The latest fallouts in GC world

[Pluvia]

My terfing energy has been focussed elsewhere in recent months and I haven't been here or on TwiX or social media much. Now I've taken responsibility for tweeting/ comms on behalf of a small but potentially significant LGB group and I discover that there seems to be something going on — another schism — in GC world. Jane Clare Jones's name seems to be coming up a lot. Something seems to have gone on but I can't work out what.

If it was my own account I'd just ignore, but the followers of this account are bringing it up and seem to expect an opinion to be expressed or a side to be taken. Also I'm seeing a lot about 'ultras' and 'lites', which is new to me. Can anyone enlighten me? I need to tread carefully.

That’s not correct @UtopiaPlanitia , Jkr has said several times that she uses preferred pronouns if she wants to.

And everyone, as far as I can recall, condemned what happened in NZ.

This whole head girl /Big name descriptor is horribly divisive. People became well known because of their work - eg Magdalen Berns, Helen Joyce etc. it wasn’t for any other reason

No, not everyone! Especially not those that write 2 billion long twitter threads but cannot find it in themselves to say 'holy fuck, I don't agree with her but I'd not want her unalived'.

Yes you’re right. It’s coming back to me. Lots of people were very angry that kjk hasn’t paid for enough security and other women were seriously harmed

Yes, @UtopiaPlanitia has expressed what I've felt for some time now — that we need to be wary of the power JKR has. Not that I'm scared she's going to turn into some kind of GC despot, but I think she casts a massive shadow and that even people who you'd expect to be independent-minded end up remoulding their opinions to fit her (eminently sensible) narrative. Julie Bindel fawning like a needy spaniel over JKR is not a welcome sight.

And now I'm very aware of how many times I've agreed with what JKR says (including on this thread, yesterday) and feeling curmudgeonly. But it's not just what JKR says, it's also what she doesn't say, that has influence.

What was the GC-left reaction when JKR wrote that Times(?) article before the general election attacking the Labour Party, and then tweeted that she was voting for an independent candidate? I remember someone from Labour saying they'd be happy to meet her and JKR telling them to talk to women in their own party first, but I don't know how prominent GC women who had stayed loyal to Labour responded to her.

I'm finding it hard to think of any prominent GC women who publicly supported Labour except for the WPUK lot, but I've got a cold and I can barely remember my own name right now. Venice Allen and Julie Bindel have spoken out against Labour: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11577761/If-Starmer-doesnt-stand-women-trans-issue-Ill-never-vote-Labour-says-JULIE-BINDEL.html
I'm someone who left the Labour Party in 2020 as a response to Labour Women's Declaration being outlawed, but rejoined last year in order to raise consciousness within the party because it became clear to me that many actively involved Labour women have absolutely no idea about GI and what's been going on.

I seem to remember pressure not to vote conservative, knowing that would allow labour to get in through the back door. But i cant remember if any respected names got involved.

The election was long anticipated (and seems like a long time ago now) so lots of things were said.

I understand what you’re saying; in her private interactions JKR is choosing to use preferred pronouns if she wants to but in her public activism she is increasingly choosing not to.

In recent days on FWR we’ve had posters minimising what happened Keen-Mishull in NZ and in the public sphere there were some relatively prominent GCers who disparaged her for taking LWS to other countries as they saw her as aggrandising herself - they spoke against her style of activism frequently (and some still do even after the physical attacks made on her) but never proposed any alternative action that would have the same impact as LWS has been having.

I also agree that the people you cited as examples are well known for their public activism, and I’m grateful that they have publicly spoken in favour of GC beliefs, but my point was that Helen Joyce or Julie Bindel (for example) respected preferred pronouns in public speaking and even agreed with Janice Turner that using correct sex pronouns was ‘Ultra’. Then JKR put out a multi-tweet thread using correct sex pronouns for trans-identifying males and after that happened prominent GCers like Joyce, Bindel and Stock etc started using correct sex pronouns in their public speaking. This was something for which Keen-Minshull had been advocating for years but for which she was heavily disparaged.

Same thing happened with regards to Debbie Hayton: Bindel et al had been platforming Hayton and agreeing with Hayton on various issues (calling Hayton rational trans) then Hayton wrote an article criticising JKR for using correct sex pronouns, and few other aspects of her public speaking, and after that Bindel, Joyce, Stock and various other GCers broke off with Hayton and were critical of Hayton’s position. The things they mentioned in criticism of Hayton were things that Keen-Minshull had been expressing about Hayton for years.

This week, I’m seeing a similar pattern: Keen-Minshull expresses a concern/feeling that a lot of women have as a result of aggressive trans activism and gets roundly criticised by prominent GC names. JKR expresses more or less the same sentiment and the same group of prominent names agree with her and laud her for expressing this sentiment that so many women feel.

