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 find HL to be a bit too "jolly hockey sticks" for my liking, but I agree that she's a good writer and I find her take on other subjects interesting (loved her podcast series on gurus) and subscribe to her newsletter because of that.

But she absolutely is part of the elite feminist/head girls/gentry left, those who identify themselves as our representation.

I admire and have many points of agreement with lots of those women - I have a huge amount of time for Helen Joyce for example - but they very often reveal what they really think of the rest of us and "bug eyed, paranoid, dimwitted and hateful" is just one of the more recent examples, the way they treat KJK being another ongoing example.

Ultimately I think HL is amongst many who are still proceeding as if it's 2014, who still seem to think if we're nice and reasonable everything can be sorted out to all parties' satisfaction. For those in the elite, they can get their seat at the table of influence and power when the much anticipated Labour victory happens and some crumbs can be thrown to the rest of us if we're lucky.

It's nearly 2024 and that's simply not going to cut it, not by a long chalk.

To be fair to Helen, the 'bug eyed paranoid' comments are from Rowan. Helen is just very sad about us.

But she absolutely is part of the elite feminist/head girls/gentry left, those who identify themselves as our representation.

I admire and have many points of agreement with lots of those women - I have a huge amount of time for Helen Joyce for example

I don't think Helen Joyce is part of that grouping. She's not left wing for a start.

The distinct lack of 'come on that's a bit much' is noticeable, though. May not add up to tacit endorsement but doesn't dissociate either.

You're correct that HJ is not left wing but she is, whether regarding herself as included in it or not, part of the group of "elite feminists/GCs" for want of a better term.
That's not in and of itself a criticism in my book, but an observation.

I admire and have many points of agreement with lots of those women - I have a huge amount of time for Helen Joyce for example - but they very often reveal what they really think of the rest of us and "bug eyed, paranoid, dimwitted and hateful" is just one of the more recent examples, the way they treat KJK being another ongoing example.

Is there any evidence that Helen Joyce has done any of this? You say she is part of the group of "elite feminists/GCs", but what do you mean by this? Well educated? Wealthy? Middle class? What exactly?

HJ supports KJK, as far I have seen.

I think Helen Joyce is very different from people like Helen Lewis. Joyce is fantastically intelligent (just go and have a look at her CV on LinkedIn) but she isn't obviously posh or elitist. It helps being Irish, of course - her accent doesn't have any of the class connotations you get with an English accent.

I agree, Helen Joyce isn't about purity spirals in the same way as others. She will speak at LWS and understands how valuable it is for ordinary women to feel their voices are heard. She also isn't a Labour supporter particularly, so she doesn't have competing interests in that way.

And also maths and economics rather than philosophy, history, sociology.

I think I remember Helen Joyce talking about getting a hard time from certain feminists (although I don't recall her naming any names) after the first time she went to a Standing for Women event.

This is correct. However, Helen commented:

”It’s a great sadness that now it seems like the “Posie Tendency” is the dominant strand of activism there.”

I guess that is very open to interpretation as to what the “Posie Tendency” is. I assume it is that Helen believes we are now too hard line or it could mean we are now ‘domesticated zombies’ or something else or that Helen agrees that we are 'bug eyed paranoid and dim witted’.

Either way, I gather that Helen was certainly not defending Mumsnet or being complimentary. Not that she has to be. But telling us that we shouldn’t comment or criticise Helen’s comments in return is still a form of tone policing.

But telling us that we shouldn’t comment or criticise Helen’s comments in return is still a form of tone policing.
Ok but I have to say, I'd have thought it would be pretty clear, both from the rest of my post, and my other posts on this thread that I wasn't telling you that at all.

HL's sadness reminds me of a school teacher lamenting how her favourite class has turned out to be a bunch of wrong 'uns. And in case, I'm still not making myself clear, I think she's being ludicrous.

I just also think it's important to be accurate about who said what.

She's not a Labour supporter at all. She describes herself as "economically right-wing and socially liberal".

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-30/

And flo, I don’t believe I was saying that you were. I was acknowledging that you are absolutely correct. But that even though it was Rowan who said that, that we should be clear what Helen did say and still be able to comment despite what other posters believe.

