Evidence re GC women and white supremacism please?

[Froodwithatowel]

I'll quote JCJ here as I do not want to derail the other thread:

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.

It is not easy to make sense of that X thread, but this statement is one I want information on. I don't do parroting, I believe in critical thinking, evidence and independence of thought, and I have learned to be deeply cautious of being accidentally vaccuumed into the 'so and so smells so do what I tell you' strategies so very tediously rife at the moment to get people in line and useful to others, we live in very grotty times.

So please would some kind person provide me with evidence that women wanting rights, equality and single sex spaces are entangled with religious extremism and white nationalism? Actual evidence. Not aspersions, but evidence.

Luckily the Right Wing Evangelical Money is a bottomless pit that just keeps on rolling in, day after day after day after day after day………………………

(I’m paid a dollar per character, so it’s worth padding out the post with repetition occasionally…………😌😌😌 💵 💵💵💵💵)

JCJ = Jane Clare Jones.

Thank you!

I have to say i was unpeaked when I questioned the source of an TV clip doing the rounds and being promoted on here, when it came from a us Christian channel.

With their stance on gay people I could never take anything they say seriously or just ignore the less savoury bits. It’s why I stopped being a Christian.

Was argued at relentlessly with the same repetitive unpicking type of arguments, one even questioning why I would listen to something whilst getting ready for work, deflecting and noise away from the simple and easy to understand objection I had raised.

So women saying they want women only sport, safe spaces etc., are doing that from a basis that women as a sex class are oppressed by men. Right wing or evangelical groups are doing it from a basis of sexist stereotypes.

This reminds of a thread a year or two ago about an ad from an American company that sold watches, I think they had a “pro women” bracelet as well. The ad was much more pro gender roles than gender critical, and there was an interesting debate on the thread between those who were skeptical about the true intentions and those who agreed with the ad and had even purchased an item from them.

Then it turned out the company was massively anti abortion and we’re posting videos etc about it with a lot of misinformation. If I remember correctly a MNetter (who was pro choice) was invited to do a debate with them or something.

So you now believe men can become women because you watched a TV Clip that came from a source you don’t approve of. All the other evidence out there counts fir nothing because of one clip?

OK

So still nothing more than a lot of exaggerated conflation, wild stretches and purity stuff? No actual evidence of any kind, just a lot of high effort smearing silliness, largely intended to discourage women from standing up for their sex based rights. (Unless doing it under strict supervision and guidance of the Right Sort of Educated People.) And my response to that frankly involves quite a bit of Anglo Saxon and directions to a grip shop.

Ok. Thank you all, that's been very helpful.

• to pp: JCJ is Jane Clare Jones. At one time she wrote some really excellent articles, shrewd and also very funny, but she has unfortunately gone a bit off the boil since then.

I have just had a look. It was a disagreement about someone posting a video from Candace Owens complaining about the Balenciaga teddy bear scandal. You didn’t like the fact Candace Owens’ channel was (was it?) sponsored by someone you said is anti-abortion. Reading the thread there were some crossed wires and some toing and froing over a couple of pages, and your critics were mainly about why the message in that video wasn’t as important as the peripheries around it.

Shame you are now unpeaked over one thread.

I've posted a link up thread. The worst comments were deleted

Handy. So we have to take your word for what they were about.

God forbid anyone recognising the cultural differences between the US and UK and understanding the differences in politics between the US and UK on twitter.

Just lump everyone in together and ignore what people actually say and how they reason.

If people really think the likes of JK Rowling are far right then that tells you all you need to know.

I'm afraid I suspect that if you really lost your belief in women's equality and safeguarding, their rights not to be raped and not sterilising children (particularly gay and Autistic ones) because you didn't like the smell around one tv clip mentioned by women who wanted those things?

Your belief in such things was never much of a sincere one, was it?

You are very welcome to believe in the oppression, rape, assault and exclusion of women (particularly Autistic, disabled, traumatised, gay, BAME and minority faith ones) and in the sterilising of children, it's a free country. But if you think those things are a fair punishment for women for watching a tv clip you disapproved of, then I don't think a feminism/women's rights forum is ever going to be a place you find much connection with. A male supremacist one or incel one, possibly.

