Pro-Trans article "Women *Can* Have Penises" , Katherine Jenkins Nottingham University

[theOtherPamAyres]

theconversation.com/can-a-woman-have-a-penis-how-to-understand-disagreements-about-gender-recognition-101991?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1535457048

The article finishes with the conclusion:

what does it mean for the Liverpool ReSisters’s claim that “women don’t have penises”? Well, since gender identity is not determined by what kind of genitals someone has, a person with a female gender identity might well have a penis. In other words, yes, some women do have penises.

Katherine Jenkins, assistant Professor of Philosophy, Nottingham University

How embarrassing for an academic to publish such nonsense. I’m ashamed of what’s happening in my profession at the moment.

Oh dear Katherine
You haven’t ventured into the biology dept at Nottingham university
This is just making a mockery of academics
Perhaps someone will write a PhD on it in the near future under the title of ‘how fake news gained acceptance’

since gender identity is not determined by what kind of genitals someone has

No, it isn't. It's determined by what religion somebody follows, dear. Go and start a trans ideology seminary and stop theocratising universities.

What an idiot.

This is just making a mockery of academics

I agree. It’s lazy, and it’s insulting to her colleagues. Publishing the kind of polemical drivel that Owen Jones writes for the Guardian brings the profession into disrepute.

I read as far as, assistant Professor of Philosophy, Nottingham University

You can pretty much argue any old bollocks in philosophy. Doesn't mean shit though.

What a complete pillock, to go public with that under her professional name.
Silly cow.

She even links to that dumb Nature piece so beloved of anti woman activists who don't really understand biology.

What's next, the Facebook clownfish post?

I couldn’t understand what she was getting at at the beginning, except to say that it makes sense to discriminate on the basis of bodies if you think the person might get pregnant and take maternity leave?

Woman = adult human female. Defined by sex and reproductive role, not 'gender identity'.

Women don't have penises.

Well she believes whether you're a man or woman is purely determined by how you identify. It's an opinion that wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny. I assume she didn't analyse it in depth.

She should stick to singing.

She got a good take down by the one comment

Was roasted and toasted on the pure drivel she wrote by the comment

One wonders how a educated person can write such mince

"For example, for certain medical purposes – tests for different kinds of cancer, say – it would be most useful to divide people up based on their internal reproductive organs. "

Yes because everybody knows exactly what internal reproductive organs they have, with no reference to any outwardly visible characteristics.

So they say men can be women because some people are intersex and who is anyone to say by looking at the outside whether a person is male or female.

At the same time we all have to magically know what internal organs we have, without ever having seen them or had scans for them, and without linking them to our externally sexed bodies in any way.

It's all claptrap.

This person obviosuly supports campaigns for "people with cervixes" (and so what if a large proportion of people with cervixes don't know that they've got one and this means them).

"Trans people who are forced to move through society in a way that is fundamentally at odds with their gender identity report that this is a deeply distressing and harmful experience"

SO ARE WOMEN AND GIRLS. Forced to navigate society in a way that is deeply harmful to them as ACTUAL REAL PEOPLE NOT SEX OBJECTS FOR CONSUMPTION.

Fuck off prof.

if we just limited our focus to people’s bodies, we’d have lots of options: should we focus on chromosomes, or genitals, or secondary sex characteristics such as breasts and beards

I've got a decent beard since the peri menopause as well as breasts, do I get to be non- binary?

It feels like half an article, the beginning bit's not too bad and she gives two reasons where sex is more important than gender for categorisation and acknowledges that neither tell us nothing about an individual's skills, and it could go on to say gender is superficial but sex is concrete and could make the argument that you can be both feminine and have a penis but instead it kind of peters out.

Her name seems familiar though.

Any mice moving through my kittens society have found it deeply distressing and harmful experience. It’s literally been violent

If them mice could just change their mouseness all would be well

Goes to show that this element of the t ideology actually is a philosophical conceit.

"For example, for certain medical purposes – tests for different kinds of cancer, say – it would be most useful to divide people up based on their internal reproductive organs. "

Would it be useful to divide people based on gender identity for any medical test?

Is there any reason why we need to divide people up by gender? I can't think of any.

Katherine teaches 'Issues in Feminist Philosophy' (1st year) and 'Philosophy and Sex' (3rd year).

www.nottingham.ac.uk/humanities/departments/philosophy/people/katharine.jenkins

The tweet is getting 'likes' but no comments.

twitter.com/ConversationUK/status/1034464705128136704

It would be interesting to hear more of her evidence-less assertions at one of the meetings around the GRA.

She should stick to singing

I guess that's why I recognise the name!