By Anna:
A quick (no, sorry, it's not) response to Katy Montgomery -
So, Katy responded to Sonia Sodha's tweet about no-platforming feminists thusly: https://twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1407768025936412672?s=19
Replying to the 'remember when Paris Lees was on Woman's Hour '
Now, I have a lot of criticisms of Katy, because I don't feel she is honest in how she presents arguments. I do, however, appreciate she does at least remain civil, which is rare among trans rights activists these days. At least to me, or from what I've seen (although I know there's a lot of allegations of inciting dog piles etc). But that civiility matters, and I wanted to reply properly.
I am fucking terrible at keeping replies short and succinct, especially because this whole issue is a viper's pit of logical fallacies and lies... I'm trying my bestest to keep it short here, but in all likelihood I'll fail.
First things first: When Katy clarifies she means 'GC people' I guess this is part of broadening criticism of 'TERFs', who are, by definition, women, to include men.
This is in the gender activist's best interest - the targeting of women as the enemy, and use of misogynistic abuse is increasingly being called out and showing the movement up as aggressively male supremacist and sexist. There's never been so much incentive to point out and condemn gender critical men. Not, of course, that I'm accusing Katy of behaving so cynically, but it's all part of defending a more agreeable version of trans activism.
I also take it to mean gender critique as a view. That is, believing gender is not innate and that it is routed in regressive stereotypes. This isn't necessarily feminism, or an ideology over and above critiquing gender - it doesn't tell you the roots of misogyny or sexism.
What Katy means with reference to this and 'gamete potential' is radical feminism, I reckon. Which holds that sexism/misogyny is rooted in seeking to control our reproductive bodies by a capitalist patriarchy.
For example: animals are in this way treated in farming - from which breeds are most economically rewarding to which cow to put on the 'rape rack' for insemination; which calf to kill because he wont produce milk; which chick to shove into a blender cos he won't produce eggs. It (patriarchy) sees women as bodies, as a resource and as such it needs to control and manage us, based on the potential of our reproductive bodies.
This is the origin, the basis of our oppression. Young men have their bodies exploited in labour, dangerous work and war, and young women have theirs exploited in different forms of labour and as objects of desire and reproductive potential. It’s not possible to challenge objectification without acknowledging the objectification, or its targets. We can't get very far with gender ideology (which, I imagine, Katy will deny as a concept) because it ties our bodies to temperament and behavioural expectations, which in turn are created and enforced by socialisation.
As a feminist, I see the fundamental difference between me and males is our bodies. From that, and society's perception of it, everything else follows. The gendered demands and social norms woven around us are just a shitty, claustrophobic set of rules and roles I want kept a very long way away from my body, which will always be my body.
Gender is a useful tool for a patriarchy which wishes to categorise and control. It's yoked to biological sex, and used as an additional set of limitations which does all of us, including those with dysphoria, a lot of harm. Hysteria and hysterectomy share the same roots, too - but are referent to very different things. It's a bit like that.
And, apart from radical feminists, I'd hazard a guess most people use a real-world taxonomic version of sex, placing self-described identity below physical reality. Being thoughtful and considerate to the upset trans people feel over 'misgendering' doesn't change this.
Typecast 'feminine' traits being hitched to a female body oppresses us. The caricatures of 'feminine' are predicated on women as weak, prone to neurosis (hysteria), needing guidance, being submissive and unable to think deeply and rationally. Our lesser needs are met by frivolous, trivial fixations with gossip and looking pretty; our real fulfilment comes from caring and bearing (maybe baring, too).
The fact 'TERFs' are so despised, though none have ever perpetrated a murder or notable act of violence (are there any?) is proof of the hatred of women defying gender expectations, as well as, on some level, fitting the ancient derogatory, malevolent definitions of women past their biological utility - witches; nags; prudes. Past it yet weirdly obsessed with sex and genitals.
Being male and feminine, female and masculine, or just conforming or not, is something we need to accept and, in the case of children, not be medicating or pathologising - ever. We can challenge the socialisation which enforces them, and not be bigots to those who have a connection to gender.
