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?

Please could you link to evidence showing that 1000’s of experts exist?

I thought Lisa might have meant the membership of WPATH, but that has only about 2000 members, which include campaigners like Susie Green and Stephen Whittle as well as 'experts'. No idea where the 100,000s figure comes from.

www.wpath.org/member/search/results?showAll=1

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.

I made this point earlier but Lisa isn't listening.

I made this point earlier but Lisa isn't listening.

I made lots of points earlier, but Lisa hasn't listened to any of them. It's almost like Lisa doesn't want to know about anything that contradicts Lisa's opinions and assumptions.

Maybe third time lucky then Erish. I'll have another go later on, see if it sticks this time.

LisaVito I think the thing that worries me with the current Trend is a lot of young people, especially females, identifying as trans at puberty. I'm really not sure we've ever had this phenomenon let alone on tgis scale.

I've heard arguments for it, such as a more accepting climate, but I don't buy that as I think it'd mean people also5 identifying at different ages in equally high numbers.

I definitely think one can be gender critical and support trans people. But I do really worry about medicalisation of children/found adults.

Anyway, you do not need to answer my post but I wanted to reply to yours.

My concerns around treatment are that sometimes what is offered is not necessarily in the person's best interests.

There was a fascinating Scandinavian documentary called something like Trans Train, with subtitles, which explored these topics. One alarming bit was the decisions were seen as a kind of joint 'effort' (my words) between the doctor, the parents and the young person. I found that alarming.

Normally it is relatively clear with medical matters what will be the best way ahead for a patient. Patients may choose an alternative route or choose no treatment etc, but medical plans will be clearly beneficial for the patient (even if in a limited way).

With the treatment of some young trans people it seems IMHO more complex.

There is a fascinating bit of footage of a famous lesbian blogger and a trans guy critiquing four young de transitioned women and admitting that some people who think they are trans are really not.

So it's very complex and I don't have any easy answers but am trying to remain open minded because so much is at stake.

The fact is there has been almost no research about the teen girl issue available, because it was so new and sudden, but those girls were put on a path designed largely with an entirely different population in mind.

Totally agree Goose.

Just as an aside it was Arielle Scarcella critiquing the Pique Resistance video, not negatively but commenting on it.

It was interesting but I didn't watch it all (it's long) and I don't necessarily agree with everything said!

But I felt it was interesting that so many different voices are being heard.

Four years ago I think the voices heard were so much more limited, so there is hope.

I think it is also worth saying not all these girls are lesbians. There seems to still be a misconception around this but I wonder how much sexuality does plat into feelings. E.g. not being at all happy with traditional 'female sexual roles' but also not being lesbian either. Just wondering.

I've heard arguments for it, such as a more accepting climate, but I don't buy that as I think it'd mean people also identifying at different ages in equally high numbers.

You'd also expect the male/female ratio to remain similar. Children who identified as transgender used to be mostly male. ROGD mainly affects girls.

OldCrone that is very true.

Is it my imagination or when 'we' start talking about trans men insteas of trans women, does the conversation seem to dry up?