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.

ITS PRBLALBY IN THE CUPBOARD HEN

One of the issues, for me, with what CJ wrote is that she's framed it as a "GC movement." Many times (I'm referring to the op in the thread that started this one.)

I don't see it as a movement and framing as such sets up the arguments that we are having.

It's the basic principle that everyone has had for millennia, that there's male / men and female/ woman and their needs in law are different due to fundamental biological differences, which aren't determinative but do lead to power imbalances if nog recognised in law.

I wasnt trying to provide evidence.

I thought a wider reflection would be interesting.

And yet the OP specifically asked for any evidence for the claims made.

I appreciate its her thread and her purpose was to ask if anyone had any evidence supporting a specific claim. Its just on discussion boars, lots of people move on to discuss around a topic in more general terms. This isnt ine of those threads.

The OP addressed my concern about the point of asking GC people who hadnt made that claim and dont support the claim, for evidence to support the claim, By saying if the women here dont have evidence of it, there isnt evidence basically.

You’ve said that you were “unpeaked” because someone said something that you used to agree with, but had some association with people who have views you disagree with. The sarcastic responses seem quite justified to me, even if they are somewhat undiplomatic.

The most vocal GC advocates are the Radical or Revolutionary Feminists. This type of feminist, who often seem in the majority but are probably in the minority, agree with Evangelicals on a lot of things. Not just GC but also on other things such as pornography and prostitution.

Decades ago in America Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin worked with William H Hudnut III, mayor of Indianapolis, to combat pornography.

Laura Lederer worked with Evangelicals in the George W Bush administration to combat trafficking. What could be wrong with that, I hear you ask? One of the things they did was to put pressure on the Japanese government to refuse visas to large numbers of Filipino women because they thought there must be trafficking involved when in reality hardly any of them were involved in prostitution. This has harmed women.

Radical Feminists have worked with Evangelicals in Northern Ireland like Jim Wells to get the Nordic Model passed there and with Roman Catholics like the nuns of Ruhama to get it passed in Eire.

They are working with Evangelicals like ex MP Gavin Shuker and MP Fiona Bruce to get the Nordic Model introduced in Britain too. Julie Bindel has found her home with the Daily Mail.

I agree. It isn’t a ‘movement’; it is a response to the gender ideology movement. As gender ideology has spread further it is touching more and more people those people are then saying “WTF?” Certain feminist groups seem to want ownership of the response because they were coming across it earlier on, but they can’t have ownership because as you say, the response is now coming from everyone in touch with reality. Most would not recognise the term ‘gender critical’ and not be interested in being part of it. They just know men can never change sex so why is this crazy stuff being forced on them?

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.

I wonder which UK white nationalists she is talking about? I'm completely oblivious to anything of the kind going on in the UK.

A 'you are either with us or against us' argument or an 'appeal to prejudice' are both propaganda techniques.

An appeal to prejudice can include saying that you don't want to be associated with a particular group (which could be a right wing group) in anyway.

Both deliberately focus on identity and personalities rather than the merit of the underlying argument.

Food for thought: right wing Christians are against murders but we don't suddenly decide murder is ok because it's a shared belief with others on the left or who are atheist or another religion because 'otherwise you are sharing beliefs with right wing Christians'.

It's a way of getting people to talk about the ills of right wing Christians rather than focusing on WHY there is a problem with the idea that they support. It's a divide and conquer approach.

People turn to propaganda because they can't push their position or idea on it's own argument and merit. And that in itself is something to be wary of.

Remember that liberals and lefties knew and understood sex was real and has a basis in material reality until very recently. It's them who have moved position but haven't adequately made the case for it, not the other way around and left behind many on the left in the process. It's not the right wing who are making arguments for a position that they've changed on. They are making the status quo argument which you should naturally expect to be therefore shared with many on the left who haven't been convinced by genderists.

When people of any political persuasion start to resort to propaganda techniques over and above the substance of an argument always ask yourself why they have resorted to this approach. It's for a reason and not necessarily the one that seems most obvious. It's usually because they lack an actual credible argument that stands up to scrutiny.

So your receipts are 'some American feminists did something against pornography and some others did something against trafficking (neither of which is gender ideology)decades ago' and, 'some feminists in the island of Ireland (a place with a different religious context to mainland UK) worked with religious people on prostitution (which is a different issue to gender ideology)and some in Britain want to do that too'? Oh, and 'Julie Bindel wrote in the Mail' - did you see how the sainted Guardian treated Hadley Freeman, or the BBC treated the newsnight Tavistock exposes?

I mean, it's not a lot, is it? You're just saying the loudest GCs are 'radical feminists' (definition?), and then smearing what you term radical feminists for stuff other what you term radical feminists have done. Have you got any evidence that GC feminists or GC feminism, are evangelical or are white supremacist? It's like saying 'well Bristol is near Wales, and Wales is Welsh, so most Bristolians are Welsh nationalists'.

Oh look. GCs are now getting tarred with a far right brush. Joy. GCs are not very good at PR.

No, it's just that a majority female group is going to always be held to a higher standard than others. We can't really help that.

