Helen Joyce & Julie Bindel: Should TERFs unite with the Right?

[ILikeDungs]

By Unherd, a debate-style response to the purity spiral after Brighton. I do admire Helen Joyce and her ability to calmly and logically discuss the issues. Unherd have made it age restricted (because of all the fucks, I suppose!):

I’m also trying to get to the heart of why people, who i assume to be pretty sound and decent, even admirable, feel morally justified in berating others on what appear to be utterly unreasonable, spurious grounds.

Yes it's a shame you can't get the people who are doing it to have a little bit more self-awareness, or self honesty, and tell you what the reason is.

I've been away a bit - fascinating insights from beastlyslumber. You made me think of that well-known John Stuart Mill quote. Digging it up, I got the wider text, and I'll think I'll post it. It's 100% on point here.

Although he wasn't big on paragraphs, apparently. Bold is the bit most-often quoted.

The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections. But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; and it has to be shown why that other theory cannot be the true one: and until this is shown, and until we know how it is shown, we do not understand the grounds of our opinion. But when we turn to subjects infinitely more complicated, to morals, religion, politics, social relations, and the business of life, three-fourths of the arguments for every disputed opinion consist in dispelling the appearances which favour some opinion different from it. The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty.* Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil’s advocate can conjure up.

John Stuart Mill On Liberty, chapter 2.

(I guess I'm being a bit lazy here, but Joyce + beastlyslumber and Mill are doing such good work, I don't think I can actually contribute anything more at the moment!)

He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty.

This is what is so frustrating. To not hear persuasive arguments from people who genuinely believe that there is a danger for feminists to ‘work with’ (whatever that means) the right.

*the right (whatever that means)

Well that's got to be the first time I'm mentioned in the same sentence as JS Mill. (Except maybe when students have said, that bloody cow beastly made us read a chapter of JS Mill and I hate her!)

But I totally agree. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. There's a reason why these essays, quotes and ideas have stood the test of time. I'd also recommend Andrew Doyle's book 'Free Speech' for a more modern rendering of these ideas. It's only short and it's very readable. (I gave that to my students too - they still hated me!)

One thing I know has been said lots of times before, but bears repeating, is that the left often conflate the right and the far right, or they use the terms interchangeably. Defining terms before debating is such good practice. It should have been done in this debate. Would have made everything clearer.

Having said that, I guess I tend to think of the left as the hard left, idpol left, socialist left, rather than the centrists. So maybe it's a case of everyone exaggerating their opponent's position. I think it's unfair to conflate right wing with fascist, and left wing with communist.

beastlyslumber with all due respect, might I suggest that if you would genuinely like posters with varying views to engage in a thread that you actually read what they say?

I suggested that businesses be tightly regulated so that there was balance between what they contribute to society and you said that is an argument for fascism.

Why on earth would anyone want to engage with that level of distortion and misrepresentation?

Bike, I was trying to work out what you meant by saying profits should be balanced by contributions. I gave you two scenarios where profits are balanced with contributions - one was fascism, one was communism. I also suggested that maybe what you meant was some kind of version of what we have now, with the addition of renationalised industries.

My aim was to get you to clarify and expand on your meaning, not to silence you. I apologise if it seemed like I was calling you a fascist - that was not my intention. I just wanted you to clarify and defend your statement. What does it mean to balance profit with contribution? How is that organised? If not in the ways society has done this previously, then how?

Having said that, I guess I tend to think of the left as the hard left, idpol left, socialist left, rather than the centrists. So maybe it's a case of everyone exaggerating their opponent's position. I think it's unfair to conflate right wing with fascist, and left wing with communist.

Yes, I think HJ used extreme examples of left wing regimes to explain her right leanings.

Myself, I think we are about right, swinging from right to left so the state never becomes this oppressive behemoth or loses its safety net. Although I am left-leaning.

beastlyslumber but can you see how impossible it is to reply meaningfully when your words have been distorted so much?

Ditto my saying that winning the victories of gender ideology only isn't a win for feminism and you saying that I meant that women securing the vote or better rape legislation didn't matter.

Honestly, it's an utterly pointless exercise. Trying to genuinely answer questions that several posters are aiming at you and no-one else because you're all broadly in agreement with each other, to have 'ah, so you mean (insert something I didn't say) then?' followed by more questions in response.

I admit my 'good times' about the 1970s wasn't entirely genuine, although as someone who grew up in poverty at that time and knowing full well that it would have been so, so much worse now, it did have personal truth in it.