I’m not criticising JKR for expressing these things, I’m glad she said them because they needed to be said. What I’m criticising is prominent GC names being hypocritical on these specific issues - they violently disagree (and some of them have been hypercritical of Keen-Minshull this week and previously) when the opinion expressed comes from women like Keen-Minshull but see it as perfectly acceptable if expressed by a woman like Rowling. I don’t see the difference between these two women (Keen-Minshull and Rowling) other than in terms of influence and power and (quite probably) friendship with the prominent GCers.

I’m definitely not trying to drag anyone down and rubbish their activism - I admire them all for standing up for women, children, and gay rights. Rather, I’m saying I would like them to be more aware of their own biases towards other activists and, in particular, towards working-class GCers and what they need from the GC movement. I often think that prominent GCers can afford to be more accommodating in their activism because they are somewhat shielded by their class from some of the excessive effects of Gender Identity Ideology. I post this essay when I’m discussing this issue:

https://4w.pub/you-meet-more-perverts-when-poor/

Well someone has to get the all rolling and JKR can pretty much say what she wants. Where she leads (in terms of speech) others follow. I don't have an issue with that, tbh

The problem is with being vocally anti kjk is essentially it's also being anti normal women (the ones I wrote about doing hard, awful work to protect children in schools for example and suffering abuse for doing so) because she's the only one who gives normal women a voice.

That is very powerful, and it's a shame some can't seem to see beyond kjk's personality to the women she's giving a voice to.

@UtopiaPlanitia Thank you for your long post which included this:
This week, I’m seeing a similar pattern: Keen-Minshull expresses a concern/feeling that a lot of women have as a result of aggressive trans activism and gets roundly criticised by prominent GC names. JKR expresses more or less the same sentiment and the same group of prominent names agree with her and laud her for expressing this sentiment that so many women feel.
I’m not criticising JKR for expressing these things, I’m glad she said them because they needed to be said. What I’m criticising is prominent GC names being hypocritical on these specific issues - they violently disagree (and some of them have been hypercritical of Keen-Minshull this week and previously) when the opinion expressed comes from women like Keen-Minshull but see it as perfectly acceptable if expressed by a woman like Rowling. I don’t see the difference between these two women (Keen-Minshull and Rowling) other than in terms of influence and power and (quite probably) friendship with the prominent GCers.

Thank you for expressing that so well. Half the women in my Resisters group joined after being activated by KJK. They're ordinary women with ordinary views, not all of which I agree with, but we work together on GC campaigns. KJK has been key, and she often gets there first, but she doesn't receive the respect she deserves. Yes, she says controversial things — but so do some of the women I go out banner-waving or protesting or leafletting with.

I'm getting similar vibes to those I picked up during Brexit and Trump's first campaign. You call people ignorant or deplorable, or you disapprove, at your peril.

@UtopiaPlanitia good spot!

The issue though is with those so prejudiced against KJK they can’t agree with anything she says and so weak they cave as soon as JKR speaks.

That’s no one’s fault but their own. When a suggestion is only heard after a man has echoed it, it’s the men with the issue not the women.

Is JKR failing to attribute to KJK? I’m sure I’ve seen her share her tweets.

Of course they could be expressing the same ideas that have arisen independently in response to a conversation or event both are aware of. That happens- great minds think alike and all that.

JKR expresses more or less the same sentiment and the same group of prominent names agree with her and laud her for expressing this sentiment that so many women feel.

What sentiments?

No.

I am saying that the class categories as described traditionally by Marxists don't fall neatly into the boxes he set out any more because of changes in the economy.

The middle classes are "middle" precisely because they are not simply wc in the way we traditionally understand the term. Having things like investments and pensions means people have a foot in both camps, they are benefiting from being owners, from the labour of others.

And no, if your postie has these things, he or she is middle rather than working class. Quite a lot of jobs that used to be wc are now MC, from army sargents to nurses to journalists.

On the other hand there is a very good chance that if you work doing cleaning, or in certain kinds of shops, or perhaps waiting tables, you may have not quite full time hours and little access to things like pensions or even many benefits like people in the postal service have.

This should not be shocking, the shape of the economy has changed a lot since these kinds of categories were defined, as much as they did in the shift from agrarian relations to industrial production.

I would argue that middle class refers to GPs who are practice partners and lawyers who have become partners in the firm; that is, people who work themselves, own or co-own the means of production, and employ others to work for them. The difference between a partner and an employee making the same money is that employees can be fired, whilst partners have to be bought ought.

We all benefit from the labour of others to some extent, because of taxation and public spending.

@SensibleSigma It’s my recollection that JKR explicitly posted in support of KJK after NZ. When it comes to the issues like correct sex pronouns and men wearing stereotypically women’s clothes (or gender non-conforming clothes) JKR has not explicitly referenced KJK (that I’m aware of) but she has posted within a shortish timeframe expressing similar thoughts so, to my mind, it comes across as general agreement generated by the discussion that was sparked after KJK made a comment. I don’t think JKR is failing to attribute anything, I think she’s just seen the discussion and posted her thoughts.

