'This rigid, unyielding hierarchy of natural over unnatural, of biology over feeling, should terrify anyone progressive'

It was sarcastic. If you look up their other posts they are pro 'transwomen are women'. We need to put a stop to the lie that mumsnetters are calling for this. Am screenshotting their other posts to make a handy rebuttal.

I'd love to see Shon try this same favoring natural over unnatural is BAD and BIGOTED argument on a food thread. No more fruits and vegetables for you, anyone who wouldn't rather have a tin of something that they don't recognize any of the ingredients in other than sugar and salt is against progress!

The Guardian's commenting policy is weird - I think they definitely time limit them. I've seen Hadley's articles having the comments closed after a couple of hours of being up.

I love how there's a few men on that comment thread utterly shocked that, yes, indeed, physical appearance and a commitment to passing has nothing to do with being trans anymore. You don't need surgery, you don't need hormones, you don't need to even shave your beard.

No, WorkingItOut, you're not dreaming! People are actually being allowed to question a transactivist in the Guardian. What's happened? Maybe Owen Jones is on holiday.

Who'd a thought it? Common sense begins to break through.

Thanks Ova

@Ekphrasis brilliantly scary article.

@R0wantrees brillany post at 17.09

So it should be unnatural over natural, and feels over biology nonsense over sense?

Opposite day?

The moderator is probably leaving the office. They don't seem to allow comments to run unmoderated on any articles in The Guardian.

Comment have just been closed. Is this usual? Is a finite amount to time given to writing comments?

I have read the Guardian for years and still do. My experience is that most comments under articles on transgender have been both thoughtful as well as gender critical. The problem in the last couple of years has been not opening the comments. I see allowing comments under Shon Faye's article as a little bit of progress.

I am not happy that the Guardian or the Labour Party although I am not happy with either of them on this issue. I believe that it is possible to change things from within and for me I cannot see any obvious alternatives at the moment. Perhaps the Guardian is beginning to realise that it is necessary to look at both sides of the discussion. I live in hope.

Presumably SF thinks feelings should be prioritised over biology. I’m sure homeopaths, anti-vaccers and other assorted anti-science crackpots would be in agreement.

Guardian comments getting a wee bit terfy - who would have thought it.

Or maybe they always were under all the deletions.

It's actually interesting to see what a left leaning comments section looks like on the issue (when largely unmoderated). It shows that outside of twitter people are not hive minds.

There were a couple of comments, both from gay men, one who perhaps understandably could only see trans rights through the prism of gay rights yet the other gay man could see how current rhetoric is problematic for women.

On a related note I see via twitter that Brian Paddick (Lib Dem) has agreed to meet with WPUK to discuss concerns.

Biology over feelings.

Facts over opinions basically. Yup, I’m fine with that. Objective reality over superstition? Yup fine with that too. That’s kind of what the renaissance was aiming at.

If anyone would like to live in a society where superstition and opinion trump facts, there are some simply lovely theocracies to choose from.

Not one click for the guardian tho

Biology over feelings does not equal women over men, which he's trying to imply

It is really interesting that the majority of btl comments are questioning trans ideology/ gender critical

I really do think that the more this 'debate' gets out in the open, the better - for gender critical people that is.

I really do hope that Stonewall and the like start to reflect on protecting the interests of trans people in a way that doesn't trample over others and so trans people don't get thrown under a bus because of their current dogmatic, ill considered demands.

Oh some of the comments are quite heartening actually. 'John' has nailed it:

I don't care how you choose to dress, what you do with your body, or who you have sex with. What I have a problem with is people who think that declaring themselves to be women while having been raised male gives them the right to invade spaces biological women have claimed for themselves. Aside from all the complicated sexpol stuff, it just seems like incredibly bad manners.

(first public protest)

There have been a huge number of comments and tweets screen shot and deliberately taken out of context to create a narrative about women who are asking questions about legislation which may impact them.
Sadly, the nature of SM is that this narrative is easily absorbed, especially by people with deeply felt fears and concerns.
I feel very confident that a high proportion of the women on FWR boards over the age of 30 will have actively protested Section 28 and lobbied for its removal. (it was the public protest that I took part in)
The fact that the LibDem LGBT twitter users are leading their allegation with a comment which is pretty clearly NOT calling for section 28 should speak volumes. No doubt at some point it will be understood in context.
SM creates perceptions and this has been exploited by some TRAs.
Where did the belief come from that WPUK had women who were carrying baseball bats/ burning books/ calling for vulnerable children to be exposed / inciting rape and violence towards people who are transgender?
A website such as this may answer some of the questions...
This site is dedicated to exposing the lies and distortions propagated by some transactivists to cause division and hatred. Some are outright untruths, some are deliberate attempts to mislead, and some are just plain stupidity. Trans people, like everyone else, deserve to be listened to and respected. The discussions around trans issues are complex and nuanced, covering biology, psychology, law, medicine, ethics, even philosophy. How can we possibly find the answers to all of those questions when people are demonised for even asking them? When we reject their lies, we might all get the peace, freedom and respect we deserve.

liesoftransactivists.com

One thing SF does have a point about is how the struggle for gay rights has been whitewashed. People absolutely believed that gay rights were a threat to straight people up until relatively recently. Some people still think they do but it’s unacceptable to say so. Gay people were subject to the most horrendous abuse and prejudice before the law finally changed. (Not saying it’s the same as the trans fight for rights)

It’s infuriating me that so many people, who weren’t even born when Section 28 was proposed, are trying to use it for their own ends in this way.

Shon Faye and Owen Jones were babies. They have no experience of what they’re talking about!

Yes I know! But has someone found that thread and screen-shotted it to contradict what’s being said on twitter? Because at the moment they have it there in black and white which is quite scary.

“a MN user called mummybear701 literally did call for a s28 but for trans. In those exact words. ”

Except that’s not what she was doing. The poster concerned was being sarcastic and is, in fact, pro-trans rights.
That’s the problem with taking posts out of context.

The campaign to pressure Girlguiding to rescind its trans inclusive policy, with whispered mention of “risk” to cisgender girls from their trans friends on “overnight trips”, is reminiscent of the old “slippery slope” dog whistle about seduction of the young. All LGBT people, feminists and allies must reject this damaging narrative at every turn.

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the problem with bunking teenagers who can impregnate in with teenagers who can be impregnated, without notifying their parents, then you are incredibly naive and I don't trust your judgement.

Transphobia, too, emanates from a prejudice that a person’s stated identity is more trustworthy if it reflects their “natural” role in human reproduction. This rigid, unyielding hierarchy of natural over unnatural, of biology over feeling, should terrify anyone progressive: it is, after all, the same argument that has been used to deny women’s access to abortion and contraception for decades. Misogyny, homophobia and transphobia share much of the same DNA.

Faye's got this bass-ackwards. Misogyny is insisting that being a woman is anything other than a simple biological reality. Misogyny is saying woman is a feeling, an internal gendered soul, a collection of stereotypical interests. Misogyny is believing lady brain is a thing. Misogyny is saying that liking dresses and makeup and pink sparkly things makes you a woman. Misogyny is mistaking the cultural detritus of femininity for womanhood.

And women are denied contraception and abortion in order to control our reproductive capabilities - the biological reality of being a human being who happens to be born with a female reproductive system. Not because some of us like to paint our nails, or because we have lady brains.