The Mary Beard Appreciation Society

[ArcheryAnnie]

Professor Mary Beard was one of about 130+ people who signed a letter to the Guardian this weekend, saying broadly that universities should be a place of discussion and debate, and the current habit of "no-platforming" women (it's almost always women) some students disagree with was inimical to the very purpose of education.

Out of these 130+ signatories, Mary Beard was the one the usual suspects piled on to, and she dealt with the barrage with such grace. The attacks were mostly divided between the "OMG transphobe" type" and the "very sad to see this nice old dear who didn't understand what she was signing" type, which is breathtakingly patronising when referring to one of the most brilliant academics we have. Most of the other signatories weren't attacked at all in the same way or in the same volume, although some signatories who are PoC were labelled "tokens" by the usual suspects, which is also amazingly patronising and dismissive of their choices and their expertise.

When I grow up, I want to be Professor Mary Beard. (But I would probably have to grow an extra couple of brains to do it.)

Urggghhh the Owen Jones article is so infuriating... he really thinks he's being super duper progressive and open minded, unlike those nasty old feminists. As if feminists were responsible for violence against trans people! Unbelievable!

And you're so right ifyou'rehappyandyouknowit - not a single mention of trans men either. Trans men are systematically excluded from any discussion of trans issues and no one seems to notice. I've even seen trans men shouted down by trans women because they're displaying "male privilege"!!! This topsy turvy gender play results in the same old patriarchal bollocks - males at the top, females at the bottom.

Once again, I am displaying my Old Crone-ness. But there are similarities to the way gay men interacted with the feminist movement in the 70s. Somehow simultaneously distancing themselves from, and inhabiting male privilege. A clever trick if you can pull it off. Certainly gets the women doing the packed lunches and holding the coats................

Where I part company is at the idea that we all therefore have to pretend there is no such thing as male and female biology.
Yes, that. Of course there is male and female biology and to argue/pretend/dogmatise otherwise... flies in the face of reality. That biology profoundly influences upbringing - whether it should or not is another matter, in the set-up we live in it does - which in its turn influences the attitudes of those thus brought up. So yes, a transwoman, whatever else she has gone through, has had the experience of being seen as fully valid merely by virtue of having a penis. Unlike us biological females...

I googled and I thought I'd worked what 'cis' is but reading these last few pages I am again confused. Any chance someone could point me at a short definition?

'Cis' just means 'not trans'. Lots of trans people prefer 'cis' to 'not-trans' for the same reason gay people prefer the use of 'straight ' instead of 'not-gay' - 'not-gay' seems to imply 'normal', when actually 'straight' is just a form of sexual orientation like any other, straight people aren't the default and gay people an aberration.

Sounds reasonable at first! But actually 'cis' is really dodgy from a feminist perspective. Caroline Criado Perez has a good explanation of this...
weekwoman.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/what-does-being-cis-mean-for-a-woman/

Hope that helps!

Straight and not gay mean completely different things. It is like saying Scottish means not English.

And Buffy - I so hope that doesn't happen!!! I'm hopeful - most people (particularly women) outside the social justice bubble have absolutely no time for the 'penis is female' silliness. I think the tide might turn quite soon actually, now that trans activists have turned on Mary Beard who is a bit of a national treasure. Maybe the mainstream will wake up!

I'm really pleased that MN is a space where people are able to support those who signed this letter. I think that is because of the people running MN and the feminist regulars. But it is also because all over MN there are thousands of women talking about work, pregnancy, raising children, IT, politics and every other subject. This is a place where women are not going to have a definition and rules about what a woman is imposed upon them.

Yes, riveting, I hope so too. As soon as the denial of biology (and therefore lived experience) is dragged into the light, most people will shout BS.

Eurgh, this cis word - I thought I had a handle on it, but now I've just reread the Perez and it's slipped from my grasp

But I think now that it means a lucky, happy, biological woman, delighted to be able to perform all the feminine 50s cliches of dresses, high heels, make-up, etc. without fear of censure. I'm so privileged - can't I see that??

Thanks, Buffy and riveting and everyone else: I will trot off and read the link.

Very interesting thread.

