyone who has followed Kellie from the very emergence of the TRA ideas can see that she has only ever been on the side of women. She doesn't self censor. What that means is her agenda is out there for all to see. She stands for women and children, our language, our rights, as they stood in 2015/16. Very very few of us are brave enough to do that. I wish I was, I'm not. But boy do I applaud her for her courage. Also for the consistency of commitment she has given this cause for years.

Moreover I do remember her as a mumsnetter - the kindness she showed other posters. Her need to understand things, to get to foundational thought, around all of the window dressing.

Thanks for posting the twitter interchanges with DocStock above - I was pleased to see that.

LoobiJee · 25/06/2022 12:31

picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2022 11:54

Actually that needs editing-

"Many people who are not steeped in a certain vocabulary and context would not consider them racist."

Thanks for clarifying the education point. (Although I’m still not clear whether you think her tweets are racist. Not that it’s any of my business really.)

A topic I’m interested in, and it’s a discussion for another thread really, is: when is it acceptable to observe that something - eg an institution, a belief system, a culture, a group of individuals - is misogynistic and when isn’t it acceptable to make such observations?

Another topic I’m interested in is: what is the hierarchy of things that get you banned / make you persona non-grata in a particular group or situation? It’s interesting to observe these in-group hierarchies.

I wondered if your post might have been prompted by similar thinking, hence my interest in it.

Cailleach1 · 25/06/2022 12:45

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 think this is saying 'birds of a feather, flock together'. End of. PP is reaching out to work with others to expose this stuff and raise awareness about how false the foundation and premise is. These paragraphs above seem to say that if PP does this, then she is condoning (and maybe even agreeing with) all the other opinions and political views of those who join the fight against this ideology.

I think that is disingenuous. Does that mean that those who fraternise with males who use women's single sex spaces also agree that it is ok for males to use single sex spaces. Where is the disapproval for those who seem to form alliances with males who teach to secondary school pupils presenting themselves as a woman. Alliances for those who appear to encourage the social transition in schools of 'trans' pupils by using their pronouns and new name. Now that we know this may set those kids on a one-way path. If it is not ok to tar those with that accusation, then it is unfair to tar PP as also adopting views of the people who cooperate on the fightback against this faux rights movement which disadvantages women and girls.

TL;DR.

PP has sought to utilise people who disagree with this ideology. A faux rights movement which damages women and girls. But the author seems to think that alliance on this one issue compromises PP on all others. Yet, I haven't seen this disapproval on others who have what some might view as dodgy alliances.

NATO may be a good example. The members are in an organisation to co-operate in a defence alliance. Even Greece and Turkey are both in NATO. The current prime minister of Turkey could be said to not be the hottest on human rights. Are all the other members ever accused or guilty of agreeing with that PM on everything?

EaselArt · 25/06/2022 12:58

KJK summarises the issue with Woman adult human female. Will talk clearly to anyone on the issue.
Intellectuals - 40 paragraphs of navel gazing and the dilemma of how to be kind to minorities and ignoring their misogyny. Also will not have dialogue with non approved outlets, even though those outlets are misogynistic, also showing signs of snobbery patronising and internalised misogyny and racism. They are superior to the little housewives and patronising to other cultures, it’s just as racist to not see or gloss over misogyny. FGM and arranged marriage was ignored for years, because the hand wringers didn’t want to criticise cultural differences which adversely affect women.

Pluvia · 25/06/2022 13:03

Signalbox · 25/06/2022 11:46

.

Wow. Well, that's Sarah Ditum down the drain. Publicly dissing other women who are fighting on the same side of you in a war is a really shitty thing to do. PP really rattles them, doesn't she? I'm really going off WPUK now.

Datun · 25/06/2022 13:05

The infighting is nothing new. Even since I've been on Mumsnet, it's been going on.

Fighting for women's rights is fucking hard. Women doing in the public eye are inundated with negativity. The things I have seen written to many of these women are just horrifying, soul destroying, ruining your faith in humanity. I'm sure you develop some immunity. But even the knowledge that there are people out there who think like this, is pretty debilitating.

You'd have to be a fairly remarkable person not to develop all sorts of prejudices just based on your personal interactions.

When a person from group A winds you up, or says something you think is quite awful, you start to side eye other members of that group. It's human nature. Hence the personal attacks on peoples situations, or social attitudes.

