How British feminism became anti-trans - according to the New York Times

[NotTerfNorCis]

www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html

A surprisingly mainstream movement of feminists known as TERFs oppose transgender rights as a symptom of “female erasure.”

Beginning to suspect the writer has a bias...

There, the most vocal trans-exclusionary voices are, ostensibly, “feminist” ones, and anti-trans lobbying is a mainstream activity. Case in point: Ms. Parker told the podcast “Feminist Current” that she’d changed her thinking on trans women after spending time on Mumsnet, a site where parents exchange tips on toilet training and how to get their children to eat vegetables. If such a place sounds benign, consider the words of British writer Edie Miller: “Mumsnet is to British transphobia,” she wrote “what 4Chan is to American fascism.”

The term coined to identify women like Ms. Parker and Ms. Long is TERF, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In Britain, TERFs are a powerful force. If, in the United States, the mainstream media has been alarmingly ready to hear “both sides” on the question of trans people’s right to exist, in Britain, TERFs have effectively succeeded in framing the question of trans rights entirely around their own concerns: that is, how these rights for others could contribute to “female erasure.”

Jane Clare Jones has made coffee come out of my nose.

How do we get her analyses into the hands of someone important at NYT? Can we crowd fund to get it submitted via a solicitors letter or something?

How do we get her analyses into the hands of someone important at NYT?
It would be perfect published as a rebuttal in the NYT wouldn't it?

Sophie Lewis has also written this paper. She seems determined to make a link between gender critical feminism and Christian conservatives.

Defending Intimacy against What? Limits of Antisurrogacy Feminisms

In their moral opposition to prostitution (conflated with slavery) and cyborg human embodiment (which critics term “medical abuse”), the agendas of such feminisms and Christian conservatism overlap. ... This article analyzes the Euro-American and Australian anglophone feminist-abolitionist stance toward surrogacy, contextualizing it in relation to sex-worker-exclusionary antitrafficking, on the one hand, and transphobic imaginaries, on the other. These truncated abolitionisms, I argue, perform opposition to commodification rather than capitalism and encrypt profoundly antifeminist ideas under the guise of fighting patriarchy.

There's a link to the full article if anyone has the stomach for it (not sure I do).

Jeez Sophie.
All the word salad
Ffs

I can imagine it's somewhat disheartening when slowly, very slowly, it dawns on you that more and more people outside of the bubble either can't understand what you are saying, or outright respectfully disagree with it.
All of this just to say "British woman discussing their rights are nasty and my feeling are hurt because of it."

It's the inability to process that 98% of the world does not see gender the way you do and don't believe in gender ideology and stereotypes, but sex as it's a fact.

Hackmum - and the penis beaker I guess.

Dear Sophie makes links between British GC feminists and the American Christian Right.

The better question is “Where on earth are American LibFems”. If they were not all drinking from the same über strength Kool Aid bottle, perhaps they would be able to see what is right in front of them. (With the worth exceptions of those who have found their way here.)

I think MN FWR should demand a rebuttal and then submit the Jane Clare Jones article.

Sophie L has spent too long in the US and can no longer see that the rest of the world does not operate on the same basis.

Just cancelled my subscription and told them why.

trans-women-exclusionary radical pseudofeminists

Does that mean we’re TERPS now? Or the more accurate TWERPs, given that all the upset is about the feelings of transwomen rather than transmen?

Maybe at some point, if her ‘lesbian’ relationship fails, she will pop up on the transwidow thread.

She is clearly educated and academic (a first from Oxford, Fulbright Scholar, PhD) so the lack of understanding of basic stuff and the obscurity of her language are weird. Unless this is how you need to write to get a first?

She is clearly educated and academic

Means nothing really these days.

Anyone seen this?

www.nationalreview.com/corner/baseless-hit-piece-on-british-feminists-in-the-new-york-times/

Or this spectator.us/terfs-take-america/

Just cancelled my subscription and told them why.

Me too. I know it's an opinion piece, but NYT can choose what they publish and all I can do is vote with my feet.
Jane Clare Jones is such a brilliant and funny writer, she effortlessly makes these word-salad peddlers look ridiculous.

This article analyzes the Euro-American and Australian anglophone feminist-abolitionist stance toward surrogacy, contextualizing it in relation to sex-worker-exclusionary antitrafficking, on the one hand, and transphobic imaginaries, on the other. These truncated abolitionisms, I argue, perform opposition to commodification rather than capitalism and encrypt profoundly antifeminist ideas under the guise of fighting patriarchy.

Good username fodder there, if anyone needs a new one.

In their moral opposition to prostitution (conflated with slavery) and cyborg human embodiment

Ok, can anyone help me out here? What’s cyborg human embodiment?

Is it like robocop? I did not know feminists were opposed to that

Needmoresleep
Spectator article is very good

This is ripe for Private Eye's "Pseuds Corner"

Jane Clare Jones' rebuttal is one of the most magnificent pieces of writing I've ever read. Angry, withering, erudite, incredible.

Yes, it looks as if reporting is spreading from the Christian Right media (who have their own specific take) to a more mainstream and respected media. Hopefully they will recognise, like The Times and Spectator here, that there are a number of important angles to this debate that are worthy of editorial space.

sex-worker-exclusionary antitrafficking

Sorry what? That sounds like she supports sexual slavery?

sex-worker-exclusionary antitrafficking

Sorry what? That sounds like she supports sexual slavery?

Yes, I believe she means antiprostitution.

newsocialist.org.uk/labour-does-you-might-thinking-through-pregnancy-work-help-us-radicalise-politics-care/

‘Labour Does You’: Might thinking through pregnancy as work help us radicalise the politics of care?
by Sophie Lewis (@reproutopia) on December 26, 2018

In the new wave of antisurrogacy ‘RadFem’ activism spearheaded by figures like Kajsa Ekman, there is surprisingly little consideration of the fact that, when they campaign or mobilise around the world, surrogates themselves have repeatedly articulated demands as workers that are various, practical, and material. So extensive, in fact, are the overlaps between the ‘feminist’ anti-surrogacy lobbying formation and the anti-transgender and antiprostitution (or ‘antitrafficking’) camps —right down to their key players, funding sources and core arguments—that I’ve found it useful to coin the term “Surrogate-Exclusionary Radical Feminist” (SERF), to complement SWERF and TERF.

Again the language. Surrogate (the individual) exclusive rather than surrogacy (the act) exclusive.

I'd say Oxford graduates are just FLOCKING to prostitution and surrogacy to make a living.