So, I am completely in agreeance with your post. Apologies that it read that I was not.

Ah ok, Helle that makes sense and apologies in return for misunderstanding!

I'm actually quite flabbergasted by Helen Lewis's claim to be feeling 'great sadness'. It's such a patronising, passive-aggressive thing to say and I guess it's got under my skin far more than Rowan's comments.

And again, I agree. Rowan is not a published voice. Helen on the other hand is.

Yes, I'm more likely to make allowances for Rowan but Helen Lewis is a professional writer and so, if she writes something that sounds patronising and passive-aggressive, I'm inclined to believe it's intentionally so.

Here's Helen Joyce in her own words on the rift between KJK and the academic feminists.
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-21/

She's not part of that group. If she's aligned with anyone, it's many of us on here.

I think she's such a good writer and this is a brilliant speech.

As for all the Head Girls vs Posie nonsense, I just can't. I've been a feminist activist for 40 years and I'm worn out with this constant slide into sectarianism and ripping each other apart.

I think it is entirely legitimate, though, to raise questions about what gets said in our name. I think it is a tactical error to talk about groomers and to ally with the Conservative right and to kick off about men wearing dresses. You disagree? Great, let's discuss- with tolerance and open minds. Don't shout me down about perverts and what about the children. Sometimes FWR gets a bit too 'no debate'.

Yeah, someone who writes professionally should really know how their work comes over to ordinary readers.

So if Helen Lewis wants to be supercilious, I'm allowed to say that I really dislike supercilious people, having had a bellyful of them at various times.

That's not to say that I wouldn't stick my hand in my pocket for a crowd-funder, but it might not go in quite so far...

Also, I have no issue with men wearing dresses. I just don't want them in women's bogs, changing rooms, sports and prisons, thanks all the same. The safeguarding issues really, really, bother me.

I didn't say HJ had done any of that but reading back what I've written I can see that my inclusion of HJ there was probably a mistake as it's muddied the waters of what I was trying to say so I'll try and clarify.

As I said I have a lot of time for Joyce and agree with the posts by Eresh upthread so there's no need to defend her to me. I think that unlike HL she has travelled a long way down the road and is probably nearer KJK's position than previously which is all to the good - not that I agree with everything KJK has to say, for the record.

However amongst the gentry GCs there are still those who would prioritise their Left wing identities (if they have them) over the rights of women and girls or think it's okay to platform folk like Hayton at the expense of transwidows, or who believe in "tru trans", or who think all of this can be sorted without repealing the GRA, or who don't understand safeguarding and its importance, or can't see a fetish when it's staring them in the face and it bothers me that these are the people who are seen as "our" representation (or who identify as such themselves) because I don't know if I trust that they won't make "compromises" on our behalf and I can't and won't compromise on this.

This is a really excellent piece - as ever, her clarity and calm is admirable.

And I think you've nailed another point that bothers me, Terry: "...there are still those who would prioritise their Left wing identities (if they have them) over the rights of women and girls or think it's okay to platform folk like Hayton at the expense of transwidows, or who believe in "tru trans", or who think all of this can be sorted without repealing the GRA, or who don't understand safeguarding and its importance, or can't see a fetish when it's staring them in the face and it bothers me that these are the people who are seen as "our" representation (or who identify as such themselves) because I don't know if I trust that they won't make "compromises" on our behalf and I can't and won't compromise on this."

However amongst the gentry GCs there are still those who would prioritise their Left wing identities (if they have them) over the rights of women and girls

I'm picking out this bit rather than quoting your whole post again. Yeah my understanding is that WPUK (where Helen Lewis was speaking) is first and foremost a left wing organisation. I'm sure they're totally sincere in believing this is in women's best interests and I'm equally sure that, if push comes to shove, that's where their priorities will lie.

I think you can say the same about the Labour Women's Declaration. I have masses of time for them, in fact they're probably the main reason I've not yet completely severed ties with that party. But the clue is in the name.

Yes, she got cold shouldered by a large contingent of the GC feminists who’d previously had a lot of time for her (including those who joined her at the infamous JKR lunch), and they’ve never allowed her back in the fold, or support her work, as far as I can see. She didn’t name any names, but for anyone who follows the big names on Twitter, I think it was pretty clear.