R4 Today (28 Feb): Tom Holland interview equating trans debate to the Reformation

[boatyardblues]

Tom Holland précis: only a small number of people so not sure why its so heated (“roiling”), society is a bit behind in its thinking, we just need to be nice to the oppressed. I think Justin was interviewing but he made the point some people feel like the trans stuff was agreed at a meeting by a group of youngsters and the rest of us didn’t get the email. (Nice one!)

Anyway, what a load of shite. If you try to unilaterally change the meaning of words and upend scientifically observable reality and then try and force it on everyone, it affects every man, woman and child in society - not just the “tiny number” of people pushing it. As for the ‘be nice’ argument - well, we should consider the needs of everyone in society to have their rights, bodily autonomy, dignity and safety respected.

The Reformation took four monarchs (govt of the time), two of them long reigning, a fuckton of executions and burnings to try and force and scare the nation into co operation, the public feeling against the oppression and atrocities and divisiveness of it all seriously threatened the monarchy and the country, and it ended with accepting that two sets of beliefs had to be free to live alongside each other.

Since you couldn't morally, ethically or practically compel half the country to pretend they believed something they did not.

There is going to have to be a system of third spaces where people who want to believe there's no such thing as biology and choose their sex can do it to their heart's content, while not destroying and commandeering the spaces of everyone else. Otherwise, you'd better get the bonfires ready, strap in and wait for the electorate to get really, really, really pissed off.

I've been thinking about this "be nice" admonishment. I think the riposte is "be fair". And that's mild.

In fact I'll go with Elizabeth 1st solution, which summarised was broadly 'believe what you want, shut up about it, and leave everybody else alone'.

What a sensible woman. Of course.

I am also reminded of Ferdinand and Isabella.

Thanks BINt.

Recently the Church of England has had to institute two more parallel systems for those that do and don't believe that women should be priests and bishops.
On that one, I don't agree with the "status quo" system and I think it's daft we have to have it but it means some people (the minority) can have a world in which their (IMO prejudiced) world view is supported and the rest of us (the majority) can have a world in which sexism has no place.

I really felt it was much more an academic point about social change rather than pro trans? I didn’t feel he came down one side or the other.

Yes, he wasn't saying it was right or wrong, but saying that a new group were taking over the establishment and imposing their belief. Time will tell if that view takes hold among the masses.

He was not being honest when he questioned why the trans issue is such a talking point when few (apparently) are trans themselves. He knows (judging by his tweet) that it is a contentious issues and why.

I think the riposte is "be fair". And that's mild.

I can think of other two-word responses that are less mild. Honestly, what a dickhead. Why is it that so many academics, people who are supposed to be critical thinkers, have taken on this ideology unthinkingly? You would really hope for better from historians, who should be particularly alert to the impact of ideologies that demand compliance and groupthink.

Comparing it to the reformation was all fine until he started talking nonsense about trans concepts only affecting a tiny minority, male and female being religious constructs, etc.

I actually think the comparison with the Reformation was interesting. Needed more recognition that it was an argument about magical beliefs though.

Recently the Church of England has had to institute two more parallel systems for those that do and don't believe that women should be priests and bishops.On that one, I don't agree with the "status quo" system and I think it's daft we have to have it but it means some people (the minority) can have a world in which their (IMO prejudiced) world view is supported and the rest of us (the majority) can have a world in which sexism has no place.

This is interesting I think because the traditional system of governance in the christian church is meant to maintain unity. Looking at that gives a sense of the trade-offs between social progress and social conservatism.

While ideas and practices could be disputed in the church, you have historically needed almost consensus to get important ideas or practices modified. So it's very conservative by nature and slow to change, on the other hand when you get that consensus things roll on pretty well, people are on board, and (one hopes) kinks have been worked out and implications made clear.

Over time change became easier as the papacy gained power, because on leader was able to force through some changes (or prevent them), but this also led to various schisms including the Reformation. The Church of England with female priests have been a case where they have kind of tried to have it both ways, and the chances are high that it will also lead to schism eventually, as the question of gay marriage is likely to lead to schism in the wider Anglican communion.

