Who Are Your Opponents, What Do You Think They Believe—And What Does That Say About YOUR Values?

Who are your opponents & are they who you claim they are? What "social justice" values are you actually espousing in your activism & are they REALLY what you want?

Now, according to Fashionable Current Activist Lore, the ONLY people in the world who might POSSIBLY question, feel “something’s off” about or directly oppose the currently compulsory genderist belief framework, and the compelling and enforcement of ALL its tenets at ALL levels in society are “clearly”:

a) Far right evangelical religious conservatives influenced and funded by the same in America

b) Nazis & obvious bigots driven by irrational hatred

c) Tories

d) Homophobes who supported Section 28

e) Pearl-clutching Mary Whitehouse type housewives

f) “Thick Daily Mail readers” & plebs too stupid to think for themselves unlike clever Guardian and Independent readers

g) People who’ve never been to university so are therefore obviously thick

h) Anti vaxxers, Trump & Brexit supporters, QAnon conspiracists and Laurence Fox and other embarrassing undesirables.

Plus

i) Traditionalists and people who fully support the enforcement of regressive sex roles and heteronormativity.

So that’s the established view, one that apparently “everyone” who cares about social justice knows for a fact is true.

Do they really, though?

The Problem With These Characterisations

Well, the main issue is these characterisations are factually NOT true at all. SOME opponents do fit the stereotype, but the fact is there not only a great many notable exceptions, they may even be most of them. And the entirely verifiable reality that questioners of the ideological framework, especially in the UK aka “Terf Island”, do include MANY of the following appears to have passed the true believers by.

a) Long time left wing Green activists & Labour & SNP supporters and funders, materialist socialists, the Morning Star & Communist Party of Great Britain, a number of current Observer and ex-Guardian columnists, trade unionists, long time feminist women’s rights and anti-misogyny campaigners such as Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and Joan Smith, author of the seminal 1989 book Misogynies.

Are these really “far right evangelical conservatives influenced by Christian evangelical Americans?”

b) People who are demonstrably neither “Nazis” or political extremists of any stripe, people who in terms of values, beliefs and voting patterns would largely be seen as political leftists, liberals and centrists & who believe open discussion and the human right of freedom of belief without oppression in a widely diverse and mature democracy is a good thing.

Is this commensurate with such people being “Nazis?” Do you know what “Nazis” and “extremism” actually is? Believing in reality isn’t “far right” or extremist. Neither is knowing sex matters in reality, or thinking that laws should be robust and based in fact, not fantasy. And no, having the temerity to say no “no” and being able to ask questions and be consulted about proposed changes to laws covering your OWN current legal rights isn’t remotely “extremist” either.

c) People whose entire voting history has always been for left-of centre parties: in the UK, Labour voters, Lib Dem voters, Green and SNP voters, many of whom have left and some of whom have been ousted by their parties who say their questioning of the ideology in any way, despite the tenets of genderism having little to do with the parties’ declared central values or concerns, is not welcome, and they don’t want their votes.

What makes you think all these people are “suddenly” Tories and espouse “Tory” values now? Why would they do this all of a sudden? Why would their core values have changed so much just on this one issue? Might you have missed something crucial here?

d) Lesbians and gay men, activists who were founders of the Gay Liberation Front in the UK in the 70s, gay founders of the first Pride marches in the US and who were present at the first Stonewall riots, original founders, long-time employees and former campaigners and active champions for UK Stonewall, gay journalists & campaigners, LGB people and straight allies, who joined together to march and fight explicitly FOR gay rights and AGAINST the Tories’ Section 28 back in the late 80s and 90s.

“Homophobes and the exact same people who supported Section 28” really?

e) Ex Greenham Common activists, lesbians, 2nd wave women’s liberationists, builders of women’s rape crisis centres and rape shelters in the 70s and 80s, Generation Xers, former punks, New Romantics and goths, people who grew up in the sexually liberated 60s, 70s, 80s are now “pearl-clutching sex-hating censorious Christian 1950s Mary Whitehouse type housewives”.

Are you sure about this? Honestly? Did we really jump straight from the 1950s to here, or did any cultural and social changes actually occur over the last 70 years?

f) A wide range of people across society including members of the public in a full range of jobs, including academics & thinkers, writers, artists, long-time readers of ALL newspapers (yes, including the Guardian & Indie), educated people, working class and middle class people working in all industries and businesses who read widely. All “thick Daily Mail readers” & plebs too stupid to think for themselves unlike naturally clever Guardian and Indie readers”? Don’t you think that’s showing YOUR limited understanding of the wide diversity of people in society, a narrow minded, presumptious and limited approach to information and a complete lack of both respect for diversity, and for the intelligence and capabilities of all your fellow citizens? Have you ever dared read “unapproved” or sources of information or non-curated accounts and viewspoints from original sources? How do you ensure that your information is accurate?

g) People of ALL academic backgrounds, including a very large number of people who have degrees (often several) and who have indeed been to university high IQ people, lecturers, those with PhDs, professors in a wide range of academic disciplines including sciences, biologists, the humanities, philosophy, history, psychology, sociology and a range of both arts and science subjects, doctors, clinicians, psychiatrists, paediatricians, well known biologists and fertility experts, those who work in think tanks, experienced investigative journalists for established publications.

