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?

The US has such a problematic view of race/feminism. According to American liberal feminism, you can't speak out about misogyny in nonwhite communities/cultures or advocate for those women, and for some reason black women are equated with trans women. All of which I find horrendously racist and blinkered, but if you disagree, you are a 'white feminist.' It makes no sense. to me.

Perhaps she could have a conversation with Allison Bailey to help her better understand "that kind of feminism".

Did she verbatim say "white women seduced by the far right"?

I would not call someone using this lazy trope "an articulate thinker".

I agree, it is lazy but pervasive. “ I disagree with you on something (unrelated to race), but I’m going to force a connection with race and imply you are a racist to try to smear you and thus win the other argument. Also you have white privilege so must be a bad person, so I win! (Even though I’m white too!)”. Way to go Naomi.

@Delphinium20

DEI is very much a North American agenda. It started there in the 1990s and was all about how to manage more diverse workforces in pursuit of performance and productivity. It diffused to the uk in the 2000s in large part through imitation. Large corporates and city institutions wanted to look similar to their us clients and counterparts. One problem was a different context here - but also this focus on the business case made difference valuable largely where it can contribute to profit (or reputation). It’s a rather superficial agenda which masquerades as progressive but is in fact rather conservative - it drives some change while keeping wider systems the same. Not sure why the previous poster thought DEI could not be developed here independently - but as I say the version we have does originate in a different context hence in my view some problems. It is also much more concerned with identity than class politics traditionally prioritised by the left.

@Delphinium20 and just to add sorry if you already knew all of that!

That was my brief summary of what she said. Another poster on this thread who was at the event agreed it was an accurate summary. Klein definitely talked about white women being duped into gender critical feminism, and the far right who are doing it.

Maybe Klein hasn't noticed that, demographics being what they are, being white is pretty common all round in North America?

what Is the (alleged) logic behind the claim TW in women’s spaces is a white woman’s concern? I would think observant Muslims (many non white) would be very concerned, but maybe Naomi doesn’t know any. There seem to be a few non white GC women on Twitter, maybe they didn’t get the memo.

There were lots of Muslim families in the recent protests in Canada, FWIW.

I don't know if it's a sort of reflexive thing, or completely cynical, but the reference to race in these conversations is not at all meant to be taken seriously, IMO. It's mainly a kind of signal that they are blasphemous in some way.

One of the biggest GC forums is Lipstick Alley which is a black women's forum, but that is conveniently ignored

I don't think there is any. It's just a convenient way to point a finger and avoid having to actually make an argument.
The irony is that I can't count how many times I've seen white feminists accuse black women of white feminism on twitter. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.

Black women only count when they're saying something convenient. As Naomi explained quite clearly, she and people like her quite literally do not understand disagreement if it comes from anyone who isn't white. Racist as fuck, really.

I haven't read the book yet (loved No Logo and Shock Doctrine, both had big impacts on me, as in fairness did Wolf's The Beauty Myth) but I have been listening to her on podcasts, and while the refusal to understand GC feminists is disappointing, it is not unexpected from a north american progressive. Neither was Klein ever a "Feminist" theorist, although I assume she thinks of herself as a feminist. I'm surprised that she hasn't at least thought about the Big Pharma angle of what's happening around transition in the US.

But as the Jane Clare Jones thread outlined, her analysis is potentially useful for thinking about trans issues, even if Klein herself refuses to see it. In the US, yes, women are being deliberately courted over to the far right by the likes of Steve Bannon, using vaccine paranoia as an initial hook. Having someone like Wolf, who certainly was Feminist, onboard then makes them feel they are in the right gang, and feel validated. Middle-aged women are one of the most important voting blocks: having them on side is strategically important.

I believe the exact same tactic is being used on this side of the Atlantic, trying to make left-leaning, labour-voting women think that because the mainstream beardy left are not taking women's rights seriously when it comes to TRA, you can't trust them on anything. The Tories will ramp this up for the upcoming GE. I'm pretty shocked at some of the alliances GC women in Ireland think it is ok to make (e.g. politicians and columnists who are anti-abortion and campaigned against Repeal, anti-immigrant activitists being given the time of day because they happen to agree sex matters). You enemy's enemy is not your friend and supporting the right to win power will lead to less rights for women. Yes, they know what a woman is but they know where they think she belongs.

She’s got talks to give and books to sell. ‘I don’t understand.’ Give me a break.

