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

Oh, come off it, this is sophistry and not worthy of any of you. To pretend that all the sniping against WPUK has absolutely nothing to do with the sniping against JCJ is not really credible.

@christinarossetti39 Abortion rights are not settled in the UK. They 1967 Act created loop holes so that women could access legal abortion (in most but not all circumstances) without being charged under the Offences of the Person Act as had happened previously,

That 1967 Abortion Act only applied in GB, and was not extended to Northern Ireland - so never UK wide. There have been so many court cases about this. NI politicians and parties (from all sides) were against allowing access to abortion for women, except in very limited circumstances. Some may feel that Westminster ignored the situation of women in Northern Ireland relative to other parts of the UK. There doesn't ever seem to have been the same outcry that is being voiced for women in the US. Another country, and 3,000 miles away. Stormont failed to fully put into effect the 2019 law passed by Westminster. Under new powers (which bypass the need for approval by the NI Assembly executive), the NI Secretary has directed the Stormont Department of Health to legislate for provision of fully-funded abortion services for women in NI. That direction by the NI Secretary was only recently - on the 19th May, 2022.

As to the political temperature, as recent as 2016, a majority of NI Assembly members voted down a proposal to allow access to abortion in cases in fatal foetal abnormalities - by 59 to 40. A proposal to extend access to abortion in cases of incest or rape was voted down by 64 to 30.

I imagine (like in Ireland, even though NI is part of the UK) even when allowed, the provision was/is so limited that most women travel to England.

Here is a time line of the tosses and turns of trying to provide access to women in NI.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-56041849

Apologies, just realised I took a point and ended up with a bit of a derail.

Not "sophistry" at all.

Someone doesn't like facts, nor stats, I see.

If admitting I bailed out halfway through a 40-part tweet and 3000-word essay is bullying then I'm guilty as charged. I like reading but life is short and philosophy always seems to be so very long.

I'm equally prepared to admit that Posie Parker makes me nervous, especially when she goes wading into the US whose politics and culture are so different from our own.

And yeah, I'm starting to wonder what progress WPUK are making within the Labour Party because, from where I'm sitting, Labour appear to be taking the piss.

Nobody should be above questions and scrutiny.

Thanks for posting the link to JCJ’s essay, I’ve now gone back and read it.

I found it well written and persuasive. (But I enjoy a discursive writing style as much as I do a concise writing style.)

I will certainly be giving it further thought. I think it is always worth giving careful thought to the most strategically and tactically effective ways to fight for women’s rights, both short term and long term.

In her essay, JCJ does not say that people shouldn’t talk to or support KJK. She doesn’t name her at all. (But does include that, somewhat context-free, KJK screenshot.)

Her arguments are that:

• the GC feminist campaign she is part of is a women’s rights not an “anti-trans” campaign;


• to avoid accusations of being merely an “anti trans” movement, the GC feminist campaign which she is part of must be, and must be clearly seen to be, wholly focused on women’s rights;


• other groups (and she uses US examples) are motivated by being anti-trans and by being anti-women;


• “making concrete political cause with” those whose ultimate goal is to remove women’s rights would undermine the position of the GC feminist campaign which she is part of, for the reasons set out above;


• being interviewed on a media outlet and “making common political cause” are two different things;


• the people whom her group have said they / we should not “make material political alliance” with have been “engaged in a many decade long campaign to turn women into reproductive units controlled by men”, that para then links to an October 2020 Julie Bindel article discussing Hands Across The Aisle in the US, and various US orgs.

Julie’s 2020 article talked about those US orgs gaining traction in the UK and an event organised by UK women’s rights activists which linked with those orgs. JB’s article doesn’t mention KJK but, following the links in JB’s article, it is KJK’s website that has the event information. JB concludes her article by advising feminists to learn from UK feminism’s successes.

I had to look up “sophistry”.

It said “the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the purpose of deceiving” and the synonyms listed included “deception” “dishonesty” and “duplicity”.

I find that offensive.

Would you care to reconsider your post?

This is the post that I was responding to when I went back to page one and started re-reading the posts referring to JCJ.

Thanks for that @LoobiJee

I generally love JCJ's writing, I think she's an amazing, intelligent writer who's broken down so many of the philosophical points of this crazy ideology into digestible soundbites for me, however it would be remiss of me, not to have noticed during that time I've been following her, that there has been a clear antipathy towards KJK & Wolf from not only JCJ, but WPUK over the years. That antipathy has been based on the points you've bulleted (which they believe KJK to be guilty of), & other points @GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder highlighted in earlier posts.