Yes Im now Tate’s number one fan! Obviously completely unable to think critically and make my own sensible decisions. What a fantastic argument congratulations!

I am really starting to think that the flag of the left should include the Oozlem bird. The legendary creature that when startled, flies in tighter and tighter circles until it disappears up its own fundament.

Would you like to make yours clearer then?

How have you reached the critical, sensible decision that women should submit to the TQ agenda (which does include all the very ugly parts I mentioned) because some women on a feminist forum were watching/talking about a tv clip linked to a source you disapproved of?

Was that not what you were saying? Do you think it's still valid for women to seek escape from those things even if some of them do not pass your personal purity test?

If you genuinely wanted my opinion I would give it. You clearly don’t, you’ve already accused me of likely following incels and it’s frankly ridiculous and I’m not being drawn into this barrage accusations and demands which characterise these threads.

Can we just find some far right, white supremacists people and pay them publicly to say they think TWAW on youtube?

I just want to see what happens. Will we get an influx of people competing to distance themselves from the far right by stating that people can't change sex? Will they loudly proclaim that it's imperative to respect women's rights to single-sex spaces? Will they– no of course they won't.

The guilt-by-association arguments are confected outrage to retrospectively justify positions that people already held.

Don't believe me? Read this 1997 article about the conviction of Peter Langan, leader of the Aryan Republican Army. As the name hints, it was a white nationalist terrorist group in the US.

excerpt

In the final days of Langan's trial in Ohio, a mystery woman appeared. She wore suit jackets and men's ties and made goo-goo eyes at the defendant.
That's my lover, Cherie Roberts told reporters, pointing to Langan. They were engaged.
Roberts objected when U.S. marshals wouldn't allow her to approach Langan. She caused a scene.
"I can't even talk to my wife!" she sobbed.
Wife?
Yes, Roberts explained. In their relationship, Pete Langan dresses as a woman and assumes the female role. He's a preoperative transsexual.
Roberts met Langan in Kansas City in a group called Crossdressers and Friends. Roberts is a transsexual too. Langan prefers not to comment.
Roberts told reporters she has her own special name for the Commander: "Donna."

Today, Langan lives as 'Donna' full-time, and was transferred to a women's federal prison in 2014. Has a single person said that they will now support women's rights to single-sex prisons because they don't want to be on the same side of an issue as Langan? Nope!

I saw a clip once of Tate explaining that a true straight man would rather have sex with an attractive transwoman than an ugly woman, so that checks out.

Do you not wonder if you are asking the wrong crowd for evidence of something they didnt say and most responding dont agree with?

Its a fairly vague 'accusation' mainly about twitter. Any of us wishing to expand the conversation and self reflect on what gc support looks like beyond this board to those not well versed in this issue, or how things like race are discussed on the platform we are using are dismissed.

If you are 'unpeaked' (withdraw from a belief that women should have equality, not be raped by male rapists, not be assaulted by male police, be able to use public services and spaces, yada yada) because of purity concerns that those women did not behave nicely enough?

Then yes, I'm afraid you are suggesting that your belief in women's equality was never very strong, (and is conditional on their behaviour), and that you are returning to a belief system that does include a lot of very grotty company such as incelism.

You are after all casting aspersions that women here are associating with the Christian right/anti abortionism by vague association, so I'm not sure why you find it a problem when I extend the same thinking to you?

My request was for hard evidence. There are women here who read pretty much everything, Twitter, the papers, the government debates, Hansard, you name it. They are excellent at locating sources.

All we have so far is a lot of vague aspersions, most made with secondary agendas. No evidence.

If statements like this are going to be made, then evidence is required. And if there is no evidence, people need to know there is no evidence. And that this is vague aspersion being made with secondary agendas, and move on to understanding what those agendas are.

I prefectly understand your request.

I dont get the incentive for me or others to provide evidence for something I didnt say or agree with particularly? Although i find twitter a very confusing platform as it seems to say whatever you want as you pick who to follow and block

Wouldnt you be better asking the person who said it, or people that agree with it for evidence. The defence doesn't normally provide evidence for the prosecution?

My only thought, as said, that the GC stance has more support in the uk from right wing parties and papers. If we want to achieve anything we need the other parties and papers on board otherwise whether you like it or not it becomes a right leaning stance. I see so many posts saying the might have to vote tory for the first time for womens rights.

