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.

Did he mean just Chinese people, or does he think every "race" is a subspecies of human being? I have met people that think that - they are confised about science but not racists.

This can be a bit like the "Nazi adjacent" thing though. SOme people push a lot of stuff under the banner of "replacement theory".

There were people on the left in the US for many years who would be quite triumphant in saying that because of the rate of immigration, and birth rates in the US< white Americans would soon enough be a minority, and there would never be another Republican government, and wouldn't this be great.

The background of that is the fact that it is indeed true that if projections play out the demographics of the US are changing significantly and that Hispanics are likely to be the biggest group. And it was true that many non-whites at the time voted Democrat. You also have typically had Democrats being the ones who want more open borders.

The idea that the left is pushing immigration in the US in order to create this situation and remain in power isn't as huge a leap from these things - which Democrats themselves have talked about a lot - as one might immediately think. When you think about things like the Denton document - there are crazy people who do crazy underhanded stuff.

The question I always ask is, if these right wingers are racists for saying this is the endgame, were the left-wingers racists for making the factual observations in the first place? Or for thinking that would be a good outcome?

I didn't know much about the group called Ruhama, except that it seems to be criticized a lot by men who are offended by any threat to the free and carefully-chosen career choice of potentially trafficked women to offer themselves for sex with large numbers of random men in dingy premises around Ireland
According to their website
Ruhama is an Irish NGO and registered charity that offers nationwide support to women impacted by prostitution, sex trafficking and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation....Ruhama also advocates and engages in policy work on issues related to prostitution, sex trafficking and the experiences of the women we work with.
Nuns were involved in setting it up (and don't be misled - there are some very radical activist women who happen to be nuns) but it's wrong to suggest that feminists who support Ruhama are aligning with right-wing Christians. BTW I noticed on Rumaha's website that they work with transgender women.

SuePine, I don’t see your description of the campaign for the Nordic Model here in Ireland as a charitable description of the facts.

I am a secular, non-sectarian, second wave feminist and I, and many women like me, campaigned for the Nordic Model because we believe in the dignity and humanity of women and we wish for men (and the law) in Ireland to respect women, not to view us as bodies for sale.

Women (and men) like me who campaigned were not influenced by evangelical organisations or sectarian political parties - the DUP and Ruhama campaigned for their reasons and we campaigned because of ours. I’m really angry that you would characterise the hard work of the Nordic Model campaign in such a manner.

Just quoting this bit from your post @TempestTost

*There were people on the left in the US for many years who would be quite triumphant in saying that because of the rate of immigration, and birth rates in the US< white Americans would soon enough be a minority, and there would never be another Republican government, and wouldn't this be great.

The background of that is the fact that it is indeed true that if projections play out the demographics of the US are changing significantly and that Hispanics are likely to be the biggest group. And it was true that many non-whites at the time voted Democrat. You also have typically had Democrats being the ones who want more open borders.*

This is interesting, and also goes to show how different the political assumptions are in the US from Europe.

I have googled mr Walsh, and were reminded that he is a catholic republican, so his views are informed by fairly conservative religious values and ‘libertarian’ leanings. That’s how I explained it to myself. I agree with him on rather a lot, but by no means all, and often our agreement is informed by different values.

Which is similar to what UtopiaPlanatia describes

This is interesting, and also goes to show how different the political assumptions are in the US from Europe.

Yes, I guess so. Certainly some of the replacement theory advocates can get kind of nutty, but I remember when you had public figures in the US, not always in politics but sometimes pop culture types, talking about how the future was non-white and therefore "liberal". So it seemed pretty clear to me that however crazy they sounded, the theory had its origins in that same thinking which many on the left agreed with.

Now, while the demographics still seem to be on the expected trajectory, Hispanics look to be increasingly a voting block for the Republicans, and there are some signs that the black vote is becoming less attached to the Dems as well. This is particularly true among younger (as in, under 30) black Americans.

