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/

Ironically, JCJ explains this tendency very well here

x.com/janeclarejones/status/1825145380213768607?t=PaRMndJCqR13S3yIYr7YKg&s=19

So, this is a statement authored by men about how women having opinions is causing other men to get violent and be racist?

Talk about the rules of misogyny rolled into one. How about men taking responsibility for their own actions and not blaming it on women? The rioters were not women.

What are these people practically doing to improve the lives of minority women? Because, you know, these women do suffer at the hands of men too, of all kinds not just white 'yobs'.

Do they not realise going on purity spirals and preaching to vulnerable women is unlikely to achieve anything positive? What do they even want other than making it clear they're not racist - or is that really all it's about? We're not racist, these other nebulous women who we don't actually name ARE racist, blame them, blame them! Is it just 'do it to Julia'?

As a random aside - in my opinion being overly verbose usually indicates low intelligence.

She doesn’t. Explaining something well requires you to engage your reader and present your points succinctly.

I'll have a look on Twitter later - I can't really be doing with the cutting and pasting huge swathes from Twitter or any other site on MN. It's exclusionary to posters who don't use Twitter etc.

But goodness this thread is striking in how few posters are willing/able to engage with the influence of the far right on feminism. Personal attacks on JCJ? Hell, yes. Dragging up posts from years ago? Bring it on. Getting het up about elites, head girls, hall monitors? Oh, yes. Conspiracy theories about Kier Starmer and a police state. On it like a car bonnet.

Talk about the influence of the far right on 'GC' discourse? Fuck, no.

And while I was typing that - quelle surprise - another personal attack on JCJ appears.

If you don't want personal attacks, don't do silly public things. See also, Raygun.

People are allowed to have opinion. EVEN women WHO ARE NOT MIDDLE CLASS are allowed to have opinions. At least at the moment.

Even though lots and lots of people find the opinions of working class women inconvenient, they haven't yet won the right to shut them all up.

So it was entirely intended to shut up a person you didn't agree with by pretending you believed they were someone else?

No, I genuinely thought they were somebody else.

than engage with the impact that far right discourse and ideas is having on some elements of 'GC'.
I have engaged and I don't agree with your analysis. I am far more concerned at the effect of the current interpretation of intersectional feminism and CRT are have on feminism as a whole.
Do you actually identify as a GC feminist?

Any apology for that incorrect assumption?

You would much rather we engage in attacks on KJK like numerous other threads here, rather than those signing a letter, written by men, attacking women because they don’t like people who have been seen alongside those who associate with her?

I like raygun

No KielderWater. My preference would be for a proper discussion about the influence of the far right on elements of 'GC'. As I've said about a million times.

Well why don't you start?

But so far the only definition of far right we have been presented with are those who advocate or justify violence against immigrants and minoritised groups - which seems to include a lot of left wing groups including those associated with those signing this letter. Do you have a better definition of ‘far right’ from which we can develop this discussion?

I think it's total fabricated navel gazing bollocks, that deflects from real world issues actually harming women and girls, to say that there is any 'right wing discourse' which impacts on GC activism.

GC activism brings biological realists together, many of whom don't agree on much else. Some GC women are right wing. It's clear some people are very very unhappy that right wing women can recognise biological reality and want sex realism to be the preserve of the left. But they don't get to decide who stands up for women and girls nor who gets to speak. I understand they're pissed off about this fact.

It's a lot easier to pontificate about 'right wing discourse" than actually practically help minority women. E.g. with this issue https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/tuc-bme-women-12-times-more-likely-men-be-out-labour-market-due-caring-commitments or you know the woeful maternity statistics.

I would argue pontificating endlessly with vague accusations about 'right wing discourse' only causes harm to anyone practically trying to improve the lives of women from minority groups and working class women.

If you think particular women actually incited the rioters - state it clearly with evidence, or more usefully report to police. Otherwise, bog off and do something more productive.

JCJ decided to gather signatures for a letter written by two men, to have a go at someone none of them was brave enough to publicly name.

Lorelei responded. It was a thoughtful response.

JCJ flounced yesterday for all of about five minutes before she was back posting links to her incredibly long essays. As is her right.

People can read the words she's placed in the public domain and make their own judgements. As Dumbledore says, it's no more personal than stating Raygun was crap at breakdancing.

To circle back, I think any woman calling herself a feminist in 2024 will recoil at the idea we sign up to men's words. I also think it seems reasonable to deduce from the fact the letter wasn't brave enough to publicly name the Terrible Account(s), that they knew they were on shaky ground and wouldn't be able to mount a legal defence.

What? Apologise to you for asking you a question??

Yes, Stainless, this. Particularly this:
"But all it's doing is criticising racism. You don't have a problem criticising racism, surely? Eh? Eh?"

That's it exactly. Go on, go on, denounce racism or people will think you're a Tommy Robinson follower. Go on, go on, say TWAW or people will think you're a hateful bigot Terf.

Thank you for expressing it so well. I've just been trying to make head or tail of JCJ's most recent offering re this on Twix.

https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1825145380213768607

So many words but I've no idea what she's saying, except that KJK is v dangerous and we all need to be careful around her in case she manages to influence us. This is a really Head Girls attitude, isn't it? The Head Girls, with their PhDs and their minds set in concrete are the keepers of the socialist flame and the rest of us are easily influenced jellies who could turn far-right on a sixpence.

Anyway, is there someone with a PhD around who could break it down for me in words that someone with an ancient BA could understand? Talk about opaque.

So it was entirely intended to shut up a person you didn't agree with by pretending you believed they were someone else?

I apologise if my assumption was incorrect.

Thank you, your apology is accepted. Although I see at least one poster doesn't see the necessity.

Would you like me to apologise?

If it is a veiled attack on KJK it's funny how KJK is the only one providing a free platform to stand up and speak to all women - minority women, disabled women, working class women.

You'd think that would be more important than what some random rioting males did or were influenced by.

If it was possible to find incontrovertible proof the rioters were not influenced by GC women, I'd definitely bet on that. I bet 99.9% of rioters don't know who KJK is, and the remaining 0.1% don't care about women's rights. I think it's highly unlikely and I don't see why anyone would create an artificial debate about this. It's just destructive.

Please see my previous posts on this thread.

I read one of those JCJ screeds and it was quite interesting for me in that she explains how different people can arrive at the same conclusion from different political starting points. So, a second wave feminist can dislike porn because of the un-Kantian treatment of women as means not ends, while a Christian fundamentalist has...whatever their reasons are. And so forth.

What she doesn't do is explain the point of the letter and what it was supposed to achieve.

Anyone?

I'm not wading back.