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

Yes - I think the version of events that WPUK (either collectively or RS specifically) have spontaneously decided to kick KJK this week is incorrect and - perhaps because that idea fits nicely with a perception of WPUK as relatively powerful, snobbish and sneering - seems implicit in an awful lot of the twitter criticism of Serwotka. But it was Julia Long who lit the touchpaper (in a post-Bristol fb post which also named Suzanne Moore, Julie Bindel, and I think Claire Heuchan - basically saying "Look at the impact KJK is having, and the backlash she's receiving, which is perhaps partly the fault of these left wing feminist women who have previously said these negative things about her").

I think it's also interesting that KJK is contrasted as being the 'woman of action' vs these privileged middle class intellectuals. That view of the women Julia Long attacked in relation to KJK this week doesn't hold true, but it's a widely implicit idea.

There is something here about the power of populism, which the left has really struggled to defend against in recent years.

I think its regrettable that WPUK are clearly alienating some feminists. But I do think it's strategically necessary that they remain demonstrably non transphobic, feminist, and left-aligned. I understand there are many on board with KJK who are not bothered about those things (or the extent to which they are bothered is less urgent). I think there are some people WPUK are never going to reach; but I think they are much better placed to eventually influence institutions (including Labour and the TU movement, but also including NHS, LAs, central government etc) than KJK could ever be. We need both.

I was listening to Kellie talking the other day on one of her regular talks to camera (you tube). She mentioned mumsnet and said something along the lines of "who is very wise? Someone like... er...Datun". Thought you might like to know that @Datun, if you didn't already. I like the way she frequently speaks in support of other women from various backgrounds. She is also a great empathetic interviewer when women share difficult stories.

Sorry, I was really incoherent there (domesticated zombie trying to look after children whilst posting on MN!).

Essentially I wanted to comment on how many twitter posts seem to assume Ruth Serwotka is the source of current in-fighting, when she has responded to a v inflammatory post naming her; and on how KJK has been cast as the 'activist everyperson' in contrast with a bunch of intellectuals in ivory towers, which isn't accurate.

But it was Julia Long who lit the touchpaper (in a post-Bristol fb post which also named Suzanne Moore, Julie Bindel, and I think Claire Heuchan - basically saying "Look at the impact KJK is having, and the backlash she's receiving, which is perhaps partly the fault of these left wing feminist women who have previously said these negative things about her").

But that was after:
Julie Bindel and WPUK tweeted about the black bloc protestors without naming SFW or PP
Suzanne Moore wrote a piece about it, and managed to shoe-horn in that she thought PP was racist

Generally speaking I'm not interested in who started it and who was nastiest. I see people squabbling and sigh and assume that they've got some reason they feel justified, but it's essentially irrelevant to me.

I don't think anyone would get far in this fight without being strong willed and probably pretty scrappy. As a non confrontational 'be nice' girl, I'd have retired in a fit of vapours long ago.

Thank you, @Slothtoes , for raising your question and to @SpinningTheSeedsOfLove for starting to answer. It's what I've been trying to formulate since challenged by @LoobiJee .

My answer as to whether I think those statements are racist, is that I don't know. Knee jerk reaction- of course they are. Considered reaction- so how do we discuss the problems she's referencing.
I regularly learn on the Black MNetters boards that things I thought were unexceptionable are in fact deeply offensive. I read and stay quiet, trying to navigate to somewhere that makes sense.

Thank you Spinning that was a useful article. I can completely appreciate that it’s unfair to single out any one group over the multiple others- I can well believe that it’s a case of all men are like that.

Floisme WPUK have never urged anyone to vote for Labour. Never.

They have been and continue to work hard to influence Labour policy, which is because their political allegiances are firmly on the left.

I didn't see the Suzanne Moore piece, so on that point I stand corrected (although I do agree with her that PP has made a number of racist remarks).

I don't actually think WPUK or JB were wrong, or antagonistic, to take that approach to condemning the Bristol TRAs.

(I take a PP's point that it doesn't really matter who started it, and indeed where do you define a start point etc, but there are plenty of women on twitter talking as if Ruth Serwotka opened this can of worms.)

" I think they are much better placed to eventually influence institutions (including Labour and the TU movement, but also including NHS, LAs, central government etc) than KJK could ever be."

