Philosopher responds to Jane Clare Jones et al

Thanks for that explanation and links 9toenails.

Thank you for making sense of that nonsense and your brilliant explanation and the links 9toenails, much appreciated.

9toenails excellent.

Yes Goosefoot the stats on teenage girls are horrendous. While the trans community keeps arguing tgis is all a normal phenomimun there is no opportunity to really explore what is happening.

thatdamnwoman (OP): Is there anyone out there capable of boiling down both his argument and her response in plain English so that I can intervene with some sanity on FB?

I will try. First you need to understand the author of the piece is a (self-described -- see the 'Comments' to the piece) 'social constructionist'.

[Social Constructionism (or, similarly but well, in some ways perhaps different; never mind Social Constructivism) is a philosophical dogma which holds that reality is a social construct. (No, really, these people do think that or at least they say they do. Whether the claim that reality is socially constructed is actually a claim, or amounts to just something like saying ' Jabberwocky Pinstripe ', is controversial. Let that go for now.) However, reality is not a social construct. Hold on to that thought. The earth really does go round the sun on a roughly elliptical path -- that it does has nothing to do with our concepts, our language, or our social mores. Humans are really sexually dimorphic. And so on. Reality is not socially constructed. OK, now. Relax.]

Next step in his argument. There is a logical rule sometimes expressed as ex falso quodlibet. Roughly what this means is, if you start with a determinedly false (set of) premise(s), anything you like follows logically. (I used to start explaining this to students by saying something like, 'If the moon is made of green cheese, then I am Icky the Fire Bobby '. That is a valid deduction the conclusion follows from the premise but only because the premise is false. There's more. But that is a start.)

So, now, the argument in question is based on (nonsensical or false) premises which are not true (premises which together make up, or exemplify, the daft social constructionist creed). The conclusions follow from these premises, but only because the latter are not true. This does not mean the conclusions are false, notice. The author has given us no reason for thinking them true, however. And, in fact, most of his conclusions like many of his premises are not even false: they are just nonsense.

Stock's response generally makes a laudable attempt to draw the debate back to earth and deny that reality is socially constructed. You can perhaps do the same on FB, OP. Just remind people who are impressed by this rubbish that (1) the whole argument depends on the (risible) notion that reality is a social construct; (2) the conclusions mostly make no sense, even if validly derived via ex falso quodlibet.

One more thing. The referenced article is the sort of crap that gives philosophy a bad name. If you want to see what some of the grown-ups in academic philosophy think of this nonsense, check out Felix Leiter's blog here. See, for instance, this, which Leiter describes as 'funny and apt'.

[Leiter's blog covers much more than the trans issue in philosophy. It is more-or-less the go-to blog for (anglophone and other) professional philosophers: he is good for getting a view of what grown-up philosophers think of the 'woke', though.]

I think some of the stuff posted here in this thread about the medical practices is deranged. I'm sorry I really do. I see it from TRA's and I'm happy to call it out here too.

What parts of feminists' criticism about giving sterilising drugs to (predominantly female, often lesbian, often autistic) children struggling socially with early puberty do you find deranged?

I don't know how medical malpractice can really be minor, though? Surely that's something we should be concerned about, for all people who are looking at very serious medical procedures for treatment of a psychological condition. And the teenage girl phenomena has had no studies behind it, they are an almost totally new cohort which must be a women's issue.

Again merrymouse agree, I am sometimes at odds with people on these boards. I don't come down firmly on either side all the time.

"I think there are two separate issues - one concerns medical malpractice and the other the conflicting rights of trans women and women"

I would also like to suggest, in the mix, trans men and non binary people's freedoms and safety/comfort.

Seperate completely enclosed single occupancy toilets for anyone would really help trans men, who do not feel comfortable in the women's loos but may not be safe in the men's, and non-binary people, who don't want to use either.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the non-binary view point but seperate unisex/gender-free loos would help all those people.

But the trans lobby decided to push for accepting anyone who identifies as a woman into the women's loos and I really think it has/ will harm trans rights in the long run. And ignores trans men and the N/B people.

Lisa At 13:37 this afternoon you said "I'm kinda new to this".

