Statement on the gender critical movement and the far right

[hellotowel]

https://x.com/GCAntiFarRight/status/1823790909462602205

"We, the undersigned, are deeply disturbed that populist messages particularly targeting Muslims have gained traction among significant numbers of social media accounts associated with the gender critical movement."
Read and sign our statement below.
https://gcantifarright.wordpress.com/2024/08/13/statement-on-gc-movement-and-the-far-right/

Bloo. There is NO GC movement.

What do you think?

I get it. Really I do. Everyone you agree with is exactly who they seem to be, and everyone you don't isn't and is posting in bad faith.

Well that's what happens when you are on a social media platform that is being run by a man who is supportive of right winger authoritarianism.

Surely you dont believe that is because it is actually happening.

This is you being manipulated by Musk in a virtual world.

Surely you understand how social media uses algorythms?

I do hope you aren't under any illusion that this is about reality.

This is about an alpha male thinking he can manipulate women.

That's quite a thought that all these women desparately staying part of twitter and now willingly being manipulate by Elon Musk.

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

I agree of course but just using the term as short hand. There is no monolithic far right movement either etc.

It doesn't matter whether I believe what Elon Musk feeds me. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

What does matter in the context of this thread is that a connection between 'GC' and the far right has been established in the public domain and is being heavily promoted.

Well, it matters to the signatories of the letter like Pragna Patel who saw the influence that the far right was starting to have on GC discourse and arguments some years ago.

Maybe less so to those who are happy to be associated with the far right and far right figures like Yaxley-Lennon.

I think this is both erroneous and insulting to all the strong, courageous women who have put their head above the parapet for the last few years, often at great cost to themselves, to be tarred ' far right'. It's a REALLY serious allegation, and ordinary women are being called this, with ZERO proof. Just stop it, please. This isn't helping our cause one little bit.

I haven't called any woman 'far right'. I and other posters have given examples, when asked by posters on this thread, of 'GC' accounts who are happy to be associated with far right, especially anti-Muslim, views and amplify them.

This is what individuals themselves are saying/typing. If you want to believe that's 'zero proof', fill your boots. But it does nothing for your argument and neither does appealing to 'our cause'

Are people really claiming this isn’t far right apologism. Complete with ‘our girls’ White of course. Because obviously black children aren’t really British

No, I don't think all religious systems are the same, by any stretch. Even within religions there are some significant differences depending on sects, where people are from, social class, and so on.

I am not at all surprised that people who are personally being affected negatively due to refugees in their community see the refugee system itself as problematic. It's not necessarily a fair extrapolation to all refugees, but it may be a real flaw in the refugee system.

It's an arguable position, and I don't think people are beyond the pale for observing what's going on around them.

I missed a word. It should read ‘I’d include all incompatible ideologies’. I don’t believe that’s restricted to Islam. And I don’t believe it’s restricted to refugees or even migrants. This idea of ‘imported’ problems tainting ‘our culture’ putting ‘our women at risk’ is inherently bigoted imo. It scapegoats some communities and it encourages hate.

So it sounds like you are saying you have an ideological view which maintains that it is not possible that a particular community of people from outside the UK could have some very problematic ideas that it would be bad to allow to gain cultural and political traction here.

I suppose that sounds very nice, but I don't think it's actually factual. I can think of all kinds of instances of ideas found within some certain culture that are not particularly present in the UK, and which I would not want to be present in the UK.

That is not to say that the UK won't have people with their own problematic ideologies, but a) those are our problems to deal with, those people are citizens, and b) why would that mean we are morally obliged to import other problems?

You seem to be implying that all problematic ideologies are distributed equally and are somehow equally bad, I'm not sure what mechanism would account for that kind of equality across time and space?

I believe Henrietta should have the right to the female only care that she wants and needs. Whether we agree on anything else whatsoever is completely irrelevant.

What Tinsel said.

Can you understand that anti-Muslim views might be very relevant to other women at all? That not all feminism/woman-centred positions are single issue?

Of course Henrietta should have the same sex care that she needs. That isn't a point of disagreement on this thread, I can't imagine.

Pragna Patel who saw the influence that the far right was starting to have on GC discourse and arguments some years ago.

What influence did she see where?

If she really said this is a general way then all it is, is saying something to support her point of view. Not unlike those who keep posting here that loads of "well known" GC women are supporting the far right.

Its not that many years ago that she claimed not to know much about GC feminism, so would be intrigued as to how she would go from zero knowledge, to extensive enough knowledge to make such as statement.

According to the KJK video reply, the letter was co-ordinated by Rosie Duffield which may explain why it sounds like a "please mister boss, I am not one of those nasty GC women, I am one of the nice GC women.

Just more evidence that the Labour Party is under control of henchmen that women have to ingratiate themselves to.