This is what I have a massive issue with. WPUK are positioning themselves to get a 'seat at the table' wherever or whenever that might be - but aren't representing women's general views or even bothering to try & find out whether they are accurately reflecting what women want. They are not a membership org, they do not canvass views & they do not seek consensus.

Judith Green at the WESC on GRA reform was woeful. They actively exclude trans widows by insisting that males claiming to be women are an important part of their movement.

They're standing still while women are moving way past them in terms of accepting some males in female only space. Those 'special' cases are the wedge that undermines everything else - because you simply can't keep female only space/services if that 'special category' of men get a free pass for being left wing unionists or a 'nice' person.

They've been active for about 5 years? They've barely moved the dial in left wing political spaces.

I think if they're presuming they can talk for women, they shouldn't be as closed off from women & alienating women the way they keep doing. They've a massive blind spot in terms of self awareness & even now, their most ardent supporters are conspiring on FB to keep looking for more and more gotchas on posie.

There's a grip of paranoia about them, all because they can't control the narrative on this whole movement. They see that as a reason to panic & lash out. In exactly the same way the left wing agitators do when trying to bring down a dissenter of gender woo.

They're frankly the last people I'd support sitting in any room trying to somehow negotiate with heads of the NHS or Prisons or Education or Third Sector. Because they're so earnest in their quest for left wing approval, they'll leave that wedge in place that undermines any work done on this. So it's a hard no from me on any WPUK representation in discussions on areas that matter most to women & girls.

I think they are much better placed to eventually influence institutions (including Labour and the TU movement, but also including NHS, LAs, central government etc) than KJK could ever be. We need both.
I think that's fair. I'm happy to acknowledge that, if we get a Labour government we could end up being very grateful to WPUK. What I object to - and apologies for the repetition - is that WPUK ally themselves with people and organisations that espouse policies harmful to women and girls (self ID, rapists in women's prisons to name two) and yet they attack PP for doing the same thing. I'm a pretty pragmatic person but I dislike hypocrisy.

Floisme WPUK have never urged anyone to vote for Labour. Never.
OK, I'm happy to withdraw that - we'll see what they do at the next election.

They have been and continue to work hard to influence Labour policy, which is because their political allegiances are firmly on the left.
I know, and that was why I described them upthread as a left wing organisation first and a women's movement second.

I think JCJ, WPUK and co think regular women who do what they can in their own spare time, care a lot more about JCJ and WPUK than we do. To me, they're all sources of information that has to be interrogated, weighed up, and used as you might need to in order to write to your MP or take part in a consultation or resist a crap initiative at work or in your kids' school.

There are likely reasons why Labour won't want Posie drawing attention to what's known to have happened in areas with largely Labour-run local politics. The screenshots WPUK posted are devoid of context but they invite the reader to have their own thoughts so mine were:

• these lack context and I can't even read all of what each one says, let alone what began the thread
• recently, a chief offender was also revealed to be a council welfare officer (which cannot have been news to those in the Council, surely including elected councillors), I imagine Labour wouldn't want attention on this. Posie would not, not mention this if relevant to her message
• Labour seemed to accept the most recent Rotherham report which found "oops! no further action and it's all different now anyway" and they're way off the public opinion in that regard

We can't know the extent of the "problem" of what's been called "Asian grooming gangs" because there is no reliable data. The report started under Javid and published under Patel concluded this. We on this board know that there are problems with data because we know that rape with a penis has been being recorded as being committed by women. The extent of that problem isn't known. But it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there might be deeper data problems. Better data might show what's gone on in largely Conservative-run areas.

As against Cockbain's Guardian piece, there was this with another perspective:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9070905/DAN-HODGES-reveals-inside-story-cover-abuse-young-girls.html

"a ministerial ally told me: 'Some issues get under your skin. And that's what happened with Saj. When you become Home Secretary, you get taken to see the unit that's combating child abuse. And they're literally looking at live streams of children being attacked. As a father, and a Muslim man, this was personal to him.'
I spoke to a number of Javid's aides who worked with him at that time. Each of them was clear on two important points. His intention was to produce a comprehensive and definitive report on child grooming. And that report was going to be made public.
...

