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/

A decent thread from Rosie Kay:

Thread from X

"Some thoughts on denouncements and the arts

Many of us in the arts have been subjected to bullying smear campaigns, that have seen us lose our livelihoods, many opportunities and our reputations. It has affected even our ability to continue to make our art.

Often these denouncements came with petitions and open letters. Some of these campaigns have been public, a very few have been legal, but there are many more that have remained internal and covered-up in the arts.

Lines were drawn, accusations made and language used that was deeply dehumanising- TERF, bigot, transphobe and also terms such as nazi and far-right have been thrown at artists who do not follow the line.

I feel that we in the arts do not and would never want to replicate this hard line of denouncements, veiled accusations and name calling.

In the arts I ask for more tolerance, more discussion and the freedom for artists to make the art they must make without fear or favour, either from the funding bodies, the art institutions or from fellow artists.

I call for more integrity from artists and more support from arts institutions to make art that is vital and helps us all through these divisive times."

I've underlined the part I think is relevant here.

Rosie Kay is a very intelligent, humane woman and I'm very glad she wrote that.

Also love that anonymous letter posted above!

The anonymous GC letter is good. I wouldn't sign it even if that was the aim because I don't really think these letters do any good, but I agree with the sentiment.

Particularly this bit:

On a movement level, though, you have offered no compelling argument for why women’s opinions about any man should be the method by which we include or exclude them from a conversation about their own rights.

Glad to see someone else understands the point I've repeatedly made about women's rights being for all women, not just left wing feminists.

They never do.

There was a thread the other day on AIBU questioning if a comment was racist. In the larger discussion there were plenty of non-white people who said that it wasn't and that they thought that it was not a good approach to racism in general.

None of them were engaged with, just continual claims that obviously people who didn't "get it" were white and oblivious or closet racists themselves.

This is a misunderstanding of the point.

Certain feminist think that the women's movement is a leftist political program, that wanting to protect women and their rights means being on the left. They typically believe that any belief system that is not leftist is oppressive and wants to dominate women (among other people.)

They also believe that feminist organizations should set the agenda for policy on women's rights and can claim to represent women's interests.

The problem is - there are lots of conservative women, who don't agree with what these leaders of the women's movement say about what is best for women, what policies government should follow, etc.

But more saliently here, they don't like the implication that they are somehow outside of an interest in, or input around, women's issues, because they don't see those within the frameworks of either Marxism or identity politics or other leftist paradigms.

They very much feel like this group of women are the ones trying to dominate them and delegitimize their views as "anti-woman" while claiming only their own views are pro-woman. And this is seen as basically self-evident.

There is a similar dynamic in a lot of race identity politics, self-appointed leaders who want to represent the group in public discourse - but I think it's the worst within feminism.

Yea, saying people are free to associate with who they like and other people are free to criticise them is the very definition of policing. As is talking about drawing our own red lines.

The tweets are here because some posters wanted examples. They obviously haven't in general commented on them, but then they never do.

No - the point is that supposedly no one should be trying to reach women on the right, or far right, even, around campaigning for things like single sex spaces.

So, no going to a rally where you might see people like that to pass out pamphlets.

That is a specific, real example where people have been criticized.

Presumably those right wing women are only allowed to enjoy their single sex spaces when they are won by the efforts of the pure left. We wouldn't want to dirty ourselves by campaigning with those women on gender ideology issues.

Barry aka the EDI Jester has posted a short analysis on his YouTube channel that I think is interesting and relevant to the discussion on the thread:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=17vc1soQvTE

There's a Twitter Space happening now about the letter and Jean Hatchett was just on, apologising for signing it, her justification was she signed it because she thought it was about Tommy Robinson...

I’m late arriving because the deja vue was so strong I assumed this was an old thread.

I’m torn between rage and bewilderment.

When I see a woman saying something important that I agree with, I cheer her on. More power to her elbow. If the same woman completely disagrees with me on something else, why is that my fault?

What is this collective responsibility and shame business? Who are all these people who think that all opinions must align, and no true feminist can have a different opinion on any other issue?

And, given the requirement to line up uniformly on every subject, can anyone tell me where to shop? I’d hate to find I’ve been negligent in shopping in both Tesco and Aldi.

The majority of the time women on here discuss issues relevant to women with grace and intelligence, explaining technical stuff to each other and exploring differences of opinion and understanding.

Then the occasional post pops up attempting to hang draw and quarter someone for wrongthink and expecting us all to sign up pdq or be tarred with the same brush.