The point being, in a society that wants to be pluralistic, it's a very difficult edge to balance on, and maintain social mobility and coherence enough to function. Easy to tip into authoritarianism around innovation and change as we see with gender issues, or social breakdown when people are simply unwilling to go where they are being told to go.

I think while the reformation was a tussle of ideology, it was also an age of enlightenment, of scientific discovery, of the use of the printing press and all that that led to, and of challenging the authority of the roman catholic church.

In England, it might have been a convenient hook for Henry viii to hang his marriage woes on, but for other protestants, it was much more about their fundamental belief to practice religion in accordance with the bible (that was printed in their own language).

Trans issues are not enlightening. They are for the most part regressive.
The Trans reformation is to discover feelings, not facts.
And it isn't challenging the power status quo because the agenda is led by rich white men and supported by useful idiots.

He said something along the lines of the idea that men and women are created separately is fundamental to Christianity. Er no. It's fundamental biology that men and women are different.

The two are clearly not mutually exclusive. The introduction to the conversation explained that he was talking in response to something that the Rev. Mann was up to ( transwoman (whatever one of those is) from the moral maze). That was the reason for mentioning Christianity / Christendom. Ye olde worlde hyperbole twas ever thus.

Yes, but men and women being different isn't just a Christian belief. It's a fact.

I'd have thought it equally daft if he'd pronounced that Sikhs believe one and one makes two.

But he was speaking about a talk (I believe) to be given by the Rev. Mann. That was the context of that link. In general I thought that he was talking about the social changes of the Reformation and the social changes that started (in the west) in the sixties.

Yes, the lent talks. Even trans is shoehorned into that.

Oh yes, I recall that now - something about giving up being beastly about each other for lent - a temporary cease-fire. It'll never catch on.

Can’t we just give up the bullshit? That will be enough for me.

men and women being different isn't just a Christian belief. It's a fact.

Yes. But framing belief in biology as just old fashioned right wing extremist Christian left overs is terribly helpful if you're trying, desperately, to pretend the emperor really does have clothes on and only mean, nasty, ugly, old, stupid people believe he doesn't. Said with a piercing stare and a demand ' you're not one of those, are you? You want to be one of those nice, kind, modern, progressive, tolerant, other lovely adjective people, don't you?'

Sweetie catcher's van. Just in reverse. With the usual dose of breathtaking prejudice and lack of tolerance or intersectionality or basic social skills.

This is because they are scared that someone will win a court case based on a female being allowed to say no to a male on grounds of religion. There are multiple attempts at the moment to discredit religious faiths and relegate them socially to being something a bit dirty and silly. Because it's very, very inconvenient to these males getting exactly what they want all the time and controlling women.

There are multiple attempts at the moment to discredit religious faiths and relegate them socially to being something a bit dirty and silly. Because it's very, very inconvenient to these males getting exactly what they want all the time and controlling women.

Yes, very much this. It's like whack-a-mole across multiple platforms.

This is because they are scared that someone will win a court case based on a female being allowed to say no to a male on grounds of religion

As they say, you can't argue with that sort of stuff - no point even trying - can't be done. Best you can do is ignore it.

Male and female are Christian constructs?

I thought they were social constructs?

Or made up by imperialists?

Whatever they are, they're definitely not real.

Whatever they are, they're definitely not real

No - they're real alright.

It goes with the claim that GC MNetters are Regan funded nuns.

Or something. But definitely work is going on that Christian = nasty. And I've seen a pop or two at Islam. Those are the two faiths standing most squarely in the way of this agenda getting its own way all the time in everything. And part of work to make a hierarchy of protected characteristics and down grade all of them beneath gender identity.

I didn't hear this, but the Reformation analogy is interesting. So the absolutist monarch who uses Protestantism to free himself from papal authority and then goes on a beheading rampage whilst informers, state surveiillance, sectarianism and terror becomes menu du jour? And a state religion is imposed whilst books and heretics burn? I am not sure if Holland has considered what this historical analogy says about the new progressive totalitarians...