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

Easel Art
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
This ^^
And very centred around England. Remember what is happening in Scotland ?? The law is changing for women and girls now in Scotland . It is on it's way. I think our Scottish sisters have organised and campaigned with so much more solidarity and respect for each other, in spite of having really horrible institutional barriers and harassment from the onset .

I’m sorry that was harsh of me to say it’s boring, but unintelligible and unnecessary to me. I don’t really get what you are arguing about, surely women’s rights over our own bodies and spaces and safety and security etc is paramount, and there is no right way to get the message across. Both posie on Instagram and Maya and Allison on here have opened my eyes

I guess the 'domestic zombies' exchange has stayed with me because it goes way beyond a public disagreement, and because it's not only deeply unpleasant but also demonstrates to me that women who think (some) feminists look down on them are correct to feel this way, and secondly that PP has made a connection with some of these women that the leftish/academicish branch of feminism ignores at its peril.

However that doesn't stop me also saying I think Sarah Ditum's Spectator article on Roe Vs Wade is a banging good piece of writing. I can admire someone without liking everything they do.

@donquixotedelamancha what were / are KJK's views on adoption please?

Growing up with a Tory father who felt girls and women could do anything and a Labour mother with a trade union official father whose wife (my grandmother)!rarely left the kitchen I don't see right v left as goodies and baddies and don't see that either side is more pro women. My own politics has changed over the years but I've remained a feminist.
The more people who see through the danger and nonsense of encouraging and facilitating children and teenagers to change their bodies to fit their personalities (at that time) the better

what were / are KJK's views on adoption please?

It was a long time ago so I can't remember her exact words. It was on here but I'm fairly sure the thread was deleted.

Her comment was effectively saying that adoptive parents aren't real parents, perhaps even that adoption is morally wrong. I questioned that and she replied that that wasn't what she meant but didn't clarify despite being asked.

I don't like assuming malice so I put her comments down to lack of thought. Its not unusual for people to say very dumb things about adoption when the lack experience of it.

@donquixotedelamancha thank you

I agree with you. I also think that publicly calling other women names like domesticated zombies or dog shit because you don't agree with them is a) profoundly unfeminist and b) says a lot more about you as a person than the woman you're insulting.

This is one of the resolutions on WPUK's website:

* 3. Nothing about us without us.*
All organisations, committees and politicians speaking on issues of material concern to women to demonstrate that they have widely consulted the women they represent and serve and that such consultation informs their action and their policies.

Which I agree with. So it does beg the question why WPUK don't pay heed to their own aims & ask women what they want/need so that their ambition to get a 'seat at the table' is based on genuine collaboration & evidence based arguments.

The problem WPUK has is they don't want to compromise their political allegiances & don't want to be hampered by women who say no to any male being included in female only spaces. Because the accusation of transphobia is so damaging (within the political circles they're operating in) they choose to keep/include males claiming to be women in their fold to give them a shield to these accusations.

It's political expediency at the expense of women like trans widows - women who often are subjected to horrendous behaviour & abuse from partners/spouses when they declare themselves to be women. This is a clear example of how politics determine which women are worth throwing under the bus for political reasons. It also leaves the wedge of 'some males' being acceptable to this org & makes the entire arguments over single sex spaces impossible to resolve because we all know one male person in female space/services/provision renders the ability to exclude any male unworkable.

That's the stark reality of the situation we are in - this truth is something women have being working out for themselves & it why they're moving past WPUK on this. And it's why PP'a message resonates far better with women who have all worked this out too.

WPUK have a lot of women who are used to excluding other women for political reasons. They haven't worked out how to put differences aside to find common cause with others they're politically opposed to. Instead it's a flat refusal to engage. Which again seems to be the MO in left wing political spaces generally. It's that refusal that's also helped leave WPUK trailing behind the rest of this movement.

Baroness Nicholson has been a brilliant advocate for women in places where our voices have been rendered silent - she's been actively 'recruiting' HoL members who have been great in getting our cause more traction & exposure. She's an experienced networker & will work with anyone. And the progress she's made has been amazing to witness. That's what WPUK are missing out on, all for political purity & expediency.

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with Lachlan Stuart - he's been involved in the Labour Party for years, worked on policy development etc. and vocally supports his 'comrades' in WPUK - he's active on Twitter.

He's been having a 'moment' on twitter for days over the whole posie/WPUK debacle & has somewhat aggressively stated partly in conclusion to his output over the past few days:

"You are proposing law reform. In your case, GRA abolition. Expect scrutiny."

This is what WPUK are terrified of - GRA repeal gaining traction. Even if it's bad law, they don't want to go near it in terms of repeal. And again, the problem is, women have been working out that the root cause of all of the problems we're now trying to fight against stems from this legislation which is terrible law. The only grassroots org that have canvassed women for their views/input has been For Women Scotland. It wasn't an onerous task, but the results would definitely be 'problematic' for WPUK if they did the same. Because 83% of 550 respondents said they backed repeal of the GRA.

Link to FWS member survey results

I think politically, WPUK are hampered by their political allegiances in a way that FWS aren't (they repeatedly state they're apolitical as their members are across the political spectrum). And ultimately women have to decide if their political allegiances matter more that their feelings on women's rights/spaces/services in terms of being clearly female only. WPUK are very clear that they won't go near repeal, while women are strongly leaning that way with every obstacle they're encountering over straight forward requests for female only provision etc.

