Prospect Magazine: Kathleen Stock v Robin Moira White

I found the comment about Robin’s voice interesting. Robin says that they know it wouldn’t be appropriate for Robin to answer phones at a women’s domestic violence call Centre.
I found this striking as, some of you probably know , in Scotland there is a trans woman, without a GRC, presently CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

I think through socialisation and experiences of (trying to) disagree with men in real life.

We , well I know I am, prone to certain things. Eg
Bracketing point with soft language. I understand where you're coming from but...
Arguing even nonsensical things chucked at us, putting effort into what said, how say it, check for any things that might need further context/ explanation.
If there's a post about some bad stuff, somewhere in the world, in the news, about a poster. (Usually not relevant to thread, or prompted in any way). Generally ensure express upset, sorrow, horror, etc. If it's personal to poster comments following much gentler argued.
Automatically address things raised and go on defence when thing raised is bollocks.
Tend to stick to direction of conversation responding to points raised.
Etc etc.

When do we EVER get treated with anything like that respect, honest engagement? Very very rarely.
It's all convoluted points which are totally dropped whenever and totally change to some other point. Ignoring any and all questions if don't want to answer. Throwing random accusations. Pretending someone has said something they haven't and dispute that.
Etc etc.

I haven't been able to stop I'm s sucker for derailers etc.

Need to turn it around.

Why do you think there are only two sexes?
Why do you think there are more?
We're not clownfish. Human. Why do you think there are more than two sexes?
Etc.

Sport mixed cos no physical differences.
Really? Your whole life you've never noticed any overall differences?
That's very unusual. Have you not noticed anything during your life at all?
When you see in the news reports about women being attacked by men. What's your take, if no physical differences?

And just not be moved from asking the questions and not being sidetracked. Keep asking.

I dunno. What do you all think?

Note: Kathleen is brilliant, vv brave. Not just head above parapet but standing on it with a neon hat.

I am not as brave. So this is my thoughts on the first few questions I read. Nothing more.

There's a lot of different issues covered.
Imo that reduces impact.
As I say I don't know who reads this site though.

Eg
Raising porn is red flag to bull.
AGP not well known readers may get confused/ think implying all perves.

The sex exists bit contains a LOT of info.

In general we need to be punchier don't we? And step away from the inclination to play nice, engage in loads of nonsensical arguments.

Most people don't know any of that. If I didn't know the background I would find the apologetic multiple points confusing I think.

Eg

'according to one plausible account, what determines which sex category an individual falls into is whether the developing human is on one of two pathways, either to produce small gametes (male) or large ones (female), even if that pathway is later disrupted through variation or disease.'

Plausible account?
Including disclaimer variation or disease?

We're so used to getting what about clownfish? And PROVE to me there are two sexes because gobbledygook science. That we do it knee jerk, get in first. Try to get defence to drivel in first.

I know why we all do it. Because of 1000 near identical conversations.

I do think it could introduce dought.
Eg
The bit where she said about egg sperm, plausible? She's not sure herself?
Disease and variations. Like what? How much happens? Why is it important enough to mention? Must be important. Why though?

Both viewpoints contained things that were just asking to be challenged.

This bit Moira made my jaw drop-
'And perhaps a greater proportion of trans people face discrimination than those with protected characteristics such as race or sex, which have been protected for longer'.

Yowzers. Woah. Sex well of course would say that. Race? Bold move. IMO not a clever one.

Yes. Please keep speaking up Moira. In your nice manly voice that you have chosen to retain because it gives you are professional advantage.

You and eddie izzard would get on like a house on fire.

Pick and mix womanhood.

Post even

@WeeBisom Great thread, thank you.

Ran out of steam quite fast.

I thought both answering could have done with being punchier.

I don't know this publication though so I don't know anything about their style, readership etc.

I also thought eh???? Diaspora? Youwhat now? Surprised that something that jumps out like that to the reader wasn't noticed my Moira, no one had a sqiz at it before submitted?

Perhaps it's best if this thread didn't go too far down the road of any individual's presentation or speculation about it. There are good points made about what is said in the article.

Shooting canards and wheeling them out?

I had always imagined that being a barrister required the ability to express yourself clearly and precisely.

Isn't it very difficult to alter a male-gone-through-puberty voice to make it higher?

Well there is voice feminisation surgery. If someone wants to pass that much, surely it would be a consideration alongside the facial feminisation surgery.

RMW re the Census:
A better solution would have been to “reverse engineer” data on biological sex where it is genuinely needed by using the gender identity question to reverse the answer to the sex question for those individuals who answered yes to the question on gender identity.

