Philosopher responds to Jane Clare Jones et al

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far.

Could you please link this?

I have never seen reputable medical evidence to support anything other than watchful waiting in children and evidence that even in adults transitioning does not reduce suicidality nor improve the lives of a significantly large enough percentage of patients to warrant the risks.

I have certainly never seen evidence that humans can have 'brains trapped in the wrong sex body'.

Then the issue I have is that, again, from my perspective the article is also right about ignoring all over evidence to try to preserve or make a counter argument.

I don't believe people transition for all those reasons, those that seem to be rejected by the trans community. I actually believe the worldwide medical consensus, and I believe in the current pathways and advice, and to continually dispute all that makes us all seem a bit too David Icke, if you know what I mean.

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far. I can't be doing with all obscure blogs and interpretations that both sides seem to love to do.

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory. Sorry, that is not for me, or the argument I am interested in here.

We are, and always will be different to transwomen and have different needs. I know this, and this is enough for me.

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at there, Lisa, but re: stereotypes, here's one part of the article that I quoted earlier.

"most cis people are all too ready to dismiss a motivation for transition that they can’t relate to, and substitute something more familiar or more satisfying (like ‘they want to conform to stereotypes’, or ‘they’re deluded’ or ‘it’s a sexual thing’ or something even worse)."

I think that sums up most of the different reasons for transition. There may be other reasons, but the writer of the article doesn't suggest any others.

For most children it seems to be all about stereotypes. Why else would a child believe that they are the opposite sex? Another reason for children wanting to be the opposite sex is that they have been sexually abused, and they believe that if they were the opposite sex this wouldn't happen.

For adolescents and adults, there are other reasons which often start at puberty. These include being same-sex attracted, and in males, autogynephilia. Some people also experience disgust at their own genitalia and feel they need to be modified. But even in adults, stereotypes appear quite often to be a major factor.

People who truly believe that they are the opposite sex are suffering from a delusion, just like anyone else who believes that they are something they are not.

The article would have been more helpful if the author had suggested what other motivations there might be in people wanting to be the opposite sex, instead of just saying that we dismiss motivations that we can't relate to.

It's hilarious. You're allowed to ask about gender identity but only if you first make it absolutely clear that you will accept and believe in gender identity whatever the answer is. Talk about the Emporers new clothes.

Thankyou again OldCrone, I was passed that by a friend who is GC recently, it raises points I am having some problems with.

If the argument they are trans because stereotypes as a motivation, that 4thwavenow, proves the OP's article about stereotypes not being a motivation we can assign to TRA's.

I do not understand why there are so many wishy-washy arguments about all these theorised motivations than't be proven, why so many of us are playing those games when nobody I know gives a shit about any of that gender theory, good or bad, or even feminism.
These are people we have to convince to get involved, somehow.
They know intrinsically that transwomen are different to us, we all know this is what needs to be amplified.

It almost makes me want to embrace 'cis', and demonstrate the divide between us, but that would mean we are back-pedalling.
I would much rather we only ever referred to them as Trans, not trans women, or trans men, just trans. All of them together. 3 toilets. Male, Female, trans.

Am I going in the wrong direction here?

I have noticed a wide variation of the different types of transwoman

You might find this article interesting, Lisa.

4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

Sounds like maybe you've got similar trans friends/acquaintances to mine. One thing I've noticed is that during/soon after transition, there's an immense emphasis on "performing femininity" (partly due to having to perform for the psychologists doing the assessment), then a drop-off as they relax into their new life (more jeans and trainers, less "must wear a skirt at all times.")

But I agree with you, the central philosophical point should be "regardless of passing, regardless of level of performing femininity, transwomen are biologically male, so where we are segregating spaces according to biological sex (sport, prison, changing rooms, overnight accommodation, health care provision), biological sex remains the important criterion."

However, I didn't see anything in the wall of text which actually addressed this. Simply "it's not stereotypes", "there isn't a threat" and "be nicer!"

