Jane Clare Jones on purity spirals

[IamSarah]

Really insightful post on X the platform formally known as Twitter I feel it's worth sharing on here:

x.com/janeclarejones/status/1745760345954689255?s=46&t=NGJBRqkXgp1UazF5I8yjXA

So, has Went stopped using female single sex spaces? Wasn't there a documentary where they admitted going into the women's toilet while talking and then shutting up so that Went didn't scare the women using the toilet?

So, Went knows that women need single sex spaces. Has Went stopped using female single sex spaces?

Is the sin page still up? And the FB group still active?

Jane clare jones likes stirring the pot. And writing very long twitter posts.

There are women who can't seem to function without a man with gender somewhere nearby. I havent quite figured out if they are being groomed, or they optimistical keep trying in the hope they find a good 'un.

How is it possible to be in any way critical of gender ideology and take a man pretending to be a woman seriously? But instead of asking themselves that question, they criticise women for not taking part in the charade.

.

Well. The sin page is still active. How about that, eh?

Thanks Tinsel. So Went still uses women as a shield and uses female single sex spaces.

Good to know. I think that shows the thread in question in perfect light.

Thanks

Another irritating thing about the gentry left in general not just within feminism is their sheer contempt for ordinary people who don't agree with them. Those MAGA voters exist in sufficient numbers that Trump was elected. See also Gordon Brown and the "bigoted woman", the loss of the red wall and the Brexit vote.

What are you talking about? Who was claiming to be superior?

Well I went to JCJ's Twitter page to try and unravel what's led to this but I'm afraid I'd forgotten just how verbose she can be and bailed out before I'd worked it out. Sorry if that's mean of me but I'm 67 and I haven't got time.

I am not against building bridges, not at all. However if JCJ is serious about wanting to do this then I think she firstly needs to apologise to some specific people, and secondly stop talking for a bit and actually listen to what those people have to say.

"Building bridges" always seems to be code for us lot shutting up.

Am reminded of one of bewilderness's frequent responses:

"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust [wo]man.

You step forwards, [s]he steps back.

"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust [wo]man.

I am always concerned about women who wish other women to shut up and be spoken for on the grounds that they know better. Particularly when those women can appear to be collaborating with those women's rights are threatened by. Not all of us have the luxury of being happy with single sex spaces with a few nice and carefully selected males and calling this equality.

I have posted a thread asking for evidence on JCJ's sentence about women with concerns about women's rights, equality, need for single sex spaces (with no exemptions for special friend males because any male excludes and harms some women, 'me and my friends' feminism is not for me) having fallen in with white supremacism. This is something that if true, needs full evidencing and open addressing.

I'm not active on Twitter so perhaps that's why I don't recognise what JCJ is talking about in that post.

Men who know that they may upset or disturb or frighten women but continue to use their spaces are not men I respect.

I have deliberately elected to distance myself from JCJ. I have her muted on twitter so that we do not cross paths, and it's been going really well for my blood pressure.

In short, I do not wish her to build any bridges to my side of this river; if she tries, I'll pour an accelerant onto the bridge, and set it on fire.

I mean, I'm not sure how you can square fundamentally not believing in gender identity and also calling a man "she", or accepting the presence of a man who would wish to be called "she" as a good thing. What does that achieve? It's very much a half in half out attitude.

I've read so many different things about this on Twitter, but I can't clarify if;

1. It was a mixed sex or single sex event

1. KJW was purposefully invited or if it was an open ticket public event

1. KJW was referred to as an official expert in the Q and A, re a parent of a child asking a q. (I've picked up something about this.) and who directed the parent to KJW. (Naming KW so not deleted.)

3 is of more concern to me though purposefully inviting would merit some carefully explained context. And if it was a single sex event it's very problematic

KJW freely attending as it's a public mixed sex event and photo bombing stock I feel is within the free speech and free exchange of information realms. And of course, everyone is free to discuss this online and their views, also context reliant (eg impact on ex wife of transition some of which I wasn't aware and has made interesting reading.)

Inviting and using KJW as an expert audience guest deserves a lot of criticism imo given the context of the book. That critique is not about purity spirals, that's child safeguarding. And puts a different perspective on the whole thing.

Did Helen Lewis refer a parent to go and talk to Went at the event for advice on that parent's trans identifying child?

If this did happen, has anyone from the event addressed this? Do this Brighton group endorse Went as a person to give a parent guidance on this issue?

.

JFC.

Right, thanks I hadn't seen this.

I don't like authoritarianism and purity spirals; tra behaviour like that got us to this point, but that's entirely different. Given the context of the entire book.

KJW was purposefully invited or if it was an open ticket public event
Helen Lewis says she invited KJW.

It was an open, ticketed, mixed sex event. Many women came with their husbands.

Anyone with any political view or ideology was welcome to come. It wasn't a support group and was also not supposed to be an echo chamber.

Katy Jon West bought a ticket. All ticket holders were guests of Sisters Salon, who ran the event.

KJW has been invited to attend by Helen Lewis, one of the speakers. KJW was not one of the speakers.

KJW asked a question at the end and spoke a bit as all ticket holders were welcome to do.

It was the first time I'd met KJW but he told me he supports single sex spaces for women, particularly survivors.

I took the photo. I was trying to take it just of Kathleen and Julie. KJW photo bombed. We all laughed. I posted it online. All hell broke loose.

Ok thanks

It was the first time I'd met KJW but he told me he supports single sex spaces for women, particularly survivors.

That can be tricksy though. Sometimes they support single sex spaces for women, which includes themselves, since they regard themselves as women. Not sure about "especially survivors" either. You support single sex spaces or you don't, in my opinion. No qualifiers.

Ok thanks to tinsel.

And thanks sarah for clarifying.

Helen Lewis, if I recall correctly, said not so very long ago that Mumsnet was a cause of great sadness to her.

I'm not bringing that up purely to be snarky. Well OK I am partly because it pissed me off mightily, but I'm also suggesting that this kind of attitude reaches far beyond JCJ and Brighton, and that it's going to take rather more than a very long Twitter thread to fix it.