Really weird anti GC article in New Stateman

In my opinion the article is confusing and disingenuous:

The success of two new books suggests that we are witnessing the progression of a new respectability cascade in relation to “gender-critical” beliefs – a branch of feminism (often described as “trans exclusionary radical feminism” or “Terf” by some critics) that is sceptical of gender stereotypes and rejects the idea that the biological ­categories of male and female are socially constructed

It's framing GC views as having been unusual, rather than totally mainstream but widely suppressed by fear and threats. Ask 100 people on your high street whether men should be competing in women's sports or entering women's changing rooms and you'll find that most are GC. It's wrong to say that GC views are newly-respectable.

Putting their names beside such ­controversial arguments has still come with a personal toll for both authors, but their recent success should be compared with the situation 15 years ago, when there was almost no one offering any kind of gender-critical argument in the UK media.

Back in 1997 Germaine Greer resigned from Newnham, a women-only Cambridge college, when transwoman Rachel Padman was appointed. In 2004 Julie Bindel wrote a piece for the Guardian about a Canadian trasnwoman who was fighting to become a rape counsellor in Canada. Even in the days before Twitter and FB they were piled on and Bindel's career blighted. Everyone in the media and academia took note. Perry knows as well as we do that it's been fear and threats that have silenced GC people. Pretending that everyone used to be woke but GC views are becoming fashionable is nonsense.

Calling GC views controversial is a tactic used by the BBC and other pro-trans media when referring to the 'controversial' LGB Alliance. Theres nothing controversial about the LGB Alliance, it's what Stonewall used to be.

Perry has covered her own back. If attacked by trans allies she can say 'I said GC views were controversial and only recently gaining in respectability.' If attacked by the GC brigade and she can say: 'I wasn't knocking GC views, I was only saying they've fairly recently got traction in the public sphere.'

I think that she's trying to express the 'emperor's new clothes' moment when suddenly everyone speaks out and expresses an opinion which had previously been surpressed.
Recognition of the G.C position has been a hard won battle by many brave women and I think their struggle against the bullying tactics and agression of transactivism needs to be more acnowledged here; everyone KNOWS there are only two sexes, it's not like a 'far out' position.

I agree it's quite confusing. I don't think she's trying to push a particular point of view, I think she is saying that GC views are becoming (always were actually) respectable to hold.

It ends:

There is a quote that is often attributed to Ernest Hemingway: “How did I go bankrupt? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” This is also how ideological change happens: slowly, then all at once.

It's like someone quite intelligent wrote an article on a topic and then someone else kind of rearranged the sentences and cut out the part that actually explains what its about.

Definitely. If I had a paper copy of the article I would have been turning the page to try to find the conclusion.

My head hurts after reading.

It's like she's saying it, without saying it iyswim

Yes, it's a rather odd article but ends up sounding like it's promoting Helen Joyce's and Kathleen Stock's books! But it takes a very roundabout and confusing route to get there. Is it a way of leaning GC without wanting to stick her neck out too obviously perhaps? Or was there heavy editing/editorial pressure that ended up making the message a bit muddled? The message overall is really not anti-GC though IMO!

I agree with posters who found the piece supportive of GCs.
The article seems to be saying sometimes perfectly valid, scientific beliefs - like endocrine disruptors or that we have two sexes that matter - can become painted as being beyond the pale to talk about because of some people talking nonsense and making these views seem, in the eyes of the judge in Maya Forstater's first ruling, "not worthy of respect in a democratic society."
If anything, I think in this article, Louise Perry is comparing Alex Jones to the bullying and silencing tactics of sex-denialist activists - they've both derailed public perception and stifled fact-based conversations around important topics. But now, because we can see that two recent books presenting a gender critical view have done very well (she calls the texts authored by Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce "incisive, compassionate and nuanced"), it's an indication that the tide seems to be shifting. So saying sex matters and questioning trans activist claims is now becoming much more respectable in the eyes of the public than it was even a few years ago.

This isn't 'anti-gc' at all.

Makes some interesting points, although maybe the intro throws it off a bit.

I'm also not sure that Bindel began as 'gender critical' per se, has she not always been a radical feminist, even before there was such a thing as 'gender critical'?

'sceptical of gender ­stereotypes and rejects the idea that the biological ­categories of male and female are socially constructed'

that sounds reasonable, no?

Yeah, not sure what the Alex Jones bit is about at all?

She seems to be giving some kind of partial account (though inaccurate) of the movement to protect womans rights, but cant quite bring herself to actually put the arguments and why they are being put forward now?
tbf maybe thats no allowed in the New Statesman?

It reads like a lot of BBC stuff. Like you are only getting part of the story. Its like someone quite intelegent wrote an article on a topic and then someone else kind of rearranged the sentences and cut out the part that actually explains what its about.
Wasn't there some famous author who did this? Cut and paste? Was it William Burrghs?

The success of two new books suggests that we are witnessing the progression of a new respectability cascade in relation to “gender-critical” beliefs

Apologies, meant to add this, which is the first part of the paragraph that follows on from the quotation in my first post.

I agree, Alias.

These paragraphs segue from the subject of Alex Jones, whose ascientific interference meant that decent science required a respectability cascade to be reasserted, and the gender critical viewpoint. A respectability cascade is a positive thing, in both cases.

What can send an idea upwards in a respectability cascade? There are times, as in the case of endocrine disruptors, when the strength of scientific evidence makes the theory undeniable to anyone in a position of expertise. In other cases, the idea might be intuitively persuasive, but has for some ­reason been relegated to outsider status.

It’s not brilliantly clear, but she’s saying that our viewpoint is intuitively persuasive, but was somehow delegated to outsider status, but is now undergoing a respectability cascade, and that it’s becoming less and less possible to cancel the women who are discussing the GC perspective.

I don't think the article is 'anti GC' at all.

Thanks nauticant I managed to read it in a private browser :D

Having read it I withdraw my "waste of time" flippancy. However, if you look at the substance of the article the introduction is very peculiar and for some reason makes an analogy between gender critical concepts and Alex Jones, the American right-wing radio host, advancing a conspiracy theory that the US government was intentionally putting endocrine disruptors into the water supply with the goal of feminising American men.

Can't read it too many this month apparently!

It's always worth checking for archived versions @NiceGerbil:

archive.fo/EI1pI

Although once you've read it you might not thank me for the waste of time.

It is a bit odd. Although she's normally very good and worth reading.

It doesn't seem to consider that the reason why people are suddenly expressing GC views is not because they used to be too leftfield and are now becoming mainstream, but because GC views were the mainstream (to the extent that they didn't need to be discussed) and are now being challenged. There can't be a single New Statesman reader who isn't aware of the debate around trans rights so it's weirdly disingenuous to pretend that the growth in GC discourse is happening completely independently of trans rights activism.

It's s mixed article I wouldn't say it's a straight up anti.

Talks about JBs track record with women's issues
Talks about threats cancellation etc

We used to call being critical of stereotypes feminism.
So no, it wasn't a thing in the past. It was kind of assumed that women (and men) fighting for equality didn't believe in brains that don't know much about the gold standard, but do like fluffy kittens.

Can't read it too many this month apparently!

Although don't remember going there before

Anyway

Yes plenty of activists argue that sex is and always has been a social construct