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?

It’s A level results day tomorrow. I’m worried for her. It’s not going to go well.

Hee hee

I'm am really interested to know which part is a conspiracy. #tumbleweed

I do not believe some of the hogwash in this thread and conspiracy nonsense

It would be helpful if you could point out the bits of the thread that include ‘conspiracy nonsense’.

I don’t understand why a BBC report about clinicians’ concerns would be regarded as conspiracy nonsense.

I'm am really interested to know which part is a conspiracy. #tumbleweed

I’ve checked behind the cushions, maybe they’re down the back of the sofa?!

I wonder why we feel compelled to engage with people who use these tactics. If you decline to give substance to your allegations, if giving evidence or explaining your assertions is beyond you, then fuck off. you don’t get to accuse people of all sorts of error, produce nothing to back it up, and still get treated as a serious human being.

I particularly dislike the attempt to === gc views and flat-earth and anti-vax. I recognise that from some of the young/naive/tra (lowercase) twitter stuff, so it tells me who this person listens to.

Interesting that anti-vaxers should be mentioned as I was perusing this article regarding certain anti-vaxers and the 'treatment' they developed for autism from 2009 just yesterday.

sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemical-castration-for-autism-after-three-years-the-mainstream-media-finally-notices/

Why yes, it is our old friend Lupron, being pushed on autistic children.

4th Wave Now had linked both this and an accompanying article by the Chicago Tribune at the time, but the latter does not seem to be accessible from the EU unfortunately.

I consider myself a relatively able philosopher having multiple philosophy degrees, and I found that SO boring. I mean I read what other people had written about it being unreadable, and I thought surely it can’t be that complex? I mean I know Derrida can get a little dense but it’s still readable.

So I thought I’d have a crack. Nup. Got too bored.

From the first section that I managed to work through the analysis is this: it’s a straw man; his critique of the GC view is in fact what he’s doing himself. Creating a caricature of the GC view, criticising that, and then saying “and that’s why they’re wrong.” By deliberately avoiding the most penetrating aspects of the GC critique of trans ideology, he just waffles for an extended period.

As mentioned above, he fails to actually discuss clearly what it means to be trans, and what that means without non-circular definitions or non-stereotype references. So it becomes hard to take him seriously.

"Typical tactics from Lisa. No specific points; no detailed arguments. Some generalised insults - never able to point to specifics to demonstrate their point.
Then run away.
It’s A level results day tomorrow. I’m worried for her. It’s not going to go well."

Typical? I've been on here for five minutes, and I consider myself Gender-critical.
I didn't run away, I don't particularly want to debate conspiracy theory nonsense, with who see value in it.
Why would I seriously want to spend my spare time discussing what I consider to be full-on crazy.
Someone just said the BBC had something about the Tavi and resignations, as though it somehow usurps global discussions and practices in treatment of trans people.

The BBC don't know anything about what is valid, and what the Tavi does is irrelevant anyway. There is a world out there, of which the Tavi is not significant. The A.P.P. is ahead of the Tavi.

Picking individuals, or individual clinics, is exactly what I am talking about, and as stated in the article, these are perfect examples of cherry-picking outside the bell curve to preserve a erroneous belief.

If defending womens rights from trans rights relies on denigrating the medical community and shouting Big Pharma, then we have already lost.

Sorry I was meaning the A.A.P. above, and the affirmation model.

www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Policy-Statement-Urges-Support-and-Care-of-Transgender-and-Gender-Diverse-Children-and-Adolescents.aspx

what the Tavi does is irrelevant anyway. There is a world out there, of which the Tavi is not significant. The A.P.P. is ahead of the Tavi.

I take it you're not in the UK. The Tavi is not 'irrelevant' here, since it is the only gender clinic for children.

What is the APP? Why is it relevant?

And please do tell us what you think are 'conspiracy theories' that you are accusing people on here of 'seeing value in'.

I tried but it is unreadable. Frankly gender ideology is at the same level of flat Earth, it cannot be debated. I find myself unable to counter it intelligently, because it is bullshit. Pure and simple. When you have to start from the premise that a biological male is a female if he says he is, there is nowhere to go. I refuse to debate this.

So Lisa, why do you think the American Academy of Pediatrics is more relevant to us in the UK than the Tavistock clinic? I don't follow the logic here.

Frankly gender ideology is at the same level of flat Earth, it cannot be debated. I find myself unable to counter it intelligently, because it is bullshit. Pure and simple.

I couldn't have put it better, AlessandraAsteriti. I've been fighting this ideology for years but every so I suddenly stop and a sense of disbelief sweeps over me that ANYONE is seriously trying to promote the idea that a man can be a woman "in life and in law" (as Posie Parker said). It's stark staring bonkers. Utter piffle.

Thanks for the revised link, OldCrone. Very helpful.

Far more so than your posts, Lisa. You aren't making a lot of sense. Please be more explicit if you have points to make.

