Gender Critical Disputes - Radical Notion special edition free to read online

[IwantToRetire]

Cant say I have heard of Radical Notion. They say:

THE RADICAL NOTION was founded in 2020 to create a space for the resurgent wave of feminist thinking and activism. This not-for-profit magazine is run by an all-women collective of radical and socialist feminists. We are committed to the materialist analysis of sex-based oppression, and to challenging the material and symbolic structures of male dominance. This moment is a historic opportunity to deepen and widen the analysis of all aspects of women’s political condition, and its foundational role in all systems of extraction and domination.

We welcome words and images from women of all nationalities, classes, ethnicities and backgrounds to illuminate the meaning of feminist politics in their lives, and to create a global picture of this political moment. Our current battle, and the social, political and environmental unravellings we see all around us are, at their root, crises of patriarchy. We want to seize this moment to speak that truth.

theradicalnotion.org/gender-critical-disputes/

It seems quite expensive to subscribe but they have made this issue free to read online. A lot of it seems to be the ongoing antagonism (meaning the issues are real but seem to be motivated as much by personal fallouts) between radical feminist and socialist feminist gender critical women.

Some may remember this thread www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4662757-womens-place-uk-filia-event-the-elephant-ignored-yet-again and the revelation that WPUK seems to now be linked to the group Actual Gender Critical Left, who endlessly snipe about Karin Dansky and KJK.

Anyhow posting in case anyone wants to have a read.

Still not sure why some women think in the day of virtual opportunites to talk directly to other women, they need to go down the routed of "publishing" as though their ideas are somehow special and shouldn't be submitted to the rough and tumble on online forums like this one!

I used the taliban as an extreme example above, but it's worth keeping in mind as the reductio ad absurdum. If you lived in Afghanistan you wouldn't have to get changed or share a hospital ward with a man. But you also couldn't leave the house unchaperoned, drive, go to school etc.

Do you genuinely think we don't know this?

But I'm saying it shows that recognising and correctly identifying people's sex isn't the one and only thing that cancels out every other possible concern

Who the hell is arguing that it is?

Normally I'd prefer choice over my bedfellows politically, and socially.

however for me this one issue we are facing at the moment, the erasure of women, is the only thing. It's too important to worry about the other stuff. We need to be as one. We can go our separate ways after.

If we lose our rights, we will never get them back.

I do extend that respect to other women. I haven't told anyone what they should or shouldn't do, or said that anyone is lying etc.

It was emotionally difficult not to vote Labour yes, but not only emotionally. Politically and pragmatically. How do you decide what should be the deciding factor? Which considerations are more important than others? There isn't a straightforward answer to that. So it's difficult.

Re MW I don't know a huge amount about him, but his views seem pretty repugnant from what I have seen

I think there are 2 problems with working with people like him

1. Boosting his (or whoever's) reach and voice, so adding weight and support to views that might actively damage yours/my/our daughters' lives in future

1. Putting people off from listening to gc or feminist views because they are so repulsed by some of the people they hear saying them.

And actually also

1. Not wanting to be in any sense associated with someone who I think is campaigning for action I really, really hate

For me, personally- I have been arguing and disagreeing with everyone around me since I was a kid. These people are my family mostly! 😂

So I am more than comfortable bridging differences because that is my normal.

I don’t care how repugnant someone’s views are, I know that they can be temporary and you can still have a laugh around the dinner table together.

No, I don't think that you don't know it. As I said in that post (the bit you cut out), I was using it as an example to explain why I don't find the whole thing as simple as saying "if someone knows what a woman is, they are on our side and will help us".

I'm sorry.

I tried doing a purity spiral of my own when i discovered @ArabellaScott wears birkinstocks not crocs. But then realised she posts most of the threads i read so I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I'll make sure to interrogate my neighbours and the post man from now on.

I don't feel the same. I have had friends/colleagues who expressed strongly racist or antisemitic views, not knowing I was Jewish. I can't sit around a table and have a laugh with those people. It's not about 'purity', it's having seen where my family were shot and starved, and millions of others were exterminated as a result of those views being accepted and promoted. Some things are not ok, in my opinion, and on a visceral level I can't be jolly and friendly with people who think that way. Some differences aren't 'bridgeable', for me at least.