Some of us asked you to explain what you thought was good about the article and pointed you towards some other things that we thought might be worth reading when you said there were things you didn't understand/weren't familiar with. My link was to a piece written by two psychologists about gender dysphoria, another one was written by the Professor of Evidence based medicine at the University of Oxford and published in the British Medical Journal. We were accused of linking to "obscure blogs and interpretations".

Yet 5 hours later you seemed to have become an expert who could tell us things like There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far. When asked for evidence of this, you said it was easy to find, but you couldn't provide a link.

Now you're accusing us of being conspiracy theorists and that we're saying things that are 'half-baked nonsense'.

So are you new to this, or an expert who can tell those of us who have been reading up on this for years where we are going wrong? And do tell us about the conspiracy theories - I'm dying to know what they are.

OldCrone

So why does it affect which toilets you use, or which sports team you play on?

Very good question. Bet it's one there won't be an answer to.

I can imagine the answers but I am not trans so not my place to say.

Either this is a fight for the rights of women and girls, or this a fight to define and label transwomen.

You don't have to subscribe to a particular set of views, either to be gender critical or to post on mumsnet. I have never agreed with everything I read on this board, and have never expected to and it's very clear that many GC people don't agree with each other.

I think there are two separate issues - one concerns medical malpractice and the other the conflicting rights of trans women and women.

However, they are clearly linked because doctors are complaining that they feel under pressure from lobbyists to provide treatment against their better judgement. I am not getting this information from some dark part of the internet. I'm watching Newsnight.

If anyone spent a couple days researching this, it is fairly easy to establish. I don't understand why everyone is demanding details of anything I have said, this stuff takes two minutes to look up.

Um, no it's not. That's why it's controversial, because the recommendations aren't well established at all. There has been little research on many, and increasingly as some is coming out it is very troubling. Do you really imagine that you have groups of psychologists involved in this quitting, or the director of a major clinic, and then going public with concerns, for no reason? Or the director of another clinic being fired and then the hospital having to apologise and make reparations, for no reason? Or an academic researcher being turned down funding by universities on much needed research because of the political implications, for no reason?

Surely you must have heard of cases, in the sciences, where this sort of thing has happened. We know this, because we now know what happened, something was happening for reasons other than good science. At what point to you start to wonder what is really going on? Only after someone else has done the work to establish it?

All I am saying is, I am here because I share a gender-critical viewpoint.

I do not believe trans women are women.

I can believe this without having to believe every half-baked nonsense attached to a supposedly GC view.

I think some of the stuff posted here in this thread about the medical practices is deranged. I'm sorry I really do. I see it from TRA's and I'm happy to call it out here too.

I believe this is an argument that can and must be won without relying on trying to define the motivations, or experiences of transwomen, that no-one seems to be in any agreement over, except trans people themselves.

Either this is a fight for the rights of women and girls, or this a fight to define and label transwomen. I think one is distracting us from the other.

People believe in the NHS, people believe in medicine and the medical establishment.

You don't need to get your information from mumsnet. Go to the BBC. People who work for the NHS are concerned about puberty blockers.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145

Cross posted with Fekko who put it much more succinctly.

Yes, we're being subjected to a "ooh, look, dead cat" to distract us from the issue, which is that some bloke with a bigger ego than a brain has decided to post thousands of words of verbiage purportedly mansplaining feminism, while in fact saying nothing with any content whatsoever.

I don't see what any of us are saying that is so shocking.

You don't think transwomen are women, you think they are biologically male. So do most of us.

Nonetheless you realise that genuine dysphoria about one's sexed body must be a pretty awful thing to experienec, and want transwomen to fulfilled, comfortable lives free from harassment and discrimination. So do most of us.

But you draw the line at a free for all when it comes to women's sex specific rights. So do most of us.

I'm completely failing to see why you think we're all so horrible, and quite what your prolonged exercise in fence-sitting is doing for you beyond giving you splinters.

I want to protect women's sports, women's prisons, women's shelters and refuges, women's single sex changing areas, hospital wards and overnight accommodation. That doesn't make me some sort of monster. It doesn't mean I, or my views, are horrible. It just makes me a woman who is centering the needs and rights of women.