Why the A.P.P. as an example is important is because it's an expert in paediatrics to the tune of 64,000 people, and as such, is always a pretty good reflection of medical opinion on a global scale.

This is just an example of global best practices, and if you look at what the worldwide consensus advocates, then listen to the people who have resigned from the Tavi, the agenda is clear.

The best practice model developed by 100,000s experts globally over a number of years, is in direct opposition with the beliefs of the staff at the Tavi who have resigned.

The Tavi is not seen as any kind of gold standard leader in trans care, in fact it is widely regarded as being behind the times, by many trans people themselves.
So when you consider that multiple staff members working there up until recently advocate something that goes against majority medical opinion and research such as the A.P.P. then things start to make sense as to why they are regarded as incompetent.

I'm not interested in discussing other peoples fever dreams and things that would make David Icke blush.
I'm giving an opinion, nobody has to like it, and I am free to give it, and not be sealioned after every post I make.

I am gender critical, I believe their are differences between women and transwomen, I don't believe much of the nonsense and conspiracy theories that seem to go and hand-in-hand with a lot of gender-critical output.

I trust I am allowed to believe what I choose, and I am not required to sign up for groupthink? If that is the case please take this post as my last in this discussion, and accept my opinion as it is for what it is.

Hopefully I have set a boundary that will be respected, please don't ask me to explain anything further of my opinion.
I find it unsettling, and a little jarring to have it done in such a way that feels excessively passive-aggressive.

Thanks everyone.

@LisaVito I would genuinely be interested in your views on the APP as against the views of staff who have left the Tavi.

I'm in the UK with a young trans relative, consider myself gender critical and a feminist. Although, actually, probably more OK with some aspects of trans ideology then some here. Whether that puts me not fully in the gender critical camp, who knows!

I'm going to try to respond to each of the points you have made, Lisa, because there is a lot of misinformation in your post.

Why the A.P.P. as an example is important is because it's an expert in paediatrics to the tune of 64,000 people, and as such, is always a pretty good reflection of medical opinion on a global scale.

This is from the AAP website.
Welcome to the official site of the American Academy of Pediatrics - an organization of 67,000 pediatricians committed to the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.

Obviously, not all of those 67,000 pediatricians are 'experts' in transgender issues in children, so it is a little misleading to present that number as being relevant to this discussion. There is no reason to consider the much smaller number who work in this area as more representative or more knowledgeable about gender issues than the staff at the Tavistock.

This is just an example of global best practices, and if you look at what the worldwide consensus advocates, then listen to the people who have resigned from the Tavi, the agenda is clear.

The best practice model developed by 100,000s experts globally over a number of years, is in direct opposition with the beliefs of the staff at the Tavi who have resigned.

Is there a "worldwide consensus"? And is there really a "best practice model"? This is an under researched area where we are very far from any sort of consensus about how to approach this. That is indicated by the resignations of staff from the Tavistock who felt that some of the treatment given was inappropriate. I am concerned that the "agenda" is indeed clear, with some of the concerns stated by the staff being that the treatment sometimes amounted to gay conversion therapy, and that some of the children might have been victims of sexual abuse.

The beliefs of the staff who resigned were that the children were not receiving appropriate treatment, indicating that they thought that the "best practice", as you describe it, was not in the best interests of the children.

I'll come back to the other points later, I have other things I need to do now.

The best practice model developed by 100,000s experts globally over a number of years, is in direct opposition with the beliefs of the staff at the Tavi who have resigned.

Oh, the whistleblowers, you mean? That's kind of what happens when you disagree with the way things are going in an institution and believe people need to know about it because it's in the public interest.

You seem extremely naive. Or disingenuous. Not quite sure which.

Hi Italiangreyhound, I'm happy to chat in good faith.
I am happy to support trans people, and work out the best ways to uphold safeguarding and to prioritise the safety of women and girls.
I've followed these discussions from afar, and consider myself a feminist.
I feel like I've gone down a rabbit-hole in the last couple of weeks as I have got more involved.

I believe trans people, and their own experiences are valid.
I have friend who is very GC, and I have a friend who has a cousin who is a transwoman.

I believe I can be gender critical and support transwomen.

I have taken time to read and listen to both sides and make my own mind up.
The A.P.P. is just an example, but these opinions are replicated across the world in the majority.

Best practice is not perfect or infallible, but it is 'BEST' practice, ALL things considered.
Of course some people want to consider some things and ignore others, which is why we leave it to experts to decide what is 'best', and what treatment is most likely to have positive results.

As I said, if you read what those who have resigned say, then compare it to best practices, they are advocating the opposite, and resigning because the Tavi is moving 'towards' best practices.
Some people have resigned and have an opinion that is different to the vast majority, that makes it a fringe opinion. Such as climate-change deniers and anti-vaxxers as I alluded to earlier.

This is really, really simple.

Leave out the conspiracy theories, and the blatant lies about trans people and focus on rights. This is precisely why we are watching endless trans supportive laws passed, people dont believe the conspiracy theories, and stop listening to everything else too, even when we are making a strong point.
We have already shown we are debating in bad-faith.