This is in part true for the US. And as PP said, conflating US left/wing divide with UK is why this may bother you so. Guns and violence in the US is a very pressing issue just in terms of the high rate people are murdered here.

But back to feminism...I agree with GrinitchSpinach description of what's happening in the US with feminist groups. I'm a big fan of Dansky, a member of WOLF and I've signed the WDI. Despite this, I disagree w/ WOLF that the ERA won't be of help to combat gender woo (I believe after a ratified ERA, a case would force a fight in the courts to define sex, which is central to the ERA's language). I've written WOLF my concerns over aligning too closely with conservative groups unless clear boundaries are drawn, which I think they did well w/ Title IX. why? Because you really can't trust conservatives when it comes to abortion-they have just won that one and feminists lost. Where I disagree with Freeman: Alignment is not the same as working together to move single issues forward - but you can't let GC be your main women's rights topic and I think WOLF is doing the best it can not to do that.. Also, Dansky does the work of 3 people and she's done her best to see what works and what doesn't: she's regularly begs MSM to feature her. She's still a Democrat and I think this is in her favor in the long run to get more Dem women thinking about women's rights outside abortion.

All that being said, for most women here, abortion rights are our top priority. I'm an American woman and have female family members who could die if they get an ectopic pregnancy just because they live in the wrong state.

All feminists would do well if they held a conference to work together on core issues. I'm 99% positive Dansky disagreed with KJK's naive take on Jan.6 but I also admire her willingness to put that aside and work with her to get messages out. Do I wish KJK would have done her homework better before flying to the US? Yes. Do I think she's stronger at building a movement in the UK? Hell yes. Glasgow certainly proved that. I suspect that eventually your leftist academic feminists will have to take her seriously...it seems they may be holding out a very tentative olive branch.

Your mistake is thinking it is 'our side'.

It isn't our side. It is everyone's side. Right wing, left wing. Racist, not racist. Whateverist/not whateverist.

The kids of right wingers deserve not to be chemically castrated as much as the kids of left wingers.

It might be the only thing for you. It isn't necessarily the only thing for everyone.

And I don't think that joining forces with people who want to roll back women's rights is necessarily politically expedient, apart from anything else.

What do you mean 'joining forces'?

You seem to make these connections but don't explain what these connections are.

And I don't think that joining forces with people who want to roll back women's rights is necessarily politically expedient, apart from anything else.

But who? Who are you talking about? You need to be much more specific.

The only women's right that some people would like to roll back is abortion. But in the UK at least, that's not really a danger at the moment. I get that it's different in the US.

Personally I think it's going to be impossible to fight for abortion rights when you aren't allowed to say the word "woman" or congregate in public space without being assaulted or losing your job. But that's fine. If abortion rights are your political priority - great. Fine. I don't see the problem. You pursue your political goals, I'll pursue mine.

I think the issue here really is "purity". You'd love to work with KJK but you can't because she talks to people who you don't agree with. So it's guilt by association, one step removed. That's why it's so "difficult" for the Real Feminists. It's not just that they won't work with anyone outside Brighton (although Bindel and Yiannopoulos, the Spectator, the Telegraph... just sayin') but they won't work with other activists who might also work with people the RFs have bad thoughts about. So they are completely marginalised and it makes them insular and their heads spin round and they come out with pseudo-intellectual garble to try to persuade themselves that being marginal and having no impact is the only way to be a good person.

@beastlyslumber
You'd love to work with KJK but you can't because she talks to people who you don't agree with

This isn't true though. I haven't said this.

I've always been really supportive of KJK (as my posting here will show). I do support her, broadly speaking.

I am grappling with all of this. It is, actually ,difficult and not straightforward. I think the only 'purity' thing is insisting that holding the line on biological sex is the only thing that matters (as some people have done on this page of this thread). It isn't the only thing that matters. And this stuff is difficult and complicated and despite what some people might say, there are no easy answers.

You really need to explain @BloodAndFire @ClearMoth :

1. WHO are you talking about? Who are the activists you think are cuddling up with the wrong people, and WHO are the wrong people they're cuddling up with?
2. WHAT does "working with" mean? WHAT does "standing shoulder to shoulder" mean? Please give examples of what you consider to be "aligning with"? Can JB go on a speaking tour with Milo? Is it okay if she writes for the Spectator? Can KJK stand in the same field as some blokes who aren't fascists? Give us specifics, please.
3. WHEN and WHERE did these people "work with" or "stand shoulder to shoulder with" these other people?
4. HOW did that affect other women, other campaigns etc?
5. WHY should I therefore align/not align with others who I might disagree with on some issues?