Is it really individualism though to not want to live in a squat and be a political lesbian?

In a way what you describe reminds me at the plethora of attempts at egalitarian communes in the 60s and 70s. Most of which failed, because of two things - earning enough to live off of, and even more, the problems of creating a community that functions while remaining unhierarchical and "free". The reality is, a lot of them didn't even fizzle out, they failed spectacularly in a dramatic fashion because they blew up, and if you talk to kids raised in such communities, many have some scary stories.

I don't think recognizing that there is a need for more structure is individualist. And along those lines, conservatism by nature is not individualist. It's very much a kind of collectivism. It's really liberalism that is individualist, whether it is the kind on the left or right.

I think that maybe this is because for many from that kind of leftist tradition, they believe as a matter of faith that it is possible to have a non-hierarchical, functional solidarity among large groups. It's part of their idealism and what they ultimately see as the most correct, pure, political expression.

For me personally I always felt that was where his vision failed - I've never seen any real example of a community that functions long term without some kind of hierarchy emerging. And that's ok, imo, it can be managed through things like institutional measures.

But when you deny that such a hierarchy exists, it means in practice that the hierarchy operates without acknowledging, or controlling, it's power.

This seems kind of relevant here:

Jo Freeman: The Tyranny of Structurelessness
www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

I'm genuinely sorry. I wasn't trying to distort your words, simply to work out what you meant. You seem to think that I understood your words and was responding in a way to try and twist them into something you didn't mean. But I did not (and do not) understand your words and so my response was trying to think through some of the possible interpretations in order to get you to clarify. E.g. to say, no it's not the way the state regulates business in fascism because that involves X and what I mean is Y; or no, it's closer to communism in that X but it would be different in that Y... etc. To get you to explain what you meant, and also to point out that the state tightly regulating businesses has precedents that are... problematic. Assuming you would agree that these systems are problematic and be moved to clarify your position, rather than accusing you of wrongthink.

I hope that makes sense.

With the feminism point bike, you said that winning single sex spaces and stopping child abuse would not be a victory for women's rights unless we won all the other rights as well. That is what you said and that's what I was responding to, trying to figure out why it wouldn't be a victory by pointing to some other achievements that would also be discounted by this principle. If you didn't mean that, then of course my response wasn't right, but it is what you said! Sorry if I misunderstood.

That's very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

I have just started reading and it already seems so apt. The tone of the intro about its publishing without permissions and everything, speaks volumes about the massive bloody headache of it all! I’m exhausted already and I’ve only just begun.

Finished reading it now, and it’s all in there isn’t it? How Posie has been vilified for becoming an unelected ‘star’ and then the hurt sends her completely rogue.

It made me think about how useful MN is for avoiding many of the pitfalls of structurelessness.

People have anonymous user names (generally), so our background or status can’t make ‘birds of a feather flock together’ and it is entirely public communication - anyone is equally entitled to post their opinion, so informal ‘elites’ can’t occur.

I thought these bits were very pertinent:

“As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.”

“The idea of "structurelessness" has created the "star" system. We live in a society which expects political groups to make decisions and to select people to articulate those decisions to the public at large. The press and the public do not know how to listen seriously to individual women as women; they want to know how the group feels.……While it has consciously not chosen spokespeople, the movement has thrown up many women who have caught the public eye for varying reasons. These women represent no particular group or established opinion; they know this and usually say so. But because there are no official spokespeople nor any decision-making body that the press can query when it wants to know the movement's position on a subject, these women are perceived as the spokespeople. Thus, whether they want to or not, whether the movement likes it or not, women of public note are put in the role of spokespeople by default.
This is one main source of the ire that is often felt toward the women who are labeled "stars." Because they were not selected by the women in the movement to represent the movement's views, they are resented when the press presumes that they speak for the movement. But as long as the movement does not select its own spokeswomen, such women will be placed in that role by the press and the public, regardless of their own desires.
This has several negative consequences for both the movement and the women labeled "stars." First, because the movement didn't put them in the role of spokesperson, the movement cannot remove them.……..Second, women put in this position often find themselves viciously attacked by their sisters. This achieves nothing for the movement and is painfully destructive to the individuals involved. Such attacks only result in either the woman leaving the movement entirely-often bitterly alienated -- or in her ceasing to feel responsible to her "sisters."……….. Thus the backlash to the "star" system in effect encourages the very kind of individualistic nonresponsibility that the movement condemns. By purging a sister as a "star," the movement loses whatever control it may have had over the person who then becomes free to commit all of the individualistic sins of which she has been accused.”