A book written by someone who "doesn't understand" such basic things sounds like very expensive toilet paper to me, but I guess I'm not her target market.

Interesting post. Lots to think about there, thank you.

I can't agree with your conclusion though.

As bad as I think the Tories are - and to be clear, I think they are very very bad and I have wanted them out of power since the first moment they got into power - the idea of voting for a government which would actually like to criminalise speaking the truth chills me to the bone.

I suspect that is actually a deliberate strategy, political misdirection that encourages people to think of others in terms of who they are rather than what they do: personal identity rather than socioeconomic class.

This is such an interesting take. Thank you. Divide and rule.

Hi @BaronMunchausen yes, exactly. Determining intention is really difficult though - given its emphasis on the market, on individualism, on identity, etc, DEI is an agenda developed within neoliberalism which therefore reflects its key principles. Relatedly, it is also depoliticised, deliberately perhaps, as a response to 'equity fatigue' - a way to talk about equality without really having to mention equality (or consider what that might look like).

I think though as it has been adopted in the UK, many managers/HR people/diversity practitioners are not really aware of its underlying political/economic framework - DEI just became the accepted way to do these things, at the same times as it became unfashionable to talk about socioeconomic class and more material interests.

When I point to these tensions in corporate environments (won't say too much on this as stupid fears here around outing myself), this message is often met with shock and dismay. I know this is taking us off the point of this thread somewhat, but to me, there are many parallels with how gender ideology has been adopted and absorbed by people who would generally class themselves as progressive, perhaps politically on the left, while having (in my view) quite limited understanding of how regressive many related ideas actually are.

There is also the same sense of sunk costs - people who see themselves as progressive have invested a great deal of emotional and physical energy in promoting related ideas and have often made that commitment part of their own identity, so it can be extremely challenging when flaws are pointed out.

If Labour is looking idiotic because of its stance on trans issues and it’s damaging Labour’s credibility generally, that’s on them. They need to get their house in order and think about the needs and protections of 51% of the populace/electors.

@fran2023 - Yes I also agree, and I am clumsily trying to make the point that DEI is similar in its distraction from class politics so it is interesting to see how gender ideology is being absorbed within related corporate agendas. DEI helps legitimate and protect corporate power and related class interests - while masquerading as something progressive.

It is elites clawing back the power they lost. Both at the level of multinationals finding they can virtue signal trans allyship and it does absolutely nothing to destabilise their male centric structure; people working in the arts miffed that funding was being set aside for marginalised groups; and privileged young people fed up of being told their class isn't culturally cool any more.

The reality is that any power lost was relatively superficial. Multinationals thrive anyway as high streets die; a career in the arts requires being financially comfortable enough to be able to work for free or very little; privileged young people still retained the connections, property wealth and the inheritance to fall back on.

But image matters more than anything these days, so no doubt the power grab felt very worth it.

If Labour is looking idiotic because of its stance on trans issues and it’s damaging Labour’s credibility generally, that’s on them. They need to get their house in order and think about the needs and protections of 51% of the populace/electors.

Agree. The more "no debate" is over, the more the anti-safeguarding, prepared-to-fib stance is looking pretty niche. I get that everyone is super scared about what the TRAs will do, but I don't think heading back to their socialist (reality based class analysis) roots would be a vote loser for Labour. I think a lot of people are ready for a socialist government. Saying "we'll only help you if you let men with special identities do whatever they want" is not going to win the trust of most female voters.

Absolutely this, and I don't get why Labour can't see it.

They could do an absolute U-turn on trans issues tomorrow, say, "A woman is an adult human female. Trans women are adult human males. We will repeal the Gender Recognition Act and strengthen the Equality Act to ensure that single sex spaces are protected. We will instruct all public institutions including the NHS to remove all gender-inclusive language from their communications and return to regular, comprehensible, sex-based vocabulary. All trans women currently serving sentences in women's prisons will be transferred to men's prisons. The police and the civil service will be given a top down shake up to remove all people in positions of power who misrepresent the law in these areas. Now, enough about that. Here is our bold and imaginative manifesto outlining how we propose to fund schools and the NHS, lift families out of poverty, combat homelessness, get the rising cost of living under control, help people access secure and affordable housing, improve our trading relationship with the EU and other countries, tackle climate change, sort out the student loans system and support the elderly."

The blue haired brigade would throw all their toys out of the pram. The vast majority of voters would burst into spontaneous applause and fall over themselves to vote Labour at the next election.