Cheerleaders are not really very Mumsnet. Practice synchronising your pompoms somewhere else. We aren’t that kind of team.

Lol, I was just about to post and ask, have the rats started leaving the sinking ship yet.

I presume it was Simon Edge who drafted the document?

So was she misled? Because she's an intelligent woman. She can read.

FiLiA have just sent the letter out in their mail shot. Even after all this and even after the reply.

I’m not sophisticated, political, etc.
I can see that letter for a mud slinging dog whistle at fifty paces.

Sophisticated intelligent people should be able to spot it even quicker!

Helen Staniland retweeting the reply:

x.com/helenstaniland/status/1824506512481325219?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"I respect many of the signatories on the letter, but I'm uncomfortable with it. This response articulates a fair few of my thoughts."

They have been trying for weeks.

I think someone needs to bring about the public information grey rock threads again.

Ahh that shows my age 🤣

Do we know yet who actually wrote this letter? ( was it a man? )

God I feel so betrayed by some of these signatories, people I really respected and supported. Rosie Duffield, Joanne Cherry, FFS? I've bought two of Simon Edge' s novels about this issue. JCJ wrote that fabulous, insightful Annals of the Trf Wars a few years ago.

I'm so confused, WHY HAVE THEY DONE THIS? What exactly did they want to achieve? Does ANYONE know...??

Great post!

What I've come to realise is that the matter of women's dignity, integrity and women's rights goes way beyond and surpasses traditional left wing politics, the politics of 'equality', and certainly now the politics of intersectionality.

Personally find Mary Harrington one of the most astute and interesting voices when to comes to looking beyond all of that.

How to put this nicely.

I honestly give 2 shits about what is in other people's minds.

It honestly doesn't matter.
Everyone is allowed their belief. I don't have to take part in it and their belief doesn't mean I have anything to disprove.

No one owes anyone a virtue signal.

She fucking started all this shit years ago.

Yess! Mary Harrington is sharp and original, she's a freethinker. I genuinely feel very fortunate to have been a witness of her work as it developes! (Sorry for the "fan" moment here!)

'As members of a broad-based movement that has coalesced over the past few years around concerns about the destructive impact of gender identity theory, we recognise that we come from a variety of backgrounds and have differing views on other political questions. We welcome this diversity of thought. Certain views, however, cross a clear line, and we are not prepared to work or share a banner with supporters of the far right. By that, we do not mean ‘anyone who criticises the left’ or conservatives in general. We mean anyone who justifies or incites the violent scapegoating of immigrants and minoritised communities, including the violent and criminal anti-Muslim leader who calls himself Tommy Robinson and those who support or defend him.'

As a gender critical feminist, I recognise that we come from a variety of backgrounds and have differing views on other political questions. I welcome this diversity of thought. Certain views, however, cross a clear line, and I am not prepared to work or share a banner with supporters of men in the Green Party. By that, I do not mean 'people who care about the environment' or greens in general. I mean anyone who justifies or incites the admission of males into women's single sex spaces or incites referring to women as non-men, including the violent and criminal child rapist David Challenor and those who employ him as an election agent.

What do you mean, that's not the same? The 'head girls' are aligning themselves with men in the Green party, a party which has worked to silence women and has and continues to privilege gender ideology. I want to put clear blue water between their cosying up to the party which promoted Aimee Challenor, and me as a GC feminist. Some things cross a clear line.

Certain views, however, cross a clear line, and we are not prepared to work or share a banner with supporters of the far right. By that, we do not mean ‘anyone who criticises the left’ or conservatives in general.

People on the Internet frequently skim the headlines and don't read far enough to pick up definitions or context.

The writers of the statement may not mean conservatives, the centre-right or critics of the political left, but that's the way a lot of headline-skimmers will interpret it. In a world where the extreme left often discredits dissenters by smearing them as far right, where lies spread faster than truth on social media, and where reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are on an ever-downward trend -- this statement was ill-advised.

PPs have said that if you're not far right then this isn't about you. The issue is (speaking as a fairly laid back, violence-hating conservative whose opinions would have been "woke" 20-30 years ago) that you don't have to actually be far right, to be considered far right!

Unfortunately, I suspect this will simply stoke further divisions between the "right-thinking" left wing signatories and moderate conservative allies who don't want to become the next targets of sanctimony. And probably also reinforce the associations between the far right and the GC cause.