Is it okay to work with groups whose principles you dont share as a feminist, but there is a common cause?

[IwantToRetire]

Education not indoctrination
The events was organised by a coalition of groups including the Christian Institute, which opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia, Stand By Me Scotland, which opposed the wearing of facemasks in schools during the pandemic, Academics for Academic Freedom and For Women Scotland, which opposes Scottish government plans for people to be able to self-identify their legal gender.
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/education-not-indoctrination-tickets-426737442177

Glasgow venue cancels booking for cancel culture conference
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/04e3fa4a-6696-11ed-9c3b-2d9184d0076f?shareToken=4ffe4f56d755905a476b686c75b65dd0&fbclid=IwAR1UHupPu9Xu4bD_gF0JoJb0A9u-bE2RDTcRqmbt9c8bpRUird9JTGbG8o8

Well the thing is, you can't just state that your concerns are "valid" and expect that to be it. You've been asked to explain what your concerns are in some detail and having carefully read your answers, I am not convinced. I believe that you are genuinely concerned and care about women, but when you set out what you think and why you think it, it looks to me very much like you cannot accept any viewpoint other than your own. You think other people's views are "skewed" and you are anti-free-speech. So while you may say you don't care about purity politics, you are in fact practising purity politics. You're calling it "valid concerns" and thinking that the label should be enough to convince others. But it's what's in the tin that counts.

Oh yes that must be it!!

So?

it seems people have struggled to understand my POV on the OP all this time so I'm pointing out that this is basically what i've been saying all along.

This is descending into childishness so I'll step away.

Also, a question. Have you arrived at your view from careful consideration, and lengthy engagement with those views, or have you arrived at your view prior to careful consideration and lengthy engagement?

There is a big difference.

As in Spinal Tap “there is a fine line between being clever and stupid”.

It's not descending into childishness, Dream. I think that you are reaching the point where you realise you can't logically defend your stance and it's very uncomfortable. But it's a good place to be - the next step is to open your mind and think new thoughts.

I know my comment is rather pointed, but, in a world of competing interests, narratives, lies, conflicting opinions and perspectives - how it it possible to authentically examine reality with an open mind, without stepping on some hot topic issues?

It is only possible if you narrow down what you expose yourself to and are obedient to the consensus of those who are similarly confined.

It is impossible to be a free thinker in that situation.

Just stepping in here to pick up the baton. My trans-inclusive views pre-dated the last few years of high profile controversy and debate, but I have now engaged with GC views at great length on this board and elsewhere. I would say that engagement has helped to develop my views, and highlighted to me the really difficult questions to which I do not have answers. It has not altered my fundamental position or beliefs though.

it has also made me aware how many people on the GC side (though clearly not all) are taking exactly the kind of black and white, simplistic, tribal approach to these issues that they accuse ‘TRAs’ of taking.

I’d be interest in knowing what you mean here.

Reason being, that I don’t actually recognise ‘trans’ as a legitimate description of anything real. I see it more as a term belonging to a belief-system I don’t share.

So phrases like ‘trans-inclusive’ don’t make sense to me. It would be like, uh - I dunno- someone saying they are hell-aware’ - I don’t believe in hell as a literal place, so I would have no clue what they were referring to.

Yes, I'd be interested to know what you mean by 'trans inclusive views' ~@aseriesofstillimages . Also what are the really difficult questions you don't have answers to? (Possibly off the topic of the thread, but since you raised these points, I'm interested.)

Examples include the US and USSR, despite their profound political and ideological differences, joining to fight the Nazis in WWII. All of the countries currently at the overrun COP27 trying to agree on how to combat global climate change, regardless of their differences on many other economic and geopolitical issues?

men are not women IS black & white though

biological men - no matter how they present no matter what surgery they have (if indeed they have any) no matter what drugs they take (if indeed they take any) - are not and never can be women

everything flows from whether a person believes that or not

Yes, will you fight for their rights with LGB Alliance - or do they support the wrong kind of lesbians?

I completely agree.

And once you have established this. The reality of the situation, there’s a chance for some nuance.

People are going to have different places of where they’ll draw the line on certain things. Eg- whether to prioritise the involvement of transwidows or their husbands in feminism, whether it matters if a man cuts of his genitals or has facial surgery, what should be done about those who who were given puberty blockers as children and so on.

If you don't attend and argue the case for the legality of gay marriage, those evangelicals are never going to have to consider any other point of view than their own though.

And yet it was the Conservative Party that introduced same-sex marriage in the UK...

it has also made me aware how many people on the GC side (though clearly not all) are taking exactly the kind of black and white, simplistic, tribal approach to these issues that they accuse ‘TRAs’ of taking.

