KJK

[Notaflippinclue]

Why the fuck has MUMSNET cancelled her

Fab post Arthurbella!

"Women are comprehensively trained to behave well. To acquiesce, smooth, tidy the rough edges, keep everyone happy. This works reasonably well until we diminish ourselves in order to maintain this facade of peacableness."

This is particularly relevant.

I know it all inside out because I've been there and wroten the book.

On the nail post Arthurbella.

Yes, women on here may be abrupt, rude, bad tempered, tired, and sometimes intemperate. I love them all the more for it.

Just like KJK. Whose voice is also incredibly important in holding the line of no, and cutting through directly to this. But equally, like I said in my first (I think) post on this thread, there are those for whom this style of delivery sounds harsh. There are those who hear (or read) strong words, delivered with an abrupt tone and naturally start siding with the underdog.

There's definitely no meeting in the middle to be had when it comes to accessing women's spaces or children and vulnerable people being pulled towards a belief that may lead them to change their bodies irreversibly.

The "middle conversation" isn't about moving that line at all. It's about approaching "no" in a different way, when a belief can lead to harm, which perhaps also involves actively listening to and engaging with the opposing viewpoint to understand why someone believes what they do.

There was a comment up above about KJK challenging the misogyny in Islam. I'm going to take a guess that this related to bhurka/hijab wearing or other restrictions that are placed on women as part of this faith - and that some people took exception to this. If I've understood that correctly, it's a good example of how challenging someone's belief head-on doesn't always get received well by everyone.
Obviously religious beliefs don't impact anyone else's boundaries, outside that religion, unless people choose to accommodate them, such as women covering up to visit a mosque (or indeed a Catholic church in Europe) when visiting. By contrast, gender identity belief is being pushed on to all of us as a truth.

If the intention is to talk about the impact on women owing to a particular belief, there are several different ways to approach this. All are equally valid.

There will be plenty of people on these threads who are unsure about gender identity. Who have come here to seek a better understanding WRT what it's all about. Some will absolutely respond to the KJK approach, and be thankful that she cut to through lots of waffle etc. Some won't.

When my Mum was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s and I talked to her on the phone, she’d ask me a question like “So how’s work?” and I’d talk/moan for a couple of minutes about it, then she’d ask the same question again and I’d give her the same answer but shorter, and by the fourth or fifth time she asked, I’d be down to “Fine!”

I think that’s why people like KJK and Helen Joyce upset some people, it’s just they’ve had to give the same answer so many times before that they’ve whittled it down to the barest of bones.

I can understand why an incel might feel that he should be allocated a woman (who must be attractive and must not be allowed to want unreasonable stupid things like that he should wash occasionally and not hit her, or that sex happens when she wants and consents to it) as a maid and sexual partner because he's entitled/unattractive/wants to 'queer' society's expectations of reciprocal and appropriate social relationships being conditional to other people wanting to have them with you.

I don't however expect my understanding to really go beyond sadness at seeing someone stuck in this grotty mindset and probably not possible to rescue from it, and from it hardening my conviction and resolve that they require very firm boundaries, clear messaging, and that enabling is neither kind nor harmless.

I'm afraid society is reaching a point where they're going to realise that there are those who do not blossom when lavished with kindness and compassion and all their needs met, but instead regard you as a mug to be taken for as far as the ride can be made to go.

It's not just that.

It's that one realises how society has generally been hoodwinked.

And one can't have lovely reasonable chats with raging bad faith narcissists. I mean, you can. But ...

It's a matter of personal integrity, honesty, and morality. It's modelling assertiveness.

And contrary to Bonfire's repeated assertions, I actually see nothing 'hardline' in statements that men cannot be women, and that women need women's rights.

Dispensing with frills and froth and pretty pleases and thankses doesn't actually make much difference, in the end. It makes no odds if you ask Alpha to stop objectifying women or mocking women or ignoring women.

What needs to be said is 'no', and it needs to be clear.

Women need to practise getting better at saying 'no' and allowing themselves to stand in that space, boundaries defined, without apology.

"Women need to practise getting better at saying 'no' and allowing themselves to stand in that space, boundaries defined, without apology".

Spend an hour on the Relationships board to see how hard so many women find this - even in the face of the most abusive, toxic male behaviour.

And one can't have lovely reasonable chats with raging bad faith narcissists.

