Ping-ponging around Bongland in unseasonably cold weather made all the more tolerable by a consistent blue sky left me feeling somewhat out-of-place. “No rain? No steel grey skies?”, I kept asking myself, amazed with the luck that I was experiencing.
Being out-of-place seems to have been the theme of this recent excursion to Blighty, as I was invited to attend an in-person debate between Julie Bindel and Helen Joyce on the subject of whether women should or should not ally with right wingers to fend off the rapid rise of transgenderism and its politics. Julie Bindel is a legendary radical feminist (and tough broad) who took the ‘anti’ position. Labeled a “TERF” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist), she can be found in the pages of the Guardian UK. Staking out the ‘pro’ side was Helen Joyce, a former editor at The Economist. This debate was hosted by UnHerd at their new offices just down the street from Big Ben and UK Parliament.
I am absolutely certain that no one in attendance had politics anywhere remotely close to mine, so I assured my friend that I would be on my best behaviour and not provoke anyone nor be what the Brits like to call “a shit”. I would sit in attendance, pay close attention to the subject, and then share my thoughts privately afterwards. Nice boy Niccolo in full effect.
The crowd was overwhelmingly female and obviously well-educated. They were there to see two stars of the media scene debate the oldest debate in the world: Principle or Pragmatism? It was relatively simple to conclude this from the outset of the debate, meaning that only the engaging characters of both women saved me from a dreary hour and twenty minutes. To summarize:
Helen laid out the argument for tactical alignment with elements of the right to fend off the transgender tsunami, explaining that they could pick and choose how and with whom to work, without serving the interests of the right. Julie forcefully countered that working with the right is impossible because the right always defaults to patriarchy, and that transgenders are little more than very extreme Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). For the life of me I can’t recall who actually won the debate based on the show of hands before and after the subject was debated as I had already checked out and was dying to hit the bar roughly 20 feet behind me.
What is interesting to note is that UK feminists have been much, much more aggressive in defending themselves against transgenderism vs. their American sisters. I had the opportunity to ask Julie Bindel this question not too long ago, and she explained that the difference came down to UK feminists being of the left and raised in the milieu of collectivist approaches like trade unions, while Americans are a highly individualist sort. This makes sense to me. On stage, Julie repeated the point that she couldn’t “give a shit” about “corporate feminists” decrying lower pay despite being in the top 5% of all income earners across the board. Her focus is on women down the ladder, particularly those exposed to violence at the hands of men.
Helen is much more a typical British liberal (she is Irish, btw), with a rights-based approach to protecting women’s interests, which allows her to reach across the aisle to those on the right who share her rights-based approach. She did her best to fend off potential accusations of ‘aiding the patriarchy’ by clarifying that she obviously does not want to ‘force women back into the kitchen’. This clarification seemed necessary to disabuse some of those in attendance who might have begun to question Helen’s sincerity regarding feminism.
Both Julie and Helen have been the targets of over-the-top, histrionic attacks from transgenders and their allies. Julie took PinkNews to court for libel, after years and years of skirmishing with them. Earlier this year, the case was settled out of court. Helen Joyce put a bullseye on her back thanks to her recently-published book “Trans: Gender Identity and the New Battle for Women’s Rights”.
Transgenderism has steamrolled over both the USA and Canada, but the UK (and other countries like Sweden) are pushing back, particularly when it comes to the subject of minors being given ‘re-assignment surgery’, and the nasty cocktail of drugs that come with it. Social liberalism takes many forms, and specific national cultures and their nuances will influence the forms that they take. This is why Julie’s explanation of the difference in reaction to transgenderism between feminists on both sides of the pond resonates with me.
I was introduced to Helen Joyce just prior to the debate, and she had no idea who I am, but welcomed me to the “fascist table”, where she was already sitting with her female friends. The absurdity of calling a centrist liberal like Joyce a “fascist” has done a lot to stiffen the resolve of people who know that what we are being fed is bullshit. To be called a fascist today is to be judged morally by society, with the judgment a wholly negative one, a permanent one, and one without recourse.
The debate was based on the premise that women are in danger due to transgenderism, so that actual subject was not the main focus. What is important to note is that there are people in the centre and on the left willing to argue against Caligula’s Horse in order to stop him now, and not just laugh at it as it takes a seat in the Senate, by which point it is already too late (the standard practice of conservatives in the West).
Earning my GBPs (Good Boy Points), my friend and I headed back to the bar, joined by another friend of mine who works at The Economist. I thought about how the right simply does not exist in the debate over transgenderism, with the critical side occupied by ‘TERFs’ and centrists, with the rest relegated to being spectators, unable to shape and form the arguments against it as we cede it to these active players.
Enough pseudo-intellectualizing, it was now time to enjoy being surrounded by Bongland 10s, a subject we’ll explore another time.
It was an interesting experience and Julie came across in person just like she does in her writing: combative and feisty.
Hit the like button to like this short essay, and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you (be nice!), and please consider subscribing if you haven't done so already.
I often hear the UK derisively referred to by progressives as “TERF Island” because of how many prominent anti-trans (or at least not pro-trans) feminists are there. Loosely it does seem to me to be true, and I wonder why that is.
Regardless, it’s a subject where progressive rationalism breaks down hard, because they never come anywhere close to coherently defining gender and sex.