Suggesting, though, that a boy being drawn to long hair, sparkles, pink and dollies therefore is a girl is not progressive. It reinforces these assumptions, and we see this time and again as the foundation of the evidence that a child is somehow trans. It may be that it's important for a person's self care, to cope with dysphoria, to transition, but a transwoman is the ultimate manifestation of a socially constructed identity and being.
This construct makes growing demands that everyone adhere to, endorse and defend it as meaning something synonymous with, indistinguishable from, woman. Raging against those who make a distinction, genderists are genuinely authoritarian and censorious, appealing constantly to cultural stereotypes. Therefore it continues to bind gender stereotypes to sex, and it categorises adult human females who may live their lives without resort to gender, or who express it in terms culturally coded masculine, as 'cis'.
And, when we state our case against this, we are abused.
The term 'cis', to me, is as helpful to feminism as climbing a mountain, only to have your kit swapped on the last day with that of an ice skater and being asked to appreciate the pretty spandex and blades. It's just another burden, a luxury obstacle and it looks and feels stupid. A trivial, distracting hindrance that might be fun for someone with nothing to climb and endless leisure time, but for me it's an anti-tool. A handicap.
It fundamentally contradicts my understanding and many other's of our lives and trials. It's sunglasses when you need a microscope.
Sexism and misogyny comes from that commodification of bodies which sorts the milk-producing cow from the bullock. Mammals come in only two sexes, and the fact there's variation and not all bodies function in the way necessarily assumed changes nothing. This was the origin of our subjugation and has been built upon for millenia. The roots are all in the assumption a female has these biological functions and should behave in a prescribed way.
So, when we are told that 'transwomen are women' - and when we are punished for dissent - we are being told our analysis of our own condition is not only worthless but offensive and harmful. How is it, we are damned for holding a different view, while simultaneously accused of being abusive for disagreeing with theirs?
How, if a transwoman doesn't pass, are they affected by misogyny?
Misogyny is hatred of women. Unless I'm mistaken for a transwoman or transman, I won't suffer transphobia and I certainly wouldn't try to tell Katy what it feels like. I may suffer prejudice for being gender nonconforming, which is a large part of transphobia, but, again, has different routes, meanings and consequences.
These things have different origins & definitions. Why deny this? Why try to reduce complex ideas and concepts and analysis to a simple, democratised, pick-yer-own protected group?
I don't suffer racism. Not today. As a kid though, growing up to constant chants of 'g*po' and 'p*key', I did. My whiteness, the banal ubiquity of my surname, separation from family and the way I live now is such I escaped it. I still feel it when I read headlines, overhear conversation on the bus, see vile comments online, but it isn't happening to me. Because my race has no biological features that are distinct from the archetype, I can move on freely.
That has a large part to do with the difference within forms of prejudice. Black and Asian people won't escape like that. Therein lies the spiteful nuances, fixations and characteristic stereotypes that lie at the heart of racism, as it conflicts with the white, English archetype - from antisemitism to xenophobia and colourism. There's differences here and they matter. Prejudice based on any divergence from the male archetype affects both of us, Katy, but in different ways. And as our bodies are only superficially changeable, we will never escape.
Back to Katy's initial point that it is transwomen who are being impacted by gender criticals who are 'going out their way to prevent transwomen talking about their[s]' oppression - where on earth is the evidence?
I've thought of a few things which trans activists have done to us in the UK:
* 1) Feminists have been routinely de-platformed, often with erroneous advice from Stonewall, a national charity which had their feet well under the table of the queer theory banquet.
* 2) Maria McLaughlin was assaulted for filming counter demonstrators, as she and others were harassed at Speaker's Corner while waiting to find out the venue of a feminist meeting. Trans activists rejoiced.
Who criticised that? Here's a selection of responses, some from relatively big accounts;
* 3) Women meet to discuss the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights' statement, which claims A Woman's Place and LGB Alliance is transphobic and members should be expelled from the party, favours self ID - which directly undermines women's rights to self segregate, and claims pointing that out is itself transphobia (AWP's response here) and are bombarded by abuse, a smoke grenade (near the Grenfell tower memorial) loud hailers and a young man with a prosthetic penis sewn to his crotch
* 4) A Woman's Place try to meet to discuss their oppression in Leeds, the council cancel it after threats; https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/womans-place-uk-leeds-debate-15434988
* 5) Resisters organise a protest in Manchester and are met by Sisters Uncut who release this beforehand:
(Let's not forget Sisters Uncut hijacking Sarah Everard's vigil - all detailed in the link above on their name)
* 6) Julie Bindel is abused by 'Cathy Brennan' (who changed their name to that of the American feminist Cathy Brennan, who has been abused for years) after speaking at the event "Women's Sex-Based Rights: what does (and what should) the future hold?"
