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 wasn't saying he was wrong because he's a man, Lisa (if it was me you were referring to in your post). It was because I couldn't imagine a woman suggesting that a woman would sexually assault someone who she thought might be a man.

I wasn't referencing yourself OldCrone I just noticed a few dismissals on that premise.

It was a huge wall of text, I'd have to go though it again to pick out specific parts I thought were interesting. I'm probably being naive, but I have noticed a wide variation of the different types of transwoman I find it difficult to believe they are all reaching for the same stereotypes. I think the focus that they are not women, of any real kind, is more important than than getting sidetracked into wishy-washy arguments about motivations.

Sounds like maybe you've got similar trans friends/acquaintances to mine. One thing I've noticed is that during/soon after transition, there's an immense emphasis on "performing femininity" (partly due to having to perform for the psychologists doing the assessment), then a drop-off as they relax into their new life (more jeans and trainers, less "must wear a skirt at all times.")

But I agree with you, the central philosophical point should be "regardless of passing, regardless of level of performing femininity, transwomen are biologically male, so where we are segregating spaces according to biological sex (sport, prison, changing rooms, overnight accommodation, health care provision), biological sex remains the important criterion."

However, I didn't see anything in the wall of text which actually addressed this. Simply "it's not stereotypes", "there isn't a threat" and "be nicer!"

I have noticed a wide variation of the different types of transwoman

You might find this article interesting, Lisa.

4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

Thankyou again OldCrone, I was passed that by a friend who is GC recently, it raises points I am having some problems with.

If the argument they are trans because stereotypes as a motivation, that 4thwavenow, proves the OP's article about stereotypes not being a motivation we can assign to TRA's.

I do not understand why there are so many wishy-washy arguments about all these theorised motivations than't be proven, why so many of us are playing those games when nobody I know gives a shit about any of that gender theory, good or bad, or even feminism.
These are people we have to convince to get involved, somehow.
They know intrinsically that transwomen are different to us, we all know this is what needs to be amplified.

It almost makes me want to embrace 'cis', and demonstrate the divide between us, but that would mean we are back-pedalling.
I would much rather we only ever referred to them as Trans, not trans women, or trans men, just trans. All of them together. 3 toilets. Male, Female, trans.

Am I going in the wrong direction here?

It's hilarious. You're allowed to ask about gender identity but only if you first make it absolutely clear that you will accept and believe in gender identity whatever the answer is. Talk about the Emporers new clothes.

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at there, Lisa, but re: stereotypes, here's one part of the article that I quoted earlier.

"most cis people are all too ready to dismiss a motivation for transition that they can’t relate to, and substitute something more familiar or more satisfying (like ‘they want to conform to stereotypes’, or ‘they’re deluded’ or ‘it’s a sexual thing’ or something even worse)."

I think that sums up most of the different reasons for transition. There may be other reasons, but the writer of the article doesn't suggest any others.

For most children it seems to be all about stereotypes. Why else would a child believe that they are the opposite sex? Another reason for children wanting to be the opposite sex is that they have been sexually abused, and they believe that if they were the opposite sex this wouldn't happen.

For adolescents and adults, there are other reasons which often start at puberty. These include being same-sex attracted, and in males, autogynephilia. Some people also experience disgust at their own genitalia and feel they need to be modified. But even in adults, stereotypes appear quite often to be a major factor.

People who truly believe that they are the opposite sex are suffering from a delusion, just like anyone else who believes that they are something they are not.

The article would have been more helpful if the author had suggested what other motivations there might be in people wanting to be the opposite sex, instead of just saying that we dismiss motivations that we can't relate to.

Then the issue I have is that, again, from my perspective the article is also right about ignoring all over evidence to try to preserve or make a counter argument.

I don't believe people transition for all those reasons, those that seem to be rejected by the trans community. I actually believe the worldwide medical consensus, and I believe in the current pathways and advice, and to continually dispute all that makes us all seem a bit too David Icke, if you know what I mean.

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far. I can't be doing with all obscure blogs and interpretations that both sides seem to love to do.

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory. Sorry, that is not for me, or the argument I am interested in here.

We are, and always will be different to transwomen and have different needs. I know this, and this is enough for me.

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far.

Could you please link this?

I have never seen reputable medical evidence to support anything other than watchful waiting in children and evidence that even in adults transitioning does not reduce suicidality nor improve the lives of a significantly large enough percentage of patients to warrant the risks.

I have certainly never seen evidence that humans can have 'brains trapped in the wrong sex body'.

Then the issue I have is that, again, from my perspective the article is also right about ignoring all over evidence to try to preserve or make a counter argument.

What do you mean by this? I don't ignore evidence - what I do is read, think, and decide what makes sense.

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far.

Can you explain more about this?

I can't be doing with all obscure blogs and interpretations that both sides seem to love to do.

I linked to 4th wave now because I thought it might help you understand about different types of people who are all described as 'trans', since you said something about transwomen all being different. I didn't link to it for my benefit, it was because I thought it might help you.

