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'm really happy to follow medical consensus where it actually exists and is evidence based - otherwise doctors would still be bleeding people and telling women they have wondering wombs.

I just don't think a medical consensus exists on this issue, mainly because the research and analysis doesn't yet exist.

I am not sure the research will ever be done because 'gender' is what is between your ears, so I am told. So it's all very personal to each individual.

What I would like to see is reseaech into gender dysphoria which it seems for some (especially teenage females) is acrually a sexual dysphoria with the body not with clothing etc.

Well, lots of research is done in relation to what happens between peoples ears; my concern is, in this climate, whether that will be done in the right way. Can we examine, for example, the potential role of undiagnosed ASDs, or past abuse, in teenage girls presenting as transgender? Or is it transphobic to suggest that something g other than being g transgender might underlie that presentation?

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.

This is true, a consensus can be really wrong. But it is a little trickier for most of us, who are not experts in a scientific field, to say well, we know better than all the climate scientists, or all the doctors who say vaccination is good. The burden to oppose that seems fairly high and if you are going to do it, you really need to get into the details of the research.

I think for many of us what we are saying is that there is not medical consensus despite claims that there is, and if it seems like there is it is only because disagreement has been actively squashed.

merrymouse I totally agree with your post at 17:21.

My issue with the article is the rather pompous wall of text, refering to the reader as dear, and constantly saying he may be wrong but in a way that you know he thinks he isn't.

That and dismissing a gender critical position based on his view that other people he trusts don't agree with it! Hardly scientific or academic!

big oil I think it would be viewed as trabsphobic! We do research what goes on on people's minds yes, but I fear we are in new territory now. Old certainties are gone. Your reality now has the right to break into my reality!

Can we examine, for example, the potential role of undiagnosed ASDs, or past abuse, in teenage girls presenting as transgender? Or is it transphobic to suggest that something other than being transgender might underlie that presentation?

But what exactly does 'being transgender' mean?

One bit he has got right IMHO is that for some people the stereotypes are not really the thing!

Yes if you watch 'Good Morning Britain' or whatever it is called you will see loads of parents with kids who are boys who like pink and dolls or girls who do not etc.

If you read the local paper there are plenty of stories there, "I dressed up with my sisters and now want to be a girl" etc. But when it comes to teenage girls who suddenly start wanting to be boys at 13 it seems much more mixed.

Yea, autism is a big factor or so I believe.

These females don't necessarily like traditional 'boy's pursuits' but they do feel dysphoric. I also assumed many were lesbians but increasing hear about gay trans boys, e.g. attracted to males.

So I do think it is quite complex and mixed.

But if we kept sex-based protections and protected children from surgeries and drugs then trans people could identify as they wish and be much more supported in society. The worries around children's health and protection of womem are the things that cause so much division and I am not sure this man in his article really tackles either.

I am not sure the research will ever be done because 'gender' is what is between your ears, so I am told.

So why does it affect which toilets you use, or which sports team you play on?

I think it’s important to recognise that in fields of medicine which concern the operation of the mind there are abundant examples of consensus later being shown to be mistaken. Our understanding of autism is an excellent example. There is much we believe today that will no doubt be shown to be wrong.
Anyone peddling certainties in this realm should attract scepticism.

I endorse your question crone. I’m well aware that when people talk about being transgender neither I nor I suspect they know precisely what they mean.
To take ASD again; broadly speaking I think that would still be diagnosed on the basis of the triad of impairments. There is no equivalent diagnostic theory in relation to transgenderism so far as I am aware. Indeed it is transphobic now even to think of it as a condition requiring diagnosis, to some anyway.
So what is it?
You may as well try to nail jelly to the wall.

These females don't necessarily like traditional 'boy's pursuits' but they do feel dysphoric.

It seems to be more about not being a woman than being a boy/man. We should really be investigating why so many girls think that being a woman is such a negative thing.

But if we kept sex-based protections and protected children from surgeries and drugs then trans people could identify as they wish and be much more supported in society. The worries around children's health and protection of womem are the things that cause so much division and I am not sure this man in his article really tackles either.

Totally agree with this.

These females don't necessarily like traditional 'boy's pursuits' but they do feel dysphoric.

TBH I'd almost be inclined to say that having body dysphoria is a sign that you really are female.

It's got to be well over 50% of teenage girls that have it to some extent, often focused on their breasts or menstruation issues, and many women have it intermittently throughout their life, in response to pregnancy, or nursing, or ending nursing, ending fertility, the body ageing.

What is it they are telling these kids sex dysphoria is, because it seems to me when they talk about it it is just discomfort with their adult body or sexuality. I can't see that being very similar to the experience of the adult transitioners I know.

I am really shocked by some of the responses on here.
I'm here to fight for the rights of women and girls, I have no problem with trans people, except when their rights impinge on mine as an actual old-school woman with an uterus.

I don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted, I'm not stupid.
I'm not into the conspiracy theory nonsense, if someone wants to believe in them, thats fine, but not for me.
And I really don't believe they play out well to the general public.

Ive seen conspiracy theories, just as I have seen the most persuasive science and stats to prove the earth is flat.

Gender dysphoria is well established, at least a framework of understanding exists, of which there is a worldwide consensus, medical facilities of many countries around the world use the same treatment pathways. They dont do them blindly, they see the results, and thats how these medical pathways are formulated.
If anyone spent a couple days researching this, it is fairly easy to establish. I don't understand why everyone is demanding details of anything I have said, this stuff takes two minutes to look up.