Why are you assuming that everyone “educated” will share your views and anyone who doesn’t simply isn’t clever enough to understand? Even within universities, have you never spoken to or had discussions with people in different academic disciplines to yourself and do all your views tally all the time? Or do you look down on certain other disciplines, such as science, as “not intellectual enough?” or “impure” in some way? What is the evidence base for the assertions you make and do they all stand up to scrutiny? How would you argue your case if an academic in a different discipline fundamentally disagreed with you and presented evidence to back up their positions that opposed yours? Would you be able to discuss with them and present a good case, or would you feel too challenged to allow that to happen? Would you seek to prevent publication or open discussion of their views? Would you claim that they are too “stupid” or “uneducated” to understand yours?

Are these all “people who’ve never been to university “ and even in cases where those who disagree with you haven’t, how do you know that makes them unintelligent? How are you measuring intelligence? Solely by adherence to your own personal viewpoints? Is there perhaps a chance that they could possibly know anything you don’t? Have you ever asked them the basis for their reasoning or views?

h) People who urged others to get vaccinations and felt the government didn’t do enough during Covid, ardent Remainers, outspoken critics of both Trump and Johnson, those who openly find Laurence Fox and his diatribes against his ex wife and others an entitled, privileged, sexist & often racist embarrassment are all “Anti vaxxers, Trump & Brexit supporter, QAnon conspiracists and Laurence Fox”? Are you TOTALLY sure about that?

i) 2nd wave feminists, radical feminists (the RF in “terf”) and women’s liberationists who explicitly decried pink ‘n blue sex stereotypes and systemically eschewed “traditional” gender roles and rules about appearance as tools of the patriarchy, were often castigated and called “disgusting” and “mannish” by traditionalists and misogynists for wearing dungarees, no makeup, not shaving off body hair, having short hair, deliberately refusing to conform to society’s standards of beauty for women or campaigning against beauty pageants, campaigned for women to be paid equally to men, campaigned for better childcare to allow women to work outside the home and become financially independent, fought for abortion and reproductive rights for women, were the first generation who had the choice not to have children themselves and many chose not to are “Women who fully support the enforcement of traditional regressive sex roles” ? Well, no, they’re clearly the complete opposite.

Where on earth are you getting this shit from and who is telling you that this is who “terfs” and other “GC” people are? Have you honestly never met or spoken to any in real life or read anything about radical feminists or the history of women’s rights?

This being the case, we then have to ask YOU:

• What and who is telling you this, and who is prompting you to spread misinformation and outright lies about your opponents, who they are, and their political and social beliefs? What do you think the impact will be on those people you’ve targeted or “called out”? Do you think that’s a good thing?

• What is the motivation behind doing so? Do you think it’s acceptable to spread misinformation and actively defame people who disagree with you in order to achieve your political aims? Is creating “fear” of daring to oppose a legitimate political aim? What other political leaders in history have done so and are they people you’d support? Think Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Kim Jong-un and numerous military dictators. Your kind of thing, yes?

• If the women and people who you disagree with are threatened physically with violence, death and sexual assault, not to mention losing their jobs or means of making a living, as a result of people deciding they’re “Evil Nazis who don’t deserve human rights” on the basis of such misinformation about who they are and what they believe in an attempt to dehumanise them, are you culpable for that in any way if you have encouraged this or knowingly spread misinformation, and do you think there should be any consequences in a civil society for doing so?

• How would you react if someone took a dislike to you, your views were lied about and you found yourself persecuted and threatened for it to the point you lost your job and lived in fear of violent assault?

• Who gets to decide which of your fellow citizens have views that are beyond the pale, what the only acceptable views should be, and what human rights they should have removed if they express or indicate that the views they hold or might hold differ from the approved views in any way? Is there a kind of Pope figure who decrees this? Who checks who’s deciding ? Who voted for them? Could this ever be open to abuse or corruption, do you think? Could this power ever be used against yourself? Are you ever permitted to question such people, and how can they be removed if they misuse this power?

• Is it ever acceptable to threaten to kill, rape or beat up your political opponents, those you fundamentally disagree with, to report them to employers and campaign to have them lose their jobs & means of livelihood as a political act? Should people campaigned against ever get to have a right to reply? How does this fit with Equality and Employment law and Human Rights legislation? How does history view those who use such tactics against political opponents? Have “mistakes” in who was targeted ever been made, and what impact did this have on a range of citizens in that country? Is this what living in a diverse, egalitarian, liberal, democratic and free society is about, in your view? What kind of utopian society do you think will result from this kind of activism?

• If you do think it’s acceptable, what do you think this says about the integrity of both your “social justice” campaigning and underlying values, and why should people who care about human rights for all, fairness, truth and honesty trust you? Can you explain what “social justice” and “human rights” values you’re espousing here and how this fits with other civil and human rights activism in past generations? What do you think is going to result from it? What is your desired end point?

Have you really thought about this in any detail, checked your sources of information, or considered implications? Are you happy with those? Honestly? Because I really think we’d all like to know.

Otherwise, I think it’s fair to say that all you “kind” people congratulating yourselves on how you’re the “right side of history” appear to be engaging in and enabling defamation, smears, lies and propaganda against pretty much ANY people who disagree with or question you at all. That doesn’t sound very “right side of history”, “kind” or “progressive” to me. It sounds sinister, authoritarian and hateful. And not what good people do.