Philosopher responds to Jane Clare Jones et al

It's a pompous piece of intellectual wankery which negates the reality of women's concerns and experiences. I share your exasperation but (IMO) it's not really worth your time going through it to refute it - I doubt many people reach the end of it. Look at this sentence from early on:

'Statistically, dear philosophers, there’s a good chance that you are, like me, a cis man, and not an expert on any of this. You’re wondering how to react. '

He seems to be saying that statistically we're cis men like him - I don't think that's what he means. Or is it? Is his audience meant to be cis men? And, if so, does that give me, a woman, permission to stop reading? Yes, I think so. Why would anyone seek guidance from him since, as he says, he's not expert? And why the bloomin' heck does he keep saying 'dear philosophers'?

The best argument against this piece would just be to link to that Stanford professor's Ted talk advocating early medical intervention. I can't see how anyone could watch that and not think that it was important that some urgent, nuanced conversations began.

A link to Mermaids jelly beans might help! This bloke, who seems to claim hes feminist, is saying its nothing to do with stereotypes.

Cant read any more the patronising mansplaining is just too much for me.

Geee. Dizzyingly unreadable waffle. On & on.

‘biological sex’ (however they specify that – chromosomal, surgical, hormonal, assigned at birth, whatever)

Nah mate, none of those. Sex as determined at conception. HTH.

Oh my god it's so long-winded. It just seems like someone made an attempt to bury their cognitive dissonance in a giant haystack of words.

Actually I just read the introduction to it again and by the author's own admission THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED.

This person's intellectual evolution, as he explains it himself:

• I can't see what's so wrong with GC feminism
• But everyone says GC feminism is wrong
• Well god forbid I go against the consensus. I had better figure out why GC feminism is so wrong.
• Voila, I have listened and paid attention and here is my extremely long rationalisation of the position I had already adopted before I looked into the matter.

He can fuck off, I'm not going to read 35,000 words of post-hoc rationalisations for his intellectual cowardice.

I skimmed through this before, but it's basically unreadable.

The first 1,400 words can be boiled down to him admitting that he doesn't know much about feminism or gender ideology, but he does know that gender critical thought is completely without value and shouldn't be bothered with.

Then he tackles three points.

1. Do trans people reinforce gender stereotypes? He says not. He says trans people imitate the stereotypes associated with the sex they want to be. Fair point to an extent, but then what about trans people who say they don't have dysphoria (e.g. it's not about the body for them)? What is there left but stereotypes?

2. Are people being pressured to transition? He says not. But there are accounts out there of people, especially teenage girls, being told that their discomfort with gender norms mean they MUST transition. Workers in gender clinics have been expressing their own concerns, even resigning over it. Some people certainly are being pushed towards something that, given time, they would probably move away from.

3. Does admitting transwomen make women's spaces less safe? He says not. Two points here. Firstly, sometimes it obviously does (Jessica Yaniv for instance). Secondly, some men will abuse self ID to claim that they are trans and get into women's spaces. They won't have to make any effort to transition at all. To ignore this possibility is to dismiss all women's experiences of predatory male behaviour.

There are two big problems with that article. One, it's far, far too long as though he couldn't control his argument at all. Second, it starts out with a very obvious bias. He refers to himself as 'cis'. GC feminists do make good points, so to say that their ideas are 'valueless' because you think you've disproved three of them is arrogant and intellectually dishonest.

What are the key points in the posted article you want to counter? If you post these someone may be able to help address them succinctly.

A huge chunk of waffle by someone with a clear agenda. He could have distilled the whole thing to a paragraph, and he'd still be wrong.