"Obsession with gender identity goes too far -Times article"

I liked the article because it came from a different perspective.

There is a danger, I feel, that people will begin to think that Gender Extremism will impact on women and children only. (Which is bad enough, and which has been addressed by Janice Turner in the same paper).

This writer points to a whole host of other reasons to reject the nonsense and to reject Gender Extremist demands. It was an excellent way of broadening the debate.

How has the whole thing gained so much traction? and why? and why does it trump women's concerns? Why did Maria Miller consult such a small number of people when considering changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004?

I read Biggar's article before this was posted and have been interested by the comments - though unfortunately there are a number from (men?) who appear to hate any change whatsoever to male/female/kinder kirche kuche.

It is a pretty good article and I'm heartened by most of the comments.

I am grumpy that it's exactly what women have been saying for years but it doesn't get traction until a man says it.

Thank you Nigel Biggar

That is so good.

Murdoch doesn't have editorial control of the times/Sunday times - I believe it was a specific condition of him acquiring them. (it came up in a radio 4 documentary about Harold Evans, former editor of ST who was greatly instrumental in exposing the thalidomide issue)

I thought it was a good article.

I thought the comments were bloody good too - it seems a lot more people are peaking now - maybe that's the logic behind the media seemingly "embracing" trans & throwing it in our faces all the time?

Maybe it's all a cunning double bluff by Murdoch & co??

A brilliant article, and aimed at the influential people who read The Times. I've commented below the line and I advise others to do so too.

^ I shouldn't keep reading. I've just found an answer along the lines of "I found out I was bi-gender last week and now I am researching the internet for articles .... AAAAARGHHHHHHH!"

Non-fluid bi-gender people can choose the most opportune time to present as male or female

You don't say...

Sane, articulate, assured. That's the company I want to be in.

Hmm... I'm not so impressed with Biggar's piece because of his conclusion, which is basically: why should we care? It doesn't matter; other people have real problems

I was not sure how to read that. I wasn't sure if he was saying that we should not care what people identify as or we should not care enough to waste money in campaigns to provide support ...

Meanwhile, I looked up the difference between bi-gender and inter-gender and found something similar but different ...

www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-genderfluid-and-bigender

"Bi-gender is a specific identity under the nonbinary umbrella, someone who feels an ongoing need to express both male and female personas. Non-fluid bi-gender people can choose the most opportune time to present as male or female. Some bi-gender people might also identify as a crossdresser, drag queen, or drag king, and be completely comfortable in that scene.

NOTE: A crossdresser, drag queen or drag king, can be cisgender, trans woman, trans man, bi-gender, genderfluid, etc. Crossdressing is simply an activity. A crossdresser is simply someone who enjoys crossdressing enough, to see it as part of their identity.

Someone who likes femme name and female pronouns when dressed as a woman, and male name and pronouns when dressed as a man, is one sign of a bi-gender identity. To contrast, if that same bi-gender person is also genderfluid, their pronoun has switched INSIDE THEM BEFORE they even decide what to wear." (it continues ...)

I think his conclusion is problematic too - and is what has allowed all this to get so far. Men, in particular, think that trans identity doesn’t really matter, so wave through legislation etc to throw a sop to the activists, when in fact the whole problem is that gender identity does matter if it means taking rights away from women as a sex. Of course that matters more to women than it does to men, even male philosophers.

I thought the end of the piece struck a duff note too but I welcome the piece all the same. We need gender critical comments coming from as many diverse sources as possible. That's the way for it to come to the attention of the public. Once the public start asking questions, this will help the gender critical cause considerably.

Hmm... I'm not so impressed with Biggar's piece because of his conclusion, which is basically: why should we care? It doesn't matter; other people have real problems.

Frankly, I've seen better analysis here on FWR. Since the current context of media debate about trans identity is the prospect of changes to legislation, clearly it does matter.

Biggar has invoked feminism but hasn't engaged at all with any of the questions that radical feminists are asking about sex and gender. I'd be interested in his response to concerns about women's political representation, or participation in sport, but apparently it didn't occur to him that women are real people with real problems who might take a view on this topic.

For sure, the elderly in Britain and people in Syria deserve our concern, but what about women and girls - particularly when it comes to debates about trans identities? I think Biggar could have done better.

No one can deny your right to look in the mirror and see a real woman; but you cannot control what other people see.

I liked the comment above in comments

It'll be interesting if the tabloids pick up on terminology like kink oppression. They'll have a field day.

And the quickest way to a right wing backlash.

I'm getting a bit worried, tbh.

It'll be interesting if the tabloids pick up on terminology like kink oppression. They'll have a field day.

Especially when it becomes clear that the "oppression" is saying that sexual kinks need to be contained within the private sphere and should not be performed in public.

Excellent writing. And I'm glad to see more academics starting to speak out about this. Universities are pretty intolerable places to work at the moment for various reasons, not least the no-platforming, no-debate mentality of those very people who should be willing to exercise their minds in a bit of critical thinking. I count certain academics within that category, not just students.

When TRAs start spouting words like "kink opression" wrt the recent NUS officer debacle, how can anyone take this movement seriously?

Oops sorry mis read your post. I will go away now

I'm not sure I know to www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/01/freemasons-to-admit-women-but-only-if-they-first-joined-as-men

See if it works.

Bicylcle you could post that on the thread about the Masons from yesterday?

Not sure where to post but there's a piece in the guardian today about the Freemasons allowing women in but only if they were men before. I'm pretty new to all this but surely any trans women would refuse to join since they are women?