Bristol Law Professor Joanne Conaghan weighs in on the Gender Debate

[Needmoresleep]

legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/2018/12/sex-gender-and-the-trans-debate/

Enjoy!

OT but women are so brainwashed into “being kind” it actually makes me less kind on purpose now. Or very discerning. Women are expected to use too much emotional energy on others. To feel sorry for trans women for instance. No. My mental energy is precious and I save my sympathy for people I feel deserve it

Thank you everyone. Part of the reason I posted was because I was unable to pinpoint where the article addressed my GC concerns, and the counter arguments. It was all a bit this, this, this, and hey presto a conclusion. But as neither a lawyer, not a philosopher, I was unable to find my way through the word salad to spot what was missing. There are some clever people on this board.

The law department at Bristol has a strong reputation, and it is not easy to become a professor. I kind of get why smaller departments or those in less competitive areas might seek to hire grant-receiving academics with a profile. But law and one of the country's leading departments?

What happens to students? Say the Masters student who is seeking references for their PhD, or 18 year olds who don't have the analytical skills to unpick this and simply learn it to pass their exams. Or even those that do and reject the presented assumptions, arguments and conclusions. Is there still space in Universities to say "I don't agree, because..." when the argument seems to reply on rejecting GC views from the outset?

Aibu to want to know more about this interesting comment without reading the article which sounds awful?

“When Plato defined humans as "feather less birds" Diogenes brought a plucked chicken into Plato's academy and shouted "Behold a man".”

www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201812/large-966287-plucked-turkey-color.png

Yikes!

"A feminism that cannot embrace trans women, that invokes an exclusionary definition of womanhood to shut them out, is not a feminism with which I wish to be associated."

So really this is the only point she is making making and the words above it bear little relation to this, her own statement of preference, other than as a pointless preamble repeating worn out arguments of little to no bearing in the drive to misuse the word gender, in an attempt to convince people the word male means male and female, and the word female means male and female. It's not convincing. People are not fooled by all this finagling.

What lies behind the apparent deadlock in debate between transgender activists and ‘gender critical’ feminists?

The debate is between transgender activists and the majority of the global population, not simply the feminists she doesn't agree with.

I am going to have to rely on this thread to understand that article because as a non-academic I am struggling with the language and the references.

Somebody told me once that good writing should be like a pane of glass, transparent. I took that to mean it should be clear and easy to understand - even by dimwits like me. This piece of writing is not that.

Yep I didn't understand the article either - I read it up to this point:

Point 7: Have trans and women's rights 'simply' collided? I don't answer this

Then looked around for the answer and just saw a load of gobbledygook until the declaration at the end.

I thought it was just me, but was just left hanging, all unanswered and meaningless.

You are not a dimwit.

It's not written to be clear, it's written to sound important, hence the use of language more commonly found in court judgments: "troubling" and "perfectly proper".

What she's saying in her best paragraph is this;

1. GC feminists divide sex (biology) from gender (society)
2. The trouble with this is that no-one really perceives biology in an objective way
3. So the GC approach "tends to" lead to assumptions that whatever is sex is fixed but whatever is gender is cultural
4. consequently we fail to look at the "cultural dimensions" of biology.

That paragraph isn't well linked to the rest of the essay, but the upshot is that

1. The GC approach is mistaken, for the reasons set out above.
2. Therefore the TRA position must be correct because it's equality, innit.

... it's a pity because the attacks on the GC position are a reasonable position and I would have been happy to read something high quality on this....

Same old same old. I do like annandale pointing out that we may perhaps have thought of these things already.

It's clearer and clearer that some academics writing on this are so far behind the curve that it's embarrassing to read. Surely they have an impreative to try to say something new and not just resort to posting that they don't like women that are unbelievers.

I get that they're desperate to try to shore up a shaky legal situation for their pals but it's so blatantly biased any objectivity has gone out the window. Be kind...………..unless of course you are a believer then you can just point and say, I don't like those people.

