Fightback against what exactly?
About those “people who were pulling out” – this is one:
Lola Olufemi believes that feminism is “a political methodology that we can use to make demands for our freedom and the freedom of others” – why others? Why can’t women advocate for our own freedom? And feminism isn’t a “political methodology,” whatever that would mean, and it isn’t about “making demands” and it’s far broader than demands for “freedom.” In short her feminism isn’t feminism.
Furthermore “woman” is not “an umbrella term under which we can gather.” It’s the word for the female half of the human species. It’s not any kind of “umbrella term,” any more than “man” is.
There’s a lot more dopy confused stale verbiage. She’s only young, it’s probably unfair to be too harsh with her, but she’s been destructive and wrong here.
Gender-critical feminists have links to scientific racism? I guess she wasn’t kidding when she bragged about how big her imagination is.
I’m glad you picked at that “umbrella” term – that stuck out at me. Why should feminism be an umbrella for everyone (or anyone other than women)? Do we insist that advocacy groups for African Americans be an umbrella that includes whites? No, and we shouldn’t. Do we insist that groups for the disabled should be an umbrella that includes the able-bodied? No, and we shouldn’t.
Furthermore, I am tired of that dogwhistle – white females, often coupled, as here, with middle-class. In short, illegitimate human beings, human beings with no purpose or rights because, well, privileged oppressors. While I am ready and able to acknowledge that I have privileges accruing to my white skin, and I have moved into the middle class by the sheer force of my will and work (while avoiding the groping hands and leering of men from across the spectrum of classes), I do not acknowledge that this makes me illegitimate.
Nor does this issue have f**k all to do with being white; that’s just gravy on top of the icing. Tie the trans issue to gay rights, you’ve scratched one winning lottery ticket. Tie it to racism, you’ve scratched another winning lottery ticket. Tie it to disabled (and they do bring that in sometimes), and you’ve won the triple jackpot.
Gee, Skeletor, warn me next time you’re going to post something while I’m still writing my comment about it, okay? ;-)
Shorter Lola:
‘I believe feminism is a political methodology that we can use… and if you won’t let me use it for my own ends, I’m out.’
No biological women are trying to “hijack feminism”, that’s absurd. Biologically male trans people are the ones trying to hijack feminism, obviously.
Person A objects to Person B, so Person A declines to participate.
And therefore (?), Person B is told not to show up.
I’m not understanding the connection.
I guess if Person A threatened to pull out unless Person B was excluded, I could at least understand the reasoning.
The last time I saw this much bullshit packed into such a small space was in a tweet by Trump. This piece is much longer, but the density of untruth is the same. Quite a remarkable achievement, but not really one to be proud of.
She WASN’T “looking forward to being in conversation with everyone.” Her first sentence is a lie and it all goes downhill from there. Some of the other whoppers that stuck out for me (apart from those already noted above):
Women in general, and feminists in particular are under no obligation whatsoever to “extend solidarity” to those working towards the colonization of the concept of “woman.” And as for the claims of victimhood? Say hello to Karen White. He victimized actual women. Self ID will just increase the frequency of similar assaults. Women are supposed lay back and extend some solidarity?
She doesn’t “have time to unpick what I find so abhorrent about the second wave resugence of calls for sex-based rights…” She could have used the time and space she used for flouncing to do just that. Tell us what is so “abhorrent” about the gender critical position. This was a perfect opportunity to do so, while you had everyone’s attention. Your insistant assertion of its “abhorrence” does not mean it is abhorrent. Please enlighten us. MAKE THE ARGUMENT. Convince us and you will have more allies.
“..how it has poisoned chances of intergenerational conversation…” HAHAHAHA! That’s a good one! Almost as good as your having been looking forward to being in conversation with EVERYONE.
“all those read as women…” Newsflash: not women. Make the type as big as you like, they will never be women if they were not born female. No “reading” required. Maybe you can join our good friend Morgane Oger, who will explain to you how women should do politics. He thinks he’s one of those who’s “read as women.”
I’d like to explain how exactly she’s noy imposing a culture war herself, given her stance and tactics.
Trans liberation (from what, exactly?) is NOT, nor shall it EVER be central to any movement intent on abolishing gender; without gender, there is no “trans,” just people’s varying personalities. The “abhorrent” second wave feminists are, in fact, trying to dismantle gendeThat she can’t see that and at the same time think sthat TRAs are trying to abolishing gender shows just how incoherent, hypocritical and contradictory her stance is.
Maybe not so unfair, as this is not her first rodeo. She’s been destructive and wrong before:
https://twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1233784919610056710
Olufemi isn’t interested in debate, discussion or argument. What she wants is submission, obedience and compliance. Anything less is hateful, transphobic, and evil. Why convince when you can compell? Unless she has some sort of conversion experience, I don’t think it’s being too unfair to hold her accountable for un-thought-out bullshit, propounded in totalitarian ways. The being wrong or mistaken might be excused by youthful inexperience; her choice of tactics, not so much.