In general I find many people on the left, and conservatives, agree on a lot of these kinds of moral questions, like prostitution. And often for the same reasons really, around things like exploitation, the dignity of the human person, and so on.

It's social liberals who want to remove all social barriers to behavior that have a different perspective.

Often the biggest difference to me is that the leftists will talk about social structures to prevent things (laws, conventions, etc.) but on the conservative side, although they may well want those things too, they tend to talk more about people taking personal responsibility.

Just popping in from Sweden to say that 'they' haven't kept statistics from anyone.

Almost all information is public here, including your boss's salary and your doctor's address.

The Nordic Model is hugely scrutinized, because a massive, vicious, and highly profitable industry wants it to fail.

But it works, if your desired outcomes include women not being murdered by sex buyers. If your desire is getting to fuck impoverished, drug addicted and trafficked women, then of course it's not going to look so successful to you.

Why should it come as a surprise that Christian men would protect elderly women? Christians have always put themselves alongside those who disagree with them. It is the only way they can extend the message; either through preaching or serving those not yet Christian. Even in the Bible, Jesus aligned himself with the disliked and spoke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees - the priests who where are the top of the purity spiral of their day.

How can you effect change if you do not mix with those you disagree with?

Helleofabore · Yesterday 16:07

And it doesn't mean his can't be both an arsehole and a charming person.

Yes, I can agree with that.

If he does this regularly though, his show would have trouble getting anyone to come on more than once, and not even once if they think he is just an arse.

I suppose that people may not realise just how awful he is, or may think that they'll be able to get their points across.

I do believe though that describing him personally as 'delightful' doesn't mean that KJK has 'aligned' with his views on more than one single issue, if they are even in full agreeance on that single issue.

Again, I agree and with KJK, she may not have known his reputation. Like Julie Bindel, she will use any platform to make her points and why not? JB writes in the Mail, not because she subscribes to their overall philosophy, but because they will publish her and she gets her message out to a much wider range of readers.

No bad thing, in my opinion.

It is worth listening to the account of one of those elderly lesbian women in question.

But when an LGBT identified mob turn homicidal and a couple of lesbian women are running for their lives, they did not expect to be protected by a group there in concern about LGBT. And the group did not expect to find themselves in horror protecting some LGBT people from other LGBT people who had apparently gone completely insane.

That was the surprise on both sides. It was not about anyone's values or politics in that moment: it was about decent and sane people compared to those who had gone beserk with a desire to injure others.

As far as I could tell, Morrissey wanted to be critical of Chinese culture regarding animal welfare, (not a problem); but decided to do this by making a racist statement about them.

If you want to be charitable, you could maybe say that Morrissey was making a cultural point in a bad, stupid way, and hopefully isn't an actual racial supremacist.

But how do you think this example is going to apply to GC sharing a belief with conservatives?

There are certain empirical questions here, so I guess it's not completely impossible.

The benefits and risks of transitioning are a medical scientific question. Biological male advantages in sport, even with testosterone suppression, is a scientific question. Increased crime if single sex spaces are weakened is an empirical question.

Hypothetically people could lie about this stuff, or try to downplay study results in an unethical way. Either the GC side, or the trans-activist side, could sometimes be guilty of providing false information.

But are the GC feminists and conservatives actually doing this in practice?

Also, a lot of the issue isn't empirical.

Refusing to change the definition of "man" and "woman" is much more "logical" than "empirical". It doesn't come down to scientific studies.

Wanting to protect single sex spaces doesn't really depend on anything that controversial. (Ignoring rejecting TWAW.) It's partly controversial to what extent it could increase crime. But it's a fact that some women are uncomfortable changing in front of the opposite biological sex say.

PorcelinaV · Today 12:05

If you want to be charitable, you could maybe say that Morrissey was making a cultural point in a bad, stupid way, and hopefully isn't an actual racial supremacist.