This act of humble contriteness must be part of the 10, or is it 20, or maybe 30 steps she has to follow before being properly allowed back into the Labour fold.

And by the way, if KJK has no evidence that it was coordinated by Rosie Duffield I apologise in advance for believing unsubstantiated statements made on social media.!

But as i said earlier it appears to be being coordinated by Darren Johnson who I though was a failed Green politician or have I muddled him up with someone else.

What is really strange if this letter is meant to be about the influence of the far right following the riots, why single out GC women for criticism.

What was really depressing about the acts of violence and destruction on local communities, was that it was primarily the typical male response to anything. Physical violence.

But also, how else the "left behind" communities seem to have been duped into believing that the decisions of the ruling class over the past half century or so, have led to the huge social divide we have. And have been persuaded that somehow a powerless group who have no status in the UK, have the power to have gradually over the years devasted their standard of living.

Why wasn't the letter about the rioters being so easily led up the garden path.

Why think that the most important issue in the UK following the riots and mindless destruction, is to focus of gender critical women.

And lets face it, as someone on facebook said, if GC women where as powerful and important as the letter tries to suggest, we would all have been on the street after the horrific male violence in Southport, telling all men to stay at home, and say we wont leave the streets and wil be on strike until not just the Government but men as a whole address and acknowledge that it is their violence that is the problem.

I think the priorities of the letter writers and signatories show a complete lack of awareness of political issues in the UK, and are more interested in virtue signalling their elite group.

Lots of things can be simultaneously true:

We are unlikely to agree on everything. (I don't think there's ever been anyone in my life that I've agreed with on everything.)

Disagreement can be a source of strength, not weakness.

And we can still all have our lines in the sand, where disagreement about something, or different political approaches, tips over into some issue which makes us walk away from someone or some grouping.

If I find my own personal lines in the sand and walk away from wanting to have anything to do with someone or something, it doesn't mean I disagree with absolutely everything else that person or group says on any subject, or that I think they are 100% worthless/evil/whatever, or that I condemn everyone else by association. It just means I've found my line in the sand.

We talk a lot in these threads about boundaries. We're allowed not just to have boundaries, but to express them, too. I work alongside people from very lefty perspectives, from very conservative perspectives, and everything in between - this is a feature, not a bug and has made us stronger. It's OK for me to state that someone like Tommy Robinson is a line in the sand for me, as what he says and does poses an existential risk to my family, and to many others. I also believe that engaging with him and his supporters makes us weaker as a movement (which is what is happening here). If anyone wants to try and shame me for this, that's fine.

Oh, and I find KJK's latest video embarrassingly messianic. Any campaign requires all kinds of approaches, all of which work in different ways to advance the issue, and to make a smirking video where she says "you're just jealous because you've all failed every single time about everything and I just keep winning" does her no justice at all. She did a good thing putting microphones into the hands of other women - "let women speak" is a really powerful concept - but to claim any collective successesweve had as hers alone is just silly.

I also believe that engaging with him and his supporters makes us weaker as a movement (which is what is happening here). If anyone wants to try and shame me for this, that's fine.

There is no evidence that anyone is doing that.

That is what this thread is about.

Why a group of men and women have chosen for reasons known only to themselves, that there is the mass engagement by GC women with TR.

There is no evidence of this.

There is no need for you to virtue signal that you wouldn't do it.

Its a none issue.

The issue is why these men and women have gone out of their way to concoct an untruth.

Its almost like unless they get people to believe their untruth it will be found that they have no real purpose.

Why is stating my position, in a thread about this issue, a "virtue signal"? Are you virtue signalling that you are above it all?

And on the "there is no evidence of this", "it's a none issue" bit - I don't know what KJk's motive was for asking us all whether we were on Team NF or Team PIE, as if it were an either/or choice, but I wasn't impressed. I'm not on either team, and I am happy to say I've actively campaigned against them both. So telling us it's a non-issue doesn't fly.

I've signed this and it is so sad that it is needed. My 18 year old daughter's lovely Kurdish friends were terrified to walk down the street last week when the "protests" were going on. Two lovely hard working young girls. Bloody disgusting. I hate racists.They do not speak for the working class. I am working class and they most definitely do not speak for me or any of my friends or family.

The "no issue" is that there is no evidence that GC women are flocking to support the far left.

The issue is the group implying that they are.

I dont care what KJK said in response.

All this effort of what abouterry.

Why has this group concocted this untruth.

Why do some on FWR want to help inflate this untruth.

But the letter isn't about the riots.

The letter you have signed is about an unproven claim that GC women are supporting right wing political analysis.

There are many far better letters from actual women's groups about the impact of the rioters on local women, including one local rape crisis centre saying they have had an increase in calls because of male rioters sexualise behaviour.

If your concerns are the one you said why haven't you support those instead of a letter that has hijacked the issue of rioters to attack GC feminists.