I wasn't referencing yourself OldCrone I just noticed a few dismissals on that premise.

It was a huge wall of text, I'd have to go though it again to pick out specific parts I thought were interesting. I'm probably being naive, but I have noticed a wide variation of the different types of transwoman I find it difficult to believe they are all reaching for the same stereotypes. I think the focus that they are not women, of any real kind, is more important than than getting sidetracked into wishy-washy arguments about motivations.

I wasn't saying he was wrong because he's a man, Lisa (if it was me you were referring to in your post). It was because I couldn't imagine a woman suggesting that a woman would sexually assault someone who she thought might be a man.

He also wrote that gender critical feminists would (after asking if some was a female in the female toilets and being told yes) that the GC feminists would then sexually assault that person to check.

Right, so women, many of whom are rape and sexual assault victims who demand female space because we've been assaulted, would assault a presumed female person to check she was female? Is is possible to sue for defamation against your sex class?

What good points did you think he made, Lisa?

What are the good things you found in there, Lisa? Interested to know. It was something of a wall of text (to put it mildly) so I may have missed something.

Huh, I'm kinda new to this but there was some things in there that have made me think a little if I'm honest. I think to sweep them all away because it's a man is behaving like the TRA cult. Lets not forget a lot of women say similar things. They are all wrong, but there is no point dismissing everything, better to be objective about any points he makes that have good optics and find better ways to counter them.

It's so badly written that I'm astonished that people are saying it's persuasive. Have they really read it?

He also wrote that gender critical feminists would (after asking if some was a female in the female toilets and being told yes) that the GC feminists would then sexually assault that person to check.

What sort of woman would read that and think that this man had a persuasive argument?

I tried to read it before but my brain hurt.

It's very easy now to want to be 'nice' (because being perceived as being nasty is just so nasty) so a lot of people want to be nice. I wonder if this is just his way of trying to be on the nice team.

Completely forgetting that some of us have to try and be nice (speaking for myself) and gender critical and to support trans rights and women's rights too. It's such a mess and it didn't need to be tgis way!

I do think the failure to recognise trans people as distinct from the sex they identify as has caused so much of this current problem, and the perceived backlash. So many women would have continued to be supportive and so many young people would not be being lied to.

He also wrote that gender critical feminists would (after asking if some was a female in the female toilets and being told yes) that the GC feminists would then sexually assault that person to check. Also did not touch on changing rooms where people may be naked and even more vulnerable as I guess that is too hard to argue. He also said that GC feminists feel that all people shouldn't transition as there is no need as they are fine the way they are (i am sure some people feel like this for various reasons), but personally I don't care if they transition as long as they are not hurting or violating other people's safe spaces which I feel is the shared goal of all GC people.

I've been very surprised a few times with articles people I know have posted, educated people, on this topic or others, which they clearly saw as a "gotcha" scenario. But they just were terrible.

It kind of makes you wonder.

he's going to make the assertion that transwomen are women, he needs to be able to say what women and transwomen actually are

I like that. I think “woman” is frequently described in terms of “not-man”. You see this in sports. Transwoman says “but my performance has dipped since starting on hormones. I can no longer compete with men.” Based on that they conclude that it is fair they be allowed to compete with other not-men”

The other tactic you might employ is asking her to "explain" the article to you.

Say for instance that you've read it and in the section on what it is to be trans, you can see him asserting that being trans isn't about sex stereotypes and isn't about "being born in the wrong body", but you still can't make out what he thinks it is, and if he's going to make the assertion that transwomen are women, he needs to be able to say what women and transwomen actually are in order to make this assertion.

I also suggest you carry on sharing well written GC articles about key issues. It might feel like it's having no effect, but the fact that she chose absolute nonsense waffle to contradict it is telling. People normally choose clear concise arguments when they really believe they are right. That's the waffle of a conman.

Is this a fb group, or just the normal feed? If the latter do you share a lot of fb friends? Eg will her friends already have seen the articles you have been posting or will this be the first they could have heard of the issue?