And that there are some issues on mumsnet generally around race and more specifically how some people talk about blackface in comparison to drag or comparing race and gender issues without much knowledge on race.

The BBC, The Guardian, the NHS, civil service all have access to the same information we do @Spendonsend they can all read the judgements from the court cases, they can see the damage that’s being done but they chose either not to report it at all or report it in such a way that suggests that ‘both sides’ are equally at fault eg see the piece on Lynn Pitches. Somehow the BBC managed to suggest she was being unreasonable for objecting to playing against a man in the womens competition

so tell us please, how do we get these outlets to report prominently & fairly on these issues?

No, it wasn’t that one. There was one where I drooled over the jewellery in question and wondered whether I could justify buying it. I wanted to support the group that appeared to be valuing women in the same way I did.

I was grateful to the poster who was more aware of the context and made it known that the company was in no way pro woman- simply pro woman knowing their place, where they are so valuable to the men in charge.

It was an interesting thread. The jewellery was still nice. My desire to own it tanked.

It didn’t change my opinions, unlike @Karwomannghia, just clarified that there are many people who share those beliefs who also hold other contradictory beliefs. Obviously it doesn’t undermine the importance of safeguarding and same sex spaces. If anything in reinforces the need.

There are con merchants in every area. It’s not the fault of the mark for falling for it.

I dont have the answers. I think a lot of great work is being done by a lot of women so i suppose more of what they are doing?

But i think when it comes to places like twitter, who is saying things matters more than what they say sometimes...and facts and evidence are secondary.

I dont get the incentive for me or others to provide evidence for something I didnt say or agree with particularly?

You do not need to provide anything you don't wish to, and neither does anyone else. There are many women here who are collators of evidence, and would be able to tell me if there were for example articles or a bank somewhere of recorded concerns that I was not aware of. And who have an interest in accurate information, and sources.

Wouldnt you be better asking the person who said it, or people that agree with it for evidence. The defence doesn't normally provide evidence for the prosecution?

You seem to be taking this a bit personally? I'm asking other women for information they may have that I don't.

My only thought, as said, that the GC stance has more support in the uk from right wing parties and papers. If we want to achieve anything we need the other parties and papers on board otherwise whether you like it or not it becomes a right leaning stance. I see so many posts saying the might have to vote tory for the first time for womens rights. And that there are some issues on mumsnet generally around race and more specifically how some people talk about blackface in comparison to drag or comparing race and gender issues without much knowledge on race.

This is a perfectly valid opinion.

It is not however evidence, and does not prove what JCJ is accusing the UK 'GC movement' or women associated with it of, and is a different conversation altogether.

That some women who are GC have other beliefs and attitudes that you do not agree with, or political affiliations you do not agree with, or speak in ways you are uncomfortable with is an interesting thread, but not evidence of what JCJ is saying .

That parties and papers of all political affiliations need to speak out for women's rights, equalities and child safeguarding is again a perfectly valid point and I agree. However it's also not evidence of what JCJ is saying.

It is very important to separate the 'that's a bit dodgy/I wouldn't personally agree with doing it like that' and 'I am really uncomfortable that some of the good articles and views that I agree with are coming from people and sources I'm personally uncomfortable with because I do not otherwise align myself with them' from 'GC women are in bed with right wing extremist movements'. Because the first is a rational conversation among women, and the second is unevidenced hyperbole which leads me to question what its purpose is. And it would seem to me important to question, because the impact, whether or not intentional, would seem to shut down and silence women or distract them from the urgent work of defending key rights under attack at this moment. And enable people to go on trying to derail women's rights with a thoughtless 'oh they're all right wing extremists', since as we know, this movement has operated so well on thoughtless, mindless sound bites that everyone hears and parrots without facts or reality being involved. 'JK Rowling says terrible transphobic things' for example.

You’d think those who revel in the association with Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists would have leapt at the opportunity to post links. But strangely, they haven’t.

One poster got a bit upset about a disagreement over a YouTube video from a black American conservative on a thread in November 2022 about a fashion company promoting a sexualised teddy bear.

As they say, follow the money…