There is no possible compromise between making women's facilities mixed sex and keeping them single sex. Trans activists have decided that a third space option is an insult, not a solution.

Either come up with an acceptable compromise that we haven't thought of, or accept you are also a black and white thinker on this issue.

I used to teach an anthropology module to non-anthropology students. Basically my main aim was to get students to understand that really listening to and trying to understand views or practices that you think are utterly abhorrent is so important. Not least because you can often learn that your assumptions were completely wrong. You might even learn that the problems you perceive as awful, immoral practices or views are often symptoms of a completely different problem. If you address that problem, then sometimes it turns out that people shift views and practices in response.

But, crucially, you have to be open to the possibility that your worldview is not the ‘correct’ one and to properly trying to engage and empathise with people who are very different from you. It may even require you to reflect a bit on the extent to which your views may be problematic for many people and are just as rooted in your own cultural context.

None of that means that you are condoning or endorsing practices. If you want to solve a problem, the very first step is understanding what is really going on and being willing to learn that your assumptions were wrong.

I've genuinely never felt the need to go on about free speech in the context of my own views.

Why do you think this might be?

Right, and there you have my view on conservative groups in a nutshell. I don't trust their underlying motivations and how these motivations inform their actions.

This is where we get into 'dogwhistles' and unconscious bias and so on, isn't it? It gets a bit difficult to navigate discussions when parties are all trying to second guess each others' motivations.

I think again it comes down to the same trap of tribalist thinking, which is when we are trying to ascertain whether a person is 'good' or 'bad' and making our decisions to trust or engage or believe them based on that very simplistic judgement. Rather than listening to views and discussing the views themselves.

I don't on the whole judge people as 'good' or 'bad'. I often disagree with friends, I often agree with enemies. The key is to focus on the issues, rather than the people making the arguments. Otherwise we just end up shouting at each other, and nothing is ever resolved to practical, workable positions.

it has also made me aware how many people on the GC side (though clearly not all) are taking exactly the kind of black and white, simplistic, tribal approach to these issues that they accuse ‘TRAs’ of taking.

I think it's quite human and understandable to have that impulse to simplify issues and categorise others into groups. It requires more effort to constantly see nuance and remain uncertain and keep questioning everything. Balance, as ever.

One of the best explorations of how to work, effectively, with polarization was an interview with the founder of the Braver Angels organisation in the US (I linked it on another thread a while ago)
The organisation brings right and left wingers - whose paths would never ordinarily cross- together, to understand each others differences and work towards de-polarizng and building bridges.

His whole personal journey to forming the organisation, and the work they do now (volunteer led) left a profound impact on me.

Here is the main example of the process they work with that he gave, that stuck with me and comes to mind in this discussion here:

He had each side meet in their own group first, and come up with a list of what they envisioned the others perceptions/stereotypes of their views on them would be; for example:

The right wingers/republicans might say they expected the left to believe they were self-interested, 'up by the bootsraps' types, homophobic, racist etc.
The left group thought the right would say they were all welfare scroungers, bleeding hearts, naive idealists etc.

He then brought both groups together to discuss and confirm how far they had correctly anticipated the others perceptions/stereoptypes.

And here was the most interesting bit:

Each side were asked to reflect, dig deep, and examine how far these perceptions were actually true of them; and to share these insights to each other in the shared grouping of both sides.

This is where the magic of developing nuanced understanding happened.

The clearest example given, was when one of the republicans said, yes, he thought there was definitely some truth in the linking if right wing views and racism. But also, that it didn't seem wholly true and he had to spend a lot of time really thinking and talking it through.

In the end, the two groups came to an understanding together; That felt like a truth they could all accept ; that racists tended to be right wing, but also that by no means were all people on the right were racist.

It seems so obvious when you loo at it, but to come to that as a shared understanding required alot of self-reflection, personal stories etc. On both sides.

This was fertile ground for both of the two groups to then examine all of the perceptions and prejudices they held about each other and to begin moving towards a more shared understanding and respect for each other and their differences.

The aim of the organisation is to tackle polarization at a grass roots level, peer-led, as a way of dealing with the seemingly unsolvable issue of the culture war in the US, so that things could move beyond the splitting of good/bad/enemies etc and towards resolving actual issues.

Have run out if energy to articulate exactly how in this post, but it came to mind strongly in this thread and so putting it out there.

Can post link of original video of interview if anyone is interested.

Apologies for typos (look, not loo)

Sounds really interesting, DameMaud.