@AnotherDayComeMonday What I was describing was this: KJK has posted her thoughts on the sense of discomfort and unease that women often feel nowadays in seeing men wearing stereotypical women’s clothing/make up or working in jobs such as gynaecology and midwifery. She’s attributed this change in women’s feelings to the aggressive trans lobby. A number of days later, JKR posted a long tweet expressing that she has feelings of discomfort and unease owing to the sustained abuse she’s received from the trans lobby online. She recounted an incident where she was approached in public by a man who was dressed in the manner of many trans activists and she described how she felt fear until he announced himself as a huge fan.

KJK’s tweet received sustained criticism from many Big Name GCers whereas the same people were more understanding and sympathetic to JKR’s tweet.

I imagine most people would call doctors and lawyers upper middle class, but I would also say if you want to try and be technical about it, they are an older type - people who own their own small businesses.

Craftsmen, small farmers who own their own land, etc, have been around since before the industrial revolution and occupy a sort of unique place that is neither the proletariat class and the capitalist class. Generally they own their own means of production, which is not just their tools but also their skills and knowledge, and while they may have some employees they are not employing on a mass scale or even close to it, for the most part.

This is the group that the Distributists, like Hilaire Belloc, thought should form the backbone of society, rather than capitalists or the state in a state socialism model, which they say as two sides of the same coin (control by the elite.) The economy should, to be most fair and balanced, be dominated by small business owners who worked for themselves - who owned their own jobs.

Middle classes in large numbers are a newer thing and represent sellers of labour who have secured a lot of stability and support through being able to integrate themselves into the capitalist ownership framework, even if at a low level.

This gives them a lot of advantages, economically, generally, and in terms of security, compared to the historic working class who really were at the mercy of the capitalists who owned their jobs.

I think there are different factors that impact on the differing appeal that CJJ and KJK hold for different people. This includes differences in the types of information people find most/least compelling.

Some people are drawn to research, evidence, and theory. Others are more heavily influenced by gut feeling and overarching ideas. Some are heavily influenced by charisma and high emotional engagement.

Arguably, the 3 types of information listed above influence all of us, but lots of us find different approaches more or less compelling. I think CJJ and KJK’s messaging heavily focuses on one type of information, making them more/less appealing to different people in line with this.

My understanding is that jkr is criticising kjk in her tweet when she says “people whose attitude towards gender expression is as regressive as that of hardened trans activists (‘if you want to wear lipstick and a dress, you’re a woman’/‘dresses and lipstick are only for women’)“

and I agree with jkr

I know this is an old thread but this is still an ongoing issue.
This post absolutely nails it. KJK is a voice for women who don’t work in academia, who are powerless in their day-to-day life but are much more likely to bear the brunt of the realities of these “debates”.
While for JCJ, most of the issues will safely remain an abstract concept, they have real life consequences for women who feel KJK speaks for them.
Yet JCJ is intensely irritated that the non-academic feminists dare to disagree with her and her limited experience of being a struggling working class woman.
JCJ lies and defames them.

I don’t agree @Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim kjk is divisive and spiteful to everyone who doesn’t fangirl her. She has caused loads of in fighting and refuses to accept that other people are doing great work - just as good as her own work. She’s completely self absorbed and only raises up tiny accounts that would never seriously challenge her power. The Gc thing is not all about her but she thinks it is

I didn’t say KJK was perfect. I said she gave a voice to the women that the academic feminists sneer at.

I’ve personally witnessed JCJ deny something was written in her blog when someone on twitter mentioned it, she then directed all her followers to harass this person for “lying”, JCJ quickly deleted the comments on her blog and denied their existence. A few weeks/ months later, the person she’d called a liar was finally able to find screenshots to prove what JCJ had done.
It was absolutely hideous and the fact that JCJ claims to be of a superior morality to KJK is absolutely laughable.

I don’t agree with all KJK’s statements, views or comments but have never seen KJK lie and defame someone.

JCJ is a hobby feminist. She pontificates. She gives women narrow constraints about what we can say and think. She’s a fake.

Her campaigning isn't about raising up other peoples accounts, or promoting other feminists.

It's about giving real women, in real time, a microphone. For them to say what they like, in public, to as many people as possible.

Let Women Speak - it really does what it says on the tin.

As a 1970s Women’s Liberationist, I’m so old that I remember when the ‘split’ was between Radical feminists, whose world had as little as possible to do with adult males, and Socialist feminists who thought we should work with male allies.

Just different ways of living and trying to achieve feminist goals. We did make huge gains back then.

Of course we never imagined male supremacists would one day demolish women’s rights by the simple expedient of claiming to be women themselves — that’s too silly to even imagine! Nor that people who call themselves socialist would one day stop just delaying action on women’s rights and actively oppose them.

I understand why women who think their way of supporting women is the right one get so angry with other women who think differently. Of course people who passionately support a cause will fight against what looks like harmful action. But I now stay out of disputes.

No it doesn’t @Datun not one bit. She lets some women speak , but my god, she silences lots of women with her bully tactics- especially women who are more intelligent than her. She’s a really horrible person