I have been following, and involved in the debate over womens’ rights and where they come into conflict with, so called, trans rights for a while. I am a heterosexual man so, of course, I don’t lead the debate or have any right to “tell women how to do feminism”. But I do have some thoughts, by way of explaining my involvement in a different campaign, a long, long time ago (though not in a galaxy far away, here in the UK), and you can draw your own parallels and analogies between the two…
Twenty years ago, I supported, and was employed in the campaign to ban fox hunting, which was eventually successful. A wide variety of people, of all political persuasions and party memberships, or not, were involved in different ways. And in the end, we won. I can describe some of the people involved as follows, and they didn’t always agree. In fact, we argued fiercely, but still worked together, and won. For all of the below, you will be able to think of a high-profile ‘GC’ voice who roughly fits into one of these categories…
1. Hunt Saboteurs (Hunt Sabs) – they actively attempted, and sometimes succeeded in preventing an individual animal from being chased to its death. Fox hunting, as a legal activity then, could claim some police protection from this and so, some hunt sabs fell foul of the law, and gained criminal records. Some ‘interactions’ with hunters became violent, on both sides.
2. Hunt Monitors – This group didn’t try to stop the hunts, but to record them. Their photo and video evidence of the actuality of hunting was very important in persuading the public, graphically sometimes, of the cruelty of hunting. Of course, the hunt fraternity didn’t or couldn’t see the difference between hunt sabs and hunt monitors so, sometimes, violent confrontations happened.
3. Letter Writers – This was before social media, but we had a large group of people who would fire off letter after letter to their MPs, Councillors, Police Chiefs and local and national newspapers, arguing the case for a ban.
4. Street campaigners – There were street stalls on high streets, in shopping areas and at fetes and events across the country, collecting signatures on petitions, talking and explaining the case to the public and raising awareness. Moving public opinion, one person at a time. And there were stickers!
5. Politicians – Some MPs and local councillors vocally and vociferously led and championed the issue, the call for a ban, publicly leading the campaign in politics, and sometimes going against the perceived majority view of their own party.
6. Celebrity supporters and experts – Lots of those in the public eye spoke out and made their views known on the issue. Some, who had relevant expertise such as TV wildlife presenters, vets and other scientists had the respect of many because of their expertise in the field.
7. De-hunters – those who had been involved in hunting from the inside and had come to oppose it and were willing to share their experiences of it in order to bring it down.
8. Inter-personal supporters – Sometimes none of the above, but would always raise the issue in their family and social circles, down the pub, at dinner parties in their social groups, and didn’t back down if some disagreed, or attacked them for it, they just kept on, and on, at everyone they came into contact with.
The above is all tactics, there were also philosophical differences. Some supporters of banning hunting were vegans, some vegetarians, some ate meat and animal products but strived to ensure the highest animal welfare standards of that they did consume. Some didn’t see a link between the two issues.
There was also a class-based approach. Some on the left, seemed to have no real analysis or views on the actual animals involved, it was for them, simply an attack on the perceived leisure activity of the rich and the landed gentry, which they opposed in general and seeking to ban hunting was about people foremost, rather than the animals.
Fundamentally also, there was a debate between the two proposals, 1. Animals have rights of their own, and 2. Animals don’t, per se, have rights, but we, as humans, the dominant species with “dominion over … every living thing” to go all biblical on you, have a responsibility to treat animals well, and look after their welfare.
There was also a debate over individual animals, or species as a whole. Was it more important , as the hunt sabs would have it, to save the individual fox, or was our aim to save all foxes (from that particular fate) by banning hunting altogether? This was especially evident when talking about deer which were also hunted. Very few disputed the case for limiting deer numbers. How to do so ranged from adding contraceptives to the female’s food supply to limit births, selective but humane culling (by shooting), and hunting them with a pack of dogs for fun.
However, the campaign won. Largely because it was the right thing to do and a majority of the public supported it, despite vociferous opposition from hunt supporters and their well-funded lobby groups. But, I think, we won because we overcame, or ignored, or put to one side, our differences of tactics and philosophy, and party allegiance. We didn’t spend our time (well we did in private, loads) arguing over differences in our approach.
Some were embarrassed by the ‘antics’ of hunt sabs or hunt monitors and thought this harmed the general campaign.
Some thought letter writing and ‘nice, kind’ discourse, arguing the case was futile and would not change the underlying establishment support for hunting.
Some politicians said that the public care more about health, education and crime than this ‘silly side issue’ of banning hunting.
Some said, how can you oppose hunting if you like a bacon sandwich?
However, we did win. And we won because we stayed together and kept striving for this common goal, recognising that when it was over, we would agree, or often differ, on all kinds of other issues.
I was then, and am now a member of the Labour Party. On this campaign I worked closely with MPs of my party, Conservatives (Ann Widdecombe was a strong opponent of hunting), and Lib Dems and others who, at the next election, I would campaign to defeat. And with whom I would disagree on so many other things (Particularly Ann Widdecombe!).
So that is my point.
The campaign, struggle, that we are now in, many (I certainly) would say is far more fundamentally important than saving wild animals. But we will win, and we will do so if we stick together, at least publicly.
Many times on Twitter and elsewhere, I see or read someone saying something which I agree with but is worded or said, not in the way I would do it. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, or harms our campaign generally, or “shouldn’t be said”, just that it’s not the way I would do it and I prefer to try to help the campaign in my own way. And everyone else has the right to do their thing, and help the cause in their way. Let’s save our opprobrium for the actual opposition, not people on ‘our side’ but with a different approach, or politics.
Basically, chill. We will win this.
So…where do you stand on trans / GC issues? Toxic debate but can you - politely - say which side you’re on?