So Owen Jones is as full of shit as ever he was...

[CallaLilli]

Here's his latest output for the Guardian. Note the penultimate paragraph where he claims to have been victimised by various Twitter feminists and has a very selective memory of what really happened.

What I find weird about this 'wrong side of history' meme is it implies a totally Whiggish view of history. Postmodernism, from which queer theory/genderism arose was meant to reject that.
It seems a bit partial - I think Buffy has brought this up before - cherrypick bits of postmodernism to support trans ideology but then suddenly drop the postmodernism when it gets in the way of a chance to score a point.

"What do people think is wrong with that article?"

I don't think the article is a problem, well, not for me anyway. It's his previous history of accusing lesbians of transphobia for not wanting to have sex with someone with a penis, while at the same time becoming quite angry when asked why he wouldn't have sex with someone with a vagina. It's a horrible double standard that he refuses to explain. Without that history, the article is fine; with it, he seems to be, I dunno, confused? Hypocritical?

I just feel that if he wants to be taken seriously on this subject he needs to explain why he holds lesbians to a different standard than that he applies to himself and other gay men.

I don't think Owen Jones is full of shit about everything. He wrote a good article the other week about how Labour party should embrace former Tory voters who are likely to swing to the left when they get their tax credits taken away.

I think he is really hypocritical on this issue, though. He lacks a basic understanding of a lot of women's issues but spouts about being willing to listen and learn, which he really isn't unless he already agrees with people.

Owen Jones has been very clear (at least on Twitter) that he has never said that lesbians should want to have sex with a trans woman with a penis.

He's presented a very biased view of the issues by not mentioning why so many lesbians feel they are discriminated against by trans activism, but he has never argued for those ideas himself.

He's a bit like someone defending the Tories, who doesn't personally agree with austerity but never mentions austerity and then fakes amazement and anxiety if someone asks him how he'd feel about being poor. But I just support the Tories! What are you mentioning poverty for?

Sorry, was responding to Saskia there.

The struggle against homophobia has a long way to go, but it strikes me that trans people are basically where gay people were in the 1980s: still seen as somewhat taboo, patronised as exotic or weird, feelings of disgust projected on them, sometimes portrayed as predatory, and so on

With regard to history, the Greeks around 650BC had an island exclusively populated with females, Lesbos was a beloved daughter who was granted a sanctuary by her father and mother; and an adoration of the male body in that homosexuality was part and parcel of everyday life, including Sparta - to the exclusion of females who were 'kept' for breeding and other sexual purposes, including monetary value in marriage exchange, only.

Almond thanks for clarifying :)

After reading that, he sounds confused.

And Ego is that part of human female history, the exchange of women to gain political power play any part in your identity?

Are you worried that there might be a biological cause for trans people and that it might have something to do with a small region in the brain?

No, I don't think so. It's a very narrow view I have but I'm not all that interested in why trans people are trans. All I care about is the effect on biological women of some of the more extreme views that some trans people have. Not just cotton ceilings and female penises (although these have some horrible implications for many biological women), but mainly the ways trans people want language to change to accommodate them in ways that make it more difficult to discuss the specific discrimination and inequality endured by those of us born with female bodies.

I'd easily and happily live and let live if the tools for class analysis of female experience were not being systematically dismantled.

Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals owe many of their rights to the courage and determination of trans activists, and should return the solidarity

This statement confused me a bit. Isn't it the other way around, with the gay liberation and equality movement occurring first?

I'm wondering the same

Interesting thread. I find OJ annoying, but I find most columnists annoying...

Gah, I meant to have arrows pointing to the post above, not italics. Sorry.

Small structures that show sexual dimorphism and have different structures in men and women.

No such 'structures' exist in the brain. Studies have shown that no one can discern the sex of a person by brain only. They can do so by skeleton the most obvious, i.e. the pelvis, DNA (sorry, that ole xx/xy) analysis if the pelvis doesn't exist. And that's it. You can age a skeleton by the skull (if present) due to fusion of the skull bones because by the age of 45 they have fused totally (the skull is smooth, with no lesions).

All human brains are alike in structure, despite racial and social differences. Some parts of the brain may be slightly elevated (we are talking -mm's here), but it would not indicate sex. It might well indicate a certain physical and/or social conditioning. e.g. say a long distance runner.

The famous example of brain plasticity and environmental influence on learning and aptitude is the research done on taxi drivers and how the hippocampus area of their brains are physically enlarged after doing "the knowledge".

But that is confirmation bias grimbletart

There is no way on looking at a brain post mortem you can discern this.

It's like saying those who are psychic actually exist because brain studies show it to be so.

And just to get this straight. I give all support to those who change gender. It's a brave thing to do, especially as we are so gender binary in western society. What I find disingenuous is the tweaking of science to bolster the change.

You can sex humans with some degree of accuracy from the skull, but that is from external morphology, not the brain cavity.

Almond Those characteristics in the skull; mainly, chin, forehead are not indicative of sex per se, but yes, would generally point to either male or female, depending on the age. A skull in it's fifth/sixth decade would see less of this prominence though.

I thought the "full of shit" comment was primarily about the penultimate paragraph

Also meant to add that a prepubescent skull is not dimorphic (but the size would be obvious). I studied archeology at university. Sorry for the derail.

Yup, for me at least, it's about the lies he tells in the penultimate paragraph. Which suggest that, the skidmark is full of shit.

But, I don't think we'll be able to discuss this anymore, because if we do, we'll get acres of text telling us, with no actual knowledge of us as people, that we're hateful.

Seems like it's fine to threaten women, but not to take exception to a paragraph of lies written by a man.

Again.

Ego You don't recognise a female definition of being brave? I felt brave walking over Carrick a Rede rope bridge. But I wouldn't ever compare that fear with those who change gender.

Thanks for the support.

Elendon, it's a point that I've raised before. In 100 years time, all this isn't going to matter, because someone digging up a trans* woman's bones will state with certainty that physically at least, they were male. (Unless they have undergone some seriously painful restructuring in order to cure their dysmorphia)