The ‘read as women’ thing is attracting my attention today. It’s hard for me to actually know, but do these men actually believe they’re being ‘read as women’? Do they not realise that to the extent they think they’re being ‘read as women’ the ‘readers’ are putting on a show for them, out of politeness or fear? Pretty much all of us, I would think, at this point, probably don’t feel we have much choice when interacting with TIMs to do whatever we would do in public when interacting with women…though now that I’ve written this sentence this is absolutely not true of me, but no TIM would ever know. When I’m interacting with women I feel more of a familiarity or connection, that I may express by leaning in closer, looking more directly into their eyes, offering more focused listening and verbal and nonverbal encouragement when they speak–but no TIM would ever notice that I don’t provide those cues to them.
This comment has turned into more of a ramble than I’d expected, but I’m going to post it anyway because I’m interested in any thoughts anyone might want to share: a) how would a TIM know, or what would make him think, he was being ‘read as a woman’, and b) how do we interact with women, in general public settings, differently than we interact with men? (The obvious answer isn’t one a TIM would ever acknowledge–women are ignored, threatened, attacked, insulted, condescended to and harassed in public, which I expect is not (with the exception of Munroe Bergdorf wanting to be catcalled) the kind of ‘being read as a woman’ TIMs expect.)
Up until now I had never hear of Bea Jaspert, but I think I’m about to fall in love. :-)
https://medium.com/@BeaJaspert/response-to-lola-olufemis-statement-calling-for-supporters-of-womans-place-uk-to-be-excluded-from-6df7b26168cc
2. The term “woman” may have no meaning for Lola other than in terms of fighting the “underside of capital” or “death-making machines” (whatever those terms mean). But it has meaning for feminists because, without a word to describe ourselves, we cannot take action to fight the discrimination, exploitation, subjugation, abuse and violence that we face on account of our sex.
3. Lola claims she withdrew from the event because the organisers hadn’t “investigated” other speakers links to Womans Place UK.
Why should links to a sister women’s rights organisation be investigated? Women’s liberation is a movement of women and for women. The aim of the movement is to liberate women from male supremacy. All voices, individuals and organisations working towards that end must necessarily be included if the movement is to gather momentum and create much-needed change.
Thanks for pointing us to another sane voice, Roj.
guest @ 9 – yes to all of that. I’ve had the same thought. I’m not going to challenge a Trans Woman™ I encounter in the real world, but that doesn’t translate to: I think of him as a real woman. I don’t really know if or how that cashes out in my behavior, demeanor, way of talking…except I suppose that it would make me self-conscious and tense. That’s another side-effect of all this “activism,” I guess – we’re being conditioned to be wary or even fearful of trans women. Is that what the activists had in mind? I don’t think so.
a) My guess is that, if the TIM was an adult transitioner, rather than someone who’d transitioned as a teen, they’d be mostly clueless, having male socialization. They might consider getting into a women’s restroom, or not being referred to as “he” as being “read as a woman” and completely missing the absence of smaller, subtler cues of conversational acceptance that guest has pointed out.
I know someone who was in an abusive relationship, who, in order not to “provoke” him, would agree to whatever her abuser was saying, but inside, knowing he was wrong. The verbal acquiescence was sufficient for the abuser; he never had a clue that she thought or felt anything different than the words she was mouthing.
b) A TIM might mistake the “unwelcome” side of being “read as a woman” as “transphobia” or “transmisogyny” rather than plain old, everyday misogyny.
Exactly. As far as I can tell, I don’t encounter very many TIMs in my day to day existance. I might be missing any who are very good at passing, but around those who are not, I’m wary and uneasy. Being in retail sales, I have to try to ensure that that wariness and uneasiness does not come across as standoffishness or hesitancy in conversation with customers. In my mind, however I can’t help but wonder if the person in front of me is one of the pushy, shouty ones forcefully demanding access women’s spaces. (Most whom I serve in my store are older, so not as likely to be marching with pink & blue baseball bats…) I try not to let those thoughts intrude on my interaction, and I don’t think they have, but I’m not going to have control over those subtle, “autonomic” cues and behaviours. The only other instance that I can think of in which I felt I needed to make a similar level of effort to not let my personal thoughts and feelings intrude on my professional behaviour was when I was serving notorious “scientific” racist Philippe Rushton.
Many of the articles and posts I encounter about TIMs who are murdered almost invariably attribute the murder to “transphobia”. Not all the usual motivations for murder, and not misogyny, it simply must be because this person was trans. And so few of the people who share these stories ever share stories of actual women killed in similar circumstances.
‘ we’re being conditioned to be wary or even fearful of trans women. Is that what the activists had in mind? I don’t think so.’ I’m not so sure about that. One lesson I think we’ve all been learning is that if people are afraid of you you get what you want.