Transnational 'Anti-Gender' Movements and Resistance

[Imnobody4]

Do we know about this?

Saw Judith Butler being interviewed recently as she mentioned evidence of anti- trans movements. So I did a search and found this.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/gender/news/2022/AHRC-launch

They've got a project website if you follow the link.

Apparently Jacob Breslaw of Mermaids fame was on the board.
Through four transnational workshops, the network will bring together scholars, activists and policy-makers from different parts of the globe to contend seriously with ‘anti-gender ideology’ and its counter-narratives. The network is supported by a dynamic Advisory Board comprising UK-based and international representatives within academia and progressive civil society actors and organisations.In foregrounding a focus on concepts and narrative, the network aims to develop a transnational methodology which can help us draw out how these ‘anti-gender’ mobilisations work, with the aim of generating more robust tools for resistance to the take up of anti-feminism for right-wing agendas.

I wish actual money was going to the GC posters on this board. [...] It's not going there but it is being used to influence debate.
So no evidence of any funding on any scale of GC feminists by far right billionaire backers, then?

I said the genderists have several beliefs in common with the far right. Gender critical people's beliefs do not overlap with the far right. Sex realism is just acknowledging reality which everybody does when push comes to shove, regardless of what they may profess to believe.

Being an evangelical Christian does not entail having gender critical beliefs or vice versa. Being a genderist does entail misogyny, belief in innate gender, homophobia and faith-based reasoning. And belief in souls. None of these are GC positions. Some or all of these are far-right or religious right positions.

Well, Ann Moody is certainly a well balanced evidence based reporter, how can I fail to be convinced. A hysterical article which I found hysterically funny.

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/opinion/national-conservatism-and-the-f-word/

In Monday’s Times newspaper, Melanie Phillips wrote that National Conservatism is “not a fascist plot”, but instead we should see it as an “attempt to revive key principles that have been lost in recent years”. The National Socialists said the same thing in 1936.

Soon, we'll have a Labour government whether we like it or not, and we'll want to persuade them that sex-realism is right, popular, and in line with Labour values. Which it is. You should be buttonholing your candidate right now and making the case, not putting the wind up everyone with tales of how sex-realists are all poo poo heads in the pay of foreign right-wing Svengalis.

Things that i do not have in common wuth the far right.

The belief that saying that nine or ten year old children do not have the developmental ability to consent to permanent sterilisation is SUPPORTIVE of Gillick and Fraser competence, which are both good things.

The belief that homosexuality is based on sex and is an important aspect of human life and liberation, without which our culture is severely diminished.

The belief that women whose sexuality excludes men have always existed.

The belief that being a woman has absolutely fucking nothing to do with serving men or birthing the next generation, but that nonetheless the experience of gestating and birthing children and of being the sex that does this is exclusively female.

Fuck Orban. Fuck Putin. And fuck anyone who thinks by insisting on being female as part of who I am that I am somehow diminishing humanity.

What are you talking about? I don't think "sex realists" are all poo poo heads. I'm not 7.
I think the far right will use the "sex-realist" agenda if they can. Which is a very different thing.

👏

You've turned misinterpretation into an art form, haven't you? OK I'll have another go, then I give up. When you try to persuade your Labour MP/candidate to adopt sex-realism, will you:

a. tell him it's morally right and very popular with the vast majority of voters, or

b. tell him it's a thing that the far-right really really love, and they are funding British 'anti-trans' activity.

?

Both statements are (sort of) true, but only one of them is useful.

I'm not sure how I misrepresented your "poo poo head" line but never mind.

My way of persuading people is to be assertive and stick to what I know to be true.

So I'd probably say something like "as a woman who's been sexually assaulted on more than one occasion, I'm wary of men. Especially in situations where I'm vulnerable. Therefore single sex spaces are important to me. What are you planning to do to protect them?" And see what they said.

I have no need to go on to my Labour candidate about things the far right are doing. Unlikely to be relevant at all.

In the context of the OP, the far right element is useful and I think necessary, to draw out the elements that are attracted to the GC movement with intent other than protecting women (e.g. homophobic, want to revert to a traditionalist society with men at work, women at home, want to use the GC movement to amplify a message about "national identity" and culture).

I don't think research is ever a threat. Sunlight is good.

I spoke to my Lib Dem candidate in local elections. Felt slightly sorry for him. He agreed with me completely and said he wished the leaders would stop being so stupid about it.
He said it wasn't something likely to come up in local council but he'd do the right thing if it did. He also said several people had raised it. He seemed a really nice bloke.

Sorry realised that's the wrong thread. Was confused by the relentless banging on by Adam. As you were!

And when your Labour candidate says in reply "safe spaces for women, ALL women, are a priority of Labour. TWAW. You have been sucked up by a moral panic funded by the far right." You say...

I think that's a very unlikely response and given what jane just accused me of I'll just leave it there

Lol