This is the heart of the matter. Enabling and indulging these people isn't helpful.

It is indeed at the heart of it.

If I had only one thing to take away from FWR, it would be pronouns. The moment that you use she or her to reference someone who is not female, you open the door. You haven't 'validated' their identity. You have moved them from male to female. This is a bad thing and I refuse to do it.

And contrary to Bonfire's repeated assertions, I actually see nothing 'hardline' in statements that men cannot be women, and that women need women's rights.

I'm not sure what is being questioned here. The line is fixed. It is a hard line. It doesn't move.

It's a line that has been drawn where women (and also many men), in various different ways, are saying no. No to forcing others to accept someone's belief in their own gender identity as a truth. No to compelling people to believe that everyone has a gender identity*. No to transwomen/men self-IDing across women's boundaries in spaces, prisons, sports, associations.
No to all of the harmful impacts of pulling this belief in to law, education and healthcare as a truth.

There is no right or wrong way to engage in conversations and debates about this. There are just different ways.

*This particular one was my own longest journey, even when I was right in the throes of my daughter's mental health crisis and she was being hospitalised due to self harm. And when I talk to people (the medical professional that wrote my daughter's safeguarding statement for her EHCP, the local authority who had to approve it, senior leadership at school who I'm liaising with about the PHSE materials and their entire approach to gender identity in the absence of government guidance, my whistleblowing at work where this has already resulted in policy change with hopefully more to follow on training content, senior leaders in both the hospital crisis and local CAMHS services that worked/work with my daughter) it's very clear that most people in these decision-making positions accept at face value that we do all have a gender identity. In order for me to engage in these conversations effectively, without being shut down and shut out, I need to accept the fact that the people that I'm talking to probably hold a different belief to me, or at least haven't really thought about it so believe it by default. For some people, the idea that we have an inner gendered soul makes sense to them when it is explained from the perspective of someone who says that theirs doesn't match their physical body. Just as it did to me at one point too. And many people who hold this belief have very strong opinions about supporting those who experience gender dysphoria, partly because it's getting more and more common to know someone in this situation. Regardless of whether a belief is a truth or not, it is real to people who believe in it and the distress that people feel with (the mental health condition of) gender dysphoria is real. And yes, sadly most are likely to be oblivious to the Malaga Airport folks and their influence on all of this.

That's why all the different ways of saying no to the harms caused by gender identity belief are important.

Yes. But I didn’t realise that until I had been using ‘preferred pronouns’ for a transman for a couple of years, It wasn’t until I realised that someone was trying to compel me to call my son ‘she’ that the penny dropped. And by then I had been reading all your MN views, bridling a bit at the more forceful expressions, but gradually being persuaded that I had been conned into going along with an ideology that I really knew made no sense. It’s not just women who have been socialised into a rather thoughtless kindness.

So I’m grateful for all the gender critical voices, even though my awakening hasn’t helped (yet?) with my family troubles.

And yes, sadly most are likely to be oblivious to the Malaga Airport folks and their influence on all of this.

I think this is a much bigger group than you appear to believe. I'm not sure you are engaging with what people are saying about enabling.

BonfireLady

i understand you treading a path that might require concessions that many of the woman here would disagree with, because of your situation. Believe me, it's not that I don't get it.

What I don't get, is why you would do it to, for example, raging narcissistic men who come on here just to get off on bothering us.

I genuinely don't think that any of these men are in any kind of position of influence or any kind of policy, anywhere, anyhow.

They're just random blokes flexing their muscles and thoroughly enjoying any dissent they cause.

If you haven't read the transwidows threads, can I suggest it? It will help you understand that moderation for these men is simply not an option. It only ever goes in one direction and that's up the escalator.

The issue with your daughter is a million miles away from the issue with these men.

I'm very aware of the size and influence of this group.

I'm still prepared to accept Alpha's gender dysphoria at face value too. Mental health issues are complex, as is neurodiversity. Layer on gender identity being a truth to someone and it gets more complex yet again. I watched the Helen Joyce debate thread descending in to lots of talk (from Alpha) of being "submissive" and pointed this out to Alpha as a red flag somewhere on this KJK thread. Page 5ish I think.

