Helen Lewis blog of her WPUK speech

[Riva5784]

https://helenlewis.substack.com/p/the-gender-debate-from-the-gaslighting?utm_medium=email

She describes her experiences as a journalist writing on these issues and how her perspective changed.

"When I started writing about trans issues, I thought I was supporting a movement for human dignity—trans women wanted to be treated like women, to use female names and female pronouns to soothe their gender dysphoria. Of course they weren’t female, and some protections in law were written specifically for biological females, so those wouldn’t be included.

"But I quickly discovered that wasn’t the case: that some people found any discussion of vaginas and ovaries in relation to womanhood appalling, yet many of those same people had no problem identifying who was a woman when it came to singling out writers for abuse, threats and bullying."

I've always struggled to pin down where Helen Lewis stood in this debate. Her position has seemed to be along the lines of, 'TWAW except erm...when they're not', so I'm not at all surprised if she's uncomfortable with the directness of KJK and (I assume) Glinner.

I'm a little more surprised to see her claiming, 'I arrived to it' (the debate) 'early'. That's not my recollection. In fact it did cross my mind that parts of her speech sounded like a woman trying to repackage her own history. But maybe she's always been too nuanced for my Mumsnet brain. Or maybe I'm being harsh because she's pissed me off.

I'm sorry to hear we've made her sad though. Cheer up Helen.

I've always struggled to pin down where Helen Lewis stood in this debate. Her position has seemed to be along the lines of, 'TWAW except erm...when they're not', so I'm not at all surprised if she's uncomfortable with the directness of KJK and (I assume) Glinner.

I think that's true. She seems to take a middle of the road position - for example, she says she will still use people's preferred pronouns because it's the polite thing to do.

What I find strange is that, having apparently been involved in this debate for a number of years, she hasn't really shifted her position. Most women I know on the gc side started out making a distinction between genuine transsexuals and a minority who were using trans identity for nefarious ends. People would use preferred pronouns for the genuine ones but objected to self-ID legislation on the basis that it would make it easy for sex offenders to abuse it.

But practically all of us have shifted from that position to one where we now think: humans can't change sex, men can't be women, no, we're not going to pander to any delusions, we're not going to use preferred pronouns and we're not going to allow men into women's spaces, however nice they seem, no, not even if they've had surgery.

Lewis hasn't made that journey, it seems. She's exactly where she was nine or 10 years ago.

Was it Helen Lewis who laid into Glinner when he registered himself (in lipstick and with a coquettish head tilt) on a lesbian dating site, to make the point that is was utterly ridiculous that he could do this?

I'll take Posie any day of the week. I don't agree with many things she says, but at least I trust her to be honest and not trying to position herself as head of "the movement", in order to do some deal with the powers that be that will ultimately harm women. These women affiliated to WPUK are just Labour shills, playing the pick me dance with a party that treats them with contempt.

"Was it Helen Lewis who laid into Glinner when he registered himself (in lipstick and with a coquettish head tilt) on a lesbian dating site, to make the point that is was utterly ridiculous that he could do this?"

I wouldn't be surprised if she did, Graham Linehan had phoned her up and left a very abusive rant on her answerphone prior to that.

Honestly, the back-biting and assumptions here are making me quite 😡.
As this was one of five speeches about how five journalists have come across and reported on the debate and what motivated them. If we go for rubbishing sisters in the struggle to preserve women’s rights then we end up in the very purity spirals we get others upset about.
I don’t think Helen L is head girlish and while for me PP’s tactics and heavy merch-led influencer vibe doesn’t appeal, each to their own but we come together to crowdfund or to organise

Was it Helen Lewis who laid into Glinner when he registered himself (in lipstick and with a coquettish head tilt) on a lesbian dating site, to make the point that is was utterly ridiculous that he could do this?

Yes.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/helen-lewis-is-a-dishonest-unethical

Wouldn't surprise me if he sent something shirty, he has previous for it.

Although if she used the actual word 'abusive' I'd need to see a transcript or hear the audio before I took her word for it. She's undermined her own integrity in this area (a decent journalist wouldn't change their entire angle because they disliked someone, for starters).

I agree, constant snipes about "head girlish" feminists reveal a lot more about the snipers than the target.

think that's true. She seems to take a middle of the road position - for example, she says she will still use people's preferred pronouns because it's the polite thing to do.

The telling thing is that the TRAs still hate her every bit as much as any of us. Which says more about them than anything else.

Anyone who can read HL's comment about her 'great sadness' over Mumsnet without thinking 'Head Girl' is a better feminist than I am.

You have a point, I know.

I would just say that if you're more in tune with HL's approach, you probably won't find her as grating because she's not criticising you. I think there's a difference between not personally liking someone's style, and actually saying they should stop doing things because they're doing it wrong.

I'd still contribute to a crowdfund if HL was deplatformed for speaking up for women. I just wish she'd stop snarking at other campaigners. I wish Glinner would too, so I think I'm reasonably even-handed on that.

I think if Helen and Rowan are allowed to make nasty comments about women on FWR, women on FWR are allowed to criticise them for that. Hooray for free speech.

The telling thing is that the TRAs still hate her every bit as much as any of us. Which says more about them than anything else.

A friend of mine used to say "If you stand in the middle of the road, you'll be run over by traffic in both directions."