One other key area – the one Ms Patel was careful to highlight in her foreword – was the lack of hard data on the ethnicity of offenders. It was an issue Home Office aides kept using as a rationale for not drawing a clearer link to the predominance of Asian offenders found in countless high-profile grooming cases. But as one official explained: 'They were right, there wasn't any hard data. But that was because people didn't want to record it or look for it because they knew exactly what they would find.'
Whatever the reasons, by the time Javid left the Home Office in July 2019, the fate of his investigation had been sealed. As one representative of the victims bluntly put it: 'The civil servants buried it. Saj was committed to it, but they were the ones who buried it – 100 per cent.'"

Equally, I read Conservatives for Women and I note what they do and don't talk about. I'm not incapable of seeing these features, weighing up what they all say and landing on what is and is not the least contested ground - backed up by evidence.

They all have agendas, we normal women aren't so stupid we can't see that. Thinking we need a long thread and lecture is as bad as the HQs of all the main parties thinking they can just throw us under a bus with GRA "reform" and we won't say anything.

GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder

Excellent post at 19.53. I'd be very worried about policy makers thinking WPUK speak on behalf of all women.

I don't think WPUK claim to speak on behalf of all women.

Their stated aims are very clear and freely available in the public domain.

I didn't like their platforming of Debbie Hayton, although it made strategic sense at the time as their primary campaigning aim was calling in the question and halting the proposed reforms to the GRA, which DH was vocally advocating against as well. . As far as far as things stand at the moment, that aspect of their campaign has been successful.

That was in 2019, I believe. Not sure that they'd platform DH now, tbh.

Given that, I wouldn't agree with the poster who said they hadn't moved the dial in left wing politics. They've created a space for leftist feminist organising in what is a very barren landscape and played a very significant part in halting the GRA reforms.

And, to be fair, the left are such a shit show at the moment, no-one else has been successful in 'moving the dial' either.

Couldn’t agree more. I saw a smattering of tweets about this on Twitter today. I despair.

I don't have a problem as such with that quote, but it does seem like it creates a situation where some people who try and follow that road end up appropriating, or negating, the voice of others.

So one woman may feel that state sponsored daycare, or unrestricted abortion, or shared parental leave, or some other set of things, is the path for standing up for women. But then there are also lots of women who disagree, and while they may understand and accept the difference of opinion, what they don't accept is the idea that they also are not standing up for women, or what is right and good. It's a very short space to say, those women's voiced against these things don't count because I don't see what they are saying as good for women.

It's the kind of problem that's reared itself on the left forever, with a group that sees itself as speaking for the interests of the unenlightened masses below, who will appreciate it once it's all come to fruition.

The Andrea Dworkin quote doesn’t say “standing up for women” or “what is right and good” though; what it says is: “fighting male supremacy on behalf of women as a class”. And that’s her definition of feminism. So in a debate about any of the examples you include, the first step would be to be clear about whether they constitute fighting male supremacy and therefore fall within Dworkin’s definition of what feminism’s purpose is.

It’s not clear to me that/how parental leave for men is fighting male supremacy. But no doubt some form of argument could be made. On the other hand, it is clear to me that opponents of women’s right not to be forced to carry a pregnancy and give birth against their will are supporting male supremacy.

I was in a cafe once listening to an overweight late middle aged man speaking in a very animated and emphatic way about how unfair it was to deny young women the opportunity to work as grid girls. So very unfair. And I thought to myself ‘hmm, I wonder why this topic is so close to his heart, rather than the barriers to women becoming judges’. I’m sure he thought he was standing up for women. He wasn’t fighting male supremacy though. He wasn’t Dworkin’s definition of a feminist.

What’s useful about Dworkin’s definition is that it provides a useful test to apply to all those tedious “but women want to shave their legs!” arguments and sort the wheat from the chaff in what to apply time, energy and focus on.

But isn't the mail point with the grooming gangs issue that people were not wanting to blow the whistle because of a fear of being accused of racism? There are actually people who remember being told to leave it for that reason.

I’ve attended a WPUK meeting but was a little put off by the organisers/speakers being so cosy with Kristina Harrison at the meeting. Meeting other local feminists at the meeting was worthwhile. After a promising start WPUK seems to have fizzled out. I provided my contact details but hear nothing. As a socialist and feminist i feel engaging with the Labour Party is a waste of time right now and WPUK have proved that by their lack of headway with them. But thats fine they can chose who they align with just as we can.

