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

I wondered at the term "professor" for one so young, arran, so I checked Nottingham's webpage. It looks like they've gone down the American route for academic titles, and I'm guessing (with the grand total of 4 publications listed, and having come to the job from a junior research fellowship) she's what in old money would have been a junior lecturer, i.e. untenured. On the other hand, she talks a good word salad, so she may make it in the groves of academe if she's sufficiently ruthless.

(Google the abstract of her "Rape Myths and Domestic Abuse Myths as Hermeneutical Injustices" if you want to see po-mo word salad at its most dense and obscure. I think the TL:DR version is "women in sexually abusive relationships are so screwed over by the prevalence of rape myths they lack the language to describe their experiences as rape, hence face an extra barrier to reporting to the police/escaping the abusive relationship." Which is fair enough, but kind of ironic given that her other work seems dedicated to introducing obscurantism in language - "women have penises" - which will leave women unable to even talk about the reality of sex-based oppression.)

Members of a small women’s rights group

Rights for Small Women! That's the group for me.

Is she OK? When as a society did we decide not to treat people suffering from that level of delusion? It really is mind boggling!

Surely at some point people who have paid 9k a year are going to start suing for refunds over what they’ve been ‘taught’?

Urgh.
Queer theory - where reality is just optional.

What an utter twit

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

Perhaps Prof Jenkins might want to rename that 2nd course, Philosophy and Gender as it seems more accurate.

What a total fucking bellend.

It follows from this that an important desideratum of a feminist analysis of gender concepts is that it respect these identifications by including trans people within the gender categories with which they identify and not including them within any categories with which they do not identify.

And no, it doesn't. How does that follow?? 'Desideratum' my arse.

Hmm, well I suppose premises are beyond dispute in one sense... but (if Katherine had paid any attention whatsoever in her first year logic classes), she would know that if your premises result in a logical system from which a contradiction can be derived (and trans arguments don't seem high on internal consistency to me), then your premises are a pile of shit.

But hey, what would I know? I only used to teach mathematical logic, up to and including Goedel's theorem.

Katherine, honey, women do not have penises. The word you are looking for is "men".

The proposition that trans gender identities are entirely valid—that trans women are women and trans men are men—is a foundational premise of my argument, which I will not discuss further.

Well that's not very philosophy is it?

Sartre reduces all possible human knowledge to Cogito Ergo Sum but Katherine is prepared to state that menz is women without any fucking argument just because it suits her.

It's almost like she should, indeed, stick to singing because she's shit at philosophy.

That’s nothing , a Geneticist was arguing for a biological component to being transgender on twitter last week and comparing it to intersex - she got her arse handed to her by mrkhtake2. So even ‘proper’ scientists aren’t immune to codswallop.

She also published "Amelioration and Inclusion: Gender Identity and the Concept of Woman" (Link) where she writes:

"The proposition that trans gender identities are entirely valid—that trans women are women and trans men are men—is a foundational premise of my argument, which I will not discuss further. Failure to respect the gender identifications of trans people is a serious harm and is conceptually linked to forms of transphobic oppression and even violence.6 It follows from this that an important desideratum of a feminist analysis of gender concepts is that it respect these identifications by including trans people within the gender categories with which they identify and not including them within any categories with which they do not identify."

"foundational premise", right....

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

(Cicero)

In my head these words were read in the voice of Philomena Cunk:

Members of a small women’s rights group, Liverpool ReSisters, have declared that “women don’t have penises”. They seem to be very confident of this point, having gone as far as to paste stickers claiming as much onto the genital areas of some of the statues that make up Anthony Gormley’s artwork Another Place on Crosby Beach near Liverpool. It’s an attention-grabbing stunt. But are they right?

The semantic gymnastics employed to arrive at her conclusion are mind boggling.

They let anyone into universities these days don't they?

browndog, but if they could just recognise that they’re not really mice in the first place, it’s just that society forced the assignment of mice upon them at birth, then they can just identify as cats and they’ll be safe forever. I’m not at risk because of my female sexed body, it’s my silly girly thinking that makes me at greater risk of DA and sexual assault (duh). Which is bizarre, because I’m the most stereotypically gendered male characteristic woman I know. Still a woman. Still taking shite since the 70’s. Snort.

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.

YY.

She should stick to singing

I guess that's why I recognise the name!

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

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

"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.

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

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

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.