“When a group has no specific task (and consciousness raising is a task), the people in it turn their energies to controlling others in the group. This is not done so much out of a malicious desire to manipulate others (though sometimes it is) as out of a lack of anything better to do with their talents. Able people with time on their hands and a need to justify their coming together put their efforts into personal control, and spend their time criticizing the personalities of the other members in the group. Infighting and personal power games rule the day. When a group is involved in a task, people learn to get along with others as they are and to subsume personal dislikes for the sake of the larger goal. There are limits placed on the compulsion to remold every person in our image of what they should be.”

It seems to me though that this problem of leadership is endemic to id pol, and in this feminism is acting as id pol. Or in this context we could say lobby based politics, where the assumption is that there is a real political program around these identities.

Because how do you have a movement of all women, or all any group, where a few leaders, chosen or unchosen, can speak for all women?

I think similarly of gay rights, how can that as a movement speak for a very wide variety of people who are attracted to people of the same sex? Do any of us really think that mainstream gay rights orgs represent the political views of someone like Douglas Murphy?

Women have a hugely diverse set of beliefs, just like people in general. Most want rights for women, in particular political rights, but they vary much beyond that and around how to best support women.

beastlyslumber - "This is why I don't call myself a feminist anymore."

Which, of course, brought KJK to my mind.

"The communes may have disbanded, but women are still being berated by feminists for everything from their political beliefs to who they associate with to what they wear and whether or not they dye their hair.

I think there is something evolutionary here about how women create hierarchies and compete with one another. We destroy each other with gossip, reputational damage, cliques, manipulations and expectations, all the while maintaining a butter-wouldn't-melt smile..."

The first thing that this reminded me of was seeing some left-wing feminists sniping about KJK on social media, remarking along the lines that you would never see Rad Fem Sheila Jeffreys lowering herself to appear on KJK's YouTube Channel (this was when KJK was doing a lot of interviews) but wouldn't it be wonderful if she did because Sheila would tear into KJK for performing "beauty practices"!

Obviously, they had never seen this because they would not lower themselves to watch KJK's YouTube Channel:

"Sheila Jeffreys "Trigger Warning - My Lesbian Feminist Life"

1 Oct 2020 "I talk to Sheila Jeffreys, we have a hugely entertaining and inspiring chat! We talk about harmful beauty practices, the modern women's movement, transgenderism and what it's like to be a girl these days!"

It also made me think of Sunday's "Radical Feminist Perspectives" WDI Webinar - right on point because the "Tyranny of Structurelessness" has since been shared!

"Trashing (part 1) - The Dark Side of Sisterhood and the Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman"
18 Dec 2022

"Trashing (part 1) - The Dark Side of Sisterhood and the Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman discussed by Marian Rutigliano, Sheila Jeffreys, Lierre Keith and Jo Brew"

"Trashing (Part 2) The Dark Side of Sisterhood and the Tyranny of structurelessness, by Jo Freeman"
18 Dec 2022

"Trashing - the Dark Side of Sisterhood and the Tyranny of Structurelessness, by Jo Freeman - discussed by Marian Rutigliano, Sheila Jeffreys, Lierre Keith and Jo Brew."

TRASHING: The Dark Side of Sisterhood
Jo Freeman 1976
www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm

THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS
Jo Freeman 1970 - 72
www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

I have just discovered the third article that Jo Freeman lists in the "Feminist Articles" section of her website.

The BITCH Manifesto
1968
www.jofreeman.com/joreen/bitch.htm

This opens with a quote that makes my head spin given the appropriation of "woman" and now "female":

"...man is defined as a human being and woman is defined as a female. Whenever she tries to behave as a human being she is accused of trying to emulate the male..."
Simone de Beauvoir

The discussion in this thread has been at least as fascinating as the JB + HJ "debate". I have found so many posts really helpful in clarifying my thoughts.

beastlyslumber apology accepted and your posts are a reminder to me that what MN generally thinks of as 'left' is a world away from what myself and all the people I know who have been involved in left wing politics for decades do.

Idpol, gender ideology, Antifa, the hard left if you mean communism are worlds away.

Fair enough bike. But we're still no further forward in understanding your actual point of view. Dunno if you're willing to try again? If you are, I'm keen to understand why you think the fight against gender ideology has to come from leftist feminism in order to be successful.

Also I do think JB is engaged in identity politics and I'm interested in why you think she isn't.

Space and Bosky, thank you for those resources. I'm going to have a look at those videos!