What follows is disturbing. Please proceed with caution

What follows is disturbing: please proceed with caution.

A while ago, I read a book by Jon Ronson, ‘Adventures with extremists’. Parts of it were so farcical they were hilarious.

There was the Ku Klux Klansman who forgot, ironically, to separate his whites from his colours in the wash, and ended up with a pink Klan robe. There was a guy who hated both women and the UN. He came up with a plan to unleash a plague of mice in UN headquarters, because women are scared of mice and would be driven out. Two birds, one stone. Smashed it, bro.

Yes, it’s funny, but it’s still unsettling. You wonder, with dismay, how people become so disjointed from reality by their own hate.

That unsettled feeling happened again for me, last weekend. I posted about Rachel Stewart, an ex-columnist who recently had Police confiscate her firearms. She’d tweeted about stripping naked a transgender rights supporter and hunting him down with guns. The documentation served by the Police, and which Stewart also tweeted, said Stewart had a history of ‘consistent Twitter posts in which you demonstrate a tendency to exhibit hatred towards the transgender community’.

I wrote about Stewart’s connection with Speak Up For Women, a group that opposes trans people’s ability to self-identify their gender, and trans women’s ability to access women’s spaces. SUFW hosts writing by Stewart on their website, and their spokeswoman has confirmed they will continue to do so.

SUFW are holding meetings around the country – one is scheduled for Wellington. If an organisation has supporters who post about shooting people, then it stands to reason that kind of person might attend its events. This is a public safety issue. If I were weighing up going to such an event, or if I was on staff, I’d want the right to be informed. I’d want to know whether I was sitting next to someone with ideas like Stewart’s.

People with views like SUFW’s are often called TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), although they now reject the term, since it’s been tarnished by association with their own shitty views. They prefer to be called ‘gender critical feminists’, in much the same way I’d like to be called Beyoncé, only I’m shit out of luck. There is a documented pattern of victimisation associated with some TERFs, although it seldom makes the headlines.

I posted. This is where the unsettling stuff starts. There’s this thing on the interweb called being ‘brigaded’, and it’s a move associated with the artists formerly known as TERFs. Basically, it’s a playground style ganging up on someone, a coordinated avalanche of nasty behaviour. It follows the same playbook every time, starting with fake intellectual statements, ending with personal attacks, and always – ALWAYS – involving some reference to burning witches on the way through. In the game of TERFopoly, you must always allege a witch burning and collect $200 dollars before you pass go.

You can read my post and the comments beneath if you can stomach it, although some posts have since been deleted, including one denying the Holocaust, and another calling trans people ‘sneaky disease spreading rodents’. I can’t tell you for certain these people are supporters of SUFW, although one frequently comments on SUFW posts. So I’ve asked their spokeswomen for confirmation these people aren’t SUFW members or supporters. I’ll share a response if I get it.

When I posted, I assumed that if SUFW supporters or members reacted at all, they would rush to confirm they’ve severed ties with Stewart – with its spokeswomen making strong anti-violence statements, so as to send a message to SUFW supporters that posting about shooting people is, you know, a bad thing. An organisation can’t always control the behaviour of its members or supporters, but not to speak out, distance itself, or take some action when a member/supporter espouses violence is extraordinary.

Again, I was shit out of luck.

During the debate under my post, I asked both the self-identified SUFW spokeswomen, as well as those making supportive comments, to give their individual positions on violence. Individual stances matter: it's individuals who will be attending SUFW meetings. The spokeswomen did not give an undertaking that satisfied me. A number of comments have since been deleted, leaving only the ones they obviously think are respectable, Beyoncé save us.

I don’t think I can offer more of an indictment than their own words. Although they made their comments under their names (see below if you wish), I’ve anonymised here, in an effort to behave like an adult.

ME TO SPOKESWOMAN #1: “Some of the comments on this thread are so disturbing I'd like to bring it to a close. There's someone who called a minority group disease spread rodents. I've asked you to confirm this person is not associated with SUFW, but I haven't seen you do so. There is also a holocaust denier. I would appreciate it if you could confirm that person is not associated with your group. This would be disturbing enough, except that your group also has an ambivalent position on violence. As I understand it, you do not personally support gun violence, but SUFW membership remains open to people who do not oppose gun violence, or oppose Rachel Stewart's tweets. I understand that SUFW continues to support and host Stewart's views on trans people, even though she publicly fantasised about killing a supporter of trans rights. I want to give you the right to correct this information, because the issues I am raising are incredibly serious. If your group is open to people who hold antisocial views and don't oppose gun violence, I don't think you can give an assurance that your supporters' views are compatible with public safety.”