The A.P.P. is just an example, but these opinions are replicated across the world in the majority.

Best practice is not perfect or infallible, but it is 'BEST' practice, ALL things considered. Of course some people want to consider some things and ignore others, which is why we leave it to experts to decide what is 'best', and what treatment is most likely to have positive results.

OK, Lisa, this is where you and I differ in our approach. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying that whatever the majority says, you will agree with, and if the majority of "experts" are saying something, then you believe that to be true and that it should not be questioned. This means that if a number of other experts disagree, then you will dismiss their opinion, because it disagrees with the majority. Is that a fair description of your position?

As I said, if you read what those who have resigned say, then compare it to best practices, they are advocating the opposite, and resigning because the Tavi is moving 'towards' best practices. Some people have resigned and have an opinion that is different to the vast majority, that makes it a fringe opinion. Such as climate-change deniers and anti-vaxxers as I alluded to earlier.

The people who resigned did so because they felt, from their first-hand experience of meeting these patients and treating them, that their best interests were not being served. As Ereshkigal says, these people are whistleblowers, who by definition are disagreeing with the people they were working for. Your view appears to be that there are people at the top who are always right, and that anyone who disagrees must therefore be wrong. Have you ever considered that the people at the top, being human, might sometimes get things wrong?

Leave out the conspiracy theories, and the blatant lies about trans people and focus on rights. This is precisely why we are watching endless trans supportive laws passed, people dont believe the conspiracy theories, and stop listening to everything else too, even when we are making a strong point.

I've asked you several times about these 'conspiracy theories' that you keep talking about. Can you be more specific?

We have already shown we are debating in bad-faith.

I think you may well be.

Looking through the scientific literature, there's an distinct lack of any meaningful controlled trials in the trans treatment pathway.

So there may be a consensus, but without research backing it up, it's in no way 'best practice'. It's just a lot of medics who have decided to do things the same way.

The medical profession has a long and inglorious history of doing stuff that seemed sensible at the time, but when someone finally did research on the effectiveness of the treatment it turned out to be useless or indeed harmful.

This has the making of another scandal IMO - off label drugs with potentially devastating side effects used on kids? I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole professionally.

Just another look at what @LisaVito considers to be persuasive arguments.

Lisa tells us that we should look at what is considered 'best practice' and 'consensus' and 'majority medical opinion'. This despite the fact that very little research has been carried out, and what results there are do not indicate that what Lisa describes as 'best practice' is in the best interests of the children who are being treated.

Lisa says that we should ignore people who disagree with this so-called 'best practice', because they (according to Lisa) are in a minority, and therefore wrong, simply by being a minority.

Lisa thinks that people who post on here are in thrall to conspiracy theories and other nonsense, lack critical thinking skills and have fallen prey to groupthink. Lisa is unable to provide any examples of the conspiracy theories which we apparently all believe in.

Here are some of the things that Lisa compares to conspiracy theories.

This article in the BMJ was linked earlier in the thread.
blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

More concerns about puberty blockers here:
www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/archdischild-2018-315881.full_.pdf

Some endocrinologists have voiced concern about this treatment of children.
gdworkinggroup.org/2018/10/24/the-gender-identity-phantom/

www.scribd.com/document/421298610/Gender-Dysphoria-Resource-for-Providers-3rd-Edition

This is not conspiracy theory nonsense. This is actual concern about the effect of this unethical practice on children who are too young to consent to such treatment.

"Gender experts" worldwide aren't actually that great in number, so I don't understand talking about a hundred thousand experts. The vast majority of doctors dealing with this stuff are not involved in the development of protocols or doing research.
There are really only relatively few clinics that were involved in developing the different protocols, and there hasn't been consensus about which out to be used, because the research has never been there to support any particular one. What happened instead is certain types of approaches came under political scrutiny, that's not really the same thing.

Nor is it at all unheard of in the sciences, or medicine. My husband, my extended family are all largely in the sciences or health care, political factors are involved with research decisions, or decisions about how to present research, all the time. I can only think anyone who doesn't know this must not be involved in any sort of scientific field.

In any case, to say the APP doesn't make political decisions is simply untrue, they do so all the time. And for that matter the Gp's group in the UK (or England?) the name of which escapes me now has just come out waning about the lack of research on outcomes.

Oh for goodness sake, it isn't thousands of experts who have reached any views. Their professional bodies are led by a tiny number of people. A tiny number of people set the guidelines/protocols they work to. No clinician has the time to read all the relevant literature & come to a conclusion about best practice. They'd have no time to do anything else if they did that.

lisa, on one hand you dismiss posters as being anti scientific, and on the other you dismiss the opinion of people working at the only medical centre in the UK that treats gender dysphoria.

If you want to argue that specific reporting on this subject is irrelevant you need to explain why. Please could you link to evidence showing that 1000’s of experts exist? Can you explain how their opinions contradict concerns expressed by people working at the Tavistock?