* 7) A Woman's Place try to meet to discuss their oppression in Brighton and are harassed
One woman's experience of attending the event;
* 8) Anti rape culture flash mob held by Make More Noise is counter protested by activists (Sisters Uncut, again..)
* 9) Abused at Reclaim These Streets in Portsmouth - a protest against male violence. Because feminists joined and dared to have teeshirts and a banner bearing the dictionary definition of woman, they were attacked.
Here is a member of FiLiA recounting her experience, this is Glinners' coverage. Here's a selection of comments from a local Facebook page following;
* 6) Julie Bindel is abused by 'Cathy Brennan' (who changed their name to that of the American feminist Cathy Brennan, who has been abused for years) after speaking at the event "Women's Sex-Based Rights: what does (and what should) the future hold?"
* 7) A Woman's Place try to meet to discuss their oppression in Brighton and are harassed
One woman's experience of attending the event;
* 8) Anti rape culture flash mob held by Make More Noise is counter protested by activists (Sisters Uncut, again..)
* 9) Abused at Reclaim These Streets in Portsmouth - a protest against male violence. Because feminists joined and dared to have teeshirts and a banner bearing the dictionary definition of woman, they were attacked.
Here is a member of FiLiA recounting her experience, this is Glinners' coverage. Here's a selection of comments from a local Facebook page following;
Another witness:
And another:
One man doesn't understand how men chanting abuse at women, throwing their book in a bin and being deliberately intimidatory as well as bundling them off stage is ok -
So, that's nice. Not like we are hitting a bit of a nerve when stating the origins of sexism and misogyny, is it?
Here, one man denies he binned a feminist's book, is defended by a woman who also says it is a lie, before admitting he did in fact bin it:
more denial...
Claire Udy (under the pseudonym Clair Bear), an independent councillor for Portsmouth (after her antisemitic 'jokes' had her ejected from the Labour party) enters the fray, having been accused of exacerbating and participating in the abuse;
It is clear from the video the women 'flipped the bird' - after being jeered at, abused and, allegedly, assaulted. They did so as they left. It's also a pretty shocking state of affairs that women unfurling a banner, which gives definition to what a woman is and thus the basis of our oppression, results in a councillor joining in on chants and telling women to fuck off, upping the tension to a stage a man feels the need to step in and be security. Not sounding very feminist to me...
Here's Claire Udy again:
So there we have it - the dictionary definition of woman is transphobic, out of place at a protest against male violence in the wake of Sarah Everard's murder, and is justly countered by, even if we believe these people's limited account, telling these women to fuck off and chant TERF.
Claire Udy is again accused of chanting 'scum' at these women, and claims to have video footage absolving herself and others, but won't share it.
(The woman writing here swiftly clarifies she means 'trans person', but her anxiety is screwing with her ability to type her thoughts with clarity)
In summary: another man thinks abusing and silencing feminists is fine
In fact, if you really want to get an understanding of just how much women are prevented from speaking about their own oppression, just have a read of Maria McLaughlin's excellent blog where she lists the silencing attempts Trying to stop us meeting. Some more hatred and misogynistic oppression can be seen here.
Katy, it's not looking convincing. Maybe you have a load of counter examples which haven't reached me as I'm in some sort of echo chamber. But, some angry comments about Lees (who has a murky history at best) don't really cut it.
Feminists, gender critical feminists, are harassed; their talks are cancelled; their invitations rescinded; they are mobbed by chanting gangs of activists; they are not only attacked but then vilified further, lied about and see their assaults glorified. This is all down to our understanding of our oppression, and an understanding of what it is to be a woman that's actually shared by most people.
When did gender critical people do similar? When did any try to stop you speaking about your oppression?
Simply, we are saying they are different, with different origins. That isn't oppressing you, or anything like it.
This is DARVO.
Anna (Told you I'm not great at brevity)