I cannot imagine circumstances in which I would be prepared to refer myself as a cis woman.

whatwould that's part of the problem, the issue can't be dragged into the light because even talking about it is deemed transphobic. People are determinedly not listening to what feminists are actually saying and actively telling lies about what women believe. In particular, saying that feminists want transwomen dead. People are (almost literally) putting their fingers in their ears on this topic. The Owen Jones article today does not even say why he thinks it is wrong to say that transwomen are not biological women, he simply says that it will become unacceptable in the future to say this. Sadly, he may well be correct as it is almost unacceptable to say it today.

I think in general we have an assumption that things tend to get better in the future. Certainly for women in the West things are better than in the past. That's not the case, though for women in Afganistan or places like that. Also, before McCarthyism, the US had a strong left wing movement and history that has been almost completely erased since McCarthyism. I seriously believe we are staring into a potential future of intolerance of women's voices on gender issues. Right wing conservatives have a lot to gain from transgenderism and left wing men are abandoning women for the sake of transgenderism.

I would never use the term cis. I cannot believe how a small minority of trans women have the gall to think they can set the agenda on this.

I don't care what they call themselves, what they do, how they act and how they run their lives, but they sure as hell have no right to try and tell women what we should call ourselves, what we should do, how we should act and how we should run our lives.

Male entitlement at its arrogant best. And we are wasting how many threads indulging their whim?

Good link. Anyone lurking who has not read it, it's well worth it. The link is in rivetingrosie's at 14:09:58

If 'cis' means accepting all the societal crap that comes with female biology, then no, I don't buy it. I got so much shit for being a tomboy: how is that a 'privilege'?

The cis/trans labelling issue is based on gender which, nowadays, refers to any one of at least four different things: biological sex, gender expression, gender role, gender identity. In other words, gender is a word used for something someone must be for a chance of reproduction, something someone does or something someone feels.

How is a person's cis-ness or trans-ness measured?

Does a person have to be cis or trans for all four aspects of gender, or is it three out of four, or does gender identity trump all the other aspects of gender?

Interesting that nobody is suggesting that gender normative men refer to themselves as cis men..........

I'm really, really disappointed with Owen Jones, who, although I sometimes disagree with, I usually like, and I have seen him defend radical feminists on Twitter against violent trans activists before. Firstly, I don't think as a man, he has any place to be telling feminists how to deal with issues in their own movement. Secondly, for not acknowledging the horrendous misogynistic abuse anyone deemed a TERF or accused of having interacted with/defended/looked in the same direction as one receives. The article is blatant angling for approval from these same trans activists, and mark my words, they'll turn on him next for the slightest thing. You cannot placate people who think that acknowledging that women are a biological reality is 'an act of violence'.

rivetingrosie I've seen that definition before, but where it falls down for me is that there is a world of difference between "cis" and "not trans". Ironically, people who insist on assigning cis to people who are not trans, they are enforcing a gender binary that doesn't fit everyone.

On the Owen Jones piece -one of the things that annoys me is he's swallowed and repeated the "you owe your rights to trans women at Stonewall" bollocks. Now I recently have seen this repeated again and again until it has the power of accepted fact, but it isn't true. First of all, the distinction between trans and not trans played out very differently then, and secondly, Stonewall wasn't the "trans" bar - there weren't many who would now been seen as trans who were allowed in. Most people at Stonewall were, like it or not, gay men. There are people challenging this narrative of Stonewall as a trans revolution, but I can see why it's being pushed so hard as fact, as it has a powerful political kick.

It seems that anti-feminists these days have it really easy if they want to shut up women they don't like. No longer do they have to use words like prude or manhater, no, use new trendy words like terf and wh*rephobic and people think you're being progressive while doing it!

That word, whrephobic is vile. It's blatantly anti-feminist to call women whres, why do people use that word and expect to be taken seriously?

Also wow hello Mary Beard!
You're a cool lady and I'm sorry that sexist idiots have attacked you again.

But I think now that it means a lucky, happy, biological woman, delighted to be able to perform all the feminine 50s cliches of dresses, high heels, make-up, etc. without fear of censure. I'm so privileged - can't I see that??

Actually I am a lucky , happy, biological woman, delighted to be able to perform "all the feminine 50s cliches of dresses, high heels, make-up, etc. "

Would be nice if other women didn't sneer at me.

My point being the sneering tone adopted by the poster. "Cliché"?

I bet she wouldn't describe your dress style as clichéd