Philosopher responds to Jane Clare Jones et al

[thatdamnwoman]

I'm pretty sure that over the past week or two I've read an article by GC women philosophers pointing out the fallacious arguments that fellow philosophers use when trying to promote a pro-trans agenda. I've looked for it but can't find it. I anyone can point me to it I'd be grateful.

A contact of mine, someone who is a senior paediatrician, has posted this article which I think is a response to the original GC feminist one.

majesticequality.wordpress.com/2019/07/25/dear-philosophers-you-can-trust-the-feminist-consensus-gender-critical-radical-feminism-is-bogus/

My contact – someone who is in a position to be very influential in her hospital and area – says she's read it and it makes sense to her and she wants those of us who are circulating anti-trans articles to read it. She's already getting lots of likes and people saying yes, they agree, from loads of people, some of whom I recognise as being in the NHS.

I've given the article a cursory read but it's long and tortuous and I am so infuriated by the toxic tone that I can't be analytical. This is rubbish philosophical writing.

I see that Kathleen Stock has responded but I'm so shaken that someone I mistook for an intelligent, sensible woman has swallowed this shit and that other women are agreeing with her that I can't absorb Stock's response.

Is there anyone out there capable of boiling down both his argument and her response in plain English so that I can intervene with some sanity on FB?

I am a philosopher and have met this man's ilk too many times to count. Pompous smug twatbadger.

*misogynistic twatbadger

OP, I wonder if you could shift the debate amongst your contacts by posting something about the health impacts of the drugs and surgery used in transition. I came across this article recently: gdworkinggroup.org/2019/08/09/key-issues-in-decision-making-for-gender-transition-treatment-questions-and-answers/
This may not influence the philosopher who wrote that piece, but would give your friends something else to consider.

Some fool on Twitter posted it as a gotcha to me the other day. Where do you even start with it? Nearly 11k words of inane, ignorant word salad.

I stopped reading after the fifth "dear philosophers". Sneering and smug.

Oh, and badly written and argued.
I'd only share that for the lolz.

Yes, I think it's been posted as a gotcha too, because over the last couple of years I've been drip-feeding GC articles. That she has chosen this article, of all the anti-GC stuff available, to put up and admire and say she is persuaded by makes me want to weep. It's so bad, so illogical and gamey and twee, that it's almost impossible to argue with because as others have pointed out, there's really nothing there except a great steaming pile of pompous male misogyny.

I'm particularly worried because she is senior enough to influence policy not just within her hospital but her health board. Over the past year I've drip-fed her articles about the Tavistock and other rational feminist material. Does she really think this is a proper response to those?

Ask her why she thinks a man understands feminism and women's rights better than a group of feminist women.

If this man had something worth saying he'd be able to say it succinctly in plain English. Dressing it up in ten thousand waffle words simply demonstrates he has nothing of value to say. Those applauding his nothingness have fallen for the Emperor's New Clothes and lack the sense of a small child.

I particularly enjoy the bit where he witters about mass, charge and spin. Smacks of physics envy.

I think someone has read RMcKs thesis “Reasonable Assertions: On Norms of Assertion and Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About”

I think I'd be inclined to ask her what key points convinced her of the strength of his argument.

Is this a fb group, or just the normal feed? If the latter do you share a lot of fb friends? Eg will her friends already have seen the articles you have been posting or will this be the first they could have heard of the issue?

I also suggest you carry on sharing well written GC articles about key issues. It might feel like it's having no effect, but the fact that she chose absolute nonsense waffle to contradict it is telling. People normally choose clear concise arguments when they really believe they are right. That's the waffle of a conman.

I thought I'd been having a slow and steady effect. Lots of people who would previously have said 'It's a tiny minority of people, why can't you be kind?' are now much better informed and mostly GC. I even got some of them to boycott Pride.

I'm going to post Kathleen Stock's original article, the one that he's responding to, and the scholarly article on the effect of hormones on young people linked to above. I'll address the latter to the local paediatrician personally, saying I think she might be interested.

@Manderleyagain, this is my everyday feed. I decided at the end of last year that I needed to be out as GC and took the plunge and on the whole it's gone okay. There have been a few surprises but several others have joined me as out GC and a lot of others feel free enough to comment in a mildly worried, working-up-to-GC fashion. The worst part has been realising how utterly unpolitical and how irrational so many of the people I know are.

The other tactic you might employ is asking her to "explain" the article to you.

Say for instance that you've read it and in the section on what it is to be trans, you can see him asserting that being trans isn't about sex stereotypes and isn't about "being born in the wrong body", but you still can't make out what he thinks it is, and if he's going to make the assertion that transwomen are women, he needs to be able to say what women and transwomen actually are in order to make this assertion.

Thank you, Fermat's. I get so furious at the tone of the thing I can't apply what brain I have.

he's going to make the assertion that transwomen are women, he needs to be able to say what women and transwomen actually are

I like that. I think “woman” is frequently described in terms of “not-man”. You see this in sports. Transwoman says “but my performance has dipped since starting on hormones. I can no longer compete with men.” Based on that they conclude that it is fair they be allowed to compete with other not-men”

I've been very surprised a few times with articles people I know have posted, educated people, on this topic or others, which they clearly saw as a "gotcha" scenario. But they just were terrible.

It kind of makes you wonder.

He also wrote that gender critical feminists would (after asking if some was a female in the female toilets and being told yes) that the GC feminists would then sexually assault that person to check. Also did not touch on changing rooms where people may be naked and even more vulnerable as I guess that is too hard to argue. He also said that GC feminists feel that all people shouldn't transition as there is no need as they are fine the way they are (i am sure some people feel like this for various reasons), but personally I don't care if they transition as long as they are not hurting or violating other people's safe spaces which I feel is the shared goal of all GC people.

I tried to read it before but my brain hurt.

It's very easy now to want to be 'nice' (because being perceived as being nasty is just so nasty) so a lot of people want to be nice. I wonder if this is just his way of trying to be on the nice team.

Completely forgetting that some of us have to try and be nice (speaking for myself) and gender critical and to support trans rights and women's rights too. It's such a mess and it didn't need to be tgis way!

I do think the failure to recognise trans people as distinct from the sex they identify as has caused so much of this current problem, and the perceived backlash. So many women would have continued to be supportive and so many young people would not be being lied to.

It's so badly written that I'm astonished that people are saying it's persuasive. Have they really read it?

He also wrote that gender critical feminists would (after asking if some was a female in the female toilets and being told yes) that the GC feminists would then sexually assault that person to check.

What sort of woman would read that and think that this man had a persuasive argument?

Huh, I'm kinda new to this but there was some things in there that have made me think a little if I'm honest. I think to sweep them all away because it's a man is behaving like the TRA cult. Lets not forget a lot of women say similar things. They are all wrong, but there is no point dismissing everything, better to be objective about any points he makes that have good optics and find better ways to counter them.

What are the good things you found in there, Lisa? Interested to know. It was something of a wall of text (to put it mildly) so I may have missed something.

What good points did you think he made, Lisa?

He also wrote that gender critical feminists would (after asking if some was a female in the female toilets and being told yes) that the GC feminists would then sexually assault that person to check.

Right, so women, many of whom are rape and sexual assault victims who demand female space because we've been assaulted, would assault a presumed female person to check she was female? Is is possible to sue for defamation against your sex class?