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

Indeed it does, ArcheryAnnie.

If it's not that onorous, it does beg the question as to why the bodies with statutory duty to do so don't. Which is WPUK's point.

Haberdashery it's not an 'excuse'. It's pointing that that there are bodies who are legally obligated to consult and don't, despite their adequate infrastructures, and pointing out that suggesting women do this themselves (despite not having the resources, reach or political status to do so) is daft.

I don't think WPUK are asking for excuses to be made. They have worked within the left, Labour (some of them), TU, left wing academia for years and that's where they're trying to gain ground and traction.

I can see why women are drawn to PP's seemingly simple, single issue stance. She's a brilliant campaigner and orator. Completely pro-women and completely anti-feminist, and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

Are people really trying to claim WPUK can't set up a monkey survey to ask basic Qs of the women they solicit cash from?

WPUK don't solicit cash from anyone.

People can choose to donate or not.

Their legal guidance about pronouns, single sexed spaces, submissions to consultations, guidance to fill in governmental consultations (including for Scotland), suggestions of qus to ask councillors etc etc are all freely available on their website, as are the recordings of all of the speeches at their meetings.

The Bodies aren't doing it, because they don't want to do, and it suits their agenda, e.g., MoJ not checking who has a GRC or not, until FDJ brought her prison case, then others could't point out the issues because the base data was severely compromised.

@GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder is right in that sense that WPUK do not want to do the survey, that's fine. But it then hightlights the contradictions in their own manifesto and claiming/ purporting to speak for "women", when it appears they are only speaking for Women on the Left.

I don't have an issue with WPUK working within the left, Labour, TU, left wing academia" and trying to gain ground and traction. It just seems to me that despite their best efforts their work there doesn't seem to have gained much progress.

Yes, Labour leaders have toned down their biology-denial, sensing they have lost women’s trust and thus can’t rely on our votes, but I'd say that's more to do with grassroots efforts like WRN's "Respect My Sex Campaign", more publicity from Right Wing media outlets on their bonkers stance, than anything WPUK have done. The Unions are still heavily gender woo indoctrinated, and have actually got worse over the last four years.

Ironically, I'd say WPUK have had more success with the Conservatives, where their policy work, based on the substantive points (as opposed to focusing on the problematic conservative alliances) of the numerous problems with this ideology and with its implications.

Their clear policy work consistently showing 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.

Is the key. The rest is... nobody cares, tbh.

And?

On what basis is it beyond an org who take money from women for their campaign efforts, to do a monkey survey to ask them for their views?

Judith Green's evidence in Allison Bailey's court case was easily undermined because WPUK don't canvass opinions of those women who support them financially, or otherwise.

Any negotiations they intend to be part of will similarly be undermined by the lack of consultation with their own supporters.

We can dance around this as much as you like, and rack up many excuses. WPUK undermine their own aims (nothing about us without us) because they don't want to listen to women in case the answers they get conflict with their political purity/expediency.

At least be honest about why they don't canvass women for their input. We all know why & it's nothing to do with lack of time, or women doing it unpaid, or it being too complicated to set up a monkey survey.

“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.”

From @ResisterRex upthread.

What do you mean by ‘what they do and don’t talk about’? As far as I know, from getting their newsletter and following them on Twitter, CfW are clear they are basically a single issue organisation. Are you saying that’s a good thing or that you think they should be talking about other issues? Genuine question with good intent!

Yes, which is why campaigning for Bodies to undertake these consultations and collect the right data is a much better approach than a small women's organisation designing and distributing survey monkey polls (inherently biased sampling, so easily dismissed), collating, analysis and publicising the data (ditto).

If you don't like WPUK and don't want to support them, that's absolutely fine Grumpy. If you think they're the problem, that's also absolutely fine.

But trying to smear them by accusing them of soliciting money or urging people to vote Labour or that they can't be arsed to send out surveys is a bit grim.

Nobody is obliged to give money to WPUK, or SFW, or any of the many other small organisations that have grown to deal with this issue. Many women (me included) give small amounts to many different organisations, depending on what going on, and what the need it. (And occasionally if I've been grateful for information or a service or action from an organisation or individual.)

Its not either/or. These different groups of women and different individuals are only rivals or alternatives if we set them up to be so. They each have their own niche in the ecosystem, each have pushed us all a little further along the way, and we'd be poorer if (almost) any of them left the stage. And I repeat that it's a feature, not a bug, to critique each others' stances and actions - it makes us all stronger. It's only a trashing if we mean it to trash.

@ColdTowel I guess I was trying to be balanced. So they don't talk about the (painfully obvious!) issues with the Tory leadership. But then again, why should they? They are single issue and they have a clear focus from which they don't waver.

As an aside, I like how they post clips from relevant debates.