My main issue is they just aren't honest about the fact they not just evidently dislike KJK and wish to establish her as persona non grata, they want everyone involved in the movement to do as well. And so we get all these long subliminal posts, countless innuendo about how KJK is dodgy, but nothing concrete and solid to link KJK to her bogeyman persona. And then of course, if necessary, they can claim plausible deniability, because they never really said anything about KJK, did they?

Listen, I get why for WPUK, Posie isn't their cup of tea, But she's other people's cup of tea. Focus on what you do best, the policy stuff, and let KJK focus on what she's doing with her morale boosting gatherings and spreading the word of this poisonous, insidious ideology to the general public, who really don't have a clue what this crap is about.

@HatefulHaberdashery @LoobiJee I'm fine with facts, I'm less keen on bullshit.

I'm trying to discuss things here in good faith, but you are making it difficult. We are supposed to be on the same side.

JCJ does say that "For me, this rift is about politics not personalities. It is about building a political movement, and about whose political interests that movement represents."

Then gives extensive, detailed and referenced examples as to illustrate why Hands Across the Aisle, ADF, Heritage Foundation are anti-women through and through. Then argues that the only way women can make alliances with these groups is if they are willing to give up or compromise their pro-women stance.

If you want to read that as long subliminal innuendo about PP (or any other individual), I guess that's up to you.

One of my friends went to Speakers Corner today for the first time, she's just been on the phone to me for an hour, she's absolutely full of how brilliant it was. There were loads of women there, she had a great time. She was inspired, excited, absolutely full of it. Maya spoke, Baroness Nicholson, loads of others.

I admire JCJ, I admire KJK. We all have our own boundaries. They're chalk and cheese and that's fine.

Listening to my friend just shows me what KJK is doing is very important.

Cailleach1 apologies, you're right. I used 'UK' in response to another post, and it's not true regarding abortion rights in Northern Ireland.

That's JCJ's stance. It's not a stance necessarily shared by others. Not sharing JCJ's stance doesn't make others "anti- women", especially as Hands Across the Aisle, ADF, Heritage Foundation have no impact on UK life and legislation.

That's so heartlifting 🤗

Thank you fro this, and yes I agree... more attention needed to be brought about the situation in Northern Ireland!

Such is the US's power and influence, that the losing of Roe will have an impact across other countries.

Bit of a chaotic article from Marie-Claire, but nevertheless, making very clear that it's very naive to think that the US religious right have no effect on UK life and legislation.

www.marieclaire.co.uk/reports/roe-v-wade-uk-abortion-rights-785059

Haberdashery

Not agreeing with JCJ does not make anyone 'anti-women'. Forming alliances with anti-women groups like Heritage Foundation, Hands across etc involves a compromise or forfeiting of a wholly pro-women stance.

You mean, it's a bit of a nonsensical article to imply that @christinarossetti39, the article couldn't even list what measures should be taken by UK women to mitigate the US impact of overturning Roe V Wade in the UK.

Might that be because there is zero impact on UK law from the SCOTUS decision?

In what way do they have any impact?

I also went to the Speakers Corner event today for the first time as I have no one in real life I can talk to about this. I was blown away by the loveliness of the women who beckoned me over to join them as I was on my own. It made me so happy to meet actual women who have the same concerns as me and are trying to do something about it. I don’t care about qualifications or backgrounds or politics.

(thanks to you lovely women if you’re on here!)

I meant that it's chaotic because it quotes Stella Creasy, whose views on what a woman is are somewhat changeable.

There's plenty to read online if people want to find out more about the steadily expanding influence of the values of the religious right in the UK.

No one thought American Supreme Court would ever overturn a right previously granted either…

Except loads of people did. Stella Creasey as clueless as ever.

Can you post some links?

^No one thought American Supreme Court would ever overturn a right previously granted either^
What patronising nonsense from Stella Creasy. Ruth Bader Ginsberg (whose death created the Supreme Court vacancy) was 87 and she'd had several bouts of cancer. Everyone could see it coming. Creasy's constituents deserve better than that, as do Marie Claire readers.

That's not to say we should be complacent in the UK - I remember MPs using Private Members Bills to try and restrict access. But if the Labour Party are thinking of manipulating the US situation for votes they can fuck right off although, if they do, it will be entertaining to see if they try and do it without mentioning the 'W' word.