And feminism is a tricky one. Logically people can imagine how successful feminism would be if everyone was on the same page, everyone stood up at the same time, and everyone refused to budge. The desire for everyone to agree with one's own process is overwhelming. It's the sure fire knowledge that a united front breeds success.

Especially feminism, because we are half the population. We sooo have the potential.

So there is a conflict. The desire to unite and get everyone on your side, coupled with an equal and opposite desire to stop people who disagree with the way you want to do it. Even though, ostensibly, we're all trying to get to the same end.

And social media is this double edge sword. Posie and the women from WPUK would never even see each other, or know what the other was saying, if it weren't for social media. It would all be behind closed doors.

All the disagreements are amplified because everyone knows bloody everything that anyone has ever said. Ever.

It's impossible to manage all that. It takes too long, it's too energy sapping, and everyone knows it achieves fuck all.

It would be good if there was a conscious decision to just not rise to any of it. However difficult that is, and however much you think it compromises what are you doing.

But that's just another example of me wanting people to do what I want, because I think that way is best!

Notmanybroadbeans · 25/06/2022 13:18

EaselArt · 25/06/2022 11:50

This is the sort of tedious ,self righteous,intellectual waffle, that has allowed trans activists and grooming gangs to proliferate in the first place.

I have to agree. I waded through that text with increasing dismay. It's a good thing that a single issue can bring people together and expose us to other viewpoints. Why should we have to agree on everything? Left and right alike know the earth isn't flat! This whole issue has made me realise that, to me, freedom of thought is absolutely sacrosanct, and I no longer feel any loyalty to the left, particularly as they are the ones who are keenest on conformity of opinion. A huge blind spot for so many people, and what has got us into this mess.

GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder · 25/06/2022 13:28

"It would be good if there was a conscious decision to just not rise to any of it. However difficult that is, and however much you think it compromises what are you doing. "

I agree with this. I think posie manages to do this most of the time, but does react when pushed far enough. Whereas her detractors are still reacting to things said years ago, seemingly unable to just ignore the person they have such intransigent views on, and move on.

Floisme · 25/06/2022 13:33

To be fair I'm not sure it was PP who kicked off this latest row - the first shot I saw was from Julia Long (although I know she and PP have worked together). Anyway it's heartening to see Standing for xx tweeting in support of Julie Bindel today. That's the way it's done.

Datun · 25/06/2022 13:38

Anyway it's heartening to see Standing for xx tweeting in support of Julie Bindel today. That's the way it's done.

I haven't seen that. And yes it is.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 25/06/2022 13:40

Datun · 25/06/2022 13:38

Anyway it's heartening to see Standing for xx tweeting in support of Julie Bindel today. That's the way it's done.

I haven't seen that. And yes it is.

It's very Dworkin. And I say this in the knowledge that not all women consider themselves feminist.

“Feminism is a political practice of fighting male supremacy on behalf of women as a class, including all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who use to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with any more. It doesn't matter who the individual women are.” -- Andrea Dworkin

OP posts:
Datun · 25/06/2022 13:47

Datun · 25/06/2022 13:38

Anyway it's heartening to see Standing for xx tweeting in support of Julie Bindel today. That's the way it's done.

I haven't seen that. And yes it is.

I'm not on Twitter, so I'm not really on top of the ins and outs, but it looks to me like Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel and JCJ are sending out positive vibes.

Those nauseating, fury and hate filled misogynists in Bristol probably didn't realise what they were setting in motion.

Floisme · 25/06/2022 13:58

What's also interesting is that I only saw one person retweeting the WPUK statement on PP this week I'm not going to say who that person was and of course I'll have missed some, but several 'big hitters' who I'd normally have expected to line up with WPUK held their fire. And good for them.

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 25/06/2022 14:11

I really like the NATO analogy above from @Cailleach1

DrLouiseJMoody · 25/06/2022 17:22

Ah, JCJ who never posts three tweets when fifty will suffice. Still, at least she kept it to 40. The last blow up involved a 98 tweet thread stream of consciousness trashing several women including me - at least with this thread I only need to take one wine break.

My disappointment in the WPUK statement stems not from their stated political commitments but from adducing screenshots and it being about one woman. Of course it's OK to say: "We have these lines and these are our political commitments" but, at this point, many remarks such as calling PP "white supremacist Barbie", a"t-shirt flogger", etc look very much like bullying. Those are not comments I'd expect feminists to be saying. And if you question the ad hominem attacks you're labelled a "Posie Stan" which is unthinking - I'm simply someone who, for a good while, has felt belittled, bullied, and lied about by JCJ and her friends for the crime of being a little too straightforward.

