Copied below for those not on X.
So, my last thought atm on the 'no-guilt-by-association-no-purity-spirals' thing.
There is something expressed by this thought that, as I've said, I think is correct... and that is that in a liberal democratic society it is important to respect the rights of all people to hold their own views, act in accordance with their own values, and express their political ideas. A large political movement benefits from diversity of perspectives, and different focuses, and it's important to respect that people can do valuable work even if we don't agree with everything they think. It is also, important, in a liberal democratic society, not to retreat into 'no debate' and to keep lines of public dialogue open over matters of contention. Many people, understandably, want to resist the kind of totalitarian thought policing characteristic of the trans rights movement.
At the same time, political movements can be co-opted by other political forces that have other political agendas in a manner which can dissipate or distort their key focus and can turn it against the interests of the people it was originally intended to represent. I think the concerns about this go in both directions and are not entirely baseless,
Much of institutional and academic feminism was captured by trans ideology in a manner that turned it against the interests of women. The result of that, to take one concrete example, is that @SarahSurviving was unable to access a female only rape counselling group when she needed one.
In that context, I don't think people's concerns that the gender critical movement could be co-opted, or could end up making concessions to trans ideology is without basis. These concerns have tended to focus on issues of the use of gendered/wrong-sex pronouns, phrases like 'trans woman,' and the presence of trans identified people at GC events. We can debate the finer points of these issues, but my observation is that many campaign groups have listened to these concerns and have taken much of it on board. However, at the same time, these concerns have been coupled with claims that the British GC movement has not achieved a great deal, and the reason for this is its concessions to the language of trans ideology and the presence of trans identified people. I do not think this claim is based in reality. The British GC movement has mounted the most successful resistance to trans ideology on the face of the planet. And I see no evidence that any of the campaign groups intend to make concessions to the substantive political questions of the definition of sex in law and the preservation of single sex spaces.
There may be some substantive disagreement here regarding the GRA, but these are largely pragmatic, rather than ideological. Many groups are focussed on trying to fix the problem in what they consider to be the most viable way under the present set of political circumstances. I don't know any GC people who think the GRA is a good law, or who don't understand that it being a terrible law is the fundamental root of the present conflict. That is different from whether they think trying to repeal it is a viable political goal, or whether they want to commit themselves to the long, arduous and extremely expensive legal process that it would be necessary to go through in order to get it repealed. With respect to the issue of plurality of action, I think people who want to achieve this political goal should organise in order to try and achieve it if that is the course of action they think best. I think trying to bully other campaign groups into adopting this goal is not on, and nor is completely rubbishing what they are trying to achieve.
As I said, I also think these concerns go both ways. The other axis of the 'no-guilt-by-association-no-purity-spirals' rhetoric concerns taking platforms, or any kind of financial support, or engaging in joint legal action or publicity, with either Christian or white nationalists (note, not just any kind of conservative person in general). The basis for this objection is also not without foundation, and is about the concern that a movement originally grounded in the defence of the interests of women and gay and lesbian people could be co-opted by people who are hostile to the political interests of women and homosexuals, and is also white supremacist. From my, and many other people's observation, over the last couple of years, the UK GC space, especially on twitter, has progressively merged with both the US MAGA/Christian nationalist space, and those of UK white nationalists. There is a great deal of explicitly anti-feminist discourse (hi Matt and James), lots of people who are more or less explicitly anti-abortion, not inconsiderable homophobia, and also a lot of 'great replacement' theory discourse, as well as covid conspiracy and general QAnon type stuff. For many feminist women this is a problem. They fear that the energy of the UK GC movement could be fed into the hands of very powerful, and increasingly dominant, populist forces who will use that against women and gay people and also ethnic minorities. It is also a practical political problem for the many women who are working diligently behind the scenes to try and ensure that the likely next government will listen to them, and to be in a position to hold their feet to the fire if they try and fudge the resolution to the trans issue.
As a movement, we have spectacularly failed to discuss either these sets of concerns in anything resembling a calm and sensible manner and have failed to extend good faith to each other over legitimate points of contention. That makes me personally very sad, and politically, I think we are all very much the poorer for it.