SPOKESWOMAN #1 BACK TO ME: “Yes you should bring it to a close - and in doing so apologise for starting it. You started with a lie about SUFW and proceeded with a similar level of integrity. I see down the thread you have 'liked' a violent misogynistic 'fuck terfs' comment, so your sanctimonious posturing is entirely hypocritical. We don’t owe you any explanations or apologies, quite the reverse. If you ever want to talk face to face then let’s do it, but I’m done with your nasty pseudonym account thread.”

Sanctimonious, posturing and nasty? It’s like she’d been reading my school reports. I’ll leave it to you to judge whether this is reassuring behaviour from someone with a leadership role in an organisation whose supporter posts about killing people. While you do that, let me introduce you to spokeswoman #2.

OTHER COMMENTER, ASKING WHAT STANCE SPOKESWOMAN #2 WOULD TAKE IN A DEBATE ABOUT KILLING TRANS PEOPLE: “So what will your stance be? ‘Yes, SUFW support violence against trans people and those who support them’. Thanks for finally clarifying that.”

SPOKESWOMAN #2: “You’ll find out. Don’t want to spoil the ending. I’ve been invited to a live debate”.

I’m at a loss. Everyone knows that in a job interview, when someone asks you your faults, you say ‘perfectionism’. Similarly, when someone asks you about supporting anti-trans violence, ‘no’ is the generally accepted answer.

These are far from the worst of the comments, but I include them because they're from people with leadership roles. After reading them, I felt like I’d taken the nutty train to Nutsville. So, what’s a nice girl like me doing in an internet hellhole like this? I’m the respectable type. I find conflict unpleasant. I’ve got a respectable job, have polite conversations with polite people, and watch BBC dramas. The most risqué thing I’ve done in recent memory is forgetting to water my pot plants.

I am middle New Zealand. Why am I speaking out?

Well, I’m speaking out because I’m middle New Zealand. Maybe you are too. If you’re like me, you’ve got a platform. It’s not just for keeping your pot plants on. We say that this is not our values: let’s get busy and prove it.

When I decided I would talk about what trans people are going through at the hands of haters, people warned me – level-headed people – to think about my safety, and my family’s. I talked to my whānau, we weighed it up. We decided we will not tolerate a society in which any trans person, any rainbow family, feels any less safe than we do. So here we ****ing are.

There are two main things I’ve got to say to the haters.

Number one. If you hold any of the views above, you’re not welcome here. My place, my rules, and the rules are manaakitanga. Not shooting people seems like pretty basic manners, so I’ll be holding the line on this one. Any comments you keep making will be deleted, unless they help build the case you’re a potential danger to society, or merely a contemptible dick. Those comments will be cherished.

Number two. Each time you’re a dick on a post of mine, I will donate to a trans cause, keeping a public score, and adding the phrase ‘SUFW are losers’ to the online transaction. You’ll be making a trans person’s life a little bit better, and the cognitive dissonance will give you stomach ulcers while I laugh. I will also hug a trans person for each of your shitty comments, partly out of love for them, but mostly out of spite for you.

They say satire is a powerful weapon. Guns are more powerful, to be fair, and that’s why Rachel Stewart’s were confiscated – but as I’m not into killing people, I’ll work with what I’ve got. And I’m optimistic.

Also this weekend, appalling though it was, I saw something that warmed the cockles of my sanctimonious, posturing, nasty heart. SUFW posted on the Lower Hutt Community Notice Board, promoting an upcoming meeting. The good people of Lower Hutt gathered around and – I kid you not – overwhelmingly handed SUFW it’s sorry arse. And I knew we’re winning. Because when you’ve lost Lower Hutt, then you have truly lost all. It’s only a matter of time before Upper Hutt turns on you, and then you’re ****ed.

I stand, in love and solidarity, with our trans community. Maybe you should take a seat.