Gender dysphoria is well established, at least a framework of understanding exists, of which there is a worldwide consensus, medical facilities of many countries around the world use the same treatment pathways. They dont do them blindly, they see the results, and thats how these medical pathways are formulated.

Has anyone on this thread said that gender dysphoria doesn't exist?

I'm not reading obscure blogs, I'm getting information from the BBC and the Guardian, and concerns are being expressed by staff members at the Tavistock.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47359692

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

I think this whole thing is just a huge dead cat. A big smelly rotting dead cat.

Transwomen are different to me, with different needs, and that is enough. It should be enough for everyone.

It isn't enough when children are being groomed for mutilation and sterilisation.

It isn't enough when women are losing our privacy, dignity, safety, sports, statistics.

It isn't enough when people are being forced, on pain of legal penalty, to lie about who is a man and who is a woman.

Sorry, but no, it isn't enough for me to say 'they're different'. They are different because they are male, XY people, a three letter word that apparently I'm not supposed to use for these NOT women. I need to be able to say so for MY mental health. Why is my well-being less important than theirs? Is it because they are NOT women per chance?

TBH I'd almost be inclined to say that having body dysphoria is a sign that you really are female.

Absolutely - and the concept of 'cis' imposes the lie that most people identify with periods, not being the fastest runner, pregnancy, giving birth, menopause etc. etc.

TBH I'd almost be inclined to say that having body dysphoria is a sign that you really are female.

Certainly discomfort with your newly developed woman's body is so common place among teenage girls as to be un-noteworthy. Perhaps that is part of the problem? It is so very common place that adults too often dismiss concerns/discomfort instead of listening and helping teenage girls resolve their problems.

I am really shocked by some of the responses on here.
I'm here to fight for the rights of women and girls, I have no problem with trans people, except when their rights impinge on mine as an actual old-school woman with an uterus.

I don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted, I'm not stupid.
I'm not into the conspiracy theory nonsense, if someone wants to believe in them, thats fine, but not for me.
And I really don't believe they play out well to the general public.

Ive seen conspiracy theories, just as I have seen the most persuasive science and stats to prove the earth is flat.

Gender dysphoria is well established, at least a framework of understanding exists, of which there is a worldwide consensus, medical facilities of many countries around the world use the same treatment pathways. They dont do them blindly, they see the results, and thats how these medical pathways are formulated.
If anyone spent a couple days researching this, it is fairly easy to establish. I don't understand why everyone is demanding details of anything I have said, this stuff takes two minutes to look up.

None of this has anything to do with what is important.
Too many people are fixated on stuff that makes us sound like we are some sort of cult. People believe in the NHS, people believe in medicine and the medical establishment.

Transwomen are different to me, with different needs, and that is enough. It should be enough for everyone.

I guess I am coming at this from a different angle to many others on here, it is an eye-opener.

These females don't necessarily like traditional 'boy's pursuits' but they do feel dysphoric.

TBH I'd almost be inclined to say that having body dysphoria is a sign that you really are female.

It's got to be well over 50% of teenage girls that have it to some extent, often focused on their breasts or menstruation issues, and many women have it intermittently throughout their life, in response to pregnancy, or nursing, or ending nursing, ending fertility, the body ageing.

What is it they are telling these kids sex dysphoria is, because it seems to me when they talk about it it is just discomfort with their adult body or sexuality. I can't see that being very similar to the experience of the adult transitioners I know.

These females don't necessarily like traditional 'boy's pursuits' but they do feel dysphoric.

It seems to be more about not being a woman than being a boy/man. We should really be investigating why so many girls think that being a woman is such a negative thing.

But if we kept sex-based protections and protected children from surgeries and drugs then trans people could identify as they wish and be much more supported in society. The worries around children's health and protection of womem are the things that cause so much division and I am not sure this man in his article really tackles either.

Totally agree with this.

I endorse your question crone. I’m well aware that when people talk about being transgender neither I nor I suspect they know precisely what they mean.
To take ASD again; broadly speaking I think that would still be diagnosed on the basis of the triad of impairments. There is no equivalent diagnostic theory in relation to transgenderism so far as I am aware. Indeed it is transphobic now even to think of it as a condition requiring diagnosis, to some anyway.
So what is it?
You may as well try to nail jelly to the wall.