It's ultimately up to WPUK whether they continue to dictate their policy position as opposed to collectively bring women along with them. But honestly, I can't see women following this line in great numbers much longer. Maybe that's WPUK's ultimate goal? To return to be niche enough that they can just continue to ignore the elephant in the room - that the GRA is bad law & the root cause of all of this mess.

@GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder did the GRA have anything in it for women? What would we lose if it was repealed?

I'm one of the many women who struggles to keep track of the vast amounts of information in this business! There's always so much going on, with so many people, court cases, organisations...

I know what a woman is, though, and what the implications are of eroding that boundary.

well that was a tl;dr - and since i don't know who she is or what it is she actually wants us to do I'm not sure of the point of this post.

The GRA was supposed to be about marriage (before same sex marriage was made legal) and privacy. The marriage part is no longer an issue. The privacy part (IMO) has been badly handled.

It wasn't a bill for women, even though women can & do claim trans identities. But it absolutely does recognise what a woman is, even after a social, medical or legal transition happens. Because if a woman decides she's actually a man, and makes effort to transition, she still isn't recognised as a man when it comes to hereditary titles, or applying for the priesthood.

My issue, and I'm sure others have the same issue too, is that codifying in law a man's ability to legally hide or lie about his sex makes women's single sex provision & safeguarding impossible to navigate on a practical level.

Grumpy WPUK are women who work and generally have families and fit their campaigning work around that.

That manifesto statement firmly puts the responsibility on organisations, committees and politicians speaking on issues that affect women to consult.

You know, the agencies with the resources, reach, staff, legal obligations, infrastructure, publicity machines to do that. As you know, that's exactly what didn't happen during the GRA reforms.

I can't see that expecting women to do more unpaid labour rather than pressuring political bodies fulfil their obligations to consultat is very progressive tbh.

If you want to look for the root cause of this mess in the context of GRA reforms, I would suggest that this lack of consultation of women's groups and secrecy about process is a strong contender.

Really? You think women critical of WPUK's strategy don't know that women are doing the lion's share of work unpaid & working around family commitments?

It's not a hugely onerous task to set up a survey & email it to people. I've done this stuff myself so I know exactly what goes on with the demands on women's unpaid labour. Plenty of women WPUK don't want to listen to, do a lot of unpaid work too.

I have an issue with their strategy, political purity/expediency & an inability to see women as stakeholders, despite their own resolutions. And my issue is because, according to an earlier post, WPUK expect to be part of negotiations at some stage, on behalf of women. If that's their aim, we can certainly have an opinion on whether they're the right people to be in that position. And my argument is, hell no on that score. For all the reasons I've given.

They're free to dismiss me as ignorant & unreasonable, and carry on as they wish. I'm sure they will.

I'm educated to postgraduate level and dork in a female dominated vocational sector that requires specific qualifications.
What speaks to me is statistics and facts. I feel like dwelling on academic works, quoting this and that person and splitting hairs with word play and philosophical arguments is wasting time and energy and mainly appeals to people who enjoy debating for the debate itself. I like KJK's focus, momentum and sense of purpose. I watched her first phone in thingy the other day and I think it's a very simple and effective idea, but one that's brave because it's a gamble with an unknown quantity.

*work not dork.

Thank you @GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder

I left school at 16 and didn't get an education until I was thirty. I have been an activist (a successful one) of one sort or another all my life, on top of working and raising a family. I understood JCJ's massive tweet-thread just fine, and although I didn't agree with every syllable, I thought it was a useful and interesting contribution to the debate.

And debate is always worth it. Dismissing it as "debate for debatings' sake" leads us to "no debate" very quickly.

If you're bored, don't read this thread?

Go and read the ones you're interested in. Mumsnet is a vast site, with a vast array of topics.

It's not a hugely onerous task to set up a survey & email it to people.

This has real "it only takes a moment to pop a chicken and all the trimmings into the oven" energy. Classic MN.

I agree that what is happening in Scotland is awful, and should really focus the minds of WPUK women what the consequences will be for ALL Women in England and Wales if they fail to move past the discussion stage with the Labour and Union Honchos.

But I do think the Scottish GC's have been forced into a reactionary position precisely because they made the mistakes WPUK are making now. Were never able to move past the discussion stage with the SNP misogynists who are now selling all Scottish Women down the pipeline.

It took a long time for them to move past the Scots referendum/ Scottish independence issue to focus on the real danger: Sturgeon and her unthinking acolytes.

Similarly WPUK are so focused on Posie Parker and her antics, they are failing to focus on the bit they can achieve: Get the Labour Left and the Unions to engage with material reality of Sex.

Everyone involved in this is having to do unpaid labour, that's not a good enough excuse.

This really. I find the ideological purity approach offputting because it doesn’t LISTEN. It’s like a corporate doing a staff survey about the company mission & strategy, being surprised the results shows no one understands the strategy or feels aligned with the mission and blames all the employees for it instead of trying to work out why (& some soul searching on if it’s the right mission and strategy!) All those women Flo describes are real people too and they matter. And by ‘they matter’ I mean that what they think and what they care about matters. You might disagree with them but you shouldn’t dismiss them. That’s one way how surprise election results come in- no one listened. They thought these views were wrong so they assumed they would see the light. That’s not how life works.

I don't have an issue with JKR'S thread. She's said out her points and others who inclined to, are debating it. But as Scout points out, not everybody will be interested in doing so, and that's where Posie's movement comes into play.

Do you know what's involved? I've done this, in my own time, unpaid. That's why I know it's not something beyond WPUK's capability. I'm 1 person & managed it. WPUK are many women.

I think if we're getting into territory of WPUK being not able to find a means to canvass women for their views, then they're more screwed than I thought.