Matthew Parris, GC gay man speaking out.

[CallMeSirShotsFired]

Matthew Parris, writing in this week's Spectator, has shown his GC side.

Just a couple paras in to his latest article, he comments: "...it has been particularly sad in 2018 to see the ‘trans’ movement, with its hopes of modernising and liberalising public attitudes, walking straight into the same trap.

Sticking names on things and badges on people, and spouting corrosive nonsense about ‘crossing’ from one sex or sexuality or ‘gender’ to another can only warp self-knowledge and our knowledge of each other...."

He also names the "trans lobby" in his final sentences, showing an understanding of the type of people he means by these actions.

www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/we-dont-need-new-categories-for-sexuality-we-need-to-abolish-categories/

Micke and hackmum, it might seem unlikely, but I promise you it is true. Effectively, women and men were believed to have the same genitalia, but women's was inverted, and therefore women were simply badly formed men.

OK, so their understanding of why was different, but they still knew that there were two types of people, and what the abilities of those people were - there were monasteries by the 4th century, and they were only putting men in them, and people knew how to breed animals by the neolithic period.

Just because they have different reasoning to get there, doesn't mean they didn't get to the exact same place - women - child-bearers, and men - seed-carriers.

Micke they believed both men and women produced seed. Yes, they did know that people with 'innies' for want of a better expression could become pregnant, but they didn't necessarily believe they were a different sex with different anatomy to people with 'outies'. Also, they believed sex was not fixed, for example, if a woman became overheated her genitalia could pop out and she'd become a man. There are examples (I'm guessing allegorical) of this happening. So yes, they knew how to breed animals but it wasn't because they recognised male and female, but because they recognised perfect genitalia vs imperfect.

Monasteries - in the fourth century, religious orders were not always single sex, it wasn't until around the 11th that it was felt necessary to sequester women away from men and even then it took some time for it to become accepted as the norm. Also, it was a case of how do you define a man? When celibacy became compulsory for religious men there was a debate about whether they still counted as men.

just once I'd like someone to use the word 'sex' instead of 'gender' when they actually mean 'men and women'. people as smart as Matthew Parris should know better.

Yes, he should. It is a sloppy piece of writing, particularly in the current noxious climate.

Incidentally, The Spectator doesn't allow the word 'sex' in the comments, so you have to write s£x or sex which makes writing and reading them particularly painful, and only adds to the impression that talking about biological sex is somewhat smutty. If you're reading this, James Kirkup, perhaps you could have a word with the editor about that, please?

Up until the late 18th century people didn't have a perception of biological sex in the sense that male and female were distinct.

I would argue that the many and varied "remedies" for preventing pregnancy and causing abortion that were certainly known and and written about in the medieval period demonstrate that people did have a view that women had different internal bits than men

But we digress

I agree with saskia about pre 19th century understanding on sexual difference. It's quite a well researched are and v interesting so should be better known. But it's contested as to how far people (rather than physicians and their learned texts) really thought of sex as mutable (or on a sliding scale) in the way humoral theory would suggest. If people want to Google it's been called the one sex model. There is good evidence of galenic ideas used in medicine well into 19th c.

Saskia in your original quote is parris referring to sexuality rather than the two sex categories? It would make more sense to me. Haven't had a chance to read the article yet.

I've name changed because it's connected to my research area.

I think he's raising quite an interesting point about how much more fluid sexual orientation may turn out to be as the structural and social stigmas against homosexuality continue to fall away. I didn't read that as him saying that no-one is exclusively straight or gay, more that perhaps more people are capable of switching between same and opposite partners throughout life than previously expected.

The controversy in what Parris has said, surely, is that some of those people may be declared gay already "because they can't help it," but actually their gayness might be circumstantial - which flies in the face of "innate sexuality" arguments made 20+ years ago. I can also imagine it would be quite an upsetting idea for people who are exclusively same sex attracted and went through hell because of it!

It also makes for quite a good explanation for why all these wet-behind-the-ears kids think they are discovering queerness. Just because you look up and see your parents coupled up heteronormatively, doesn't mean there's all sorts of youthful experimentation in their pasts they consider to be no-one's business.

MP - seems to be getting a bit of stick in this thread for the content and style in this article - I thought it was excellent - my take away messages - STOP creating more and more labels for things that have always existed - STOP - Trying to force yourself into a category by claiming you are Transing. He says very clearly nobody in realitity Transitions - from sex to sex or gender to gender - A thoughtful and nuanced piece which is what is needed from a range of voices - We need more voices from labour- which used to be my party and now seems to practise Group Think on this topic