Bristol Law Professor Joanne Conaghan weighs in on the Gender Debate

... it's a pity because the attacks on the GC position are a reasonable position and I would have been happy to read something high quality on this....

You are not a dimwit.

It's not written to be clear, it's written to sound important, hence the use of language more commonly found in court judgments: "troubling" and "perfectly proper".

What she's saying in her best paragraph is this;

1. GC feminists divide sex (biology) from gender (society)
2. The trouble with this is that no-one really perceives biology in an objective way
3. So the GC approach "tends to" lead to assumptions that whatever is sex is fixed but whatever is gender is cultural
4. consequently we fail to look at the "cultural dimensions" of biology.

That paragraph isn't well linked to the rest of the essay, but the upshot is that

1. The GC approach is mistaken, for the reasons set out above.
2. Therefore the TRA position must be correct because it's equality, innit.

Yep I didn't understand the article either - I read it up to this point:

Point 7: Have trans and women's rights 'simply' collided? I don't answer this

Then looked around for the answer and just saw a load of gobbledygook until the declaration at the end.

I thought it was just me, but was just left hanging, all unanswered and meaningless.

I am going to have to rely on this thread to understand that article because as a non-academic I am struggling with the language and the references.

Somebody told me once that good writing should be like a pane of glass, transparent. I took that to mean it should be clear and easy to understand - even by dimwits like me. This piece of writing is not that.

"A feminism that cannot embrace trans women, that invokes an exclusionary definition of womanhood to shut them out, is not a feminism with which I wish to be associated."

So really this is the only point she is making making and the words above it bear little relation to this, her own statement of preference, other than as a pointless preamble repeating worn out arguments of little to no bearing in the drive to misuse the word gender, in an attempt to convince people the word male means male and female, and the word female means male and female. It's not convincing. People are not fooled by all this finagling.

What lies behind the apparent deadlock in debate between transgender activists and ‘gender critical’ feminists?

The debate is between transgender activists and the majority of the global population, not simply the feminists she doesn't agree with.

Yikes!

Aibu to want to know more about this interesting comment without reading the article which sounds awful?

“When Plato defined humans as "feather less birds" Diogenes brought a plucked chicken into Plato's academy and shouted "Behold a man".”

www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201812/large-966287-plucked-turkey-color.png

OT but women are so brainwashed into “being kind” it actually makes me less kind on purpose now. Or very discerning. Women are expected to use too much emotional energy on others. To feel sorry for trans women for instance. No. My mental energy is precious and I save my sympathy for people I feel deserve it

I don’t get this “be kind” thing.
My feeling is “be appropriate”. I’m an adult and feel I can be trusted to exercise the correct behaviour for the person and situation. And I don’t teach my daughter to “be kind” indiscriminately (something I hear pushed at kids a lot nowadays). Be kind to the cat yes be kind to arseholes no

This is what I love about Mumsnet. You all do the criticism and take no nonsense but also show your working (good critical thinking unlike too much on Twitter).

Knickknack I also share that view that the constant edict (but often by other women) to be kind is actually an unpleasant form of controlling

(for example, a counselling service might reasonably be concerned that sexually abused women will be less likely to attend group counselling if ‘male-bodied’ trans women are also in attendance)[1]

She suggests this is reasonable. What a transphobe.

Why is 'kind' always used as a euphemism for 'women should do what men want'?

There's never any suggestion that this 'kindness' should work both ways, demonstrating exactly how euphemistic it is.

Everyone has made excellent points on this thread.
I was really hoping it would turn out to be about another academic coming out as gender critical. Sadly not.
Hey ho. Poorly-argued illogical man-pleasing it is then..

My reading:
Point 1: it's all horrible and we need to be kind to each other.

Point 2: 'gender critical' isn't a real description and I don't agree with it, signalled by these speech marks. Gender recognition, however, does not get speech marks, signifying that I don't think there is anything to be questioned or discussed about it.

Point 3: a legal process of gender recognition is a necessary and proper thing to have. It is implied that trans people consider the current process 'invasive, cumbersome and pathologising' [and though it's not cited, the evidence given by trans organisations to Maria Miller's review prior to the GRA consultation process would confirm that.]

Point 4: Some feminists have 'misgivings' that what they understand as 'self declaration' will undermine sex segregation in certain services, which has been achieved by campaigning over a long period.

Point 5: The Equality Act, bitches! Why are you worried that sex as a protected characteristic is undermined by ending sex as a commonly understood biological category? 'Surely they should' understand that if 'sex' doesn't mean sex, sex as a protected characteristic remains completely understandable as sex and there is no possible change in what sex means to people who have a sex?

Point 5: 'male-bodied' is not a real thing, signalled by these speech marks. Although I don't actually address this and why some people may think that people male at conception have male bodies.

Point 6: GC feminists [leaving off the speech marks this time] want every protected characteristic in the Equality Act to be treated the same [eh?] when they have relationships with each other, e.g. gender reassignment wouldn't exist without sex, and religion is a reason why people express homophobic beliefs. I imply that no gender critical feminist has ever thought any of this. Intersectionality, therefore messiness. Inequality experiences are individual because of the messy interaction of these characteristics. I imply that any attempt to actually group people and define them as disadvantaged is doomed because of this comfortable messiness - what's the point in trying to say that women are disadvantaged, or gay people have particular barriers to overcome, when black women are more disadvantaged than either? Again, I imply that no GC feminist has ever thought that it's possible to acknowledge any other disadvantage or oppression other than sex-based oppression. And somehow, that because of intersectionality, it becomes impossible to define ANY specific group disadvantage.

