All self-identifying
What do words mean – it’s such a puzzle. We have to start anew every morning, figuring out their meanings for ourselves.
The first tweet in the series says they include men in their for women feminism. It’s so important to make clear and underline that their feminism is for men that they say that before they say anything else. The way they say it has a bullying note, too – it’s clearly stated that by “women” they mean anyone who says “Yep I’m a woman,” so don’t you go pretending you didn’t realize, Karen. In short it’s pre-emptively hostile, which wouldn’t make me want to join them if I were in Scotland.
Anyway, they’re telling the truth – it is right there in their constitution.
D. Membership
Membership is open to all self-identified women who agree with the aims of the Association.
Imagine an organization for workers. membership in which is open to all self-identified workers. Imagine such an organization filling up with rich bosses who swiftly outnumber the workers and prevent the organization from doing anything in solidarity with workers. Imagine the same switcheroo with LGB people, or immigrants, or people of color, or atheists, or people with disabilities. Imagine all political organizing being sabotaged by this “all who identify as” nonsense – it wouldn’t take long at all.
It’s a brilliant wheeze; it’s just too bad the suckers haven’t seen the trick yet.
So…they are people for independence…from what? Seems like a new org since I can’t find out much about them but is this going to be all lives matter level activism? Never mind, there is no way I am joining anyways.
“We’re exclusive – we are only open to those that want to join.”
Isn’t that basically the position of some of the BLM orgs at this point? All lives matter as long as they’re not merely white and they’re not cops? Or do all trans cop lives matter too?
“We’re an exciting and inclusive new organization about everyone but *you*!”
So, not “Women” at all.
@1 The website says they want to work toward equal representation of women in various male dominated fields. Maybe they can more easily meet their goals if enough men identify as women? That’s one way to even up the playing field I guess. So the ‘independence’ must include independence from biological reality? :P
Southwest88 #1
For Scottish independence from the UK..
Their focus is already fractured. They’re for SI, they’re for “women,” they’re certainly going to be for all Woke Identities and policies du jour. They’re a floor wax AND a dessert topping.
There already exist a number of organizations for Scottish independence. This one is for the Elect who need to signal their virtue.
The last Women for Independence group had their funds embezzled by one of the founders, who was also an MP.
Campaign groups should not be interested in what their members are, but what they do – whether it’s drawing up manifestos, door knocking or stuffing envelopes. They should have distinct and achievable aims. I’m thankful to belong to a cycling campaign group, where no-one ever speaks about how you vote, whether you’re a nationalist or unionist, or gender critical or transactivist. We just get on with the campaigning, which takes up enough time, energy and emotion (chief emotion, frustration, though some successes here and there).
I wonder how many women they have put off joining by that statement, and whether that is outweighed by the eager men-identifying-as-women – or whether identifying-as-women takes up so much energy that there is not enough left for foot-slogging campaign work.
KBPlayer, the other thing is how likely the TiMs are to take on the roles women have performed in those organizations, the thankless day to day slog of keeping things running. Most of the TiMs appear to be interested mostly in maintaining the knowledge that they are the center of attention. I know there are many trans individuals who don’t spend a lot of time shouting, but I doubt they are enough to make up the loss of the work the women do.
A Scottish writer, Darren McGarvey, who has experienced addiction and family poverty, and writes about them, says that what puts off working-class people from activism is having to learn a new language and new shibboleths. An active movement, whether it’s organising unions or setting up drug counselling services, would not be taking umbrage about the correct terms to use. It’s not about presentation of self, but achieving something concrete.
I found this article interesting.
“Joreen Freeman observed that trashing is much more prevalent in feminist organizations which call themselves radical than in those which do not, and among those with vague goals rather than concrete ones. In conversation with Fain, Meghan Murphy notes that having concrete political goals forces you to work with outsiders, including people with whom you disagree, in order to accomplish them. “The [feminist] movement shouldn’t be self-help. It’s not about saving you. It’s not ‘sisterhood’. That puts too much pressure on a movement which should be about changing laws and policies, and ultimately women’s lives.””
https://ianleslie.substack.com/p/horizontal-hostility?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share