Thanks, that makes sense. I think they are right to try and remain focused. I have seen the way USA posters on Twitter try and drag them into having a view on abortion, as well as UK posters trying to get them to comment on the PM and various other contentious issues and they just don’t respond. I like the way they stay on message (and yes their clip threads are great and often retweeted).

As an aside, Jane Clare Jone has posted another drawn out explanation on why we should not talk or support KJK 🙄.
janeclarejones.com/2022/06/26/purity-spirals-political-alliances-and-movement-building/

It's got the same pic of a Posie quote - or supposed quote - but no link and it looks like something is missing from the bottom. Where is the link and the full pic? Does anyone have it?

I keep telling myself I'll leave it but this endless stream of excuses over why WPUK won't ask women what they think is getting longer by the minute.

I accept soliciting cash wasn't a fair reflection of WPUK's funding, so I'll withdraw that. They do operate off the back of donations as it says here. You can argue that doesn't give anyone a say in anything WPUK does, but I'd argue differently. Seeing the people who fund you as merely a source of cash isn't a good basis to operate IMO. Clearly WPUK see things differently.

I haven't mentioned anything about them trying to get anyone to vote labour. I do agree with others who have said that it's a bit rich criticising others via guilt by association while the Labour Party is full of people who are ideologically extreme in their intent to remove women's rights.

And the latest excuse for not sending out a basic survey to women who fund WPUK's work - not wanting to do it because they're too biased & easily dismissed? I'm not suggesting they set up a weighted poll of thousands. Im saying - ask women who are invested enough to support you, their views. So that if you want to 'sit at the table' negotiating on rights that affect all women, at least do it from the position of having talked to them & asked them for their input.

A monkey survey to the people who actually go as far as to send you cash is not an arduous or difficult or pointless task. FWS managed it. I've done it. But if you just don't want to know what women think, for political reasons, then own it. And give up on making excuses over it.

This - i.e. endless Twitter threads, blogs, and public disavowals - is becoming really fucking tedious. We KNOW we cannot all work together. We KNOW what our political boundaries are. And we KNOW Jane Concise Jones and friends dislike KJK because we've been told all bloody week in addition to the past four years ever since KJK. It tipped over into bullying a long time ago and, just as TRAs couch it in 'inclusive' language, so some couch it in political boundaries. Many of us are beyond sick of it and that doesn't make us "Posie Stans" - it makes us ordinary women with our own views who are a little tired of the same individual being repeatedly, or so it seems, singled out.

Honestly. How many times do we need to say just stop the bloody lectures. We are not signed up to JCJ's feminist classes, we are not children needing guidance.

Must admit I do find it quite funny that we're all here - and I'm very much including myself - talking about JCJ's latest 3000-word edict while Standing for xx are out at Speakers Corner getting things done.

I read it as pointing out the problems of women working with the fundamentally anti-women and anti-feminist US religious right.

And the problems of positioning reproductive rights, health care and autonomy as somehow separate from other forms of patriarchal control over women's bodies and lives.

And the latest excuse for not sending out a basic survey to women who fund WPUK's work - not wanting to do it because they're too biased & easily dismissed? I'm not suggesting they set up a weighted poll of thousands

look, I have no idea what the backstory is here, but you clearly have an agenda, you clearly think that agenda can be supported by WPUK sending out a survey monkey poll, you’re agitating very hard for them to do it, and you are presumably not alone in supporting whatever your agenda is.

On the basis of your last few posts alone I think they’re right not to send out a survey. It would be heavily biased towards the responses of the group of people who are agitating for a survey.

There are so many different GC groups and they don’t all agree on everything, that is a good thing! If you don’t like WPUK why not support a different group with your donations? I genuinely don’t know what the disagreement is about, maybe I’d even be on your side if I knew! But the way you’re going about things doesn’t seem right. It smacks of entryism.

(I just saw more context and I do in fact agree with you about abolishing the GRA! But I also think it’s good to have a range of views on this represented within “gender critical” organisations.)

Do you think writing another long epistle aimed at one person (even if she's not named) is particularly helpful, if you're trying to "build a movement"?

It coming across as bullying and is what is turning women off WPUK in droves.

Agreed. I'd ditch the GRA in heartbeat. But I don't think that the women who aren't there yet - or who are there but who disagree- are the very devil.

It coming across as bullying and is what is turning women off WPUK in droves.

if that's bullying, then this whole thread is also bullying. Disagreement is not bullying.

@ArcheryAnnie if I kept writing long threads aimed at you, aimed at ostracising you, on multiple platforms, long after we established we have different operational tactics, yes, that would be bullying.

@HatefulHaberdashery and yet here is a six-page thread with multiple women on it, dedicated to saying how awful JCJ is. What's the difference?

This is the sort of elitism that I thought this thread was dedicated to decrying? There are plenty of ways of "getting things done" which aren't standing at Speakers Corner. Standing at Speakers Corner is great! I am very glad women are doing it! But we'd be nowhere if it was the only action on the table. We need everyone.