About to read the thread, but initially my reaction is you might want to get your title edited OP? The title says “white supremacism” but the quote you are questioning refers to “US christian nationalism” and “U.K. white nationalism.”

All three are very different from each other. I would have the title edit to just say “US Christian or U.K. white nationalism” instead of “white supremacism.”

So we’ve got to page 5 and no evidence, I can’t even attempt to muster my surprised face.

Given we know how much this page is monitored and how much certain TRA’s would like to cut and paste evidence if there was any I think we can go with that’s just a smear tactic.

Depressing that it’s a smear tactic from a supposed feminist.

So
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?

You’re asking for evidence above and beyond what the allegation is alleging:
the UK GC space, especially on twitter, has progressively merged with both the US MAGA/Christian nationalist space, and those of UK white nationalists

This comment is alleging that GC activists either platform or share platforms (merge spaces) with Christian nationalists when in the US or with white nationalists when in the U.K., especially on Twitter.

It is not alleging that GC activists themselves are: racist, white supremacist, Christian nationalist, religious extremists, or white nationalists or that their activism is “entangled” with such things.

“Merge spaces” and “entangled” seem fairly analogous to me.

Are you saying that GC feminists are merging spaces with white nationalists? Can you link to anything at all? I’m really intrigued to see what JCJ is talking about. If it’s happening I’d like to be aware of it.

Merge spaces means to me a sharing of space and platforms or overlap on minor issues/views that can fluctuate but still have their own integrity and are stand alone. Entangled means to me that you can’t have GC activism without also having US Christian nationalism or U.K. white nationalism, that the two are twinned and interdependent in a way that they cannot stand alone.

Are you saying that GC feminists are merging spaces with white nationalists? Can you link to anything at all?

No, I don’t agree with the allegation. I think that the OP’s ask for evidence is for something more extreme than what was alleged, and perhaps the evidence she should be asking for is evidence of the allegation itself and not something else more nebulous and more extreme.

No, I don’t agree with the allegation. I think that the OP’s ask for evidence is for something more extreme than what was alleged, and perhaps the evidence she should be asking for is evidence of the allegation itself and not something else more nebulous and more extreme.

Ah ok thanks for clarifying.

I have found that in the social media age that if you agree with 99% of a person/position, but deviate on 1% (eg. support labour, but are not pro-trans rights) you are exiled by that community as a traitor and bigot. Conversely, you only have to agree with a person on 1% of issues and even if you vehemently disagree with the other 99% (eg agree on trans v womens’ rights but find the remaining alt-right views utterly repugnant), you are forever considered a nazi.

The twisted, inverse logic that makes this perspective possible frankly blows my mind.

Yes, this. An overlap or shared view of 1-40% between a GC activist and a U.K. white nationalist doesn’t turn them into conjoined identical twins. You do see this in the SM age though on every topic- GC activist agreeing on right to women only spaces with a Pro-life Christian activist and suddenly all GCs are painted as anti-choice and against a woman’s right to a termination.

Allegations like the one the OP saw is because of this phenomenon. You’re supposed to block and never agree with anyone who doesn't share 100% of your opinions and views. If you don’t then it’s guilt by association. Associating with x, y, z makes you the same as x,y,z.

It is a common divide and conquer tactic.

The only things I can think of that JCJ may be referring to are linked to KJK.

Perhaps this this just a way to have another dig at her?

Don’t forget Sonia Sodha in the Observer. She has written lots of excellent GC pieces (and spoken up on Sky newspaper reviews too).

I am amused by the forced teaming that implies that Jim Wells and the Catholic church are somehow in the same club. Poor Jim would be horrified.

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.

@Spendonsend So you say this; but I work on performance histories as a historian, and comedy and music hall drag shows actually emerged as an intimate part of blackface minstrel performances (there’s plenty of historical writing on this). In particular, the blackface caricature of the female “Mammy” was instrumental in establishing the role of the exaggerated “female impersonator” who became the drag queen. It’s a very legitimate comparison between blackface and drag, because historically many drag traditions came out of blackface minstrel roots, especially in 19th and early 20th century America. Just because people don’t know about this, doesn’t mean it’s an invalid, or racist, comparison.

If some Mumsnetters don’t feel comfortable with the comparison, that’s a fair enough opinion; but it is just one opinion amongst others. There is plenty of historical evidence that the two were, and are, intimately intertwined. (And many Black historians have written on it, too.) Racial identities and histories are always a lot more complicated than just the opinions of a few people on the internet suggest.

but I work on performance histories as a historian, and comedy and music hall drag shows actually emerged as an intimate part of blackface minstrel performances (there’s plenty of historical writing on this). In particular, the blackface caricature of the female “Mammy” was instrumental in establishing the role of the exaggerated “female impersonator” who became the drag queen. It’s a very legitimate comparison between blackface and drag, because historically many drag traditions came out of blackface minstrel roots, especially in 19th and early 20th century America. Just because people don’t know about this, doesn’t mean it’s an invalid, or racist, comparison.

Do you have any texts or books you can link that provides some background on this? I've never seen this referenced before. Thanks.