So being trans simply means being male with a 'woman' gender, or being female with a 'man' gender?
That's the only way 'reverse-engineering' would work (and of course, continues to rely on the assumption that "gender" both is and isn't equivalent to "sex").

But - aren't there over 100 genders? What about agender people? Why is Robin trying to erase these minorities' identity?

(And the surgery in Thailand seemed to me to have been genital?)

I still don't understand how "sex characteristics" can be "brought into line" with a gender. What, specifically, about gender incorporates sex characteristics? We are repeatedly told they are separate.

I have addressed questions in this vein to Robin on here. Robin has not replied, to my knowledge.

Also, sorry, I have to rant about this part:
"Biological essentialism (the idea that only chromosomes matter) fails at every practical hurdle. How many readers have had their chromosomes tested? Do you have to have your genitals checked before using the supermarket toilets?"

For the thousandth time...biological essentialism is NOT the idea that 'only chromosomes matter'. Biological essentialism is the view that females are inferior by virtue of their biology, that women's XX chromosomes causes and explains female inferiority. Feminists say that women's bodies and reproductive capacity does NOT inevitably relegate them to a lower social order. Women are not less capable than men because of their bodies. Feminists reject biological essentialism.

There's a lazy idea going around that biological essentialism means categorising people by virtue of biological features, which means that it is essentialist to group together disabled people, black people, children and the old. Obviously, there is nothing 'essentialist' at all about saying that disabled people are disabled because their bodies do not function properly. Similarly, saying that women are female is not essentialist!

And let's get to the second stupid argument - you haven't had your chromosomes checked so you don't know what they are, therefore chromosomes can't matter for classification into sex. As any first year philosophy student knows, some properties are deep and hidden and cannot be tracked or detected on the surface level. It took advanced scientific research to discover the true nature of water, that it is H20. It would be utterly absurd to say ' you don't know that water is h20 because you haven't tested its chemical makeup." The reason that is absurd is because we don't have to test the chemical makeup of every clear liquid we encounter to know it's water. Instead, what we do, is we track 'water (h20)' by following reliable surface properties such as 'clear' 'liquid' 'not viscous' 'comes out of a tap.' We are able to reliably know that something is h20 because other properties are attached to its deeper nature. So if we see a clear liquid in a lake, we can be 99.9% sure it is water as opposed to poison simply because those features track h20 so well.

It's the same with sex. There are surface features which track the biological chromosomal makeup of a person with almost 100% accuracy. If a person has given birth, if they have periods, if they have breasts, vaginas, if they have a certain appearance (secondary sexual characteristics) that is an almost certain indication that they have XX chromosomes, especially when the features are combined. So you don't have to test someone to find out their genetics because you can reliably track the underlying sex of people by virtue of these surface features. We are remarkably good at it. I know this is long and tedious, but I am just so fed up of these glib, superficial responses coming from the genderist side. They are such weak, fallacious responses and they never seem to stop coming. I wonder sometimes if they are trying to change the meaning of biological essentialism by fiat .

Though their facial surgeon did do a good job I agree.

The attempt to use racial metaphors and arguments to bolster gender ideology always ends up as a huge mistake - comparing feminists to colonisers and the “trans umbrella” to people of colour. Except the obvious reversal going on in that analogy becomes very clear very quickly, and really really undermines the TRA argument.

Should we also make space for the possibility that female is just a clumsy piece of text that meant something inside the author's head that has not been communicated successfully to the readers

"At the other end of the spectrum, while I look female, I sound male as I have done little to alter my speaking voice, as it is a male privilege I rely on in my job as a barrister."

I watched a video of Robin speaking, and what they say is true: they haven't altered their voice at all. I guess what I find fascinating about this is how selective the whole thing is. It's like trans men who get upset about being called 'mother' on the birth certificate but having no problem with actually giving birth. So for Robin, facial surgery was absolutely crucial healthcare to 'fit in' with their acquired gender, but doing something about their booming, strong male sounding voice isn't considered because of their career? That doesn't generate dysphoria? I'm not trying to be horrible, or suggest that people need to alter their bodies or voices. I'm just confused at the selectiveness of dysphoria, and what makes someone feminine versus what is superfluous.

Decent commentary in thread by Jane Clare Jones:

"And perhaps a greater proportion of trans people face discrimination than those with protected characteristics such as race or sex."

NO woman does not experience discrimination because of her sex.

"Demonisation of a class of people leads down a number of very dark rabbit holes, playing on a natural fear of the “other.”

Women's fears of males is not 'demonisation of the other': We're not scared of you because you are trans…

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1469055130628771840