On “weaponisation”
It is possible, and necessary, to push back against conservative bad faith actors without brushing aside the misdeeds of their targets. To do otherwise is to yield more weapons to the right. -Kenan Malik
Anyone who follows the news will have heard about the Cass Review, and the revelation (to those not already in the know) that ideological activism has for many years been allowed to usurp evidence-based holistic treatment for children uncomfortable with the socio-cultural expectations attached to their sexed bodies.
As a result of this activism, children and young people have for years been subjected to experimental and potentially harmful medicalisation.
A concerted campaign by grassroots women’s organisations, working together with concerned parents and professionals, has worked tirelessly, against strong opposition from all quarters, to draw attention to the negative impact of trans activism on women, children and same-sex attracted people, critiquing the ideological capture of state institutions, corporate entities, charities, and the media.
Their work has been pivotal in exposing the medical malpractice of the gender identity movement, and bringing it to a halt.
As the general public has become more informed and aware of the implications of sex-denialism, the whole apparatus of gender identity ideology has begun to collapse.
The insistence on No Debate, the noplatforming and hounding of critics and whistleblowers, the denunciation of calls to uphold existing Equality Act protections for women and same-sex attracted people as “transphobia” and “bigotry”; and the stealth-reversal of women’s and gay/lesbian rights — all this is now, finally, being dismantled.
It took a long time to expose the problems with gender identity ideology, because it was seen as a movement of the progressive left, a natural extension of gay rights, an “inclusive” recognition of difference and diversity. Progressive people assumed the movement was goodhearted, and those with reservations feared ostracisation if they dared to voice concerns.
Hence for many years, people went along with the placing of male rapists in women’s prisons and male abusers in refuges; with males taking women’s places, awards and funding in women’s sports and at women’s events; with women being shouted at, harassed, abused, threatened — even assaulted, whistleblowers silenced, women excluded from their political and social communities, and fired from their jobs.
People went along with the prescribed narrative, because it came from their own side, the *progressive* side, the right side – above reproach and immune to challenge.
They conflated criticism of trans activism with the misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and sex-role traditionalism of religious fundamentalists, far right extremists, and the likes of Trump and Putin.
They mistook legitimate and informed criticism, mainly from women on the left, for bad-faith weaponisation.
And so — if they didn’t join in with the excoriation of *gender critical* women — the left stayed silent.
Inevitably, into the vacuum created by the left’s silence and by their refusal to listen to women’s concerns, the far right, sex role traditionalists, and fundamentalist extremists of all stripes stepped in.
A section of the gender critical movement started to dally with these interests, and some prominent women’s activists saw fit to platform, or share platforms with, anti-abortionists, homophobes and racists.
Some of us on the left called this out, and were met by accusations of betrayal and victim-blaming. Many women were anxious not to give fodder to the pervasive “right wing terf” smear that we’d all been subjected to, and so – despite their reservations – they stayed silent.
Unfortunately, bad faith players exploited this silence — because that is the essence of weaponisation: spotting a weak point in the other side’s defences, and exploiting it.
So — how should we respond when weaponisation happens?
By calling out the weaponisation for what it is, yes, but NOT by buttoning our lips on the issue being weaponised.
Because that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And that’s the problem, in a nutshell.
It’s not an either-or scenario. You cannot in good faith condemn the weaponisation — yet stay silent on, or deny — the issue that is being weaponised.
When Corbyn was accused of fostering antisemitism in the Labour Party, I was one of those who saw the accusations as “weaponisation” by bad faith actors on the right.
After Blair’s betrayal, I despaired of a true leftwing Labour Party, and knew that the establishment would play dirty to keep a true leftie out of power.
I dismissed the claims of Corbyn’s antisemitism as smears from his political opponents — and indeed, there were many on the Labour right, as well as Tories and the far right, who exploited Corbyn’s failure to tackle Labour antisemitism in order to push their anti-left or islamophobic agendas.