Perhaps some members of Britain First aren't racist? I dunno.

Without knowing what he said, I have known people to use "subspecies" incorrectly as a substitute for "race" because they assume different races of humans are like subspecies of other animals - they also tend to think both are the same as breeds of domestic animals. So it's not in that case meant to imply they are less human than other races. It's the fact that races exist at all that they think means there are various subspecies of humans.

Of course not knowing what he said beyond that, his point as a whole could have been racist, I don't know. Or maybe he was just referencing Chinese culture, as you suggest may be the case.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of scientific illiteracy without good evidence, it's so common it's really rather depressing.

Nah Morrissey has made plenty of racist comments over the years.
He's also vegetarian, so obviously that means if you don't eat meat you are aligned with racism, by Twitter logic.

There have been a number of reports on the effectiveness of the Nordic Model. For example, the Skarhed report. The only one that gives all of the relevant statistics is the 2015 report by two Swedish women Endrit Mujaj and Amanda Netscher (Lansstyrelsen). It also explains the difference between incidence and prevalence statistics and why only incidence statistics should be used to track changes.

No sex workers were murdered in Sweden for a good many years before the introduction of the Nordic Model in 1999. The last one to be murdered was in the 1980s sometime. Since the introduction there have been two murders of sex workers that we know about.

I thought you would have known that, considering that you supposedly care so much about women. Instead you want to perpetuate a myth that the law has prevented women's deaths. You also want people to believe that sex workers must be either dirt poor, drug addicts or threatened with violence.

Lots of people think that no woman could choose to make money from providing a sexual service. They think it would be so unpleasant that they must forced into it through violence, or addicted, or destitute. It would be unpleasant for you, but not all women are like you.

Look at the facts instead of trying to impugn the integrity of someone who disagrees with you. Don't pretend that you are saving women's lives when that is not the case.

I agree with you that there are big problems with transgender beliefs. I am not a woke person and I don't believe everything that the transgender lobby say. I can see both sides of the argument and I can see compromises that are rejected by both the transgender lobby and the gender critical side.

For example, in sport there are compromises that could be made. Each sport would be different. In marathon running, men and women could run together. At the end of the race it would be announced who was fastest. It would also be announced the fastest woman. There would be a category for women that would exclude trans women or someone like Caster Semenya (I know she wasn't a marathon runner). There would be another category that would include them. That should make everybody happy but it won't because in culture wars people never want to compromise.

So I was trying to highlight what can happen when religious conservatives align themselves with Radical Feminists. You can think that they have different motives but when you have Radical Feminists who don't want women having sex with men anyway that shows their true motives with some issues. They won't say that though, they will say that they are trying to protect women.

I'm not sure that your reasons are so different from Evangelical Christians or nuns. When you talk about 'bodies for sale' can you not see how Victorian that sounds? Women don't sell their bodies or sell themselves, they sell a service. Sex workers have dignity and they don't need to be saved.

There are a tiny minority of sex workers who are drug addicts. There was a very good study of Dublin drug addicts in Dublin done by Mary O’Neill and Ann-Marie O’Connor.

If you read Paid For by Rachel Moran she states that there is a Ruhama report that says that 38% of Irish prostitutes have attempted suicide. What happened is that Ruhama took O’Neill and O’Connor's excellent work and pretended that it applied to Irish prostitutes in general and not Dublin drug-addicted street prostitutes. I can believe that 38% of drug addicts (male and female) have attempted suicide but there is no evidence that it is true of prostitutes in general.

I've got a copy of this Ruhama report that has now been withdrawn. It gives a reference for their false statistic, but the reference is for a different one of O’Neill and O’Connor's reports, one that doesn't have 'drug using women' in the title. This is intentionally misleading. I would call it a lie.

Women are still being arrested in Ireland. Funds have not been made available for women to exit prostitution. This is what it says in the official report by Dr Geoffrey Shannon. What aren't you 'really angry' with this? If your reasons are what you say they are then you would be. I respect O’Neill, O’Connor and Dr Shannon, I have no respect for Ruhama or for you.