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

I do neither. I'm a scientist. I read and make up my own mind.

You do realise all the "current pathways" and "worldwide medical consensus" come from one organisation that obviously doesn't get challenged much? There is plenty of mainstream evidence that there are concerns with this approach.

GC people occupy themselves with these things because they perceive they are harmful to children who do not have the capacity to meaningfully consent, for the most part.

I don't believe people transition for all those reasons, those that seem to be rejected by the trans community.

Why do you think people transition, Lisa?

Who is this person? Is he from a reputable institution? I could not locate any identifying information.
I ask because in my admittedly limited exposure to philosophical writing I have not found descriptions of competing positions as “bogus” or intellectually valueless. The discussion is usually a little more, ah, nuanced and sophisticated.

I will read later and keep my big gob shut (see, I said I was going to keep my big gob shut!).

(But with regards to Does admitting transwomen make women's spaces less safe? He says not. How can a man possibly have the insight to answer that question?)

I have certainly never seen evidence that humans can have 'brains trapped in the wrong sex body'.

No, me neither. I believe in the existence of gender dysphoria as a psychological condition similar to body dysmorphia. I believe that it is very distressing. I think only a tiny percentage of the people claiming to be transgender have this condition.

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

Or we could remember that the medical industry have been taken in by quackery before. Lobotomies once enjoyed 'medical consensus'.

But why is it believe by some to be a real issue (so like arguing the existence of ghosts or the lock ness monster) rather than a neurological condition (like believing you are a wizard or cat)?

Either we believe the medical industry, or we believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

My problem is the medical industry doesn't seem to have showered itself in glory with trangender treatments, especially of children.

This "obsure blog" in the British Medical Journal by a professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford university is all I would have thought was needed to stop all prescribing of puberty blockers. But it seems not. I think it's down to lobbying, rather than conspiracy.

blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

None of the arguments stand up to any scrutiny.

most cis people are all too ready to dismiss a motivation for transition that they can’t relate to

1). People who identify as 'cis' do apparently believe they have a gender, and are generally happy to believe in gendered souls and all forms of trans ideology. People who don't identify as 'cis' shouldn't be called 'cis', and the writer shouldn't make any assumption about their identity.

2). It really isn't any of my business why somebody thinks they are trans. Nobody seems to be able to explain it in a way that doesn't involve sexist stereotypes, but people are free to believe in many things.

The problem is the conflation of sex with gender identity, which affects policy, services and sex based rights, and imposes gender ideology on all.

There is a broad understanding in medical terms that goes against the GC position I have been exposed to so far.

I understand why you might think this, and feel that going against the established medical position, for most non-medical people, amounts to a kind of conspiracy theory, just like vaccination conspiracy theories.

However what I would say is that while that may be an understandable assumption, it really is an assumption. What you find when you start really digging into the medical side of all of this is that the medical elements that have had consensus are really quite conservative, and the more modern approaches like puberty blockers, or affirmative care, etc, have very little evidence, were essentially experimental, and that somehow these were suddenly seen as the "standard" that needed to be met. The doctors and researches who did not agree were not small numbers, or unimportant, they were simply pushed out by politics - not medical consensus at all.

It does sound a bit crazy, but maybe it helps to realise that it is not the first medical fad of this kind. Psychiatric disorders are particularly prone to misunderstandings and fashion.

FWIW I found the thing that really made me realise that something was rotten was reading about Dr Zucker. Here was a man who had some of the greatest expertise in the world about childhood gender problems, who was the editor of the main journal on the subject, driven out of his job, and it had nothing to do with "medical consensus" unless you considered that he, the members of his clinic, and many others didn't count. Looking at how groups like the CBC or BBC have covered these cases is also quite an education.

Is there a worldwide medical consensus?

To have a medical consensus it seems that somebody would have to come up with a definition of trans that includes some and excludes others. However, that goes very much against the zeitgeist.

And I also don't think there would be such controversy about the Tavistock if there were medical consensus on treatment.

That is such a silly point about “the medical industry” (presumably he means profession). Even if there were consensus within the profession, which there is not, that consensus could be mistaken. See, for example, the refrigerator mother theory which mums of ASD kids were routinely beaten up with 40-50 years ago.

It really isn't any of my business why somebody thinks they are trans. Nobody seems to be able to explain it in a way that doesn't involve sexist stereotypes, but people are free to believe in many things.

I'm inclined to agree with this as far as adults are concerned, but when it comes to children, I think we do need to know why they think this. Healthy children are being put on lifelong medical pathways because they are unhappy about their 'gender'. Adults are encouraging these children to believe they can change sex, when in fact, the path they are on will simply lead to sterility and little or no sexual function as adults.

With children it is all about stereotypes. Children should be allowed to play with what they want and wear whatever types of clothes they want, not encouraged to believe that they can change sex.

Adults should be free to express themselves as they want, but we should all be clear that changing sex is not possible and males should be kept out of female spaces.