Get Bea Jaspert’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
But the fact remains that, under Corbyn’s leadership, anti-Jewish discrimination within the Labour left was ignored or tolerated, those drawing attention to it were abused and harassed, even hounded.
And there was the issue of Corbyn’s repeated pronouncements of support for violently anti-Jewish, clerical fascist/Jihadi regimes.
I could see the right were weaponising Corbyn’s failures, and that made me blind to the existence of those failures.
I condemned those doing the weaponising, but failed to condemn the failures themselves.
I think the same is happening now, in terms of the response to the October 7th Hamas massacre from the Left – including the feminist Left – and from organisations with a specific remit to tackle male violence against women and children.
The immediate response from the left to October 7th came as an enormous shock to me.
As Malik wrote, only a week later, many celebrated the murderous actions of Hamas gunmen. And many, even if they refrained from rejoicing, tried to justify those actions.
Where I had expected an outpouring of horror at the massacre — the filmed, photographed tortures and executions, the evidence of mass rape, the kidnappings — instead, hundreds and then thousands poured out onto the streets to condemn Israel and stand in solidarity with Palestine — and this was before Israel had even begun to retaliate.
I am not arguing that Israel should not be criticised, or that Palestinians do not deserve sympathy and solidarity.
But it is perfectly possible to do both of the above, AND to stand with the victims and condemn the perpetrators of Hamas’ crimes against humanity on and after October 7th.
That is not what happened.
In fact, as the weeks went by, and more and more conclusive evidence of the nature of the October 7th attack came to light — in particular evidence of systematic mass rape and sexual violence — many on the feminist left and many anti-MVAWG organisations revealed themselves to be partisan and selective in their advocacy for victims.
Responses ranged from denial to deflection and victim-blaming.
Far too many were silent.
As the clamour grew from Jewish women and their allies for some statement of clear condemnation of the sexual violence, the organisations doubled down.
Instead of blaming the perpetrators and standing unequivocally with the victims, they warned of “ideological weaponisation”, claimed “allegations of sexual violence levied against Hamas had been weaponised”, and denounced those exposing, reporting on, and condemning the rapes for “wielding weapons of racism and colonialism”.
This is wrong.
You cannot claim to advocate for women if you only believe some women (and not Jewish women).
You cannot claim to work to combat male violence, if you deny, ignore, minimise, or tolerate it against a particular group of women — Jewish women. Doing so is hypocrisy, and, as Malik stated, hypocrisy is a gift to bad faith actors.
It is important to call it out when bad faith actors weaponise rapes and tortures. It is NOT however appropriate to respond to such weaponisation with rape denial, with withdrawal of support from victims and survivors, or with refusal to condemn perpetrators, on account of political/ideological allegiances.
When evidence surfaces of wrongdoing on one’s own “side”, when the victims are seen as unworthy and the perpetrators as aligned with your cause — staying silent, refusing to believe victim testimony, condemning witnesses and whistleblowers — this will not prevent weaponisation.
It will feed it.
Just as it’s neccessary to protest the bad actions of one’s own government, even if they’re the party you voted for — even if you’re a party activist — it’s equally neccessary to protest the bad actions of one’s own “side” in leftwing and feminist causes.
When doing so makes you unpopular and everyone tells you you’re on the wrong side of history — it’s more urgent than ever to speak out.
When I supported Corbyn against the accusations of antisemitism, when I believed the feminist left and UN Women would stand up for all women and condemn all male violence, when I assumed anti-racism extended to all races and ethnicities, and not just the chosen few, I was naive.
I took too much at face value. I assumed good faith and courage where, it turns out, in too many cases, there was little to be found.
I’m tougher now, more cynical, less trusting. More realistic I guess.
But I still believe that speaking out makes a difference, and in any case, I simply can’t look away when I see the left, and in particular the feminist left, abandon its core values and principles.
Thank you for reading 🙏