There is so much wrong with all of this I just don't know where to start.

When you talk about 'bodies for sale' can you not see how Victorian that sounds?

Victorian like campaigning for women’s rights?

Your mind reading ability is on the fritz because funds and support not being available to help women exit prostitution is something that makes me very angry and it’s an issue I’ve raised with my political representatives. But they don’t want to prioritise the views of women arguing for helping other women because they’re largely all neo-liberal, middle-class men for whom this isn’t an important issue, other than for headlines, and isn’t viewed as a failure of society to care for the vulnerable, rather it’s a function of the marketplace.

As for the rest of your post: if it makes you happy to think that prostitution is women selling a service rather than the fact that women are not seen as full/real human beings and thus a certain type of man sees us as bodies for sale or rent, and they enjoy the power imbalance of using a trafficked woman or a woman who can’t afford to keep herself without resorting to selling access to her body, then I don’t know what to tell you other than your thinking doesn’t sound as empathetic as you think it does. A society that allows a certain number of women to be sold for sex is not a society that sees women as people worthy of respect and dignity, and trying to intellectualise or rationalise this fact is really just more of this postmodern bullshit of fighting stigma being thought of as more important than actually tackling problems.

"For example, in sport there are compromises that could be made. Each sport would be different. In marathon running, men and women could run together. At the end of the race it would be announced who was fastest. It would also be announced the fastest woman. There would be a category for women that would exclude trans women or someone like Caster Semenya (I know she wasn't a marathon runner). There would be another category that would include them. That should make everybody happy but it won't because in culture wars people never want to compromise."

Except that in Marathons there is prize money for those attaining places.

Could you please tell us what is the point of having two female categories, one for female only people and one for whoever the fuck wants to be included? What is the second category measuring? And what prize money would you suggest is offered. Or are you proposing a make believe category with no prize money being offered but is merely there for people to choose to make them feel good?

What would you name these categories? "Female" and "inclusive women's"? And won't entering into the second category just mean a) that trans people are outed and b) that it will just be another category for a male to claim first?

How about instead, there is an 'open' category for every single athlete who wishes to enter, and female category where only those of the female sex are allowed to enter?

Oh wait? That HAS been proposed by the people you accuse of 'never wanting to compromise' and been adopted by athletic events already.

I think that you are keen to believe that you are 'middle ground' and that you want to frame feminists as 'extreme' and participating in some kind of 'culture war'. When in reality, you don't quite seem to have the depth of understanding of what has and hasn't been proposed, accepted and why when it comes to sport.

I have asked you what it is that you actually propose to protect women from being exploited without harming vulnerable women. Have you got a solution?

"A society that allows a certain number of women to be sold for sex is not a society that sees women as people worthy of respect and dignity, and trying to intellectualise or rationalise this fact is really just more of this postmodern bullshit of fighting stigma being thought of as more important than actually tackling problems."

I've just told you that prostitution isn't about women sold for sex or selling themselves for sex. Why do you persist with your Victorian attitudes? I've told you that the vast majority of prostitutes can afford to keep themselves in other ways but find that prostitution suits them. Believe me, most of them have got more money than you have. I have respect for them and their dignity.

As for trafficking, do you realise that word doesn't usually mean coercion? Trafficking is the organised movement of people for some form of work that is illegal, usually only applied to prostitution. There is something called modern slavery which exists in prostitution and exists in other forms of work too. The best way to combat this is understood by experts such as Emily Kenway. I can recommend her book The Truth about Modern Slavery. You will find the way to tackle problems with people like her and not Ruhama.

Victorian like locking up innocent women in Magdalen Laundries. Four orders of nuns were involved in that and two of those four founded Ruhama. They are liars. They pretend that the welfare of women is their primary concern when they harm women.