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/

I'm not hand waving. I said it was an outrageous thing to tweet. But the HO won't be in court. There will be some heavy sentences for the offences mentioned above.

I've said before that the stand out part of that meeting for me was Pragna Patel talking about organising against fundamentalism, the far right ,and anti-women agendas, saying that the far right is a danger to black and brown women.

Yes that was my strong memory as well, @Trumpetoftheswan2

And I return to my main point: the only person the letter specifically mentions is Tommy Robinson. His brand of racism is dangerous to all women.

PS I was asked to sign by a woman and someone who is usually praised highly on MN. Oh well.

I'm really not sure where you got that CH opinion from.

If you think that whether or not you can be imprisoned for criticising Allah is moot, take it up with the person suggesting you can be. Or don't. And certainly don't be curious about the motivation for tweeting that along with the treatment of a Muslim sex offender. Don't even think about it.

No you said it won't influence what happens in court. Well no one knows the future do they?

We're getting near the end now. Please answer don't you want to let Muslim women speak either.
The fact that you've included this puzzles me. Am
I far right for following her on Twitter?

Classic. Careful that mask is slipping.

Tut,tut. Purity cycles should not be discriminatory. And as the lgbtq used to say- nothing for us, without us. So this distancing needs to start in the lgbtq+ community before allies jump on. Or should allies put words in the mouths of others? Unbecoming!

Or is it only women who throw rocks at other women and call it sniping when they get the blowback?

And I return to my main point: the only person the letter specifically mentions is Tommy Robinson.

Whilst that is true, the letter does single out a prominent GC person.

Jane Clare Jones has confirmed today that the letter is about KJK.

I can understand if you only skim read the letter. I can understand if the reference wasn't obvious to you at the time. But now, knowing that the letter was about KJK what are your thoughts?

What's you're point. Someone was wrong on the internet and now everyone is far-right?

Are you quite well? I can't make head not tail of this post.

That's the best you can do?

Sorry again, that was to Patrati.

✌️

The point's further up the thread. Several times. But then I'm sure you know that. Enjoy your games.

Nah you've got nothing.

This. Being this self indulgent and of course implying that those who don't sign are far right racists is damaging to the work to keep / regain single sex spaces.

At best a distraction and frankly insulting to the women being affected the most by men in women's spaces.

I was originally assuming the comparison was about the excuse given for the release or not. So one man is a carer for his wife and one mans wife can't speak English. But the not speaking English seemed to be more important than needing a carer.

I'd say needing a carer was more important than needing a translator, the crimes are not on the same level and I guess both men had 'standing' in the community which one used to access a girl to sexually assault.

I don't believe it is just a simple Muslim versus non Muslim comparison. But about a multiple number of factors which is why that particular comparison was made. In order to show some two tier policing is in play.

You can go on twitter and ask her though. See what she comes back with.

Racism is alive and well in many of the places that the riots happened, also some were peripatetic rioters, Barnsley is a good example, lots of rioters, some arrested in the north east, yet a very small population of "immigrants " (except the third or fourth generation from Ireland). I wonder how many of those gc women who attended that rally, came from areas of high immigration.

Okay, so you've noticed that somewhere in the murky corners of Twitter a few women are voicing views you don't approve of because you consider them right wing.

So you go to Filia, where 95% of the attendees are likely to be of the left, and feminists, and you tell them — a roomful of women who want nothing to do with Tommy Robinson et al — to beware the right wing, And you pass round a letter for GC people to virtue signal that they aren't racists and that will only be seen on leftie GC Twitter or possibly published in the Times.

And this is supposed to achieve what, exactly? Make you feel important, perhaps?

Who is your post addressed to Dygger?

If your question is "what's the point of the letter?", you'll find a couple of suggestions up thread.

People on this thread are repeating TR talking points, no need to go to the “murky corners of twitter” Dygger.

It’s very impressive that you got all that from the screenshots you referenced.

Well said @InWithPeaceOutWithStress

It’s upsetting to see “women wearing the veil is offensive” posted with so little challenge in a purportedly feminist space.

Dygger
It is not only happening in the dark murky corners of twitter, there are prominent GC accounts posting about attending TR marches and posts about Muslims. These posts are reaching thousands of other GC accounts, this means TR message is reaching thousands of GC accounts. This is a fact.

I've got a GC Twitter account. I'm not seeing these messages and if one should reach me, I mute or block or respond. As, I imagine, we all do. I still don't see what earthy use that letter was apart from making its. signatories feel virtuous.

Well I don't think AD's statement is actually that helpful, though I am sure it's well meant. The problem with it is that it implies quite a paternalistic attitude toward those women who disagreed with you.

But there are regularly threads here where people say that women with particular opinions are therefore completely excluded from feminist discourse. I've seen more than one person say that to be a feminist requires accepting the academic model of "patriarchy;" that women who think men and women have biologically based behaviour or mental or emotional differences can't be feminists because they are sex essentialists; that if they support any restrictions on abortion they aren't feminists; that if they think that talking about whether political policy should be looking at ways to support mothers to stay with their young children rather than be pushed into employment through emphasis on state childcare as a solution; and other similar examples.

These women should of course be expected to benefit from the right-minded progressive left policies, and presumably realize their foolishness, but what isn't acceptable is to look at them as having just as much to say within a feminist or woman centered discourse.