It's naive to think we can all get along or make common cause because we agree on one issue. But statements such as the one WPUK have made and Ruth Serwotka's posts serve, as far as I can tell, no-one other than TRAs.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 25/06/2022 17:55

Datun · 25/06/2022 13:05

The infighting is nothing new. Even since I've been on Mumsnet, it's been going on.

Fighting for women's rights is fucking hard. Women doing in the public eye are inundated with negativity. The things I have seen written to many of these women are just horrifying, soul destroying, ruining your faith in humanity. I'm sure you develop some immunity. But even the knowledge that there are people out there who think like this, is pretty debilitating.

You'd have to be a fairly remarkable person not to develop all sorts of prejudices just based on your personal interactions.

When a person from group A winds you up, or says something you think is quite awful, you start to side eye other members of that group. It's human nature. Hence the personal attacks on peoples situations, or social attitudes.

And feminism is a tricky one. Logically people can imagine how successful feminism would be if everyone was on the same page, everyone stood up at the same time, and everyone refused to budge. The desire for everyone to agree with one's own process is overwhelming. It's the sure fire knowledge that a united front breeds success.

Especially feminism, because we are half the population. We sooo have the potential.

So there is a conflict. The desire to unite and get everyone on your side, coupled with an equal and opposite desire to stop people who disagree with the way you want to do it. Even though, ostensibly, we're all trying to get to the same end.

And social media is this double edge sword. Posie and the women from WPUK would never even see each other, or know what the other was saying, if it weren't for social media. It would all be behind closed doors.

All the disagreements are amplified because everyone knows bloody everything that anyone has ever said. Ever.

It's impossible to manage all that. It takes too long, it's too energy sapping, and everyone knows it achieves fuck all.

It would be good if there was a conscious decision to just not rise to any of it. However difficult that is, and however much you think it compromises what are you doing.

But that's just another example of me wanting people to do what I want, because I think that way is best!

This is such a fabulous post Datun that really sums up the complexities and stresses that women fighting this face.

It would be good if there was a conscious decision to just not rise to any of it. However difficult that is, and however much you think it compromises what are you doing

Very wise - thank you..

Slothtoes · 25/06/2022 18:16

I haven’t read a feminist text apart from online, ever, either. I think this sneering at other women’s lives is individually horrible.
It’s also counterproductive to the political working of the wider cause and is a sign of individual people losing sight of the greater good of being actively gender critical ie benefiting all women. As per Dworkin quote which is excellent.
The NATO analogy is excellent.

Please can someone explain how women can raise concerns about (evidenced) cases of misogynistic activities perpetrated by men in minoritised racial groups, then, in a way that isn’t racist, (and without calling me a racist for even asking that question?) Because we can’t just ignore things that are happening that are wrong, based on who’s perpetrating them.

Slothtoes · 25/06/2022 18:29

I don’t expect women to be friends or agree on everything, just to agree on the thing they are campaigning on or just the small part of that campaign that they can agree on. Or set up their own campaign.

We will defeat the erasure of women only through legal cases and Parliamentary action. I’m sure nobody needs telling that MPs love a coalition or a clearly aligned single issue campaign. And more to the point that MPs will run a mile from putting their weight behind causes full of infighting and factionalism in splinter groups.

All of the UK political parties have let women down appallingly on this issue of gender identity and trampling on women’s rights and none of them deserve our loyalty on this. Honorable exception was the communists I believe. That doesn’t mean we can’t vote for a party or prefer one, but it is objectively true that on this issue they have all been equally dismissive of women.

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 25/06/2022 18:35

I really hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but I've been reading a bit about the 'grooming gangs' again as a result of this thread this afternoon.

@Slothtoes I don't know much about the detailed criminology of it really, but maybe a good place to start framing a discussion around 'grooming gangs' is to acknowledge that it's contested. Dr Ella Cockbain has done some work on trying to explain this in the mainstream media.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/19/home-office-report-grooming-gangs-not-muslim

I've also got my suspicions about why Priti Patel chooses to keep certain tropes active and not others, while failing to actually tackle the disgusting and widespread group-based and family-based sexual exploitation of children in the UK across all demographics.

Swipe left for the next trending thread