They're behind the curve because things are happening in the real world and they are now, after the event, trying to retrofit an intellectual framework to explain why it's all OK.

We've seen what's going on, we've seen that the justifications for it are gobsmackingly bogus, and we're now tackling this in the real world. While academics like Conaghan have developed a keen interest in their own fundament.

a feminism...that invokes an exclusionary definition of womanhood

What utter claptrap. It's nonsense. Horses aren't women. Cups aren't women. Fields aren't women. Word definitions are not 'inclusive' or meant to be, they can't be without losing any meaning.

Waterparc - thank you, that is helpful. I read the article again (slooooowly) with what you said in mind.

She's just wagging a finger at the gender critical feminists who don't think a penis is a female body part and so are not doing feminism properly.

She talks about marginalized groups enriching feminism. What about marginalised groups like the female prisoners sexually assaulted by Karen White. What are they? Collateral damage to this wonderful new brand of feminism.

I don’t teach my daughter to “be kind” indiscriminately

Good point. When it's put like that, you see it start to wander into all kinds of meanings, some of which are patronising (be kind to that group) or which encourage surrender of normal boundaries (girls saying they are uncomfortable to shower with a male should be reminded to be kind.) It also gets used to guilt women into self sacrifice without desire for reciprocation - an old fashioned virtue, but one that mostly modern feminism and most people have a problem with.

What's the quote? 'You keep using that word - I do not think you know what it means.'

"What about marginalised groups like the female prisoners sexually assaulted by Karen White. What are they? Collateral damage to this wonderful new brand of feminism"

yep, I hadn't thought of that.

It’s from The Princess Bride:

Only a saint would have been able to resist such a name-change....

Joanne Conaghan's argument is based on the nebulous ideological premise that trans women are women.

Hence it's a non starter. And everything else that follows is based on assumptions following on from that ideological viewpoint.

It's poor and lacks intellectual weight.

It's poor and lacks intellectual weight.

Hmmm. She has been Head of School of Law at University of Bristol for the past 4 years and was involved with (led?) a scholarly exploration of law and gender relationship, published as part of the Clarendon Law series.

The sort of person I would normally want to listen to even if their views and mine did not coincide. Trouble is that I really did not understand her paper.

"is not a feminism with which I wish to be associated". Given her seniority where does that leave GC students or junior staff? My DS has just started a PhD (not in law!) and strong academic references were very very important when he was applying.

It would be a game changer for me if, as a parent, I was going to send my child to study law at that University.

So 'hmmm' away, but my support and money counts at the end of the day.

It's clearer and clearer that some academics writing on this are so far behind the curve that it's embarrassing to read.

It's absolutely the case. And not just in academia but in the entire mediating class of politics, institutions, third sector and media, with a few honourable exceptions. It's embarrassing, really, especially when you consider what they're trying to prop up is jelly baby brains aligning with jelly baby bodies.

I am not disagreeing.

DS put a lot of effort into deciding where he wanted to study for his PhD. I assume potential law PhDs do the same. And a department with a major interest in gender relationships might well put those less interested (or less believing) off.

Bristol used to be very highly regarded for law. If I met anyone thinking of studying law at Bristol I would certainly say "are you sure?" Wilst other academics can probably be avoided, the Head of a School is likely to set the tone. And I honestly failed to understand the article. (Which I found retweeted by mimmymum when I had a brief look at the response of key Mermaids figures to the BigLottery review.)

I accept it is an intellectual step up from Mermaids' jellybaby brains. but the big words don't bring me any closer to understanding the whole gender thing.

MN FWR University rankings. Hull has just risen whilst Bristol has dropped a few places.

Bristol used to be very highly regarded for law. If I met anyone thinking of studying law at Bristol I would certainly say "are you sure?" Wilst other academics can probably be avoided, the Head of a School is likely to set the tone. And I honestly failed to understand the article.

I think this will always be the case when law attempts to incorporate ideology rather than material fact. And when careers depend upon doing it.