Caitlin Moran discusses her absence from the trans debates

[MotherEarthisaTerf]

20 mins and 30 seconds in

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001zlw2?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

boils down to

1. social media is not the place to have a debate
2. she hasn’t researched enough
3. she needs to devote a whole book to the issue
4. the debate is toxic and scary

NR accuses her of sitting it out, because it's just easier and nicer and allows her to sell books without any of the toxicity being associated with her and she agrees with him! Pathetic IMO. She's no feminist.

Oh, this discussion on how she doesn’t feel qualified to talk about women’s rights being impacted by transgender issues - comes after a discussion on the book she’s written about/for boys and men.

I always thought she stayed out of it to avoid the wrath of her kids tbh.

She was always annoyed me, a bit of a 'I'm mad me' attention seeking sort. And she's always pegged herself as the loudmouth straight talker on everything feminism - except for this one issue apparently.

Disappointing but not unsurprising.

Her cowardice on this subject really riles me up. She monetises feminism
without doing the work or living the values.

Similar to sending her kids to private school, she made her name / money from her identity as working class hero and then claimed some absolute bollocks about not being able to get a school place (in London ). Fine if she'd been honest about wanting to make that choice for her kids but the hypocrisy is really grim.

She's a total coward and no feminist. Research my arse. Just admit the truth Catlin!

I used to love her writing, and thought she was great.

Now I don't click on any of her Times articles even if the headline intrigues me.😛

An utter traitor who's only interested in herself.

I read her articles in the Times magazine each week. I tend to think she's trying to point out the differences between males and females without getting embroiled in the debate, and thus being cancelled. I would put money on her being GC.
In one if her books she discussed single sex spaces/groups being a positive for men. The way I read it was that she is not saying the quiet bit out loud, but letting readers draw their own conclusions.
I also suspect that she is trying to come at it from a different angle as she has young adult daughters and wants to maintain a good relationship with them. I have been in this position myself.

She's like Mary Beard then. At least she's brave enough to admit she's a coward! But women like them have to be GC, if she was TWAW she'd have no qualms about saying it.

Agreed. She'd say TWAW if that's what she believed, it's a sure fire way to get applause. Of course, anything but total compliance is forbotten so she's just as likely to attract crazies as saying the truth, but she can dream, I suppose...

She said in the interview her children are now in their 20s

This is what i think, too.

If her children arent TWAW, they went to schools and universities where saying TWAW was the norm.

Yes, exactly

she knows, obviously. the relevance of her physiology and early life experience, the two being intertwined for obvious reasons, drip from every page of 'how to be a woman'. I suppose she seems to be implying that she hasn't yet made enough money to do a JKR (the way she mentions the name without cursing strongly implies at least an element of common ground).

I have that on my podcast list, waiting to be listened to - she's also on the excellent Two Matts podcast. But I've been putting it off because I suspect her version of feminism will annoy me.

Still, I'm of the view that as feminism is such a widespread and grass-roots political movement, it takes all types, and we should be pleased that women's voices are out there.

Although after KJK's latest, I'm starting to wonder at my own tolerance of this ...

I did think it is rich for a bbc podcast to ask why she hasnt commented when the bbc have spent the last 10 years pretending theres no issue to talk about.

It's completely up to her what she talks/writes about. I just can't find it very engaging when it's dithering about while avoiding the scary questions, so I'd generally rather read someone like Victoria Smith.

Although it would be good to have Moran's voice included. She can be funny.

And I agree, it's scary. It's always been scary for women to speak out, probably always will be.

If we speak at all we are likely to get shat on. We will get vilified. There's no escaping it.

I'm aiming to toughen up, personally.

I find it wet to talk on a variety of feminist topics, expect to bring people with you, but go silent on a topic that’s causing large debate in the area you work in.

It’s like a football commentator who won’t discuss VAR. In the podcast Moran says she prefers to work in culture than politics, because you can move ‘hearts and minds’ further quicker (not what she said but to give you an idea).

I personally would rather she vocalised the middle ground position than kept her mouth closed. There’s a vacuum for middle ground feminists.

In fairness, she said once that she changes her mind on this fairly often.

I don't think caitlin has ever been a controversial feminist, in that she hasn't challenge the thinking of other 'establishment' feminists and doesn't stray into thorny subjects. She'll talk about safe areas where there isnt much disagreement, but not areas like surrogacy (i dont think?) and trans.

But she's a columnist, not an academic so she needs to be a bit on the frivolous side. She was always going to speak about it once the controversy is almost over, not before.

I love her columns but lets be honest it’s cowardice. I do understand that as a public figure you are more likely to get pile ons etc and it can get vicious but at the same time I’m utterly disappointed in a lot of women who could have said something but didn’t.

You don’t need to do a lot of research to notice that men aren’t women and the consequences of that.

Part of the trouble is there is no middle ground here. I mean you would think it would be relatively uncontroversial to suggest that DCs only get changed with other DCs with the same genitalia, or that women at work have the right to only have other natural born females in the female toilets, particularly for those with religious issues around the opposite sex, but there are apparently controversial and militant.

Having said that I agree Caitlin is happy to take the money but wants to avoid the consequences of anything even vaguely off script, which is poor considering her persona.

I personally would rather she vocalised the middle ground position than kept her mouth closed. There’s a vacuum for middle ground feminists.

There's a reason there's a vacuum. It's because it's absolutely impossible to put across a middle ground point of view without being attacked from all sides.

When I first looked at this branch of Mumsnet, quite a few years ago, I tried to post some middle ground thoughts and opinions. And I just got attacked for straying off the approved track. The same thing happened when I tried to take the middle ground with TWAW friends and acquaintances.

I can't imagine any feminist journalist achieving a middle ground discussion without inviting the hate of both sides. This subject is the most polarised current affairs subject that I've come across.

I remember that she wrote about one of her daughters having a fairly serious form of Anorexia. I can understand her choosing not to enter this particular discussion.

What is the middle ground that's being spoken of?

Genuinely.
Explain what middle ground looks like.

I'll go first.

To me, the middle ground is the JKR position - wear what you want, call yourself what you want, and have sex with whatever consenting and legal age person will have you. But don't demand the rest of us deny biology or our own rights.

That middle ground?

This subject is the most polarised current affairs subject that I've come across.

Most issues agree on the end point, but disagree on how to achieve it, therefore room for people to compromise on a solution. Here there isnt an agreed end point - do we acknowledged and have a right to know an individuals sex or not.