Writer Naomi Klein says she doesn’t understand gender critical feminism

[PotteringPondering]

Canadian writer Naomi Klein was interviewed at the Royal Festival Hall this evening by the BBC’s Samira Ahmed, about her new book, Doppelgänger.

Most of the evening was about the book, in which Klein (a left-wing activist) reflects on being confused with writer Naomi Wolf (who now sides with the right and conspiracy theorists). This was fascinating.

At the end, a questioner in the audience asked her how ‘so-called feminists’ can be anti-trans. Klein speculated that it’s white women being seduced by the far right.

Samira Ahmed pointed out that the UK narrative is different, and one of the main legal cases here involved a black lesbian. Klein said she didn’t understand that kind of feminism.

I was shocked that such an articulate thinker, who’s spent years at the cutting edge of cultural issues, could say she simply doesn’t understand why any feminist would question gender ideology. Seriously?

I will be honest there was a time I didn’t get it either. All I saw was people arguing and it seemed much to do about nothing. And then I had a think

She's supposed to be a professional thinker though. A feminist. Not a bystander.

It’s interesting she only said she didn’t understand when Samira Ahmed shut down her “white feminism” nonsense by mentioning Alison.

Very typical fingers in ears approach when actual facts are brought into the conversation.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it (Upton Sinclair)

She could understand it, but then she runs the risk of not being able to get published any more.

I expect she hasn’t actually bothered to try just gone “ewwww blocked” on social media, & only read articles by people she already agrees with 🤷🏻‍♀️

if you don’t actually explore an issue of course you’ll never understand it

I’d guess that she does understand but is avoiding the inevitable shitstorm and cancellation if she voices that.

If nothing else this battle is showing us some incredibly strong women who are willing to put themselves on the line, knowing the bullying and threats that will come their way.

Can anyone explain, succinctly, what Klein's brand of feminsim was? It passed me by. I was bringing up small children, no doubt. Was it american consumerist/individualistic in orientation?

@LizzieSiddal thinks it was Allison Bailey's case Samira Ahmed was referring to (probably correctly), whereas my first thought was Keira Bell. Klein's 'white, right wing' thing rings hollow here in the UK.

Her comments put me in mind of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Triggernometry interview, where he seems wedded to the idea that the battle is about forcing people to wear gender appropriate clothes & accoutrements. Neither of them has bothered to find out what the issues really are but they're quite happy to make their straw man arguments. In public. That shows a certain level of arrogance to my mind.

How depressing. I was thinking of buying her book, which looked really interesting from the excerpt I've read in the Guardian. I read one of her previous books, which I thought was intelligent and exceptionally well-researched.

But if she can't understand something as basic as why women object to men pretending to be women? I mean, come on. It's not difficult.

Pertinently, does she understand that feminism means all women, on all continents, of every colour and creed - not just relatively privileged western women, who have grown accustomed to the sorts of civil rights, and stable society, people in the West enjoy; along with their relative level of materia,l and technological, comfort.

That being a female is not just a lifestyle choice, but an embodied, social - psychological reality.

..and what was your first thought, or realisation?

But if she can't understand something as basic as why women object to men pretending to be women? I mean, come on. It's not difficult.

She can. It's just that she doesn't want to entertain any thoughts which are considered heretical within her chosen tribe. On this she's just a Three Wise Monkeys person.

Looking at Naomi Klein's wikipedia page she said that during her twenties she rejected her mother's feminism and was wholly into consumer culture. It is as if, she almost, never really understood the issues in the first place - because she eas so embedded in her comfortable, middle class lifestyle.

I do think a lot of women who came of age in the 1980's embraced all of that individualistic, lifestyle stuff.

Of course she understands it.

She understood it well enough to write a book called Doppleganger and go deep into conspiracy theories and completely avoid mentioning that an Elephant is currently rampaging around Malaga Airport.

If someone is so embedded in environmentalism and eco-thinking, I don't comprehend how they can be biology deniers, or over-look women's ( and human more generally) inevitable tethering to earth based reality. And how you can fail to be critical of pharamaceutical answers to all of life's problems.

I am so tired of those in the liberal establishment thinking they are some sort of priestly caste and sermonizing about their progressive views. Liberalism means challenging the established order but it should be done in an open manner where everyone has the right to criticize.

Wolf is a bit thick. She loved Belfast because they don't have 5G there. So it's blissfully peaceful and idyllic , like being back in the 70s. Oh dear.

Still , I will defend her inalienable right to be confused with Klein. Especially since the latter seems to have lost her marbles now as well.

Maybe if you don't understand it... don't say you're opposed to it?

Once again. I oppose right-wing politics. I believe in peace, love and honesty.

There is one "side" who can only either: be dishonest, or refuse to state their views - no debate.

Why is this side 'seducing' the left?

Ps , I am being a bit facetious , I enjoyed Klein's book Shock Doctrine.

This is entirely unsurprisingly given the book she's written which decries someone as being a right wing conspiracy theorist if they question the established narratives.

Being Trans inclusive fits with all the other subsets of positions she wears as her identity and moral superiority.

It never fails to amaze me how so many left wing GC women hang on to the notion that left wing ideology is right and correct and their TRA policies are some weird aberration or blind spot.

It's not, it's consistent with the political ideology that believes everything is about power, the right thing to do is establish who is oppressed and fight against oppression and power to impose 'justice'.

This kind of identity politics has just adopted the Trans issue. It's logical and consistent. Yes there's a small problem of women, but many of them are 'privileged' anyway so not the most oppressed. Which is what we should focus on.

I find it fascinating that so many women remain wedded to the identity politics ideology and just think this aspect is a mistake. It's a feature not a bug.

So NK doesn't surprise me at all. She's written a book about a 'heretic' who's dared to question sacred liberal truths and she uses right wing as a slur.

She's entirely consistent with her world view. It's the left wing GC women that still subscribe to intersectional identity politics that I think are confused.

Perhaps, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, she thinks we're objecting to men dressing like women. When it's men insisting that they are women, and trying to force everyone to believe this lie, that's the problem. (Along with children being told that they can change sex and being medicated accordingly).

It's really not hard for most people to understand. I don't know why people like her are so proud of their ignorance and their bigotry in being unwilling to listen to other people's point of view.

I'm glad Ahmed didn't let the comment go. She's great.

"I find it fascinating that so many women remain wedded to the identity politics ideology and just think this aspect is a mistake. It's a feature not a bug"

Quite! Trans ideology is the absolute apotheosis if identity politics...its natural and ineviatble conclusion.

Yup.

Gender ideology won't be really beaten until id pol is well and truly dead.

Just as Identity Politics is an inevitable outcome of Possessive Individualism. The I want everything and I want it now culture which blossomed in the 1980s.

Diametrically opposed to any notion of the collective/ socialism. Or even just basic decency and civility - as in respecting the needs and wishes of other people.

@Rudderneck Canada doesn't have a for-profit healthcare system but it has been subject to powerful pharma lobbying that sits alongside access to puberty blockers, etc. The principles underlying medication (testing, prescribing and costs - to the health service not the patient) are changing at pace. I don't think it's coincidental that these changes sit alongside the growth in transgender ideology.