None of this has anything to do with what is important.
Too many people are fixated on stuff that makes us sound like we are some sort of cult. People believe in the NHS, people believe in medicine and the medical establishment.

Transwomen are different to me, with different needs, and that is enough. It should be enough for everyone.

I guess I am coming at this from a different angle to many others on here, it is an eye-opener.

TBH I'd almost be inclined to say that having body dysphoria is a sign that you really are female.

Certainly discomfort with your newly developed woman's body is so common place among teenage girls as to be un-noteworthy. Perhaps that is part of the problem? It is so very common place that adults too often dismiss concerns/discomfort instead of listening and helping teenage girls resolve their problems.

TBH I'd almost be inclined to say that having body dysphoria is a sign that you really are female.

Absolutely - and the concept of 'cis' imposes the lie that most people identify with periods, not being the fastest runner, pregnancy, giving birth, menopause etc. etc.

Transwomen are different to me, with different needs, and that is enough. It should be enough for everyone.

It isn't enough when children are being groomed for mutilation and sterilisation.

It isn't enough when women are losing our privacy, dignity, safety, sports, statistics.

It isn't enough when people are being forced, on pain of legal penalty, to lie about who is a man and who is a woman.

Sorry, but no, it isn't enough for me to say 'they're different'. They are different because they are male, XY people, a three letter word that apparently I'm not supposed to use for these NOT women. I need to be able to say so for MY mental health. Why is my well-being less important than theirs? Is it because they are NOT women per chance?

I think this whole thing is just a huge dead cat. A big smelly rotting dead cat.

Gender dysphoria is well established, at least a framework of understanding exists, of which there is a worldwide consensus, medical facilities of many countries around the world use the same treatment pathways. They dont do them blindly, they see the results, and thats how these medical pathways are formulated.

Has anyone on this thread said that gender dysphoria doesn't exist?

I'm not reading obscure blogs, I'm getting information from the BBC and the Guardian, and concerns are being expressed by staff members at the Tavistock.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47359692

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

I don't see what any of us are saying that is so shocking.

You don't think transwomen are women, you think they are biologically male. So do most of us.

Nonetheless you realise that genuine dysphoria about one's sexed body must be a pretty awful thing to experienec, and want transwomen to fulfilled, comfortable lives free from harassment and discrimination. So do most of us.

But you draw the line at a free for all when it comes to women's sex specific rights. So do most of us.

I'm completely failing to see why you think we're all so horrible, and quite what your prolonged exercise in fence-sitting is doing for you beyond giving you splinters.

I want to protect women's sports, women's prisons, women's shelters and refuges, women's single sex changing areas, hospital wards and overnight accommodation. That doesn't make me some sort of monster. It doesn't mean I, or my views, are horrible. It just makes me a woman who is centering the needs and rights of women.

Cross posted with Fekko who put it much more succinctly.

Yes, we're being subjected to a "ooh, look, dead cat" to distract us from the issue, which is that some bloke with a bigger ego than a brain has decided to post thousands of words of verbiage purportedly mansplaining feminism, while in fact saying nothing with any content whatsoever.

People believe in the NHS, people believe in medicine and the medical establishment.

You don't need to get your information from mumsnet. Go to the BBC. People who work for the NHS are concerned about puberty blockers.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145

All I am saying is, I am here because I share a gender-critical viewpoint.

I do not believe trans women are women.

I can believe this without having to believe every half-baked nonsense attached to a supposedly GC view.

I think some of the stuff posted here in this thread about the medical practices is deranged. I'm sorry I really do. I see it from TRA's and I'm happy to call it out here too.

I believe this is an argument that can and must be won without relying on trying to define the motivations, or experiences of transwomen, that no-one seems to be in any agreement over, except trans people themselves.

Either this is a fight for the rights of women and girls, or this a fight to define and label transwomen. I think one is distracting us from the other.

If anyone spent a couple days researching this, it is fairly easy to establish. I don't understand why everyone is demanding details of anything I have said, this stuff takes two minutes to look up.

Um, no it's not. That's why it's controversial, because the recommendations aren't well established at all. There has been little research on many, and increasingly as some is coming out it is very troubling. Do you really imagine that you have groups of psychologists involved in this quitting, or the director of a major clinic, and then going public with concerns, for no reason? Or the director of another clinic being fired and then the hospital having to apologise and make reparations, for no reason? Or an academic researcher being turned down funding by universities on much needed research because of the political implications, for no reason?

Surely you must have heard of cases, in the sciences, where this sort of thing has happened. We know this, because we now know what happened, something was happening for reasons other than good science. At what point to you start to wonder what is really going on? Only after someone else has done the work to establish it?

Either this is a fight for the rights of women and girls, or this a fight to define and label transwomen.

You don't have to subscribe to a particular set of views, either to be gender critical or to post on mumsnet. I have never agreed with everything I read on this board, and have never expected to and it's very clear that many GC people don't agree with each other.

I think there are two separate issues - one concerns medical malpractice and the other the conflicting rights of trans women and women.

However, they are clearly linked because doctors are complaining that they feel under pressure from lobbyists to provide treatment against their better judgement. I am not getting this information from some dark part of the internet. I'm watching Newsnight.