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.)

Just wanted to join the fan club. She was my inspiration to study Classics and hearing her speak was always massively motivating. Such an insult to an intelligent role model, I could weep.

I think that transactivists have a point in that people ought not to be telling them how they should or should not experience their lives.

This is true, but where it falls down is all the times the misogynistic trans activists tell women how they should or should not experience their lives. (See: cis, terf, etc etc.)

I do wonder if some of the foot-stamping from the usual suspects comes from sheer ignorance about how many women already live their lives. I mean, if you have been treated by the world as a nice white middle class man for your entire life, and then get the double whammy of suddenly be treated like a) a sexual minority, and b) a woman, then I can see how you might then view yourself as the Most Oppressed Evah, even if what you are going through is what women (and especially particularly marginalised women, including lesbians) have gone through since time immemorial. And since women are socialised to accept it, and trans women have been socialised not even to notice it, BOOM, a disconnect. And then a shitfight as these particular trans women don't understand why all other women won't instantly agree to always, always put trans women's needs before their own.

Thanks Buffy. I'll look on MB's blog instead.

This is very good.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been-terf

I have felt a little uncomfortable with MB's distancing herself from "TERFs" in saying she loathes (I think she said that, not sure) the viewpoint but defends the right to speak. I do agree with her on that point as a general principle but I'm a bit disappointed she agrees with the dogma (if she does).

archery that's a very good point.

Rebecca Mott on "whorephobia"

I am pleased to read that new statesman article. I think it's the first attempt I've read to actually say what many of us actually think.

Reading Mary Beard in the times I was also slightly disappointed that she gave us such short shrift, but, as with all other debates, there's another side. Most trans women are like most women in that they just want to get on with a decent and dignified life in comfort and security and we do have the reputation for wanting to attack that wish. I don't think it's a true representation of what we want, but I'd MB has more to to doing with herself than getting bogged down in the details.

Not everyone cares - or has to care.

From my own point of view, I just don't see how it's possible to decouple the oppression of women from women's reproductive capacity. If we can't do that, then how do we argue cogently for women's rights?

Yes, excellent article, tho I don't dare 'like' it, of course .

And it makes me wonder whether the vocal tr* brigade and supporters know any mid-century history - have they never read Orwell or about McCarthyism?

I adore Mary Beard: not for the way she looks or dresses but for what she says and writes. She is brilliant at disseminating sometimes difficult subjects in a way even I can understand.

i think what hits home most about things like this is just how deep misogyny runs in our society, and just how fundamental it is to most people's worldviews :(

Could someone explain what the trans community's (or some of it) objection is to the concept that menstruation and pregnancy affect women- meaning biological women.

I get that a male to female trans person doesn't menstruate; but neither do I. Is even discussing menstruation cissesxist? (And I admit I'm struggling and failing to get my head round the concept of "cissexism".)

I also understand that female to male trans people who have not undergone hormonal /surgical treatment will continue to menstruate. I'm fully aware there have been a very small number of pregnant "men"

What I don't understand is (apart from the very small number of female to male trans people who have delayed physical/ hormonal intervention because they want to bear children) why, if you consider your brain /soul/ true identity makes you a man you can reconcile that with still having periods?

StillLost there seems to be a major point of disagreement amongst trans activists - the ones I know online have dysphoria, ie are uncomfortable with the physical reality of their bodies to the point of having to have medical intervention, including surgery, or face severe, longlasting mental distress. They see themselves as having transitioned, or in the process of transitioning (it can take a long time), and don't deny either their male past or their male bodies. The ones I know are respectful of other women's boundaries, and are pretty angry with the way the public face of trans people has been usurped by people who don't have dysphoria - usually people with male bodies,who have lived for most of their lives as men, who express contentment with their bodies including their penises, and who having declared they are now women, expect to be given access to women's spaces while having no intent to meaningfully transition. This new group of trans activists includes people who sometimes present as trans women, and who make a big deal of getting access to women's spaces for their own safety (including the "but I just want to pee in public loos" crowd), but who also spend time presenting as living as men.

And StillLost there's much less written by trans men. There's one on twitter - a Green candidate who is out about his history of transition - who nonetheless gets very angry at the idea he has a female body.

SunshineBossaNova - I'm a Goldsmiths academic and I'm also keeping my head down. I was appalled at the SU's stance. I'm usually proud of being member of such a radical and diverse institution but it seems apparently I'm too radical for opposing no-platforming :(

What I find quite interesting is that there don't seen to be many (if any) trans men accusing men on being cissexist and expecting them to redefine their lives and experiences to suit a different agenda.

Having worked with trans men in the past they've said that they feel that they are unheard and very much in the shadow of trans women who, because they were men in their former lives, are used to demanding attention and making themselves heard.

stilllost the issue with discussing menstruation, FGM etc is the characterisation of these as women's issues as that excludes transwomen. For a number of the loudest TAs with the most extreme views, a lot of it is about validation of them as women. The anger is intense when they are not validated. I have read it compared with narcissistic rage.

After a while, all I can see is a cartoon in my head of a naked toddler-emperor stamping his foot because mummy's said No.

There obviously is something to that. However, I think there's also the reality that cis appears to have been coined specifically in relation to women. Labeling men cis seems to be an after thought when the point is to categorize women, in the main.

That blog by Natacha thingy sets itself up as very reasonable but then you get to,

'The debate between transphobic “feminists” and trans people has historically been one in which the former has abused and assaulted the latter over a long period.'

REALLY? Feminists have assaulted transwomen?

I am so, so, so fed up with the way this debate seems to mainly involve assertions being made with no evidence whatsoever and other people just believing them.

I wonder if Mary Beard believes it or if she knows that is not how feminists operate

I have seen 'agender'.

Buffy, I've thought about this for a long time. For decades - way before the present kerfuffle - I've wondered about transitioning but would never do it as I'd just be looking at the same problem from the other side.

I'm sticking with "woman" and "female" because that is what my body is, and how the world sees me, and so that shapes my material, economic and social life, but I reject "cis" entirely as my gender identity doesn't match my identity at birth, because I don't have a gender identity, just a material, economic and social reality.

I'm fine with other people using cis if they want to, and if it matches them, but I am entirely opposed to cis being a default, what you are assigned (ironically) whether you like it or not, and whether it fits you or not.

And FWIW, I don't think cissexism or cisprivilege exists any more than I think misandry exists.