Would really appreciate if you could just give clear, simple, factual answers to these questions. It's hard to understand your point of view if you keep talking in generalities/hypotheticals.

Boiledbeetle · Today 17:57

Normally I'd prefer choice over my bedfellows politically, and socially.
however for me this one issue we are facing at the moment, the erasure of women, is the only thing. It's too important to worry about the other stuff. We need to be as one. We can go our separate ways after.

The movement doesn't belong to KJK. Fight to put your own politics into the movement, if you think KJK is so terrible.

I saw Hannah Berelli of Lesbian Labour in Glasgow. She's a more hard core Marxist than any of the AGCL mob, and she's not scared of KJK.

Once this movement really gets going there'll be no need to share platforms with conservatives. We won't need their precious Labour Party either, which is what really scares them.

I've always been really supportive of KJK (as my posting here will show). I do support her, broadly speaking.

Okay, so who on earth are you talking about then?

I interpret joining forces as various feminists and women's rights group have a neutral sit down and discuss how they can share resources and put together some big event.

One thing that worries me is misinformation about feminism coming from anti-feminist GC voices. PITTstack has done an excellent job letting parents speak about the damage done their children by gender woo, but a lot blame us. They have ZERO understanding of feminism and aren't aware of the nuances of our infighting. But they do get a dig in on us in general and, frankly, fuck that!

We should be shouting how all feminists care about women and CHILDREN! We were the first to notice how dangerous this ideology was. Maybe we stop worrying if our feminist heroines are saints or "head girls" and ask them to come together and pick some core issues they can work on.

Also you: But I'm saying it shows that recognising and correctly identifying people's sex isn't the one and only thing that cancels out every other possible concern

No, these are two different things. Identifying people's sex is not the same as campaigning against the erasure of women, or fighting for children's rights. Literally NO ONE is saying that correctly identifying someone's sex is the only thing that matters (and therefore we'd tolerate the taliban just because they know what a woman is - your argument). Some people are saying that fighting for women's and children's rights to exist in our bodies and spaces is the most important fight we have on our hands.

You shouldn't change the terms of your argument half way through a discussion. It's bad form.

Do you get that if you are gay, or Black, or Jewish, it might not necessarily be the most important fight?

(And obviously I don't think anyone here would tolerate the Taliban - come on.)

This isn't theoretical for me, I have spent countless hours thinking and talking to other GC Jewish / non-White women about where, ultimately, your energy goes.

The Jennifer James thing several years ago clarified for me personally that fighting this issue didn't automatically cancel out all of my other concerns. I came down there on feeling like, in the end, women/girls make up about half o the world's population, while Jews are a tiny, tiny minority - and it's been proved pretty comprehensively within living memory that the rest of the world won't stand up for us when it comes to the crunch.

So for me it's never going to be the case that the sex/gender issue automatically outweighs everything else. And I think that giving any kind of support or praise to those whose ultimate aim is to remove women's rights is going to be a massive own goal.

Fucking hell I really have to do some work now.

Isn’t Jennifer James Jewish herself?

Do you get that if you are gay, or Black, or Jewish, it might not necessarily be the most important fight?

Do you get that it still might be?

This isn't theoretical for me

It's not theoretical for any of us.

The Jennifer James thing several years ago clarified for me personally that fighting this issue didn't automatically cancel out all of my other concerns.

It doesn't for anyone.

And I think that giving any kind of support or praise to those whose ultimate aim is to remove women's rights is going to be a massive own goal.

You need to be specific about what you mean here. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable - but it doesn't actually mean anything because you're still talking in vague generalities rather than addressing specifics, as you've been repeatedly asked to do.

Fucking hell I really have to do some work now

Dinner's ready! I guess that means you won't answer any of my questions after all.

I will answer your questions as soon as I can. They are really difficult questions, as I'm sure you know. Not an off the cuff answer.

There is no need to be massively combative about it. I would have thought it was clear by now that I am posting in good faith and trying my best to keep up? I'm trying to finish something I shuld have finished hours ago, and am off for work at 7am tomorrow.

I remember this. I am not sure what she meant by ‘technically’ though.