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?

@Prelapsarianhag but what if that centring involves the destruction of women’s sex-based rights? That can never be feminism.

You do realise though that if you draw men into your 'circle of care', then by necessity you've just pushed a lot of vulnerable women out?

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230925104742/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1706221465484267786.html" rel="nofollow noindex" target="_blank">Thread by @janeclarejones on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App (archive.org)

Thanks for the thread reader. JCJ’s analysis is excellent.

Although it could perhaps be summed up as: if you go around claiming that things which are blatantly and provably untrue (humans can change sex) are in fact true, and not only that but also go around shouting “bigot” “hateful” “far right” “nazi” and “you should be sacked” “you should be punched” at anyone who points out that your claims are untrue, then you are significantly lowering the benchmark for your opponents to appear more truthful / less crazy than you.

Naomi Klein doesn't understand the academic process either. As has been amply demonstrated.

Thank you, the link worked fine and I have read it.

I found this by JCJ (and the sustained critique of Klein that follows) very pithy and true:

Some time ago I said that trying to convince people that it was an artefact of 'ciswhiteheteropatriarchy' to think human beings were sexed was possibly the most damaging thing that has ever been done to the left-wing analysis of structural power.

Given how things are playing out, I stand by that. I do not think all this nonsense about cultural Marxism and wotnot would have got anywhere near the momentum it has had pretty much the whole of leftish/progressive society not decided to try and make people believe that humans being sexed was an artefact of power, and then tried to bully anyone who questioned them by calling them a bigot.

edit: to remove unintentional hint of sarcasm!

What you really mean, if you are a gender ideologist, is that you are drawing patriarchy into your circle of disregard for women.

Allowing men (males) into women's refuges, MVAG survivor groups, women's prisons, sports, providing unsupervised care to vulnerable women as we all have to pretend the man is a woman, and so on, is the very definition of marginalising women to uphold patriarchy. It is patriarchal attitudes that demands women accommodate men to the risk of women.

That JCJ thread is so good. It should really be published as a book review. I hope Naomi Klein sees it.

I would also add that feminism is not a smart-sounding single line slogan. It’s an analysis that withstands scrutiny.

For example, in the claim you have made here, how are women housed in prisons with males brought into your circle of care by this act?
How are women in refuges housed alongside males being brought into your circle of care?
How are women in supporter groups for victims of male violence brought into your circle of care by men being there? How are sportswomen being brought into your circle of care by being forced to compete against males?

And why do you think feminists are not permitted to Centre women, but must accommodate men’s needs? Because this must be what you mean by this statement, as all other groups can also be women?
Do you not think it’s classic patriarchy to tell women they are not entitled to Centre themselves? But instead must prioritize and accommodate men? Do you not think the patriarchy gains from diluting feminism in this way? As it removes limited resources from women and instead gives them to men?

I don't know a huge amount about her but this is making me wonder if you might have tripped up on the old Naomi Klein/Naomi Wolf confusion?

That is very amusing.

@RealityFan I haven’t read the book — only know about it through the many newspaper article and through attending the talk last night. As I said, her publicists/marketers have struck gold by creating this Klein/Wolf dichotomy and using it to call attention to lack of intellectual rigour amongst the far right “conspiracy culture”.
Much of what she said last night was interesting but I did not like her “us baby them” framework — which assumes all of “us” share one set of world view in contrast to the ignorant “them” who all ascribe to another (erroneous) world view.

@WhichOfThePickwickTripletsDidIt thank you for the interesting link. I will have to read a few times to comprehend!

A trans woman who demands the right to compete in women's sports because they believe that best aligns with their gender identity, or who believes that biological females should not be allowed to have any single sex spaces or even a word for themselves which excludes them, is not being marginalised by the patriarchy. They are the patriarchy.

The Bandwagon Fallacy that if a person has a penis then he should be categorised as a man (and should perceive himself as a man) is very simplistic.
Human physiology can be more complicated than that in a small percent of population (see the PubMed article below)
And we should try to understand it and respect it.

Just like we finally did with homosexuality.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21094885/

However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

What point are you trying to make here?

I think @Inauthentic is trying to convince us of the existence of 'ladybrains'.

Well, it does look sciency so best to accept it.

Some people may claim that there is literally no way to differentiate between a man and a woman, however you define them.
You'll normally find that such people still continue to use the words even though tp them, they are essentially interchangeable with "person". Usually a sign that their thinking is muddled.

I love Inauthentics attempt to make him/herself sound clever by using the phrase "bandwagon fallacy", which is erroneous assumption that just because a belief is popular it must be correct.

Other examples of bandwagon fallacy, by Inauthentic's logic, include the belief that the earth is round or that the universe is 14 billion years old.

Sometimes beliefs are widely held because they have been proven to be correct.

Duh.

Such people also find it difficult to explain what they mean by "sexual orientation" due to the fact they believe sex doesn't exist.

Again - using words they can't define, suggests they don't really know what they are claiming.

Best just smile and nod, and get back to Naomi Klein.

I think the point is that ideological correctly beliefs, eg that people can change sex, are immune to the bandwagon fallacy.

The Bandwagon Fallacy that if a person has a penis then he should be categorised as a man (and should perceive himself as a man) is very simplistic.
Human physiology can be more complicated than that in a small percent of population (see the PubMed article below)

No, the person with a penis is still a man. Because being male is related to your sex. And nothing else.

I personally think that for a small number of individuals there probably is a factor they are born with that makes them feel as if they should be the opposite sex. Until gender ideology came along and demanded that the ARE the opposite sex and must be treated as such in all and every circumstances, regardless of the implications for women and girls, and anyone who claims this gets full rights to be the opposite sex immediately, ( and all you need to do to claim it is to simply enter a female only space as a male) I think most of us did respect this limited iteration of 'trans'.

We all know that being trans has now been redefined well beyond this small group of what used to be transexuals. And what we are now being asked to 'respect' is absolutely not worthy of respect due to the harm it causes to women and girls.

"Health care for transgender people and youth is mainstream medical care supported by every major medical association and leading world health authority."

I will just leave the thread now with this fact.

And yes, I do believe that science can clarify a lot for us. It's worthy to read a bit more about human physiology if you want more insight into the subject.

Be that as it may, there is no test for a ladybrain and therefore no possible way to legislate for the difference between a ladybrain and a manbrain.

If I have been raped by someone with a penis - or even if I haven't - I don't want to be forced to get changed or use the toilet in the same space as a penis, even if that penis is attached to someone with a ladybrain.

And if I want to compete in sport, I don't want to be competing against someone who has gone through male puberty even if that person happens to have a ladybrain, because they are playing sport with their manbody and not their ladybrain.

There comes a point where, if you are advocating for access to men's spaces and women's spaces to be determined according to whether you have a manbrain or a ladybrain when no one else knows what is going on in someone's brain and how manly or ladylike it is, you really need to explain why you think men's spaces and women's spaces need to exist at all.

Because none of these people are arguing for all spaces to be made mixed sex/gender neutral. They are arguing for people with manbodies to have unrestricted access to women's spaces on the grounds that they believe they have ladybrains.

If I am forced to share women's changing spaces with people with manbodies, it makes no difference to me whether they have manbrains or ladybrains, so this negates the point of these spaces existing.

@Inauthentic What is “sexual differentiation of the brain”?

Could you clarify what point you were making with your earlier post please?

I'm not sure why someone having a ladybrain should be considered relevant to what spaces they are using or what sports they are allowed to compete in. No one else can see their ladybrain and we only have their word for it that they have a ladybrain and not a manbrain.