Book Review: Shon Faye & Helen Joyce

If this review encourages people to read both books, then I'm all for it. The compare and contrast will be very interesting.

If Shon has managed to come up with a reason to support transgenderism other than be kind, then I'd like to hear it. Because I never have.

From the review it would appear that it's just a stream of anecdotes. Which is exactly what happens on here. A long guilt trip of a post followed by a pissed off flounce because no one buys it.

So if anyone does read it, perhaps you can post on here your conclusion?

I'm intrigued to see if Shon makes the proclamation that the there can be no trans liberation under capitalism, or if they make the actual case for it.

iirc, Jess Bradley and co make similar claims with the remainder handwaved under luxury communism. Who can forget the photograph of Owen Jones and Bradley on a train, drinking champagne?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3554112-Owen-Jones?msgid=86181213

Joyce gets to the root of the matter, so is, in a literal sense, radical.

In the other common meaning of the word, revolutionary, we could point to an editoral in The Vote: The Organ of the Women’s Freedom League:

The truth! But it is just the truth that cannot be known of the multitude, for truth is revolutionary.

news.google.com/newspapers?id=b-I6AAAAIBAJ&sjid=6ikMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1109%2C7717440

For completeness sake, I found that via here: quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/24/truth-revolutionary/

This is one of the reasons intellectual dwarves like Shon will tell you it's definitely not anything like a metaphysical belief system, because if they can cosplay as a human rights campaign, the legal demands don't look quite such an absurd, authoritarian over-reach. But objectively, Shon is peddling a neo-religion, so the same rules should apply to Genderist beliefs as they do to Catholic, Muslim or JW beliefs. Believe it if you want. But no one else is compelled to do likewise.

. Other belief systems — religious, philosophical, metaphysical — are held privately. Gender self-identification is a demand that other people believe what you believe.

That's not quite true, though, is it? Some belief systems do demand other people believe what you believe. Some actively proselytise, some will come to your door with leaflets, even.

She thinks, for example, that prisons should be abolished. So should the police, because of their “complicity with white supremacy”. She objects to a “binary prison system based on genitalia” and thinks that “the neat binary” of male/female is, in any case, “a western way of thinking about gender variance”. She wants the complete decriminalisation of sex work. She is less enthusiastic about trans people working in the army because she finds it “difficult to accept that service in the military of a western power is inherently honourable”. Oh, and she wants to abolish capitalism. “There can,” she says, “be no trans liberation under capitalism.

"I want an OOmpa LOOpa! I want you to get me an OOmpa LOOmpah right away!!!!!"

Terry

Has Shon based Shon's book on this well-loved manifesto from Action For Trans Health?

edinburghath.tumblr.com/post/163521055802/trans-health-manifesto

She thinks, for example, that prisons should be abolished. So should the police, because of their “complicity with white supremacy”. She objects to a “binary prison system based on genitalia” and thinks that “the neat binary” of male/female is, in any case, “a western way of thinking about gender variance”. She wants the complete decriminalisation of sex work. She is less enthusiastic about trans people working in the army because she finds it “difficult to accept that service in the military of a western power is inherently honourable”. Oh, and she wants to abolish capitalism. “There can,” she says, “be no trans liberation under capitalism.

Well, this all sounds perfectly sensible.

I'm going to read it.

I'm intrigued to see if Shon makes the proclamation that the there can be no trans liberation under capitalism, or if they make the actual case for it.

Because it seems to me that Genderism functions on an engine which is pure consumerist capitalism. Have great swathes of people believe there is something they need and don't have, that their bodies or physical reality is wrong in such a way that can only be seen if they either pay to alter themselves or buy special identity items to signal to others who they are. And get all this legally enforced so that everyone is compelled to play along with the scheme?

Surprise me Shon.

In defence of Wolfie Smith, based on a real drinking pal of John Sullivan, he was a genuine Working Class Hero with honours from the University of Life.

Apologies, not that familiar with the lore :) I'm a little bit too young.

Yes, I certainly wouldn't want to suggest Faye was in any way not a privileged little

She could also be using the word because of the links with radical feminism; however, I don’t think she is using the word with that meaning.

She could be. Many uses of radical are in the sense of "root" - "radically different", "radical change" - different roots, changing at the roots.

That's just been misinterpreted through "oh, well, given those uses, radical just must mean 'extreme'".

I think sometimes you get a play where both meanings are possible, leaving it to the reader, eg "the radical notion that women are people".

And I think this could be like that. (Not sure writer's normally get to choose their headline though - might be overthinking this!)

Both these books are trying to get at the roots of the trans belief system. From a believer, and a non-believer's point of view.

In defence of Wolfie Smith, based on a real drinking pal of John Sullivan, he was a genuine Working Class Hero with honours from the University of Life.

Faye is the product of a very "If..." style expensive boys private school, and is very vague about their higher education. "Studied Law," but no indication of where or for how long.

Joyce gets to the root of the matter, so is, in a literal sense, radical.

Indeed. She could also be using the word because of the links wIth radical feminism; however, I don’t think she is using the word with that meaning. If she is, then the headline is deliberately misleading. If not, then she misunderstands what radical feminism is all about or she actually thinks it is a radical (in the sense of being extreme) position.

Mind you, she probably didn’t write the headline!

I hope every Conservative MP who currently supports the ideological lunacy of TWAW reads that Times review and has an awakening.

Does our Paymaster General really want to abolish capitalism? To abolish the police? To criticise the armed forces?

Interesting times.

If Shon's book doesn't have a randy budgie pecking a mirror on its front cover I will be sorely disappointed....

Shon most condems the demographic Shon wishes to be perceived as? Colour me shocked. 🙄

that woman is political and not biological

If you are going to propose something like that, which is in itself a swathing change, you ought to be able to back up your arguments with sound reasoning regarding why. That’s what’s always been lacking. I’d be interested to know whether Faye tackles that, or whether it’s a demand made, with no reasons given except “be kind” which is all I’ve seen up till now and which isn’t nearly enough.

What a stunning surprise that Shon is so angry at feminists.