Point 7: Have trans and women's rights 'simply' collided? I don't answer this.

Point 8: sex and gender. Second wave feminists all said that discrimination was socially based not biologically based. [Erm - I'd argue that feminists said that the biological differences between men and women did exist, but were negligibly important in MOST circumstances and shouldn't result in daft stereotypes or discrimination.]

Point 9: Therefore feminism made discrimination on biological grounds easier to argue for [But not easier to do, eh? Thanks to feminists, we've got the Sex Discrimination Act, maternity leave, the Equality Act, all of which acknowledge that differences do exist between men and women and define the times when that matters.]

Point 10: intersectionality; black and other minority groups in feminism did not have enough of a voice. [Agreed. Was feminism worse than other areas of society in that regard?]

Point 11: intersectionality meant that feminism no longer equalled an 'essentialised appeal to an idealised womanhood'. [SORRY? is this about that book the Wise Wound and appeals to the sisterhood? That's a massive distortion of a strand of feminism that sought to find dignity in aspects of female biology that previously were hidden, othered and made disgusting. Which has at times had an overlap with an analysis that says stereotypes of women are rooted in biological reality, but which are trying to do different things.]

Point 12: 'woman' and 'man' were categories that are socially constructed. [Not exactly. Woman and man remained words describing particular categories. There are social constructions around these categories and it's pretty hard to separate those in any culture from the categories themselves, but they are not the same.]. Intersectionality, so: 'the complexity of inequality, the fluidity of identity, and the role and limits of gender as a category of critical analysis.' So woman as a real category that can produce eggs, has a rapeable cunt, a weaker body and an impregnatable uterus has no real importance any more because it's all so COMPLICATED.

Point 13: intersectionality has killed off sex/gender as different things completely, absolutely and totally, so why is anyone still talking about it.

Point 14: 'Bodies exist, and their forms diverge in sexually recognizable patterns.' I'm not going to discus what these are or any of the implications. Obvs.

Point 15. Laqueur - history of sex as being considered as one, a sex and a defective version. Two sex concept came later. 'There is evidence' of a three-sex concept in some cultures.

Point 16: Sex is real, differences between men and women exist, but because people have different ideas about these categories, it's impossible to say what these differences really are. [Big fat hairy male bollocks, or big fat eggy female ovaries, to this].

Point 17: nature and nurture. Another tricky debate, which proves that tricky debates are too tricky to have.

Point 18: we have more technology and understanding of neurology and cognition. [missing link] We think differently about mind and body these days. [missing link] Gender and sex should be thought about differently too.

Point 19 - [the big one, for me] - if we take sex as a concrete reality with some unchanging existence beyond what we think about it, we end up 'excluding' trans people from their acquired gender. [Yes! How right you are! Not that I think 'exclusion' from a sex is actually a thing, it's an emotional way of putting a fact, but I agree with you].

Point 20 - [I'm struggling to understand this one]. If we say sex just means biological sex, then we can't talk about discrimination based on gender stereotypes. [I haven't got this. I can see that it's related to points 8 and 9 above, but I just don't get it. Probably my lack of knowledge of case law related to the Sex Discrimination Act. But I don't see why acknowledging biological sex makes me 'narrow' - after all, there is nothing more inclusive than saying that every human has a sex - and I don't see why saying that biological sex has a definition separate from stereotypes doesn't allow us to talk about discrimination. Are we at intersectionality again?]

Point 21:I'm not a terf.

I'm beginning to think that one of the problems with genderism is the tendency of lawyers to write about philosophy (cf Alex Thing at Keele). I know at least one philosopher who is a complete genderist. I'd rather read his stuff.

On the one hand, there is the perfectly proper concern of trans people to have access to a legal process of gender recognition which they do not experience as invasive, cumbersome, and pathologizing.

Interesting choice of words. If gender dysphoria is a medically diagnosable condition, it is not 'pathologizing' to expect people to obtain a diagnosis before a change in their legal status. If it is not an illness or disorder, then what is it? A lifestyle choice? Why should the rest of society have to agree to a major change in a person's legal status because they have made a lifestyle choice?

If it is not a medically diagnosable condition, why are children able to obtain a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and be given powerful medication as a result of their diagnosis?

For children, it's medical and requires treatment with drugs.

For adults, it's 'pathologizing' to require a medical diagnosis, and they should be given legal recognition as their chosen sex.

Why the difference for children and adults?

Joanne Conaghan doesn't seem to have thought this through.

Ironically the law is a social construct.

I’d love to see biologists wade in and remind lawyers that their subject has absolutely no reality outside of society and what’s legal today might be illegal tomorrow, or vis-versa, and that her law degree means jack shit overseas.

As ever, this is the biggest lie:

The fact that existing equality legislation already provides a level of protection allowing same-sex service providers to deny access to transgender individuals where they can show this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (for example, a counselling service might reasonably be concerned that sexually abused women will be less likely to attend group counselling if ‘male-bodied’ trans women are also in attendance)[1] does not seem to have allayed these concerns, though surely they should, particularly as the Government has made clear that they have no plans to change equality law.

These protections are illusory and becoming more so as time passes.

What she (Materialist) said.

When will some academics realise that using unecessary word salad is irritating and unnecessary

When will some academics also realise they are extremely stupid

When Plato defined humans as "feather less birds" Diogenes brought a plucked chicken into Plato's academy and shouted "Behold a man".