I don’t follow KJK but admire her ability to reach and engage with women outside usual feminist circles. Those tweets were at best clumsy, but how do we discuss some of the issues she raised? Deplatforming her for them was playing the TRA playbook.

There’s room for all women who want the freedom to define and organise ourselves, we’ll never be one view, theres too many of us

MenopausalMe

Spot on.

And I’m really interested in the “how do we discuss those issues?” question.

It is such a ‘tread carefully’ area and all too easy to be misinterpreted/ misunderstood, especially in online discussions.

I wasn't very clear I guess, this isn't quite what I was getting at. The exact thing being advocated for or against isn't my point, only that someone might see it as fighting male supremacy.

I think the "on behalf of women" element, and also perhaps "women as a class," can very easily lead to a way of thinking about feminism that allows people to justify that their voice is the one advocating on behalf of women, rather than the voices of those women themselves, who are presumably ignorant or handmaidens or turkeys voting for Christmas.

It very much takes the discussion out of the realm of actually working through the problem or propositions rationally or evidentially, into a kind of hierarchical jostling for power.

Thanks joody. I hadn't seen that.

I absolutely agree. I used to be of the left and considered myself progressive and feminist but in recent years I have felt betrayed by the politics that emanates from these centres of right-on thought and have given up on them. Tell me again that intersectional feminism has nothing to do with the unnervingly stupid ideology that is gender ideology, that most professional feminists aren't more tied to their leftwing politics and "optics" than to the actual welfare of women. That they dont relativise and minimise the suffering of say, muslim women against the perilous-to-their-reputation optics of appearing Islamophobic? KJK has been accused of making remarks about the hijab. Well the hijab is a horrendously gendered attire and tied irrevocably to oppression by males and I dont give two fucks about saying that. I am not a middleclass white woman - I live in Asia and my reality is that Islam is far worse than evangelical christian nutters. I refuse the labels of islamophobia and transphobia when both are ill-defined and self-serving thought crimes devised to shut down critics. So I stand far more with Kelly Jay than WPUK. It took me years to shed the instinctive cringe I felt initially when encountering KJ, so this is not a decision I arrived at easily. I consider the Stella Creasies and Laurie Pennies of this world infinitely more dangerous to women's rights and I bitterly oppose them.

In recent days there has been criticism of KJ not being sufficiently outraged by Roe v Wade being overturned. The professional feminists are in a proper froth about it and are using it to slam down GC women. Again fuck that. Abortion rights are dear to me but I dont waste any energy on the toxic blackhole that is US politics. I'd far rather contribute to movements that work for abortion rights in say, the Philippines than in the US, where the women are organised and wealthy with huge institutional support. Let them fight for their own rights in Alabama or move out. I have chosen my battles and don't give a flying fuck that they dont ally with the ACLU or even, WPUK.

Couched in a lot of nicey-nicey but basically comes down to this:

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.

Let me translate for you....

"Kellie Jay Keen focuses on one simple message, and people pick up on it. She gets more attention than the rest of us and we don't like it."

JCJ - we see you.

In this thread I'm seeing a lot of mixed messages of this type:

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.

I don't expect us all to get along, or to agree on everything. I think that in many cases this is a feature, not a bug: being part of a movement which has many different opinions in it is how we challenge ourselves and our arguments, and come out with stronger selves and better arguments.

However, a thread in which many here seem to simultaneously be saying "we shouldn't tear each other down" AND "wow, aren't WPUK (or Sarah Ditum or whoever) sneering and elitist/insert epithet of choice", then I think some rethinking has to be done. Pick one.

I like both Sarah Ditum and WPUK a lot, by the way, though I don't necessarily agree with everything she and they have said. I also really like lots of other women and women's organisations mentioned here, again although I don't agree with every pronouncement or choice of focus. I'm less keen on a few others, because my analysis of being "pro women" precludes me supporting them, but I understand that we all don't feel the same. And that's fine.

I think us analysing why we do or don't support this or that stance or action by this or that organisation, is fine. I don't think it's "infighting", I think it's normal debate. But we should be honest about it.

Thing is you’re doing it on a public forum in front of people like me who only get their info from mumsnet. And generally read AIBU. I got drawn in by the Allison Bailey case which was shocking , why don’t you pm each other with this stuff. It’s boring