The gender dysphoria therapy book that Sue and Marcus Evans (Tavistock whistleblowers) wrote has a brilliant chapter on how gender dysphoria presents in boys and men. I didn't read that chapter for a long time because it had nothing to do directly with my daughter. As I researched more in to gender dysphoria, trans activism and autism, I realised that I needed to understand how gender dysphoria was different from the way that it presents in girls and women. The short version is that they say it all has a Freudian aspect to it. That it's about seeing yourself as being desirable as a woman (by contrast with girls it's most commonly about escaping womanhood). That this can be out of a need to be loved, from a fetish angle or both. I've also listened to several Reduxx presentations on how all of the fetish end of this has been interwoven in to activism.

Yes, I am engaging with what people are saying about enabling. I'm also saying that there are different ways to approach saying no. At no point have I encouraged anything but debate, because debate is better than no debate IMO. There is no "correct way" to debate and, as I have said on multiple occasions, I greatly value all the different ways in which women (and the men who post in support of those impacted) hold the line of no when it comes to crossing boundaries and the other harms caused by gender identity belief.

I watched the Helen Joyce debate thread descending in to lots of talk (from Alpha) of being "submissive" and pointed this out to Alpha

It had already been pointed out repeatedly by women who have seen how these threads tend to go.

I realised that I needed to understand how gender dysphoria was different from the way that it presents in girls and women. The short version is that they say it all has a Freudian aspect to it. That it's about seeing yourself as being desirable as a woman (by contrast with girls it's most commonly about escaping womanhood). That this can be out of a need to be loved, from a fetish angle or both.

This has been on about on these boards for years and years. Long before anyone had even heard of Sue and Marcus Evans.

Ray Blanchard's typology is pretty much exactly that. That they are both transitioning for sex or love, albeit, in slightly different ways.

And the only way to do it, is to make use of women, by inhabiting the stereotypes that are detrimental to them.

There is no concession, compromise or moderation to be had. It's just degrees of exploitation.

Yes, I read some of the support threads when I was quite new to MN. It felt a little intrusive so I stopped and instead I watched some interviews with transwidows, starting with what I found on Benjamin Boyce. I also read the transcript of a very uncomfortable interview (Stella O'Malley did it I think) with Debbie Hayton and Debbie's wife. Uncomfortable because it made me think of Stockholm syndrome.

My first interaction with Alpha was on the "middle ground" thread. I looped back and read the AMA (which I wasn't on) and then secondly on the Helen Joyce debate thread. When I saw how the Helen Joyce thread progressed while I had been away from it, I flagged that on this thread.

Why am I interacting?
If Helen Joyce had debated Grace Lavery, that would have at least had some substance to it, unlike Freda's performance art. And on a personal note, if I see common ground, such as an acknowledgement that harms are being done to children (Blaire White, Debbie Hayton and Caitlyn Jenner all state this) then I'm interested in following up on it. I'm comfortable that there are often no clear lines in some aspects of this whole mess. If Scott Newgent had refused to be a part of Matt Walsh's documentary "What is a Woman?" until they could both agree on whether a family with two lesbian mums was a good thing or not, an opportunity would have been missed. Sadly, I've not seen the documentary as I have no intention of signing up for a subscription to the Daily Wire, but I've seen plenty of excerpts. Plus Scott's incredibly powerful press conference challenging why people call Matt a bigot. My opinion of Matt Walsh is very low when it comes to his traditional and intolerant views. In fact I'd go so far as to say I find him pretty narcissistic when I listen to how he engages with people. It just so happens that I share his view that we don't all have a gender identity and he's incredibly good at articulating this. Yet another voice/style to add in to the mix, along with KJK and Glinner on the blunt end of things.

Okay, but what has any of that got to do with being moderate with something like alpha? A total random, with no influence, platform, or power. Who appeared to only be here in order to enjoy winding up women.

And people like Caitlyn Jenner and Debbie Hayton, in my opinion, manipulate their readers. They are quite capable of saying they care about something, only when it will clearly never, ever affect them.

Caitlyn Jenner confessed to secretly stealing their daughters clothes, which is hardly caring about children. And Debbie thinks that big breasted women are rewarded by being higher up the social hierarchy. Not really someone you want teaching your daughters.

Blair white, I've no idea about. Looks like a preening twat to me.

I also read the transcript of a very uncomfortable interview (Stella O'Malley did it I think) with Debbie Hayton and Debbie's wife. Uncomfortable because it made me think of Stockholm syndrome.

It was featured in a "groundbreaking" C4 TV programme in which we were supposed to see DH as sympathetic.