Mind you, while the TRAs are running her over - and would probably literally run her over if they could - we are merely tutting and shaking our heads disapprovingly.

I reject that framing.

As I said above, if she needed practical support I would offer it, no matter my personal views on how she's acting.

Dworkin said it better than I could. The interesting thing would be if HL would say the same of KJK. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't.

Oh yes, what did he say to her? I'm not great fan of Glinner either, but he's another one I trust not to throw women under the bus to get a seat around Labour's table.

I too have never been able to pin down exactly where Helen Lewis stands on the trans issue. She comes across as GC - sensible, rational, plain speaking - but then ruins it by saying “TW are sometimes W” and slagging off easy targets.

Very slippery. I no longer pay attention to what she has to say on the issue.

Which is a shame, because I think she’s a great writer, and her piece on “Tiktok Tourette’s” and social contagion was fantastic.

I agree that she's an excellent writer. But you're right - you can be reading something she says, and agree with it, and then suddenly she'll throw in a line that undermines everything else. There was one she did not so long ago on the issue of puberty blockers and other medical interventions for children, which seemed to start off saying they were bad, but then veered, if I remember correctly, into saying they were probably right for some children. (I've found the article but can't access it.)

I think the difference between what Helen thinks and what glinner thinks is this. Helen thinks that some people are genuinely trans, and we should respect their right to live as the opposite sex, but that self-ID laws enable sexual predators to take advantage.

Glinner, I suspect, thinks that the whole trans activist movement is largely driven by predators, and that they far outnumber the handful of genuine trans people. I might be misrepresenting them both, but I think that's the nub of it.

I prefer writers who don't leave you thinking, 'What did she actually say just then?'

Glinner, I suspect, thinks that the whole trans activist movement is largely driven by predators

I'm nearer to agreeing with him than her, although I've disagreed with him on many issues too.

Helen thinks that some people are genuinely trans, and we should respect their right to live as the opposite sex, but that self-ID laws enable sexual predators to take advantage.

Glinner, I suspect, thinks that the whole trans activist movement is largely driven by predators, and that they far outnumber the handful of genuine trans people. I might be misrepresenting them both, but I think that's the nub of it.

Is that what Glinner thinks? Or does he take the view that many of us have come to that there is no such thing as 'genuine trans people'? If you believe that there are 'genuine trans people' you have to believe that it's possible to be literally born in the wrong body, don't you?

As others have said, Helen Lewis's view on this is quite hard to pin down, but I think she does believe in 'genuine trans people'.

Back biting in terms of calling other women bug eyed, paranoid, dimwitted and hateful you mean?

Or you are angry that the women who take offence to being called bug eyed, paranoid, dimwitted and hateful should dare to tell the person that calls them bug eyed, paranoid, dimwitted and hateful to fuck right off?

Is that what Glinner thinks? Or does he take the view that many of us have come to that there is no such thing as 'genuine trans people'? If you believe that there are 'genuine trans people' you have to believe that it's possible to be literally born in the wrong body, don't you?

Yes I agree.

Helen Lewis is like Jesse Singal and Peter Boghossian on this issue: all three can see the negatives of medicalising children’s distress regarding gender, and they can see the full spectrum of men who want access to women’s spaces and rights, but none of them can bring themselves to want to use the law to outright ban these things. Their self-conception as Liberals seems to be very important to them and manifests as not wanting to curb other people’s rights (even in situations such as this). They also both seem to believe (somehow) in true trans kids and in letting people do whatever they want to their own bodies as soon as they hit 18 years old.

A desire not to limit other adults is a good principle in theory except when it comes up against human nature and the male sex drive - some behaviour by adults needs to be circumscribed because it has a negative impact on the rights of others (women and children in this case) and society at large. Some behaviour has to be limited because it is a bad idea for the person themselves and they’re not making the decision being of sound mind - we don’t let anorexics starve themselves to death even if they want to.

I’m very much not an authoritarian but I believe the current situation with regards to medicalising children and allowing men access to women’s spaces and rights has gone badly for society at large and therefore cannot be tackled via nudges and the honour system - we need laws made to protect women and children and those who will otherwise be taken advantage of by surgeons claiming they can cure mental illness via surgery.

I reckon you are spot on.

It seems that we are again expected to hold ourselves to a higher standard by not criticising someone’s criticism so that we might not rock the boat or whatever the motivation. Or that we are again in the midst of this magical ‘middle ground’ which I now read as code for someone who believes that some people really should be fully treated as the sex they want to be but are materially never going to be but cannot coherently or cohesively state when that should be.

I’ve come to realise that might be because they simply don’t want to be the ones who point out that this is actually full exclusion of the people they don’t want to hurt. So in effect, I now believe that there is a group of people who hide behind the people they declare are extreme for different motivations revolving around maintaining their own ‘kind’, ‘compassionate’, ‘tolerant’ and ‘thoughtful’ credentials.

Because whenever I see someone declare they have a middle ground, it turns out that it really isn’t a workable middle ground. It is something trite that they say to hide the ramifications of what they support as well.

And I have found Helen Lewis to be rather unclear about what she does and doesn’t support in the past. I don’t feel confident that I have a clear understanding even now.

She will go whichever way the wind blows.